[SDCBC] Gilman / I-5 interchange

[Gene Carman]

OK in reality I agree with you...  as I have not ridden that road in 
rush hour traffic since a bike lane was put in that position... but 
had ridden it many times prior to the BL change.  Back then I simply 
took the left lane.

But even if the BL is removed, we still have the situation of 
motorists that will drive too fast, are violating the carpool lane to 
avoid queuing in the right lane, and will drive wide around cyclists, 
(because those type of motorists don't respect other motorists, much 
less two wheeled vehicles) and those motorists will still right hook 
cyclists anyway.  Nothing short of sharpshooting law enforcement will 
stop that.

BTW in the plan I provided, the cones would be to the left of the 
cyclist, between the straight thru "auto" lane and the bike lane.  I 
can see however how that too would cause confusion.

At 09:26 AM 2/20/2007, you wrote:
>In a message dated 2/20/07 8:45:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
>gcarman at san.rr.com writes:
>
>>Because the real issue is not cyclists being in the wrong place, 
>>but motorists violating the law and making a right turn from a 
>>straight thru only lane, perhaps the solution is a series of those 
>>narrow vertical orange "cones" to remind motorists that they are 
>>supposed to go straight.
>
>
>---
>
>My thinking:  While cones would prevent many drivers from making the 
>illegal turn, there still be enough that might/would, whether in a 
>car, SUV, School Bus or whatever, that bicylist still should be 
>riding in the straight through lane.  I don't want to riding along 
>with a series of cones on my right with the chance that someone may 
>right hook me.
>
>The reason that the Right Turn from the Straight Through Lane is 
>illegal is simply because there is a Bike Lane.  Without the bike 
>lane, all traffic flows much better because those who are using the 
>"car pool lane" can make that right turn.  That is how it used to be 
>and it seemed to work fine or at least better than it currently does.
>
>I believe that this particular Bike Lane creates problems for both 
>cyclists and motorists.  It is an artificial contraint that gets in 
>the way of a normal flow of traffic, both motorized and pedal 
>powered.  It makes it more difficult for an aware cyclist to "take 
>the lane" and less safe for someone who just accepts that they 
>should be riding in the bike lane.
>
>This bike lane is fundamentally unsound because it puts riders in 
>the path of drivers who wish to turn right, the legality issue only 
>protects the state, not the rider.
>
>One can always point to enforcement as a way to try to force a 
>poorly design to work but I think experience would show that a bad 
>design is a bad design and enforcement might help for a moment but 
>in the long run what one really needs is a good design.
>
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>**************************************
>Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most 
>comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of 
>free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070220/0b09a4c4/attachment.html