Are all these arguments about bike lanes generally, or about these new bikes lanes?
I was perfectly happy with the 2nd ave bike lane that was “improved,” and I want it back, desperately. Not a perfect design, but close enough for me.

Your complaint about pedestrians “getting in your way” when you have the all-precious “right of way” is all the proof I need for not following the “letter of the law.” As per the Weekly Carnage, this so-called “law”, with its “letters” and whatnot, has convicted 10 of the 68 drivers who have ended a human life so far this year.

This is similar to the thought processes that lead to the motoring behavior we see on our streets. One of my cycling friends and I like to joke about how motorists seem enthralled by the color red (meaning they tend to stop at red lights). It may seem counter-intuitive for transportation safety advocates to be making fun of motorists for the consistency with which they stop at red lights. But what we find funny is that stopping at red lights is just about the ONLY thing they do. They’re following the “letter of the law.” They sure as hell aren’t following the spirit of the law, which is to operate your automobile in a way such that people around you don’t feel their lives are at risk. But hey, they can sleep tight at night knowing that, despite the fact that they passed a cyclist with a one foot buffer at 30 miles per hour (technically within the letter of the law), cut off a pedestrian who had a red crosswalk signal while making a turn (following the letter of the law), and so on and so forth, as long as they stop at those red lights!

I once had an irate driver literally chase me down 9th ave (he cut me off very suddenly and quickly, so I tapped on his window as an emergency means of communicating the impending danger). And I mean chase: Accelerating as fast as he physically could to catch up to me, cut across four lanes of traffic, slamming the brakes and jumping out of the car when he thought he was close enough to do whatever it is he wanted to do to me… But boy did he stop and wait at every red light he saw!

It’s pretty clear what I’m going for here, though I’ll stop short of the Shared Space schemes we are seeing rolled out in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe due to the unique nature of our city. But the point is, be human. If you are that bothered by pedestrians, human beings just doing their thing, getting in the way of your precious vehicular right-of-way, then you may as well just sit in a metal box and make loud honking noises whenever you’re mildly inconvenienced.

Count me as another cyclist who finds these new lanes to be just too narrow. They’re more like sidewalk extensions and with a line of parked cars on the right, there’s no escape when one encounters a gaggle of pedestrians or a bag lady towing a shopping cart full of aluminum cans or any one of the other one million things you might find in a NYC street. I appreciate that NYC is primarily a city of pedestrians and the multitudinous street life is what makes this city such a special place but I think I preferred having the entire avenue to deal that with that multitude, not just a small sliver of the street. Plus, you KNOW that double parkers are still going to find a way to get in there and then you’re really stuck! Maybe the city should just leave the avenues unpaved. The milled surface of First Avenue has been a very effective traffic calming measure these past few weeks!

Suzzane said:

“Just this week a driver almost squished me as I was pulling up to a light… IN A BIKE LANE… because he apparently thought bike lanes were for making turns. I yelled at him that he was in the bike lane and in the yell-fest it became clear that he had NO IDEA how to drive with cyclists ”

Ehm….yes, bike lanes are for making turns usually. It is MUCH safer for a driver to merge into a bike lane and turn instead of cutting across it. It sounds like he merged improperly, but to say that cars are not allowed in the bike lane for any reason is simply wrong.

Ha! I’ve been spending the last hour trying to figure that out – I just saw a network blog post that it’s the law in DC (right after I posted, of course). BUT apparently this is not the case everywhere – Cars are supposed to turn from the bike lane in DC and California but not in Oregon.

I can’t find anything anywhere, including the NY DMV site. Does anyone know what the law is here? (Sorry I’m going so off topic here…)

The applicable law in NYC comes from the city rules, not the state. 34 Rules of the City of NY Section 4-12(p)(2) says cars are not supposed to cross the bike lane except when accessing a parking spot, a driveway to private property, or when circumnavigating an obstacle in the roadway that leaves the bike lane as the only way to proceed, and even in those circumstances, only after checking and making sure that doing so does not interfere with oncoming bike traffic in the lane. So I think NYC does not provide for turns from the bike lane. This is probably why NYC bike lanes typically disappear at intersections, or become a series of dashed lines a,d chevrons–so that the cars that turn across them are not technically breaking the law.

There are good arguments for doing it this way: it requires cars to maintain a clear ROW for bikes in the bike lane until they are sure they can clear the bike lane and execute the turn. This is analogous to how cars are supposed to handle crosswalks when turning: don’t enter the crosswalk until you are sure you can clear it expeditiously and fully execute the turn.

Of course, cars almost never do it that way. Usually they nose into the bike lane or crosswalk little by little until they ar fully in and then go through (and in fairness, it would be hard to make turns at all during some times of the day in heavy pedestrian traffic areas any other way).

Given that cars will tend to nose in, there is a good practical argument that they should nose all the way to the curb (across the path of the cyclists), because then it is easier for the cyclists to pass the car on the right.

The Second Ave. path from 14th to Houston employs “mixing zones” at intersections with left turns. The theory is that cyclists and motorists are supposed to negotiate around each other in the mixing zones, but somewhat contradictorily, the motorists’ access to the mixing zone is governed by a line of “yield teeth” (a painted line of triangles) that is supposed to to the motorist that they should sit at the threshold of the mixing zone on the yield teeth until there is a break in the cycle traffic. (Of course, there is nothing on the signage, the DoT’s website, or anwhere else to tell people what yield teeth are or what they mean; you learn these things from sitting through presentations by DoT officials at Community board meetings). The green paint is suspended in the mixing zone to signal to the motorist it is OK to turn subject to the need to yield to cyclists, and to signal to the cyclists that they are no longer in a right of way exclusively dedicated (at least in theory) to them.

If the left-turning motorists observed the yield teeth, they would never get in the way of cyclists. But motorists don’t. This could be fixed by putting up signs at each left-turn intersection telling motorists to yield to cyclists. Or by educating motorists what yield teeth mean. Neither looks likely at present to happen

m to the i: you are right on target. There is no excuse for putting sharrows at the edge of a traffic lane that is not wide enough to accommodate a car and a cyclist side-by-side (~15′ wide), for exactly the reason you mention.

DoT officials will admit cyclists are entitled to take the center of a lane that is narrower than ~15′ for safety, but they keep laying sharrows and erecting signage in a manner that suggests that cyclists should “share the road” by riding side-by-side with motorists when it’s not safe to do so.

(I use ~15′ as my minimum based on generally-accepted standards that cyclists need 5′, and the prevalence in NYC traffic of SUVs and commercial vehicles with widths (including mirrors) of ~8′, with the need for ~1′ maneuvering room on either side of the vehicle).

I’m with Chris O’Leary: confront salmon, call out pedestrians, and just generally make the clueless recognize that dangerous behavior is dangerous.

And if you can’t see the dangers in salmoning and in all kinds of pedestrian behaviors . . . I fear for your safety.

BicyclesOnly: The DOT actually did install signage on 2nd Avenue at each left turn indicating to motorists what to do: “Turning vehicles: Yield to bicycles.” Unfortunately, they’re placed about 15 feet off the ground – far too high even for most drivers to see – and are often hidden from view by tree branches or other signs.

In a perfect world, they’d put the signs next to the traffic signal, or maybe in the zebra stripes on the right side of the mixing lane.

Hildagirl: you’ve got the right etiquette and attitude in my book, sounds like we’ve been shaped by the same riding experiences. I think remonstrating against bike lane invaders is important and I’ve done a lot of it in my life, but I find myself doing it less and less. I’ve mellowed out. I rely on the bell now.

But I would point out those who ride on streets with bike lanes or paths that are safe and available for use, but choose not to use them, face the possbility of a summons for violation 34 RCNY 4-12(p)(1). But if the bike lane is blocked, including congested with pedestrians, cars, or other cyclists, cyclists can use a traffic lane.

Chris: glad to hear DoT thought to pu in the signs, sorry they are not visible. Hopefully those at T.A. with DoT’s ear can try to intercede, if not to fix the existing signs, at least to make sure signs to be installed are more visible to motorists.