In the mid 1990s, the Bicycle Federation of America (now The National Center for Bicycling & Walking, but then consisting of but two industry lobbyists, one of whom is now the LAB/BFC head) was a sub-consultant on a bicycle transportation plan for a major US sunbelt city. They recommended bike lanes as the cure-all, whether appropriate or not. They got 'em, too (but not enough of them from their perspective, and so they distanced themselves from the final product).
Here's what those bike lanes look like today (the ones that haven't been removed). While I am sure there are better examples in this city, these aren't the worse, and they just happened to be the very first I came upon.
The trouble with pixie dust, even well-meaning pixie dust, is that it has a very poor impact on reality. Approaches like this should help you understand the second-class status that bicycle facilities advocates urge on cyclists, where the unwarranted fear-based idea of bike lanes results in cyclists literally (litter-ally?) being swept into the roadway gutter. The offensive term "gutter-bunnies" has a basis in reality. These are gutters.
Remember, under Texas law, these bike lanes are mandatory for cyclists. Sure, a cyclist can swerve out to avoid an obstacle... let's just hope there isn't a car or a bus passing.
8 comments:
The offensive term "gutter bunny" is entirely different and distinct than the type and design quality of bike infrastructure provided and advocated. You would blanch at what I saw and photographed around sharrows in Seattle. Without strong cycling education, the rest isn't worth a pot of warm spit. But you know that.
can you please cite in Texas law that riding in bicycle lane is mandatory?
Texas Transportation Code Sec. 551.103.(a)(4)(A)
http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-bike-lanes-deny-your-right-to-use.html
It may not seem clear cut to you, but it's clearly in the Transportation Code, and can and will be enforced. You ability to move out of it for obstacles is of small consolation.
Sec. 551.103.(a), which states cyclists must ride in the right lane, by itself mandates bike lane usage for cyclists, as that becomes de facto the cyclist's right lane.
PM wrote "Sec. 551.103.(a), which states cyclists must ride in the right lane, by itself mandates bike lane usage for cyclists, as that becomes de facto the cyclist's right lane."
I've been concerned about that in my Ohio, as we get more of these ghettos in the gutter. Here's language I propose to cure that problem (to be part of Sect 4511.55) I'l also include our cure for our "far right rule", which currently requires riding "as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable." Unfortunately, this has not yet been introduced in the legislature.
(C) A bicycle that is operated at less than the prevailing speed of traffic shall be operated in accordance with division (B) of section 4511.25 of the Revised Code except when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that do not permit the bicycle to be so operated, including the presence of fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, pedestrians, or animals, or if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane, or when it otherwise is unsafe or not practicable to operate the bicycle in accordance with division (B) of section 4511.25 of the Revised Code.
(D) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, a person operating a bicycle is not required to ride within any lane marked for bicycle use.
FYI, 4511.25 (B) is the standard "Slow Vehicle Law" that requires a slow vehicle be operated in right-most lane.
@PM Summer wrote:
"Sec. 551.103.(a), which states cyclists must ride in the right lane, by itself mandates bike lane usage for cyclists, as that becomes de facto the cyclist's right lane."
Actually, no, the statutes does not say "cyclists must ride in the right lane". It states that "a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway". Semantically, these are very different meanings by virtue of one specific word: practicable.
We've discussed the meaning and relevance of that term in the past. So, I'll not rehash it. However, the bike lane is not "de facto the cyclist's right lane" when it is littered with debris, as in the accompanying photos. The term practicability includes an element of discretionary safety. It would be unsafe to operate a bicycle in such a lane.
Wait! I think know your next argument. Those observations are all well and good, but are you willing to test that in practice. Well, yes, actually I would be. Nevertheless, any decision in my favor would likely have little lasting influence. Just reference Fred's experiences.
We, as vehicular cyclists, are caught in a catch-22 for as long as there are ANY regulatory laws containing specific language directed at the operation of bicycles as alternative transportation.
The problem as I see it, V, is that the allowances for operating outside of a bike lane are immediate and temporary, and in the eyes of the legal authorities, perhaps only a matter of feet. LAB, ACC, and TBC's argument against Reed Bates' was that he could move around the impediments (adding support to the County's case).
Traffic weaving seems to be the prescribed operational style.
Traffic weaving, by design.
Ohio Fred is right. We should be covered simply and purely by slow moving vehicle laws...now...what will be the unintended consequences?
Post a Comment