Bike lane debate

(Redirected from Cycle lane debate)

A bike lane (or cycle lane, in British parlance), is a specific type of cycling facility: it is a portion of the roadway demarcated by a painted stripe generally intended for use by cyclists.

Even bike lane supporters acknowledge that there are poorly designed bike lanes. But bike lane opponents oppose all bike lanes based on problems with the very concept of a bike lane that is therefore inherent in all bike lanes. The purpose of this entry is to make clear the benefits and disbenefits claimed by both sides of the debate. These are listed below; rebuttals to each are indented and italicized below the benefit/disbenefit being rebutted. Rebuttals to rebuttals are indented (and not italized) one level more, and so on.

1 Argument for bike lanes
2 Argument against bike lanes
3 Commonly claimed benefits of bike lanes to cyclists
4 Commonly claimed disbenefits of bike lanes to cyclists
5 See also
6 External links

Argument for bike lanes

The argument for bike lanes largely focuses on the claimed benefits, mostly denies the rebuttals, and ignores the claimed disbenefits. Evidence of bike lane supporters ignoring the argument against bike lanes is that many of them seem to believe that conceding that some bike lanes are poorly designed and are unsafe is somehow a response to the argument against bike lanes.

Argument against bike lanes

The argument against bike lanes is that the disbenefits of bike lanes on roads where cyclists are not otherwise restricted from riding anyway clearly outweigh the benefits, which are mostly discredited. In a nutshell, bike lanes, even the "good" ones, cause more problems for cyclists than they solve.

Commonly claimed benefits of bike lanes to cyclists

Bike lanes prevent cyclists from being run over from behind. Bike lanes make cycling in traffic more safe.
- There is no evidence that bike lanes make cycling in traffic more safe. Cyclists being run over from behind is practically unheard of, especially during the day, or even at night with good street lighting and/or appropriate lighting on the bike. These types of collisions constitute a tiny percentage of all types of car-bike collisions.
- Cross traffic and oncoming-turning traffic at intersections present a much more significant hazard to cyclists than do motorists from behind, and bike lanes arguably make intersections even more dangerous.
  - While collisions from behind may be very rare, when they do happen they result in significant injury and often death to the cyclist.
    - A motorist colliding with a cyclist riding in front of him constitutes a gross negligence that a painted stripe does not help protect against.
    - There is no evidence that bike lanes reduce any type of collisions, incliding hit-from-behind collisions.
    - Obsession with the highly unlikely threat from behind hinders cyclists from riding safely and vehicularly in traffic.
    - A wide outside lane is cheaper to implement and provides the same passing space for the motorist without imposing all of the disbenefits of the bike lane on cyclists.
Cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes.
- A false sense of security is not a benefit, but quite the opposite (and, hence, listed in the claimed disbenefits sections). Feeling safer when you're not actually safer (and arguably in more danger) can lead to careless and dangerous behavior.
Bike lanes are just like normal traffic lanes, except they are narrow and intended primarily for cyclists, and, so, have all the benefits of normal traffic lanes.
- Bike lanes are very different from normal traffic lanes, and are in some important ways opposite of normal traffic lanes. Consider the stripes. Normal lane stripes are dashed between intersections, and solid at intersection approaches. They are solid at intersection approaches for a reason – to discourage lateral motion at intersections, because lateral motion at intersections and their approaches is dangerous. But bike lane stripes are just the opposite: solid between intersections, and dashed at intersection approaches, thus encouraging dangerous lateral motion at intersections. Bike lanes are very different from normal travel lanes, to the detriment of cyclists.
Bike lanes allocate space for cyclists so they don't have to fight for it.
- Cyclists who learn vehicular cycling do not battle for space on the roadway; they know it's a peaceful and cooperative process. The "implicit bike lane" space a vehicular cyclist stakes out on the roadway is his, and its boundaries are within his control, and can be moved by the cyclist right and left as needed by ever-changing factors and conditions. Bike lanes are static and so their width and location cannot be adjusted by the cyclist as needed. They are where they are, regardless of whether that is appropriate for the given factors and conditions.
Bike lanes remind motorists that cyclists are on the roadway.
- A bike lane stripe that is essentially viewed and treated by motorists as a roadway edge stripe does not remind motorists that cyclists are on the roadway. What reminds motorists that cyclists are on the roadway are... cyclists on the roadway.
Bike lanes remind and/or notify cyclists and motorists that cyclists belong on the roadway, not on the sidewalk.
- Bike lanes remind and/or notify cyclists and motorists that cyclists do not belong on the roadway, but in the bike lane (or on the sidewalk, or anywhere, as long as they are not on the roadway in the way of motorists).
Bike lanes are politically effective tools that can be used by cycling advocates to get roads widened.
- Teaching cyclists how to ride vehicularly so that they can enjoy riding safely in traffic, even in narrow lanes, is a much more effective and practical solution than widening every road that has narrow lanes to accomodate bike lanes.
Bike lanes are politically effective tools that can be used by cycling advocates to remove onstreet parking.
- Removing onstreet parking is a double-edged sword. Motorists who are parallel parking have to slow down, stop and back up to park. Removing this type of activity on a road gives it more of a "freeway" feel, which arguably is a disbenefit to cyclists, like when needing to merge left to prepare for a left turn.
Bike lanes allow motorists to be less concerned with cyclists, and, thus, less likely to be enraged by cyclists getting in their way.
- It is true that bike lanes allow motorists to be less concerned with cyclists, but that's not good for cyclists! The "de-concerning" effect of bike lane stripes on motorists facilitates closer and faster passing of cyclists, neither of which is a benefit for cyclists. There is no evidence that whatever road rage exists for cyclists is mitigated by bike lanes (as opposed to WOLs).
Bike lanes demarcate a right-of-way zone for cyclists, making legal fault easier to determine in car-bike collisions.
- A bicyclist who, in avoiding a hazard crosses the line, could be determined to be at fault.
  - A bicyclist riding in a wide lane who, in avoiding a hazard swerves in front of a motor vehicle passing him within the same lane, also could be determined to be at fault.
    - The key difference is that when a separating bike lane stripe exists, even a minor swerve could be determined to be the bicyclist's fault if he crosses the line. When there is no stripe, the onus is on the motorist to pass safely, which is often codified to be at least one meter or three feet of passing clearance, so a minor and normal swerve cannot be the fault of the cyclist in an ordinary lane when no stripe is involved. Worse, because the passing motorist is absolved of fault as long as he remains in his lane, and the cyclist is likely to ride in the bike lane near the separating stripe (to avoid bike lane debris), the likelihood of a close pass where a minor swerve could result in a collision is relatively high compared to bicycle travel within a wide lane without a separate bike lane.
Bike lanes do not cause traffic complications since they can be treated just like any other traffic lanes with restricted use, like HOV lanes, slow truck lanes, bus lanes, or taxi lanes.
- The other examples have very restricted applications in very restricted circumstances. They would perhaps be comparable to bike lanes if bike lanes were restricted to long high speed sections of roadway where no turns were possible.
Cyclists ride near the outside edge of the roadway most of the time. Designating a dedicated lane for them there makes perfect sense.
- Yes, sadly, most cyclists do ride near the outside edge of the roadway most of the time, but, to be safe, they shouldn't! Cyclists trained, educated and experienced in vehicular cycling ride in an implicit bike lane whose location, boundaries and width they control by their own behavior, primarily by how they choose lateral lane position. Vehicular cyclists ride to be visible and predictable, and motorists adjust accordingly. Facilities for cyclists should encourage them to ride properly, to learn how to manage their own implicit bike lanes, not segregate them to the side of the roadway where there options are limited.

Commonly claimed disbenefits of bike lanes to cyclists

Bike lanes make cycling in traffic less safe.
- There is no evidence that bike lanes make cycling in traffic less safe.
The existing vehicular roadway system serves as an excellent infrastructure for cycling transportation and recreation. Thus bike lanes serve no useful purpose for cyclists, and their very existence wrongly implies that somehow the roadway system is lacking for cyclists, and a segregated system is needed, for which bike lanes are a step in the right direction.
- While the existing vehicular roadway system may serve experienced Lycra clad vehicular cyclists well enough, most "folk" and less experienced cyclists, and even many (arguably the vast majority of) experienced cyclists, are intimidated or made uncomfortable by a lot of traffic, and feel safer and more comfortable on these roads when riding in bike lanes. For them, the existing infrastructure is improved with bike lanes.
  - The vast majority of cyclists are unaware of the problems with bike lanes, much less that they cause more problems than they solve, so it's not surprising nor very relevant that they prefer bike lanes. The vast majority of cyclists are also unaware of, much less trained or educated in, the vehicular cycling skills and techniques that foster an attitude of freedom, independence, comfort and safety in busy traffic without bike lanes. If anything, bike lanes inhibit cyclists from learning vehicular cycling techniques and practices. The solution to all this is not more and more bike lanes, but more education and training and fewer and fewer bike lanes.
Right-of-way rules of the road are generally defined to be clear and unambiguous. This is imperative for smooth and safe vehicular flow. Bike lanes and the rules that govern them create ambiguous right-of-way situations, particularly at intersections. For example, when a motorist slows to prepare for a turn into a driveway, and a cyclist in a bike lane catches him and starts passing him on the inside of the turn, who has the right-of-way as the motorist turns? Is it the cyclist in the sacred bike lane, or is it the motorist? There is no analogous situation with regular traffic lanes because there the turner is always traveling in the lane closest to his turn.
- Many jurisdictions solve this problem by requiring motorists to merge into bike lanes prior to turning, as long as they first yield to any cyclists who may be traveling in the bike lane.
  - The need to make special case law for this makes the point. While such a law may technically address this situation, how many drivers and cyclists know about it (not to mention law enforcement officers and judges)? The practice is not well understood largely because bike lanes are generally not treated like regular traffic lanes, and rules such as this are all non-intuitive special cases, leading to ambiguous ROW situations.
The static nature of bike lanes establishes that they are based on the premise that the correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can usually if not always be determined and specified as one particular static position (usually off to the side). This premise is false. The correct/appropriate/safe lateral roadway position for a cyclist on a given roadway can rarely if ever be determined a priori and statically, but, instead, varies depending ever-changing factors and conditions, including but not limited to: speed and amount of traffic, speed of cyclist, cyclist's destination, obstructions, time of day, weather, etc. Bike lanes discourage cyclists from merging left sufficiently early when preparing for a left turn. Bike lanes legitimize feeling being "out there where I don't belong" whenever the cyclist has reason to be out there where he does belong.
The very existence of bike lanes inhibits novice cyclists from learning about the dynamic nature of proper vehicular cycling lane positioning for cyclists.
By making cyclists feel safer riding in bike lanes, and not actually making them any safer, bike lanes give cyclists a false sense of security.
Bike lanes inhibit left-turning cyclists (right-turning cyclists in England) from starting their merge sufficiently early.
Bike lanes can't be everywhere. In many cities, bike lanes already exist on all roadways where they can be reasonably accomodated. Cyclists must learn how to ride effectively on roadways without bike lanes, and the roadways with bike lanes delay this necessary process, especially if there are just enough roadways with bike lanes to allow the cyclist to get away with "submissive cycling" on the roads without.
Bike lanes make it more difficult for a cyclist to act like a vehicle driver, and thus, inhibit motorists from treating cyclists like vehicle drivers.
Bike lanes misguide cyclists and motorists at intersections. In particular, thru cyclists are encouraged to keep to the side, while right (left in left-side driving countries) turning motorists are encouraged to keep away from the side, thus setting up a conflict at the intersection.
- This problem can be alleviated with signs that encourage right- (left-) turning motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning.
  - At best, these signs address only half the problem. Thru cyclists should merge away from the edge at intersections and their approaches, and bike lanes discourage this.
Because motorists tend to not drive in bike lanes, puncture-causing and crash-causing debris that is normally swept to the side by traffic collects in bike lanes.
Bike lanes allow motorists to be less concerned with cyclists, and, thus, more likely to be unaware of the presence of a cyclist, and, so, more likely to inadverdently drift into a cyclist.
The rules governing the use of bike lanes are so complex that they are widely unknown and/or misunderstood, and, thus, are ineffective. The result is chaotic/anarchistic interaction between motorists and cyclists when their paths must cross and a bike lane is involved.
The bike lane is sometimes in the "door zone", the area that doors of parked cars will open into.
- This is not a disbenefit of bike lanes per se, but a problem with certain poorly designed bike lanes that can be rectified by any number of mechanisms, including removing the bike lane, moving the bike lane stripe further away from the parked cars, eliminating onstreet parking, etc.
- Motorists need to be trained to not open their doors without first checking to make sure that it's safe to do so, which they are required to do by law. A rear-view mirror sticker campaign can be used to help accomplish this.
  - No matter how much training motorists get, some will forget to look. Riding in door zones is playing a form of Russian roulette. It is simply unsafe to rely on motorists remembering to check; the only reasonably safe behavior it to cycle completely outside of the door zone.
Bike lanes encourage motorists to expect cyclists to stay within the bike lane and thus to pass them at higher speeds and with less of a safety passing margin, which should be at least one meter (3 feet), than when there is no separating stripe. This, coupled with the fact that bike lane debris collection causes cyclists to tend to ride near the separating stripe, makes cyclists who have to suddenly swerve left to avoid a hazard more vulnerable to being hit.
Bike lanes contribute to the degradation of cyclist rights to the roadway.
- Cyclists are rarely required to use bike lanes, and are usually afforded reasonable exceptions when they are.
  - "First they passed laws requiring us to ride far to the right, but I could cleverly use the exceptions, so I said nothing. Then they required bike lane use, but I could avoid roads with bike lanes and cleverly use the exceptions, so I did nothing. Then they required us to use side paths, but I could find roads with no side paths to ride, so still said nothing. And then they banned cyclists from expressways and arterials and gave us bike boulevards, but I could still use side streets and ride as a vehicular cyclist, so I did little. Then when they banned road cycling altogether, there was no one left to stand up for the rights of vehicular cyclists." Bike lanes do contribute to the degradation of cyclist rights to the roadway.
If motorists are not used to encountering bicyclists in the regular lanes, they will soon completely forget to pay attention to them.

External links

Categories: Cycling