Re: bike lanes, pro and con

From: De Clarke <de@...>
> , and the "bike lanes"
> are on lower-speed roads!

Oh, this is so typical. In my area, many of the collector roads have bike
lanes. The usual configuration is a 48' wide (! curbface-to-curbface), one
"car lane" of 19' in each direction, 5' bikelane, 1 foot gutter pan (no
parking! there is virtaully no on-street parking except on residential
streets).
One can only guess that the roads are built wide so that they can be
instantaneously converted to more lanes(?).

None of the arterials around me has bike lanes. They are typically set up
with either 4 or 6 (2 or 3 each direction) 10.5' lanes. The worst
configuration has a right hand edge stripe and a 1 to 3 foot shoulder next
to a vertical curb. I call it a shoulder because that's what it is legally,
it is (properly) not marked as a bike lane -- however for all intents and
purposes, to motorists, it is a bike lane. Some of these arterials are also
marked with the green/white Bicycle Route signs and "Share the Road" (which
I really HATE) signs, further adding to the confusion.

> Pedestrians have a right, in CA, to cross the street at any
> point including the middle of the block, and they have the right of way.

Really???!!! This just can't be correct -- the right of way part I mean, it
would be chaos(?) Here is AZ statue, for example:

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk
A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked