Talk:Wide outside lane

Not Traffic-Calming

Wide lanes unfortunately inspire some motorists to speed up, and also inspire double-parking. Both of these effects were evident when wide outside lanes were tried in San Francisco in the 1990s, making the lanes very unsafe. They were eventually restriped to have bike lanes, but at that point the habit of double-parking had been established and continues in the bike lanes. Jym 20:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

On a street where double parking is practiced, it's hard to understand how the speeds could be high enough to warrant cyclists needing any kind of special facility at all. If motorists are slowing down and stopping to park and even double park, other motorists must slow down, stop, and/or drive around them. If they can do that, they can just as easily also slow down and/or drive around bicyclists. That's just par for the course. --Serge 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The motorist behavior is (and remains) as I described, both the speeding and the double-parking. The behaviors do not always combine in safe or rational ways: motorists speed from obstruction to obstruction, where they may swerve into another lane or they may slam on the brakes, depending. BTW, I am not making a "special facility" argument, so please spare the knee-jerk refutation, Jym 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Narrowing with a painted line does not reduce average speed. In 1999 the Institute of Transportation Engineers published "Traffic Calming: State of the Practice", a report on experiences with traffic calming in the US & Canada. Here are fair-use quotes from the section titled "Centerline and Edgeline Striping":

"Painting an edgeline several feet from the pavement edge has the effect of visually narrowing the roadway."

"In theory, the perceived narrowing could cause a modest speed reduction, just as a real narrowing causes a modest speed reduction. The theory is not borne out by empirical studies. Results from Howard County, MD, Beaverton, OR, and San Antonio, TX, suggest that vehicle operating speeds are as likely to increase as decrease with striping." http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcsop/Chapter5c.pdf --Bruce Rosar 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WOLs not as safe as NOLs

Wide Outside Lanes are inherently more dangerous than Narrow Outside Lanes because WOLs increase the threat of the 'right hook' and other dangers caused by the cyclist being outside of the normal flow of traffic and thus less visible. The article fails to address this and seems to be unfairly biased towards WOLs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.177.58 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not Universal

This appears to apply to a particular part of the world. It would be helpful if the article said which part. The Real Walrus 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

benefits of wide curb lanes

Curb lanes aren't just widened to benefit bicyclists. Curbs are commonly offset at least one foot from the lane, whether or not bicyclists are considered. This is because vehicle drivers generally will drive closer to the centerline when vertical faced curbs are used, to reduce hydroplaining. splashing and spray from rainwater in the gutter. Also, bicyclists in a WCL, shoulder or bike lane are deemed to have a passenger car equivalence of zero, meaning they don't add to vehicle delays. I'm not sure how much of this belongs in the article, but it shows why the statement that "WOLs are generally considered to be facilities which primarily benefit cyclists" is misleading. --Triskele Jim 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)