Apartheid for bicyclists in Phoenix, Arizona.
Sadly, as we have seen from other cities, this is not uncommon, and advocates for segregationist bicycle facilities like being treated this way (or rather, they like treating cyclists this way, as many of those who push for such facilities really just want bicyclists out of the way of cars).
I can't tell if this is supposed to be 3' wide, or 4' wide bike lane (gutter pans are usually either 12" or 18" wide). Giving them the benefit of the doubt (because that's the kind of guy I am), let's presume it's 4' wide. The usable width, from the gutter pan seam to the bike lane stripe, is only two feet. Veer to the right, and you run the risk of falling because of the pavement irregularity. Veer to the left, and you've suddenly swerved into the path of overtaking motorists (a potential SWSS).
This bicycle-handicap facility is typical of the AASHTO non-compliant designs (the bike lane should be a MINIMUM of 4' out from the gutter pan) that transportation engineers are being forced into approving under political pressure. You can see these in Austin, Phoenix, Houston (?), Ft. Worth, and probably soon in Dallas.
This is what happens when logic surrenders to nothing more than feelings.
LATE NOTE: I had this image for several weeks before I posted it. Apparently, it was an error by the Phoenix DOT, and the road was supposed to have been signed as a "bike route", and not as a bike lane. Last Friday, the signage was changed (undoubtedly due to Phoenix's being held up for scrutiny here on Cycle*Dallas). Now if only other cities with similar "facilities" would follow suit.
7 comments:
Clearly, where they really want the bicyclists is on the sidewalk. It's far more appealing than the tiny gutter lane.
While apologists love to claim that bike lanes get cyclists off the sidewalk, these things are far more likely to scare them onto the sidewalk.
I'm sure it's great fun to claim the lane on that road, with all the visual stimulus telling motorists the "official position" on where cyclists belong.
A cyclist in Texas would be compelled by law to use this monstrosity.
I must say that I'm not sure the ASHTO Standard takes real world motorist behavior into account. There's a bike lane on North Tarrant Parkway (also a designated on-street bike route) that's probably seven feet wide.
Motorists ROUTINELY use it as an auxiliary passing lane when another motorist is waiting to make a left turn in the main traffic lane. As you might imagine, it's not my route of choice, even though I disagree with PM & ChipSeal's contention that I'm required by law to use the "auxiliary passing lane."
If I were ticketed, you'd bet that I'd bring the NRH map showing the same street as an "on street" bike route.
Blogger Steve A said...
"I must say that I'm not sure the ASHTO Standard takes real world motorist behavior into account. There's a bike lane on North Tarrant Parkway (also a designated on-street bike route) that's probably seven feet wide."
The AASHTO Guide takes real-world motorists into consideration. That's why the MAXIMUM width for a bike lane if 5', with a striped 1' offset. Motorists do not mistake that for a turn/travel lane. A 7' wide lane is the same width as some parking lanes, and will be used as a turn lane. That is an AASHTO non-compliant facility on NTP.
It's also possibly non-compliant in mixing a bike-lane with a bike route. That's not a good idea.
Actually, being a facilities advocate, here's the way I'd redevelop the same street:
http://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/revisioning-a-street/
I think we have agreement from all sides of the spectrum here. Put simply, "Really really STUPID bike lanes are not a good thing!" Anybody disagree with THAT statement? I think maybe I'll consider a post on that theme on my own blog.
Now, however, I'm going to visit the Warrington Cycle Campaign site...
Steve A said ""Really really STUPID bike lanes are not a good thing!" Anybody disagree with THAT statement?"
Unfortunately, some people do disagree. And they're in charge. The photo above is proof.
They either disagree that a particular bike lane is really, really stupid. Or they feel all bike lanes are "good" (by definition) so there is no such thing as a stupid bike lane.
Post a Comment