Bike Lanes On Heights Blvd.

[jgriff]

I have lived in Houston since 1977. NEVER have I been stuck behind a cyclist for "long periods of time". This statement suggests that the problem here is your impatience, not cyclists using the roads. The more you ratchet up the hyperbole, the more obvious it gets.

These arguments are similar to the freeway arguments, where the drivers speeding at 10 to 20 mph over the speed limit demand consideration from the "selfish" drivers going the speed limit. I notice that it nevers seems to be the aggressive drivers who are selfish, only the respectful and law abiding drivers. Wonder why that is?

I'm not saying it's a huge inconvenience to me but when you multiply the slow down in traffic bikes cause by the number of cars on the road it makes a difference.

You can't possibly make the argument that a bicycle going 10 miles an hour on a road where the traffic is going 35 doesn't slow down traffic. Wouldn't a car going 10 miles an hour slow it down? Ride your bikes on the streets if you want but don't try act all high and mighty and tell us your not inconveniencing other people.

[jgriff]

What a great argument against cycling. "Hey, I'm an poopy headhole and might run over you, so you shouldn't ride in the street, you selfish jerk!"

Oh come on redscare. Name calling is beneath you. You know I never said that. There are a lot of "poopy headholes" out there that will though.

[RedScare]

Oh come on redscare. Name calling is beneath you. You know I never said that. There are a lot of "poopy headholes" out there that will though.

I didn't call you an poopy headhole, griff. I noted that this was the substance of your argument, that poopy headhole drivers shouldn't drive nicer, but instead, cyclists should get out of their way.

[RedScare]

I'm not saying it's a huge inconvenience to me but when you multiply the slow down in traffic bikes cause by the number of cars on the road it makes a difference.

You can't possibly make the argument that a bicycle going 10 miles an hour on a road where the traffic is going 35 doesn't slow down traffic. Wouldn't a car going 10 miles an hour slow it down? Ride your bikes on the streets if you want but don't try act all high and mighty and tell us your not inconveniencing other people.

I am saying that the level of inconvenience is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Look, I live in the cycling crazy Heights, and (unfortunately) now have to commute 80 miles round trip daily. I cannot recall being inconvenienced by a cyclist or four to the point that I think they should be banned from the streets. The level of inconvenience that you describe sounds like an unhealthy level of impatience. Perhaps you should buy a ranch in the country and calm down. I hear that are extremely profitable, at least until you die.

[sunsets]

Maybe it's legal but it can be very foolish to ride your bike on the street even where there are bike lanes around.

You know, maybe I'm just overly-sensitive, but phrases like this come off as vaguely threatening. It seems like it's just a step away from a statement like: "Oh, it's too bad that cylist was killed by a driver who right-hooked him, but really, he had it coming, since he was so stupid as to dare to ride in the street."

Yes, more bike lanes are good. Bike trails are good. Even better? Well-designed roadways shared by both bikes and cars. It's possible.

[jgriff]

I didn't call you an poopy headhole, griff. I noted that this was the substance of your argument, that poopy headhole drivers shouldn't drive nicer, but instead, cyclists should get out of their way.

I'm not saying that at all. In a perfect world people would drive nicer. That is never going to happen. Have you ever seen what happens to a person on a bike who is run over by a car? No amount of saying I was in the right is going to bring you back to life.

I'm a very safe drive and I respect bike riders. I just wouldn't do it. Like I said, I won't move to the suburbs either because I don't want to die under the tire of an 18 wheeler. There are some risks that are worth taking, for me dying on bike in the street is not worth it.

[jgriff]

You know, maybe I'm just overly-sensitive, but phrases like this come off as vaguely threatening. It seems like it's just a step away from a statement like: "Oh, it's too bad that cylist was killed by a driver who right-hooked him, but really, he had it coming, since he was so stupid as to dare to ride in the street."

Yes, more bike lanes are good. Bike trails are good. Even better? Well-designed roadways shared by both bikes and cars. It's possible.

I would say "yes, you are overly-sensitive".

[RedScare]

I'm not saying that at all. In a perfect world people would drive nicer. That is never going to happen. Have you ever seen what happens to a person on a bike who is run over by a car? No amount of saying I was in the right is going to bring you back to life.

I'm a very safe drive and I respect bike riders. I just wouldn't do it. Like I said, I won't move to the suburbs either because I don't want to die under the tire of an 18 wheeler. There are some risks that are worth taking, for me dying on bike in the street is not worth it.

Strawman.

[jgriff]

Strawman.

Can't you just argue the facts?

[jgriff]

Strawman.

Argue the facts Redscare. Doesn't the photo in the original post show that it is dangerous to ride your bike even where there is a bike lane? Doesn't it show that it's not a perfect world and that there are jerks out there who will run you over?

[RedScare]

Argue the facts Redscare. Doesn't the photo in the original post show that it is dangerous to ride your bike even where there is a bike lane? Doesn't it show that it's not a perfect world and that there are jerks out there who will run you over?

There are two huge problems with your facts and your argument. The first is that it is dangerous, therefore the cyclist should not ride the streets. This is blaming the victim. Claiming that because there are aggressive drivers with no respect for others using the road, cyclists should not ride, is akin to blaming the woman who got raped for being in a bar at night. Shouldn't she know better?

The second problem is your entire premise of inconvenience or selfishness on the parts of the driver and cyclist. It assumes a greater right to the roadway for the driver. If we start with the premise that both driver and cyclist have equal right to the road, and that both are traveling to the same home from the same place of employment on the same road, who is more inconvenienced? Is it the motorist who must drive at 15 mph momentarily, before passing the cyclist? Or, would it be the cyclist who is forced to turn off of the main road onto a less traveled road that adds distance and time to his commute, a commute powered only by his legs? If all things are equal, why do you think you are more inconvenienced than the cyclist? If you do not want to wait to pass, why do YOU not turn to the less traveled road? Why must the cyclist do so? Your argument presupposes that the cyclist must get out of YOUR way, never the other way around.

It is for these reasons that I find the drivers arguments self-centered and selfish.

[Gooch]

You don't know there is a bike in front of you until the last second when the guy you think is just a slow-poke in the right lane gets over and suddenly there are 4 bikes taking up the whole lane in front of you.

If scanning far enough in front of you for your speed, you will see supposed-mega-long backup of cars, or the cyclists long before they "suddenly" appear in front of you. They are in your lane. They aren't jumping out of nowhere. And shouldn't be surprising you as you approach them. If you can't anticipate them, perhaps try looking further up the road as you drive?

Argue the facts Redscare. Doesn't the photo in the original post show that it is dangerous to ride your bike even where there is a bike lane? Doesn't it show that it's not a perfect world and that there are jerks out there who will run you over?

Even if you consider it foolish... for you... it isn't a foolish activity because cyclists are following the rules. It's foolish because some drivers are too impatient and self-important to follow the rules of the road. Be careful where you place your fools ;-) As a biker I accept some reasoned risk of being hurt. What's the alternative? Sit at the house and eat bon-bons all day? By that logic we should all quit driving our cars because some drunk may be out there waiting to cause an accident.

[Gooch]

I'll take a picture of what the correct markings should look like if I get a chance this afternoon.

Willowick @ San Filipe. This is much clearer as to who goes where compared to the vague marking on Heights.

Any opinions of adding marking like these to Heights Blvd? Worth it? Not?

[OutfieldDan]

The second problem is your entire premise of inconvenience or selfishness on the parts of the driver and cyclist. It assumes a greater right to the roadway for the driver. If we start with the premise that both driver and cyclist have equal right to the road, and that both are traveling to the same home from the same place of employment on the same road, who is more inconvenienced? Is it the motorist who must drive at 15 mph momentarily, before passing the cyclist? Or, would it be the cyclist who is forced to turn off of the main road onto a less traveled road that adds distance and time to his commute, a commute powered only by his legs? If all things are equal, why do you think you are more inconvenienced than the cyclist? If you do not want to wait to pass, why do YOU not turn to the less traveled road? Why must the cyclist do so? Your argument presupposes that the cyclist must get out of YOUR way, never the other way around.

It is for these reasons that I find the drivers arguments self-centered and selfish.

I hate riding my bike on a busy street. I always try to take a route that avoids high traffic density, it just isn't safe. The problem is that there often is no other way to go.

It might be that a new bike lane concept is due. There is no doubt that bike traffic is increasing on our roads, so something has to be done. If bikes obstruct traffic on busy streets, then maybe certain streets should be changed to have wider bike lanes (like Heights Blvd) and car traffic lanes be reduced. Despite the beginning post of this thread, Heights Blvd is probably one of the best examples of where bikes and cars share a road safely.

Another possibility is that certain four lane roads could be changed to the Studewood design of three lanes with the addition of a wide bike lane. I think Studewood traffic moves OK. Maybe certain streets could be changed to one way streets, with a wide (two way?) bike way for the other half of the street.

It seems to me that there ought to be someone in Houston traffic engineering that can figure out a better way for bikes to use roads that will provide more roads to be redesigned for safer, wider bike paths. This will naturally reduce bike traffic on major thoroughfares and alleviate the frustration that some drivers feel about too many bikes slowing them down. Having said that, I believe that Houston drivers need to just take it easy, relax and don't let a moment's slowdown be such a big deal.

[kylejack]

Willowick @ San Filipe. This is much clearer as to who goes where compared to the vague marking on Heights.

Any opinions of adding marking like these to Heights Blvd? Worth it? Not?

Wow, that's a pretty rare marking. Cyclists going straight are generally instructed (and permitted) to hug the right turn lane and then proceed to clear the intersection. Its nice to see them given a right of way like that.

[20thStDad]

Wow, that's a pretty rare marking. Cyclists going straight are generally instructed (and permitted) to hug the right turn lane and then proceed to clear the intersection. Its nice to see them given a right of way like that.

I see this in several places, 34th going east at Shepherd is another. More are needed. I like it, but every time I come up to one of these you can bet I'm watching my back like a hawk just waiting for some car to plow straight through me.

Minimize the risk by staying off of major and "dangerous" roads. And being on a ranch out in the hills won't save you, then those crazy MS 150 training rides (I've done almost all of them) will come find you and slow you down!

[kylejack]

I wasn't paying attention to the cycling community recently and I missed the Tour De Hood, but Tour De Houston was great.

[RedScare]

Minimize the risk by staying off of major and "dangerous" roads. And being on a ranch out in the hills won't save you, then those crazy MS 150 training rides (I've done almost all of them) will come find you and slow you down!

Actually, out in the sticks, those selfish farmers drive their slowassed tractors down the road, causing me to wait for a long time to pass them. Why can't they ride in the grass?

[RedScare]

Thought this article would fit in well in this thread.

NYC worst 'road rage' city. Dallas 2nd.

Interestingly, Houston did not even make the top 10. Of course, anyone who has lived in both Dallas and Houston can easily tell the difference between the two. Something as simple as pulling out of a parking lot into traffic can be a nightmare in Dallas, where in Houston a driver will wave you in (maybe not the first one, but certainly one of the next 2 or 3 will). Perhaps the Subaru driver in the bike lane in the initial photo in this thread is a Dallas native.

[tanith27]

This sounds vaguely like a "debate" I had on another HAIF post sometime last year, where I was told I deserved to have things stolen out of my car because the door was unlocked. It was a hypothetical argument based on common sense vs reality. In fact, I've never had anything stolen from my car nor do I ever keep it unlocked, but the idea surrounding law abiding folks putting themselves in situations where they could be victimized created quite a stir as I recall....

[sevfiv]

I have lived in Houston since 1977. NEVER have I been stuck behind a cyclist for "long periods of time". This statement suggests that the problem here is your impatience, not cyclists using the roads. The more you ratchet up the hyperbole, the more obvious it gets.

These arguments are similar to the freeway arguments, where the drivers speeding at 10 to 20 mph over the speed limit demand consideration from the "selfish" drivers going the speed limit. I notice that it nevers seems to be the aggressive drivers who are selfish, only the respectful and law abiding drivers. Wonder why that is?

Indeed. In my almost 15 years of driving here, I have never come across the driving situations described. I'm on the same road as cyclists daily - Main St. and Fannin in medical center/Rice area, Braeswood (I see more and more these days) - but I have noticed something recently along Sunset going toward Main that is dangerous...it is an undivided one-lane per side street that expands to two lanes right before Main. For some reason, though, drivers tend to hug the left or right side of the one lane waaaay ahead of the split, and I have seen a couple instances of cyclists who would normally have plenty of room to ride alongside almost get rammed by far-right hugging vehicles or skid in to the curb. I'm not sure if the drivers are in oblivion or are just chest-beating about a perceived control of the road, but it is scary.

Drivers that complain of general bicycle nuisance probably fall in to the category of "always in a hurry/it's all about ME" mindset - I'd say that's a decent percentage of drivers, unfortunately. Watch the disquietude of drivers inching and inching forward at red lights, accelerating fast at green, refusing to yield to anyone, following others closely, blocking driveways, blocking intersections, stopping in crosswalks, and so on. It would be interesting to see the blood pressure levels of those folks!

[Scott08]

I'm an avid cyclist who's been riding around this city for over a decade (and have the titanium rod in my leg to prove it), live and cycle in the Heights, and rarely use the Heights Blvd bikelane. Like Fox Mulder, I trust no one, and bikelanes on a major road aren't worth the paint spent on them to me. I empathize wholeheartedly with the OP but frankly I just don't expect automobile drivers to look out for me while I'm on my bike, I have to be uber-defensive. I have my "secret" routes that I take from home to Memorial Park and all over other parts of the city. As much as possible I stick to less trafficked side streets, using main roads only when I absolutely have to (and I'm known to use the sidewalks on them if I have to.) What I would like to see is bikepaths like the city of Dallas has. When I stay with friends in far north Dallas, near Richardson, we can get to bike path less than a mile from their house, and ride all the way to White Rock Lake near downtown without ever being on a road. The bikepaths use easements, waterways, etc that crisscross the city and provide a much safer alternative than painting stripes on a busy street. We could do the same in Houston. I do occasionally do group rides around town and there's relative safety in numbers, at least car drivers can't say they didn't see you.

[EMME]

I'm not saying it's a huge inconvenience to me but when you multiply the slow down in traffic bikes cause by the number of cars on the road it makes a difference.

You can't possibly make the argument that a bicycle going 10 miles an hour on a road where the traffic is going 35 doesn't slow down traffic. Wouldn't a car going 10 miles an hour slow it down? Ride your bikes on the streets if you want but don't try act all high and mighty and tell us your not inconveniencing other people.

One could argue that cars unnecessarily speed up traffic.

[cottonmather0]

Another bike versus cars thread... Neat. Maybe this will be the one to make one side or the other capitulate?

Nonetheless, the photo in the OP is outrageous. Even if there wasn't a bike in the way he shouldn't be driving in the bike lane just to pass people waiting to turn. This is quintessential a-hole driver behavior that makes my blood boil, regardless of the bike situation, which just makes it worse when the bike component is added to the story.

Many drivers in Houston drive too fast and too selfishly - particularly regarding rights of way - and it's INCREDIBLY ironic to hear the driver of a car complaining about bikes and saying that it's the bike who's being selfish because he's making the people sitting their air conditioned cars slow down. Please.

But to be evenhanded - here's one more vote for berating the idiot bikers who opportunistically break traffic rules and then complain about drivers disrespecting them. If you cut in between cars and the curb and then run the red light and start backing up traffic again when the light turns green and the cars catch up, most of which already passed you prior to the light, you yourself are being an a-hole, too. You should wait in line, just like you're in a car.

When it's safe, I will regularly slow down and point out to bikers that I just witnessed them run a red light or stop sign and I've NEVER had someone apologize or react favorably to pointing that out, which is fine, but those people shouldn't be complaining about the cars, either.

Can't we all just get along?

[Rammer]

Thats me on my bike. That's a car behind me, driving in the Heights Blvd. bike lane, about 6-inches off my back wheel. What you cannot see is that he's honking and even went so far as to accelerate towards me in threatening manner. Why was he in the bike lane? Because he couldn't wait for 2 cars that were queued up at the red-light and was using it as a passing lane. I got the guy's plates, picture, and mug shot. So will HPD by the morning.

I ride a lot. And I see cars using the Heights bike lane for passing on the right almost daily. I'm not talking about turning right, parking, etc. But, full on making a 2nd lane where none exists. Its becoming more and more common. What can we do about this, other than the obvious filing a police report. And I've written Mayor White, Cheif Hurtt, and Jack Abercia. No city council member at the moment, so I copied the at large members. Any others ideas?

First, the driver was a total jerk in every way.

BUT...that 2nd lane on Heights Blvd is not PERCEIVED as a bike lane by most people.

It is PERCEIVED as a car lane. I ride my bike on Heights all the time. The driver was no doubt annoyed that you would not move farther to the right. There is usually plenty of room(depending on the size of parked vehicles) in what is really a third lane. The third lane is wide enough to accompany a parked car and a bike rider - but be sure to watch for people opening their car doors.

Yes, you were entitled to the lane. But you could end up as a hood ornament because of a simple misunderstanding.

[Tiko]

But to be evenhanded - here's one more vote for berating the idiot bikers who opportunistically break traffic rules and then complain about drivers disrespecting them. If you cut in between cars and the curb and then run the red light and start backing up traffic again when the light turns green and the cars catch up, most of which already passed you prior to the light, you yourself are being an a-hole, too. You should wait in line, just like you're in a car.

When it's safe, I will regularly slow down and point out to bikers that I just witnessed them run a red light or stop sign and I've NEVER had someone apologize or react favorably to pointing that out, which is fine, but those people shouldn't be complaining about the cars, either.

I'm guessing that I wouldn't act favorably either if someone in a 3000 lb vehicle rolled their window down and tried to explained to me why they "thought" I was doing the wrong thing as they veered around on the road either. Over a beer...sure. I could explain why I think you're wrong about your example with the way to handle a red light, but I doubt I could do it in under a minute. You want to fly formation with me while I do it? Think the drivers behind you are going to like that? Think that's safe?

[cottonmather0]

I'm guessing that I wouldn't act favorably either if someone in a 3000 lb vehicle rolled their window down and tried to explained to me why they "thought" I was doing the wrong thing as they veered around on the road either. Over a beer...sure. I could explain why I think you're wrong about your example with the way to handle a red light, but I doubt I could do it in under a minute. You want to fly formation with me while I do it? Think the drivers behind you are going to like that? Think that's safe?

Well, reread my post. I said I only do it when it's safe to do it.

Nontheless there's no "thought" about it. They are indeed doing the wrong thing, both legally and practically. It's not just my opinion.

And when I'm on my bike I berate the idiots, too, once I catch up to them after they pass me sitting at the red light as I'm supposed to do. I practice what I preach and have a problem with idiot bikers who don't and make it less safe for me when I am biking.

[SilverJK]

We can always count on good old Rick Perry to protect the rights of car drivers (so they don't have to worry about bikes being in their way!)

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archi...s_safe_p_1.html

[sevfiv]

Yep, vetoed.

Gov. Rick Perry's veto of the cycling measure, which would have required motorists to give cyclists and other vulnerable road users at least 3 feet of clearance when passing on most highways, drew a strong reaction from some cyclists.

"We are stunned because he's our guy, and we feel disappointed, even betrayed by our guy," said Robin Stallings, executive director of BikeTexas, the educational arm of the Texas Bicycle Coalition. "The bicycling community will never forgive Governor Perry."

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archi...on_that_sa.html

And to clarify the situation I posted earlier - example of people trying to make a one-lane road in to two (though the vehicle on the right isn't as far over as some go):

[rsb320]

Yep, vetoed.

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archi...on_that_sa.html

And to clarify the situation I posted earlier - example of people trying to make a one-lane road in to two (though the vehicle on the right isn't as far over as some go):

On that road, many people turn left at various intersections and you can get around them on the right when they're stopped. I think the road must widen at cross streets. I believe people realize that it's two lane and that the red car's intent is that (s)he'll be turning left ahead.