Serge:
I totally agree with you about the effect of that rail trail here. I just got lambasted on the sdcbc list for saying that facilities often imply that bicyclists don't belong in the street. I think that's the effect they often have, and it was manifested on this stretch of 101 first by them not creating any bike lanes at all, and then, when bicyclists protested, these narrow(er) ones were put in. But the notion implied by the "multi use" path parallel to the road remain: that that is where bicyclists should ride.

So, you were in the bike lane, not controlling a traffic lane, when you were still hit from behind. I'm curious by this since you were the one who said "a facilities advocate is a vehicular cyclist who was hit yesterday".

I suppose you can blame it on the narrowness of the bike lane, rather than on the bike lane itself, but if the bike lane was wider, you would probably still have been riding near the stripe (we all tend to ride there because debris usually makes all but the pavement near the stripe undesirable), no? If you had noticed him coming in a mirror you might have been able to dodge in a wider bike lane, but most cyclists don't have mirrors, and most who do probably don't monitor often enough to do that. In other words, the bike lane doesn't really protect you (my theory is it makes you more likely to get hit, because the stripe creates a false sense of security, and makes bicyclists seem irrelevant to motorists who are then more likely to not notice them and thus drift into them). I read and hear about bicyclists hit in bike lanes all the time (glad you're alive to talk about your case); this is why I don't get why bicyclists seem to want bike lanes so much. Riding in a bike lane is effectively donning a cloak of invisibility and riding on a debris magnet. And that debris can be deadly. A cyclist was killed about two years ago on Torrey Pines Rd. when he hit a branch in the bike lane that popped into his front wheel, locked it up, and he went over the bars. His riding buddy estimates their speed was about 15 mph, and he had a helmet on. I much prefer the motorist-swept-clean pavement in the traffic lanes where I'm more visible, thank you very much.

bikingbill:

Either have a standard bike lane or don't.

Irvine, CA has bike lanes done right. About the width of a narrow car lane.

bikingbill:
The problem with La Costa is the lane implies to drivers that they can drive next to it. It's simply not wide enough. The 'drop off' to the curbstone is too risky to ride in.

Sharrows would be more appropriate.

I've asked this question on the SDBC list with no response ... would we prefer the current situation or something akin to Copenhagen?

bikingbill:FYI: My new technique on La Costa Ave is to make it clear that my bike is NOT in the bike lane at all times. Ride to the left of it and only move to the right when a vehicle is close. Get more room that way.

I'd rather the lane be removed at this point.

Kathy:

bikingbill:

Well, what about La Costa?

La Costa is a pretty long road - which part of La Costa? I'm happy to go take a look with my tape measure... or maybe you have measured them? It's hard to get good numbers from Google Earth, but so far I'm only seeing 5 foot lanes.

bikingbill: Eastbound ... sections between I5 and El Camino.

Section I was hit on was just East of Saxony.

NOT 5 foot wide. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe 2 feet of asphalt and then a 1 foot curbstone with a nice drop.

jay:

There's only one dangerous thing happening on the roads, and it's not bicycling.

Non-dangerous-to-others road users, such as bicyclists and pedestrians, are not obligated to follow any technical practices to avoid death caused by dangrerous-to-others road users.

Is cycling dangerous? Yes. Yes, it is. Deadly, no, but definitely dangerous. This is actually a controversial thing to say. There are those who bristle at any suggestion that cycling is dangerous, because they fear it will scare noncyclists away from ever ditching their cars and trying a more healthy form of transport. This is a good point, but it doesn’t change the fact that cycling is dangerous. This is not some urban legend that needs to be debunked. It is reality, and we need to embrace it (page 69).
...
The most important lesson to be learned here is a bitter pill to swallow: There is no greater danger to the cyclist than the cyclist’s own incompetence. As a whole, it turns out, cyclists are not an entirely smooth and skillful lot. The majority of cycling accidents are embarrassing solo incidents, with the cyclist sliding out on turns, stacking it up after ramming potholes, curbs, and other obstacles, or just generally losing control (page 161, emphasis in original).
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2005/02/your-mission-chump-ride-bike-in-city.html

Collisions with motor vehicles are potentially more damaging but account for no more than about 15 percent of all cycling accidents. About half of car-bike accidents are instigated by cyclists who ride into traffic without looking, ride on the wrong side of the street, blow lights and stop signs, or otherwise ride in an unpredictable and lawless manner. This means that about half of car-bike collisions could be prevented if cyclists would simply follow traditional traffic-law principles. Most of the rest could likely be prevented with a little experience, preparedness, and respect for the perils of the road. Admitting it is the first step toward moving beyond it. That surly looking character in your bathroom mirror is often your worst enemy out on the street (page 161).

Serge:Strict Liability

bikingbill:This seems relevant. San Diego Drivers just don't like "sharing the road."

Freeway messages stir outrage in some drivers
Sign of trouble: Request to share the road with motorcyclists

Some exerpts....
Carlsbad resident Elaine Cosbey said the problem is drivers who don’t want to share the road with motorcycles. “Everyone has a right to the highway,” she said. “A lot of (motorcyclists) get killed because drivers in cars don’t have enough respect for them.”

Considering that some drivers wish they didn’t have to share the road with motorcyclists who weave between lanes or cut ahead in traffic, the message could be tweaked, he said.

“It might be better to lose the ‘share’ and just stick with the ‘look twice for motorcyclists,’ ” Meads said.

Motorcyclists said they welcomed the campaign because they’re vulnerable on the road with inattentive drivers chatting on cell phones, adjusting radios or switching lanes without watching for smaller vehicles.

“Motorcyclists are much less distracted than drivers,” he said. “Riding a motorcycle is very fundamental. You’re on two wheels, riding down the road.

“I like what Caltrans is doing. If it gets through to one person, it’s done its job.”

Kevin Dotson, who drives both a motorcycle and a truck, welcomed the signs as a reminder that drivers should indeed look twice.

“People don’t see motorcycles,” he said. “Even I don’t sometimes. There have been times when I’ve been changing lanes in my truck and I didn’t see a motorcycle because it’s small and in my blind spot.”

Serge:That's really interesting about the animosity for motorcyclists because that obviously has nothing to do with them being slow and in the way. What seems to anger them is the lack of predictability, and "aggressive" riding. By "double up with cars" I assume they mean lane splitting, probably at 70 mph in 35 mph traffic.

I think this indicates that much of the tension with bicyclists might not necessarily be about bicyclists being slow and in the way either.

mike_ballard:Update to the Red Zones at Howard / Alabama - They are painted! Hopefully, it will be at least a little safer at this intersection.

Use letters, phone calls, and informal petitions

Remember that most City ordinances and resolutions require a simple majority of Council votes–5 out of 8–to be adopted. Get the ball rolling by calling or writing a letter to your Councilmember, and to the Mayor. If you want to show you have lots of community support, develop and submit an informal petition, or have others call or send letters. With the backing of five (5) Councilmembers, your idea can become municipal policy.