There are inevitable downsides to just about any configuration which involve bike lanes and on-street parking– you either get doored or whacked by someone oblivious to you who’s just spotted an open parking space. “Sharrows” are an interesting concept, but meaningless to most drivers. I’ll bet it’s not on anyone’s version of a DMV exam.

I have explicitly stated before (on Steven comments) that taking the lane is not the most desirable situation and I have implied that with the statements on this page. Your conclusion that I should “advocate for that as the de-facto condition” takes ill-logical leaps from what I have written. It is stated in state policy that cyclists are to take the lane if they feel threatened. Otherwise, cyclists should stay to the left hand side and allow cars to pass. While you and Steven G. may feel that you slow down traffic just as much as traffic slows you (as cyclist), this is not the case for all riders. The average inexperienced cyclist most likely rides at a slow pace – and why should they have to go any faster? Thus if all cyclists “took the lane” then it would be a serious impediment to traffic and, as you seems to be so concerned with vehicles honking at you if you take the lane in a situation with bike lanes, autos would no doubt be very frustrated by such impediments. “Taking the lane” would occur to avoid obstacles or perceived hazards. Once past the hazard or obstacle, the cyclists would return to the designated bike lane and, without a doubt, the earth would continue to orbit the sun.

As for the door area extending into the bike lane: you are right – sometimes the door of a very large vehicle, poorly parked, and fully opened, may extend .5 ft into the 4 ft. bike lane. Though this leaves 3.5 more ft to avoid door – plenty of room. And if that’s not enough cyclist can then take the lane. I’d be all for BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE signs in bright flashing colors. That sounds great. Your advocacy for such signage would be greatly appreciated.

You’ve also mentioned marking the buffer zone. I agree with this. Essentially the bike lane serves the purpose of marking the buffer zone to make it explicit for cyclists.

Though, it seems contradictory that you would want to mark the buffer zone, essentially making it a different lane, while also propounding that standard motor vehicles lanes are wholly appropriate for “bicycle vehicles.” While Motor vehicles and bicycle vehicles both share the appellation “vehicle,” this is where their similarities end. In terms of safety and relationship on the road, bicycles are in no way equal to motor vehicles. A cyclist NEVER wins against a car. The dangers are incredibility unequal. It is for this reason that pedestrian have side walks: different speeds, different sizes, different weights. In a collision cyclists and pedestrians are equivalent in their relationship to motor vehicles. Cyclist deserve a space as well and, given the restraints of Hillsborough Street, our bicycle lane configuration is the best possible option.

The “buffer zone” should be marked with 5′ hash marks.

The “explicitly designated space for cyclist” is in the door zone of the parked cars. Thus, the bike lane, which advocates argued would make it safer, instead creates danger for the naive bicyclists who are expected to be lured by its supposed safety. Since you believe that “It does not however limit cyclist from taking the lane,” you must believe that taking the lane is desirable. So why don’t you advocate for that as the de-facto condition?

Autos center in the lane in the absence of bicyclists. When bicyclists are present motorists adjust left. So your argument is totally bogus.

Bryan,

You can respectfully disagree all you want. You are still wrong. First, it’s not a car lane. It’s a vehicle lane, including for bicycle vehicles. Don’t be so disempowered. Second, the 85th percentile car door extends to 9.5 feet; 15% extend further. That will be into the proposed bike lane that is intended to be a safe haven for the naive. If you don’t like that, you can change physics.

The correct design for Hillsborough is parking stall hash marks with 5′ extensions which communicate the buffer that is required to avoid getting whacked by a car door. Shared Lane Markings can be centered in the remaining travel space. The new Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign can be placed.

Published research shows that parked car doors WILL extend into the proposed bike lane. Moreover, the initial design showed a 5′ buffer, providing evidence that the City of Raleigh recognized the amount of buffer that vehicles needed to avoid a door strike. So narrowing the buffer to an inadequate 2′ and sandwiching in another lane for bicycle traffic is abrogating engineering responsibility, and knowingly placing bicycle drivers at grave risk.