Visit the Charlotte DOT
Bicycle Program Page.

Just say NO to bike lanes

Submitted by sappha58 on Mon, 01/10/2005 - 23:09. General Topics

1. Bike lanes tell motorists we don't belong on the road. When they see us, that mentality makes us a nuisance. It also reinforces the idea that bike = toy.

2. Bike lanes don't go everywhere. What happens when the lane ends? Go to the sidewalk? What if there isn't one? Turn around and go back?

3. Bike lanes are usually at the far right of the roadway - right there with the gutter. All kinds of trash and debris collects there, making the ride dangerous.

4. At an intersection, cars turning right cross the bike lane. If they're zooming past you with the bike = toy mentality as above, they're not going to look to see if the lane is clear to cross. If you've just gotten to the intersection and someone has attempted to zoom around you, guess what? Road pizza. Yeah, this happens at other times away from bike lanes too, but that merely goes to show the impatient motorist and reinforces the bike = toy thing.

I live in Charlotte, North Carolina, and we have some bike lanes. Not many, but I understand some of the bicyclists here are pushing for more. I've ridden in the bike lanes, and driven past them. Frankly, I'll take the lane, thank you, and go toe-to-toe with the cagers. Bike lanes are dangerous, and I refuse to use them.

» login or register to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Bike Lanes...Nuisance?

Submitted by jsaak on Tue, 01/11/2005 - 08:02.

As cyclists, we have a legal right to use pretty much any road, with the exception of limited access freeways and expressways. Ideally, we should be accepted by a motoring public as "peers". Of course, that's rarely, if ever, the case.

I understand the concern regarding bike lanes; motorists think we should only be using them and out of "their" space. But to exclude bike lanes from the planning and implementation process is, to me, slightly misguided. There is a certain comfort level to having that separation, even for someone who has been cycling for the better part of 12 years. This is particularly true on busy roads (like Colony) where that separation is quite nice. Of course, it is incumbent upon the agency in charge to keep the streets free of debris. This doesn't always happen; ideally it should.

Properly designed bike lanes are also important. Older attempts may not meet today's more rigorous standards, nor will many roads recently built be able to accommodate the additional space. Letting motorists know where we are going is a must to avoid the "road pizza".

I have no problems with taking a lane, where needed, and some motorists don't like that. They will get over it. But a statement that says, "bike lanes are dangerous" is something that I just can't agree with.

» login or register to post comments

more than two ways...

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/12/2005 - 23:59.

Thanks for pointing out the false dichotomy:

It's not a matter of-
1. Either, there's a bike lane
or
2. The cyclist must "take the lane"

A wide outside lane that facilitates safe coexistence on the roadway is the best solution.

> To safely accommodate cyclists, [The town of] Cary [NC] requires
> all new or reconstructed thoroughfares to be designed with
> 14-foot-wide outside lanes, and is re-striping existing roads to
> provide a 13-foot outside lane and an 11-foot inside lane.

» login or register to post comments

Bike lanes are part of the solution!

Submitted by BillC on Tue, 01/11/2005 - 07:53.

I commute about 9 miles to uptown Charlotte most weekdays. About 1/5 of my morning ride is along the 3rd St. bike lane. I used to take 6th St., which has no bike lane.

Based on this near-daily experience, upon bike touring in other states with extensive bike lanes, and upon living about 10 years in Europe, where bikes are everyday transportation for "normal people" (i.e., middle-class adults), I think that bike lanes are an important step to a bike-friendly Charlotte.

Sappha58's bike lane objections 2 and 3 are indeed downsides of bike lanes, but I disagree with point 1. In my opinion, the increasing presence of bike lanes reinforces our seriousness, quite the opposite of creating an impression that our vehicles are "toys". It's like HOV or bus lanes: a clear and public recognition that bikes are a viable transportation alternative worthy of public investment. As for point 4, sappha58 and I pretty much agree: crossing right turners are a hazard with or without bike lanes.

Sure, a low-speed, low-traffic neighborhood street is better than a bike lane on a major artery, and extra-wide traffic lanes — with room for a bike and a semi to ride safely side-by-side — are better on uncomplicated straightaways (less junk on the right). And of course, a separated, wide, dedicated, and well-maintained bike route is best of all!

But in complex, high-volume situations in a country where the average motor vehicle driver has no clue how responsible cyclists behave in traffic, the bike lane is probably our only chance to coexist with any chance of safety and mutual understanding. It's an engineering trade-off, and like most such trade-offs, far from ideal. But think about the major arteries that cross I-485. Would you rather try to cross those high-speed interchanges with or without bike lanes? With bike lanes, the drivers have some idea where to look for us. Without, we're always in no-man's land.

That's my 2 cents. I think I remember a traffic engineer in Arizona who's also a cyclist who has done extensive research that can elevate this discussion from personal opinion to science (well, at least decent statistics). Anyone have a link?

» login or register to post comments