personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[shootingstar]

Do you feel safer in signed on road bike routes with a bike lane, that goes through residential neighbourhoods? Generally speaking I do, especially if those same routes are heavily used by cyclists all hours of the day.

[Helene2013]

Yes I do. Quebecers are recognized as the worst/less patient drivers. There is a hate relationships between cyclists and motor vehiclues. Not all but too much. For the past few years, mostly last summer, there were "ads" on tv, huge panels on the roads that would say "please share the roads", and shocking ads too... but still too many incidents occured. Road rage can be bad. Luckily, the majority of motorists I crossed were nice to us. And we, as car drivers, are very careful when seeing a cyclist. We give him a lot of space in case he hits a hole, etc..

I much prefer cycling on designated road paths or bike paths. I avoid roads, even rural - too many loose dogs, too narrow lanes, etc... my life is worth more than this.

[OakLeaf]

I've never been anywhere with *comprehensive* bike infrastructure - is there even such a thing in North America? - so I can't say what that might be like. But in the spotty, poorly designed, counterintuitive, law-defying, unpredictably disappearing "infrastructure" we have now, I feel much, much, MUCH less safe. No one knows what the rules are, traffic is completely unpredictable, people feel like they don't have to develop traffic skills so that when a bike "lane" suddenly ends they ride on the sidewalk, or against traffic, or dart out across the street to get where they're supposed to be next, or hug the curb and invite cars to take the middle of the road and run not only the cyclist but oncoming traffic off the road. It's not only dangerous for cyclists, it's dangerous for pedestrians who are forced to take the road because the sidewalks are full of bicycles.

There's no way that even in a flush economy like we had 50 years ago they would've ever sprung for comprehensive infrastructure, and in today's economy it's absolutely never going to happen, so I think everyone would be MUCH safer if they did away with all of it.

[rebeccaC]

I’m always aware and riding defensively when riding in traffic no matter where I am whether in a bike lane or not. I do feel safe in my area even with out bike lanes but that doesn’t mean I’m not aware. Feeling safe can lead to more bicyclists so designs that do that are important. We have some excellent bike paths in Southern California and more and more bike lanes and additions to the paths are appearing and planned. I can go from the beach to downtown L.A., soon all the way to Pasadena, or south along the ocean through 6 cities on dedicated bike paths.

Some cities like Chicago are doing some interesting infrastructure and getting more people on bikes. Louisville Kentucky is working on infrastructure connecting the entire city, parks and neighborhoods. Washington D.C. has a 70 mile regional trail system and has plans for 70 more miles of fully protected bike lanes. Lots of cities, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Davis, San Francisco, Tucson, San Diego, Milwaukee, Boston, NYC, etc. etc. have strong bicycle organizations and advocacy. The San Diego City Council passed a progressive $312 million city bike plan update a little over a year ago and the San Diego Association of Governments approved $200 million for regional bicycle projects.

Infrastructure is about money/politics. Cities/states that have strong bicycle organizations, people committed to it and intelligent politicians are the areas that can have policies that help both with safety and increased usage. Areas that have little organizational support and people with negative attitudes about it won’t be doing much if anything. California has a governor that has talked about and understands the cost benefits of bike lanes/paths and has worked with the legislature to fund projects that can triple bike usage by 2020. Washington state just had a bike summit (http://www.sportworks.com/about-sportworks/blog/a-profile-of-the-2015-washington-state-bike-summit) bringing together people from all over the state. It also has a bicycling governor. That kind of organization and positive political attitude can benefit a states infrastructure. There is much more to be done though.

I can choose where I live, am happy to live where I do and wouldn’t live in an area that doesn’t have an understanding of the benefits of supporting bicycle infrastructure. For me it’s about being part of a community that cares about those things.

[Crankin]

Well, it is true Boston has a very strong cycling advocacy group (I get emails from all of them), and that has helped to make changes in the city. Personally, I would never ride in the city, as well, the drivers suck. I don't drive in the city, either. That's what public transportation is for! Riding in a place like Boston or NYC is quite different than riding in downtown Phoenix, or even LA.
We don't have the kinds of bike paths that I see a lot of you talking about. In fact, there are 2 in eastern MA. One does serve as a commuting route and the other is more recreational. They are both about 12 miles long and that's it. Part of the problem here is that each of the 351 cities and towns has to individually approve whatever goes through the town, as well as abutting landowners. The process is long and extremely archaic, including our most beloved form of pure democracy, the town meeting. One of the paths is coming quite close to where I live. They are going to be starting the portion in the town next to me this year. However, even though Concord has finally approved it, it might be years before a tunnel is built under the highway to get from Acton to Concord, so it's a moot point. People in my town were more worried about cyclists peeing in their yards than having a rail trail, but it did get approved...
I ride only on roads, both suburban and semi-rural. I can be aggressive when I need to, and I often need to be, especially on my 5 mile commute through my town center. But, I don't let this stop me from riding on the road.

[Eden]

I'm with Oak on this subject. I am not a fan of "infrastructure" and think that even here in Seattle where we are supposedly pretty progressive that most of what gets put in is poorly thought out, implemented even worse and doesn't help at all…

The latest of the follies are a series of "protected" bike lanes, some of which put 2 way bike traffic on one side of the street (a big no-no that even the Dutch have realized is a really bad idea) and have extremely poor transitions back into regular traffic. I won't go anywhere near the newest one that nearly alway has a shuttle bus parked in it and has a tiny little 2 foot green patch on the pavement that's supposed to let motorists know that you cyclists will be joining the lane because their protected lane comes to a rather abrupt end… It's downhill so you can get going at quite a good clip and it's incredibly easy to be pinched out at that spot - and you will literally have no where to go. The protected lane runs into a curb and the outlet usually runs into a car…

[Lelani Carver]

The Chicago suburbs have some wonderful long recreational bike paths, most of them not easily reached from my house. My suburb lags behind others in adding bike routes, striped lanes, and separated bike paths that actually go somewhere useful. However, it's improving. I've been reading up on safe riding in traffic - I can see myself riding on moderately busy routes but not on the busiest arterials.

[azfiddle]

We have extensive signed bike routes in Tucson, that include the shoulders of 4-6 lane roads down to residential neighborhoods.

I tend to avoid the main cross-town residential route as the pavement is really bad, and take my chances on a larger and busier street that has fairly wide bus/bike lane for about 5 miles. The city has nearly finished "The Loop"- a multi-use path that encircles Tucson, with an extension north along the Santa Cruz River. When I commute by bike to work once or twice a week, I now take the longer route (11 miles) that keeps me on the path for about 1/3 of the way rather than taking the 10 mile route with more traffic and potholes. I don't like to ride portions of "The Loop" on weekends when it is full of dogs, kids and inattentive walkers and runners. But for the most part, I just choose the routes that tend to have the combination of being direct and a wide or smooth bike lane, wheter it is a larger street or a neighborhood.

[PamNY]

The latest of the follies are a series of "protected" bike lanes, some of which put 2 way bike traffic on one side of the street (a big no-no that even the Dutch have realized is a really bad idea)

Why is that a bad idea?

[Helene2013]

Why Eden?

We have some of those around here and it works very well. No issues I have seen so far and we use them a lot.

[Crankin]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

[shootingstar]

It's not to say that more cyclists using a signed bike route with cycling infrastructure, should ever lull someone into a sense of being "safer". Just the presence of more cyclists, to alert other cyclists as well as drivers, there's just cyclists around, period.


But for the most part, I just choose the routes that tend to have the combination of being direct and a wide or smooth bike lane, wheter it is a larger street or a neighborhood I have over the past 25 years for the bike routes that I use for transportation locally (work, shopping or errands), I do tend to design routes that take me best away from cars and too many other distractions. For each city I've lived, I have had at least 5 core routes I cycled a lot several times per wk. which 70% of the route was on a marked bike lane or dedicated MUP through linked parks system. I used those routes, early in the morning (before 6:30 am). The more challenging time was returning home --sometimes avoided peak activity, sometimes not which meant slowing down or detouring for a short piece elsewhere.

That said, I did have a collision on a MUP in Vancouver...lst one after 25 years as a car-free cyclist for transportation. Does that mean I avoid them like the plague? No, I just have to continue to be alert, try to choose times/areas if I can, where it's not thronging with too many other people (cyclist, pedestrians).

As a pedestrian on the sidewalk where there is an on-road separated bike lane, the neighbourhood itself generally feels safer in general. I'm saying that because I live in such a neighbourhood not far from a separated bike lane (which the city has installed a bike counter) and there's effort to install /ensure streetlights work all the time.

So if people here don't like most of their local cycling infrastructure, maybe the advocates shouldn't try too hard anymore and city should just do what they please. I'm playing devil's advocate... simply because I know how hard volunteer (rarely paid) cycling advocates do work /battle with city engineering depts...for months, even years.

[shootingstar]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

Vancouver and Toronto do have some downtown separated bike routes like this. I've cycled them plus one in Montreal. Our lst separated bike lane in Calgary is this 2-way, on 1 side of the road. It actually is not terrible. I use it all the time and it's connected directly to a core bike pathway in a linear park. I can see cyclists using it.....from my balcony.

The engineering dept. just has to ensure it's wide enough and pavement painted a different colour from the car road. (Of course, getting them to do it, is easier said than done.) There must be preferably raised curb median or box planters (VAncovuer), bike corrals, similar linear barriers etc.

The tricky part is when the lane ends and how the bike turns are handled so that the car drivers find it logical too. Some cities use the bike box on pavement for cyclists to position themselves to make a turn. I'm not too fond of them because it requires a lot of driver education.


Then the big question is: It has been thought to attract a higher cycling mode share of female cyclists, that there has to be properly safe cycling infrastructure. Then what is that? The reality is there has to be acceptance for also: slow down car speed limits in residential areas, stronger police enforcement/tracking of distracted drivers (texting while driving), etc.

[rebeccaC]

Why is that a bad idea?

Seattle did a two way protected bike path downtown on 2nd ave that was meant to demonstrate the potential safe bike lanes can bring to Seattle’s city center. Since bike traffic has tripled on that route since the lane was built I’d say people downtown are using it quite a lot. As the core downtown network of protected lanes increase you’ll hopefully see even more riders that also feel safer.

There are a number of two way paths now in the Seattle area. Personally i like any measures that increase bicycle and mass transit options over cars. Both of which Seattle is working towards. There has been an educational component that Seattle and the Cascade Bike club has done for motorists and cyclist especially with regards to signals which were a work in progress for the awhile and enforcement measures at the beginning of each new implementation which target both cars and cyclists.

[PamNY]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

Certainly the potential for cyclists to crash into each other exists, but the alternatives are worse. I use several protected two-way bike lanes, and neither is a problem for me. One is separated from traffic by a line of parked cars -- it is a one-way street, but I don't find it a problem to go the opposite direction of traffic. It's much better than the alternative -- going a block to reach a street traveling the direction i want to go. There were a lot of complaints and even a lawsuit when this lane was added -- pedestrians are confused by the two-way bike traffic, and (rightly) complain that many cyclists don't stop at red lights.

The other is on a wide, busy street and separated from cars by Jersey barriers. In this case, a bike lane going the same direction as traffic would give me a left turn across multiple lanes of a busy street when I approach the Brooklyn Bridge. I don't know if there's a left turn arrow at the intersection, but even if there is, that's scary on a bike. I will gladly deal with a two-way bike lane to avoid it. This bike lane is at the end of the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge, so it's a crazy confluence of tourists, speeding drivers, and cyclists. Without the protected bike lane, I would probably just walk my bike a couple of blocks away from the crazy.

[Crankin]

I do get this in the situations you describe, as it allows you to safely get to where you want to go. I guess I probably wouldn't even be riding, even in the protected lanes in that type of crazy.

[Owlie]

I'm also in Tucson, though in a different part of the city. I haven't done much recreational riding since I got here (that will change as soon as I pass my comprehensive exams!) but the absolute worst part of my commute is a residential street. 2-lane, no shoulder for part of it, and people seem to use it as a shortcut to get to the north-south route with less traffic than the major north-south road on this side of town. Now, I'm also trying to get to this road. It's got a wide bike lane all the way down to the bike path access point, and it's new pavement. I see plenty of cyclists on it on my way to work (not so many on the way back), so drivers are pretty good about it. The Loop isn't such a great option on weekends unless I leave early and it's winter, but it's fine on weekdays. Except winter afternoons, when you get the packs of roadies who use it as a shortcut and take up the entire path.

[Eden]

It's been shown that riding against traffic, even in a protected lane leads to more conflicts with turning traffic - both traffic turning off of the main road and crossing the bike lane and people turning from the side street across the protected lane. Motorists - and *especially* US motorists do not expect a fast moving vehicle to come from the opposite direction. I don't have time to search it down again right now, but I read somewhere that even the Dutch have decided that protected cycling lanes should only be one way and always travel in the direction of the lane of motor vehicle travel. IMHO using a 2 way protected cycling lane is little better than using a sidewalk, which is one of the most dangerous things you can do…

As far as the lane in the U district goes it has *tons* of serious problems. I refuse to get anywhere near it and won't be surprised when someone is hit using it.

[rebeccaC]

As far as the lane in the U district goes it has *tons* of serious problems. I refuse to get anywhere near it and won't be surprised when someone is hit using it.

I thought the University pbl isn’t even completely finished until they do repaving work this fall when it will add 20 more blocks, bus islands etc. Has that already happened? My understanding is that the first part was done with community support because that short section of road had a lot of bike/car incidents which has lessened substanially since the lane went in.

[Eden]

I don't know what the plans are, just what I've seen there as of now - from 45th (I think) down to the U bridge. Nearly every time I've been down that street since the separated lane was put in, I've seen something (most often a Fred Hutch shuttle bus) blocking it… just that plus the number of parking garages that dump out into it are enough to make me not want to use it, but then there's the transition…. OMG it is so incredibly dangerous. There's only a few feet to merge into traffic after the protected bike lane ends and if you can't merge you'll crash into some other immovable object. Cars are going fast down there, and it's downhill so bikes are going fast. I don't even *drive* in the right hand lane - because I know that if a cyclist were to catch up to me going down that hill and pop out of that bike lane I probably couldn't stop… As a cyclist I feel much, much safer just taking the right hand lane in the first place. I can go just as fast as traffic down that street and if I control the lane I don't have to worry about being wiped out in the merge. If they are going to add 20 more blocks to that project I can only hope it isn't as poorly designed as the first section...

[rebeccaC]

I don't know what the plans are, just what I've seen there as of now - from 45th (I think) down to the U bridge. .

Be patient….:)

A friend who works at SDOT replied this morning to an email I sent. She wrote the lane now is just an interim one until repaving. It was asked for by the community for safety now on just the worst part of that road, which is what I thought and to me seems like the SDOT is responding well to community requests.

“The final pbl after repaving will create a complete connection to the University Bridge bike lanes instead of the shared traffic lane merge right before the bridge now. Planned transit islands will keep shuttles and buses out of the bike lane.”

She also wrote that community organizations know that and until the repaving is done and the lane extended to 65th they and SDOT have gotten the message out that riders just need to just be careful until the repaving. Sounds reasonable to me....

Wasn't the garage problem worked out on the 2nd ave lane with visibility, signage and initial enforcement There's also a continuing education aspect to it. My friend at SDOT also wrote that they are looking at raising a bike lane at garage entrances/exits so drivers also have a slightly raised painted lane as a visual clue and reminder that there is a bike lane they have to drive over.

[OakLeaf]

riders just need to just be careful until the repaving. Sounds reasonable to me....

IOW, for the time being, riders need to control the whole lane and avoid the dangerous bike lane. So if riders can be educated to do that "for the time being," why do they need the lane at all?


I think enforcement is a part of the equation we haven't talked about. Enforcement is really the only education most people get about traffic laws! In your areas, are police aggressive about ticketing cyclists who ride on the sidewalk, against traffic, etc.? In my area, not at all.

[rebeccaC]

IOW, for the time being, riders need to control the whole lane and avoid the dangerous bike lane. So if riders can be educated to do that "for the time being," why do they need the lane at all?

let me think about this......a temporary protected bike lane, asked for by the community and done with their input, that you just have to be reasonably careful on for a short time until repaving or trying to take the lane on a section of a street that has tied for the most bicycle/car incidents in the city...hmmmmmm

i'm taking the first option :)....others can do what they want to.

[buffybike]

I live in the Atlanta suburbs and for the most part, don't have issues with cars. Yes, I get honked at probably once a week, but it doesn't really bother me. Whatever. I use hand signals and act just like a car with regard to obeying traffic laws. I also stay far to the right (as long as it's safe for me to do so), make sure to let other drivers know of my intentions and give a friendly wave when they give me the right of way or let me go ahead of them. Beyond that, I trust my guardian angel.

[PamNY]

One type of bike lane I will not use -- that's a painted (not protected) bike lane that runs between two car lanes. The one I tried to use routes cyclists around a right-turn-only lane. The cars are turning onto a fairly wide road, and it's quite possible, even easy, for cars not in the turn lane to turn anyway. Which one did right in front of me. It's a large, busy intersection, and I now get off the bike and walk. Perhaps not an elegant solution, but I'm alive to complain about it.

[rebeccaC]

I live in the Atlanta suburbs and for the most part, don't have issues with cars. Yes, I get honked at probably once a week, but it doesn't really bother me. Whatever. I use hand signals and act just like a car with regard to obeying traffic laws. I also stay far to the right (as long as it's safe for me to do so), make sure to let other drivers know of my intentions and give a friendly wave when they give me the right of way or let me go ahead of them. Beyond that, I trust my guardian angel.

+1 :)

[lph]

In my experience, visibility is key, not separation from other traffic. But visibility depends on terrain and speed as well. On larger roads with higher speed limits, drivers don't have as much time to spot you and react to you as on city streets at lower speeds. And of course there's other traffic, intersections, the number of lanes etc. On the other hand, on quiet residential streets people can be very wandery and inattentive, so that fast bike riding is not a good choice. And my choice of route is usually a compromise between the fastest and the safest route. All in all i can't say that in general I would choose a bike lane over the road, depends on too many factors. Really good and separate and efficient bike paths are wonderful, and about as rare as white rhinos.

[OakLeaf]

Most of you have probably already seen this, but it's a great illustration of why I feel the way I do about "bike lanes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/01/bleak-maps-of-how-cities-look-using-only-their-bike-lanes/?tid=sm_tw

I don't dispute that there are places where segregated bike facilities are best. Bridges and on/off ramps, primarily. But infrastructure can never be a substitute for people knowing the law and obeying it.

My perspective might be a little different from some of yours, since the last three years (since my injury) I've run more miles than I've bicycled, and in the one town where there are "some" segregated bike facilities, people on bikes endanger both me AND themselves just about every. single. day by riding on the sidewalk (barely wide enough for single cruiser handlebars), including in places where there's a ten foot wide shoulder that's regularly swept and completely free of potholes and grates.

Segregated roads for bikes will never go everywhere that people need to go ... so if we want more people to ride bikes, we need them to know how to ride where they're mainstreamed into the rest of traffic. Education and enforcement might be harder to implement than segregated roads, but as soon as officials understand the comparative cost, I think we could have state-subsidized bicycle courses just the same as most states subsidize motorcyclist education.

[ny biker]

Most of you have probably already seen this, but it's a great illustration of why I feel the way I do about "bike lanes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/01/bleak-maps-of-how-cities-look-using-only-their-bike-lanes/?tid=sm_tw

I don't dispute that there are places where segregated bike facilities are best. Bridges and on/off ramps, primarily. But infrastructure can never be a substitute for people knowing the law and obeying it.

My perspective might be a little different from some of yours, since the last three years (since my injury) I've run more miles than I've bicycled, and in the one town where there are "some" segregated bike facilities, people on bikes endanger both me AND themselves just about every. single. day by riding on the sidewalk (barely wide enough for single cruiser handlebars), including in places where there's a ten foot wide shoulder that's regularly swept and completely free of potholes and grates.

Segregated roads for bikes will never go everywhere that people need to go ... so if we want more people to ride bikes, we need them to know how to ride where they're mainstreamed into the rest of traffic. Education and enforcement might be harder to implement than segregated roads, but as soon as officials understand the comparative cost, I think we could have state-subsidized bicycle courses just the same as most states subsidize motorcyclist education.

I agree with this. And I live in a "bike friendly" suburb of DC and drive in the city every couple of weeks.

The bike lanes in my town tend to be on busy streets. The streets were re-striped to narrow the motor vehicle lanes and add bike lanes. Many of those streets allow on-street parking and usually most/all of the street parking spaces are taken. So you're riding in a very long door zone. One street with a bike lane that I've used goes past an elementary school, and when there are events at the school people typically park on the street, wait for the motor vehicle traffic to pass and then step into the bike lane with their children despite the fact that they can see cyclists coming straight at them. And this is on a big hill so the cyclists are going at a good clip.

I typically avoid the streets that have bike lanes and go through the residential neighborhoods instead. It's much safer, in my experience.

Within DC, I simply don't understand the bike facilities. There are green crosswalks with bikes painted on them -- I have idea what they're supposed to be used for. When they put a bike lane on Pennsylvania Ave they had to put a video online to show people how to use it. If I need to access the internet in order to watch a video, then it does me no good.

Jan Heine (Bicycle Quarterly editor) has written some interesting things on separated bike lanes in his blog. Here is one item.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/separated-cycle-paths-a-summary/

[Blueberry]

Within DC, I simply don't understand the bike facilities. There are green crosswalks with bikes painted on them -- I have idea what they're supposed to be used for. When they put a bike lane on Pennsylvania Ave they had to put a video online to show people how to use it. If I need to access the internet in order to watch a video, then it does me no good.

Is that the one that goes down the middle of the road? That completely confused me, and I actually didn't ride that way since I had seen it as a pedestrian. People *seem* to use it - but I wasn't about to! I couldn't figure out how to get out of it!

[Eden]

Ah - I think that's the article that I remember referencing the Dutch abandoning bicycle facilities the put bike traffic facing against the flow of traffic - which is unfortunately what planners here in Seattle have somehow decided is appropriate…

I will not go anywhere near a 2 way cycle track that puts me on the wrong side of the road. Call me strange, but I find even the one way segregated cycling paths very, very stressful to ride in because I know that they limit my line of sight (especially those that have parking between the bike lane and the traffic lane) and they limit my visibility to motorists. I also know that out of sight is out of mind. If a motorist doesn't have to make a conscious movement to pass you it's very easy for them to not even notice that they just passed you and turn in front of you - bam right hooked. I've also seen no decent transitions from segregated lanes to regular traffic lanes - even with unsegregated bike lanes transitions tend to be rather abrupt and unless you've ridden or driven there before they easily take both motorists and cyclists by surprise. I know the argument is that separated facilities make cyclists feel safer and make motorists feel more secure, but to tell you the truth I think that's a bad thing… the last thing we need on our roads is complacency and good feelings… While I'm not advocating being a nervous wreck while driving or cycling, feeling too safe and comfortable simply leads to inattention and that leads to collisions. Please… don't ever assume that you are safe or that others are safe. Always pay attention to what you are doing when you are on the road.

[ny biker]

Here's some stuff about the Pennsylvania Ave bike lanes in downtown DC:

http://chasingmailboxes.com/2013/05/22/the-pennsylvania-avenue-bike-lane-dilemma/

[rebeccaC]

We have some of those around here and it works very well. No issues I have seen so far and we use them a lot.

Montreal has been in the forefront of bike lane design for a number of years. The Brebeuf and Maisonneuve bike lanes are standouts for increases in both safety for riders and substantial increases in rider use. Anne Dusk at the Harvard School of Public Health did an excellent study on the safety of Montreal's two way bike lanes on one side of the road and her findings are a lot more positive than some comments in this thread. :)

The National Institute of Transportation and Communities at PSU concluded an excellent study of protected bike lanes in th U.S. just last summer. The pdf (http://ppms.otrec.us/media/project_files/NITC-RR-583_ProtectedLanes_FinalReportb.pdf) for those interested.

Some interesting statistics (http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics) from people for bikes with links to further info. The generational difference in support makes me feel good about the influence emerging majorities will have on bike infrastructure

Personally I prefer, in positive ways, to support and work on giving people, especially low income women, a transportation method that is safe, cheap and healthy….hopefully a lot of us as caring communities....will also. I met a woman this past weekend who commutes on an old bike because she needs the money she would spend for transit, not even thinking about a car, to just help her and her daughter live.

[OakLeaf]

Has there been any study that addressed the effect of the existence of segregated bicycling facilities, on rider and motorist behavior on integrated roads?

That's overwhelmingly the biggest issue I have with them. Not just that it gives motorists something to point to when they say "you don't belong here," regardless of whether there's a segregated facility leading to the same destination. But also that the riders use segregation as an excuse to refuse to learn/obey traffic laws when they're on integrated roads or the sidewalks beside them, which endangers everyone.

[Crankin]

I agree, Oak. I wouldn't trust the drivers around one of these lanes, but even more, I wouldn't trust the behavior of the cyclists! And, when I used one, it was just totally disorienting to me.

[shootingstar]

I have gone to several presentations where there were Dutch cycling educators and engineers that gave presentations here:

*Cycling safety education is mandatory for all Dutch schoolchildren by the time they are 9-10 yrs. old. We don't have any North American jurisdiction that requires this by law.
*Liability of car drivers vs. cyclists is reversed in Netherlands. The driver must prove that they didn't do anything wrong.

Separated bike lanes aren't necessarily for cycling fast if that's what you're accustomed. The more popular /well-used they are, then your cycling speed needs to slow down. That's the dichotomy. If you don't like it, cycle elsewhere on the/another road. I do if I can, when a MUP is too crowded.

Yes, there are cyclists that are negligent in their behaviour.

I honestly don't see how just having roads and no marked bike lanes, is any better. Seriously. It's old John Forrester thinking that assumes everyone, even children are competent cyclists and that drivers are reliable, competent. He was promoting his method...before the ubiquitous use of cellphone while driving --despite the efforts of some police for crackdowns.

I live in a city which is further behind than Vancouver or Montreal. The cycling mode share only started to increase when we started to have more bike-pedestrian bridges.. and a separated bike lane. In fact, this was seriously proven when a major 2013 river flood damaged several bridges in our city that the municipality had to be completely rebuilt ....millions of dollars. Now rebuilt, many people are using them...back to normal and now more since the bridges have been built wider to accommodate more users.

I don't see how a lot drivers not want a marked bike lane in the shoulder area. Sure, it may lull some cyclists, but for drivers it's a clear pavement indicator....to give space to cyclists.

By the way, let's not get into the driverless car scenarios in the future --if that terrible idea occurs in the future.

[Jolt]

In my experience, visibility is key, not separation from other traffic. But visibility depends on terrain and speed as well. On larger roads with higher speed limits, drivers don't have as much time to spot you and react to you as on city streets at lower speeds. And of course there's other traffic, intersections, the number of lanes etc. On the other hand, on quiet residential streets people can be very wandery and inattentive, so that fast bike riding is not a good choice. And my choice of route is usually a compromise between the fastest and the safest route. All in all i can't say that in general I would choose a bike lane over the road, depends on too many factors. Really good and separate and efficient bike paths are wonderful, and about as rare as white rhinos.

Here's an article with a table comparing the relative risk of accidents with different types of facilities on different types of roads: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/bike-to-work-4-best-of-all-worlds-together/. According to this, separate bike paths are safer on higher-speed roads with few intersections but not in any other case; on low-speed roads with lots of intersections any "facilities" appear to increase the risks. Makes sense to me, and would help city planners pick the best places to focus their efforts in terms of adding bike lanes/paths in places where they will be helpful while not putting them in places where they will be counterproductive.

[Jolt]

I have gone to several presentations where there were Dutch cycling educators and engineers that gave presentations here:

*Cycling safety education is mandatory for all Dutch schoolchildren by the time they are 9-10 yrs. old. We don't have any North American jurisdiction that requires this by law.
*Liability of car drivers vs. cyclists is reversed in Netherlands. The driver must prove that they didn't do anything wrong.

Separated bike lanes aren't necessarily for cycling fast if that's what you're accustomed. The more popular /well-used they are, then your cycling speed needs to slow down. That's the dichotomy. If you don't like it, cycle elsewhere on the/another road. I do if I can, when a MUP is too crowded.

Yes, there are cyclists that are negligent in their behaviour.

I honestly don't see how just having roads and no marked bike lanes, is any better. Seriously. It's old John Forrester thinking that assumes everyone, even children are competent cyclists and that drivers are reliable, competent. He was promoting his method...before the ubiquitous use of cellphone while driving --despite the efforts of some police for crackdowns.

I live in a city which is further behind than Vancouver or Montreal. The cycling mode share only started to increase when we started to have more bike-pedestrian bridges.. and a separated bike lane. In fact, this was seriously proven when a major 2013 river flood damaged several bridges in our city that the municipality had to be completely rebuilt ....millions of dollars. Now rebuilt, many people are using them...back to normal and now more since the bridges have been built wider to accommodate more users.

I don't see how a lot drivers not want a marked bike lane in the shoulder area. Sure, it may lull some cyclists, but for drivers it's a clear pavement indicator....to give space to cyclists.

By the way, let's not get into the driverless car scenarios in the future --if that terrible idea occurs in the future.

I would love to see bike safety education (rules of the road and bike handling skills) made a part of phys ed in the schools. So many kids aren't taught how to ride safely as part of traffic, because most often their parents don't know how either, so we have kids riding to school etc. doing unsafe things just because they don't know better. Besides, learning how to ride a bike safely on the road will only help them when it comes time to start driving a car--they will already be familiar with the basic rules of the road and how to interact with traffic.

[rebeccaC]

on low-speed roads with lots of intersections any "facilities" appear to increase the risks.
According to the article that's a street with a speed limit of 20mph or lower. The article also says those streets can be excellent candidates for the bicycle boulevards he likes which could be even better than protected bike lanes. His conclusion is also that better facilities bring out more cyclists...that should be the goal.

A focus on intersections is important in good bike infrastructure design and a number of good solutions are found in Europe and Canada. Since that article came out two years ago NACTO’s urban bikeway design guide and others have done some good work researching intersection treatments for bike lanes and protected lanes. One thing helping is the signalized separation in some U.S. cities, Chicago’s Dearborn St. and Seattle’s Second Ave are two good examples. The Anne Dusk study I referred to earlier is also an important look at how Montreal has done it.

shooting star….isn’t Calgary doing a new educational program in conjunction with the new cycle lanes being done in the city centre?

[Eden]

I can't agree that the Second Ave bike lane in Seattle is an example of a good road treatment… granted 2nd Ave has *always* been bad if you were foolish enough to use the "facilities" put there, but the best option, as tempting as it is to pass by all of the traffic, is still to take a lane- the middle of it. Downtown especially, it is easy, super easy to move as quickly as any of the traffic. Lane control puts you in a position where you are visible and you have room to react.

The old configuration, I'll admit, was suicidal. It was a single direction left hand bike lane next to parked cars (2nd Ave is one way) that put cyclists at severe risk because no one was expecting cyclists to be passing them on the left, and passing is what they were usually doing as downtown traffic is normally quite slow. Problems arose when left turning motorists would turn across the path of cyclists proceeding straight. Problems arose with people exiting parking garages. Few people pulling away from the curb parking on the left ever expected fast moving cyclists to be approaching them from behind *and* because the driver ends up on the far side when parked on the left hand of a one way street their field of view can be severely limited - just what they can see in their right hand wing mirror and of course there was the door zone… It had an accident rate of about 1 person per month. It needed to be ground from the pavement.

Unfortunately the new treatment is really not much better. It is still on the left… now it is bi-directional and the parking has now been moved to the right of the "protected lane" The only good thing about it is that at very least users are no longer subject to the door zone or parked cars pulling out from the curb, which they were in the old configuration. There is probably some signalization to try to prevent conflicts at left turn intersections, but now motorists not only have to be aware of cyclists coming up from behind on their left, they also have to be aware of cyclists moving against the flow of traffic on the left too!… and not all turns are made at intersections, nor do all motorists follow the new signals - there has been a big problem with people still making lefts on red (which you can do from a one way street onto a one way street if it is not signed "no turn on red"). There have been more than a few cyclists hit while using this new "safe" lane - often from motorists turning into or exiting parking garages because visibility is poor. It's almost ironic… September with much cheers and lauding the new lane opens. October… the new *safer* lane is already undergoing reconfigurations because of a rash of accidents. So much for one a month and the illusion of safety.

[shootingstar]

Rebecca:
shooting star….isn’t Calgary doing a new educational program in conjunction with the new cycle lanes being done in the city centre?

Well, the city uses the cycling advocacy organization (and gives them money) to run Canbike cycling skills program in the summer. Past few years. It's not a ton of people taking up on it. I'm talking about 10-15 people per course. Same sort of program in major Canadian cities in the past 20 years. It's strictly only up to the municipality and only if there's going to be funding. Sometimes from city or province.

The cycling education I think that you might have read for this summer, would be also outreach general public education with more marketing. The city will also hire student cycling ambassadors to be in certain downtown areas...

Of course all of our new separated bike lanes over the next 2-3 yrs., are not for the suburban areas. The emphasis of new separated bike lanes for the next 2-3 years, are only in the downtown area...not in the suburbs. I guess for negative response of some TE forumites here, that would meet their needs: no separated on road bike lanes in the suburban areas since people seem distrust/dislke them intensely.

So for the suburbs: put all the cyclists on just the park MUPs and they will not be encouraged to use bicycles for transportation since our paths rarely lead to schools, all major shopping centres, etc.....I'm being facetious. :confused: Have a few marked bike lanes but not separation barriers, right? My city is doing exactly this. Why bother wasting money on separated bike lanes in suburbs? The reality is that people in the suburbs have chosen to have a car-dependent life and many prefer that, no matter what I/we may think. Many people in the suburbs continue to get furious about the city wasting money on downtown separated bike lanes or any cycling infrastructure.

Cycling education combined with expanded, detailed awareness of bike routes that people cycle with experienced commuters, is helpful. Looking at a bike map still does NOT cement understanding in wannabes that our city does have some lengthy off-road MUPs that connect to a major linear park but also will take cyclists right by several major shopping malls in the suburbs via a MUP without inference of shopping mall car traffic. I cycle these routes weekly on weekends....and I don't see hardly any cyclists!! These same long park MUP routes connect up to the city's zoo and science centre, other local attractions.

Cycling for transportation attitudes is different from Toronto or Vancouver.

I cannot complain about crowded MUPs in our city: there are whole sections of a 700 km. parks system of connected MUPs. Only 25% of the whole system is busy and crowded enough to slow down cyclists at certain times from spring to fall. Most of the time, it's...empty on a beautiful sunny weekend when I'm on it. It continues to floor me but indicates the city where I live, a huge % of locals don't cycle often at all. But this system needs to be connected to on-road safe cycling routes.

Some of the crummy connections is that transportation engineers normally aren't trained on human behaviour aspects for cyclists and drivers. I've met transportation engineers...who don't cycle. They don't take mandatory courses at university on this. The push in their training is transportation efficiency, technical construction of infrastructure, technical understanding of materials and coping with volumes.

It's then not surprising, the shocking excitement by some people of driverless cars. It's like children playing in a fantasy world of model cars with mathematical calculations without babies and children (human beings) who make independent decisions --both logical and illogical with different human response rates on action as they travel.

[Eden]

Of course all of our new separated bike lanes over the next 2-3 yrs., are not for the suburban areas. The emphasis of new separated bike lanes for the next 2-3 years, are only in the downtown area...not in the suburbs. I guess for negative response of some TE forumites here, that would meet their needs: no separated on road bike lanes in the suburban areas since people seem distrust/dislke them intensely.

That's actually sound like the complete opposite of what people have been saying here… the slower and busier the road and the more intersections it has the less desirable it is for it to have a separated cycle track - that's when the cycle track carries the *highest*risk to the cyclist and vehicular cycling the lowest…. Not only that, in higher density areas it's impossible for cycle tracks to actually go to all of the places where cyclists would need to travel. The higher speed more suburban streets with few intersections and less on street parking and fewer destinations lend themselves better to the creation of safe bike lanes and separated trackways.

As far as driverless cars go… well I expect I'd never experience a punishment pass from one of them…

[shootingstar]

Eden:
Not only that, in higher density areas it's impossible for cycle tracks to actually go to all of the places where cyclists would need to travel. The higher speed more suburban streets with few intersections and less on street parking and fewer destinations lend themselves better to the creation of safe bike lanes and separated trackways.


Well, is this happening in Seattle? In Portland? In Washington DC? More separated bike lanes in the suburbs vs. in the denser, core/downtown areas?
What people like in residential areas is the convenience of free on street parking....but there's a cost borne by the municipality to keep that space "free" and not always used. Unless the resident living in the neighbourhood pays an annual parking fee for the right to park on that street....which is what happens in Toronto for homes that do not have a driveway or garage at all. It's been going on for the last few decades.

I don't agree that separated bike lanes don't go to places where people live. It is possible in some rare cities in North America. In the core areas of Vancouver, more people are moving into the downtown areas. There are 2 new public schools being built. This has been going on for the last 10 yrs. We live in the downtown area of Vancouver.... condos, townhouses and (a lot less) semi-detached homes.

Sure some suburban streets are great candidates....some of them are shockingly wide (what for?) with very little car traffic because it's purely residential area and it's not even arterial road. I remember yelling at my partner in a pleasant suburban neighbourhood on a peaceful street where a car appeared every 5 minutes..."This is 4 car lanes wide!" Just stupid but of course, a side road lane is for the occasional car park on street..for visitors or pure homeowner convenience when they have their own driveway. There's no other reason for that width.

Keep in mind, I grew up on a lovely one way, 2 lane street with historic detached homes and leafy trees in the downtown area off a major aterial road that hummed with traffic and transit. I think I know what I'm talking about after growing up on an inner city street where the traffic was naturally calmed because it was a single lane one way for cars. Car drivers wouldn't be using our street for a shortcut, that's for sure because they had to slow down.

[OakLeaf]

thinking that assumes everyone, even children are competent cyclists and that drivers are reliable, competent.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying that able bodied adults need to behave like competent drivers when they operate vehicles, and if people willfully refuse to do so, the appropriate response isn't to spend hundreds of millions of dollars so they don't have to.

Children need to learn to drive cars and motorcycles too, but we don't create a whole parallel system of roads for them to do so. I think we all recognize what a disaster that would be!

[OakLeaf]

separated facilities make cyclists feel safer and make motorists feel more secure, but to tell you the truth I think that's a bad thing… the last thing we need on our roads is complacency and good feelings… .

Exactly. The "magic white line." I've had drivers actually tell me that they get nervous when riders are too close to the line. Like it absolves them of any effort to pass at a safe distance. And I've obviously seen plenty of riders acting as though it's a force-field, too.

[VeganBikeChick]

Eden, it doesn't sound like 2nd ave is any better. I rode it once by bike when it just had the left bike lane - and once was enough for me. I likened it to a death trap.

[smilingcat]

Oui!! No matter how well the cycling and car traffic is integrated onto one road, there is always some idiot who is willing to disrupt it.

sharrows: shared bile and car lane. TAKE THE LANE!! Well some idiot try to run me over on one never mind what all the street signs said and sign on the road said. He WANTED TO RUN ME OVER!!

bike lanes next to a parked car: Boy do I hate those things. I take the road. I've also had a guy going the wrong way on a bike lane. He forced me into the road and he kept trying to go to my left forcing me literally onto the yellow line. We stopped face to face and he said I need to be going on his left. We had a screaming match. HUH? He thought the bike lane was bi-directional.

For city planners and street designers, bike lanes and pedestrian traffic as an afterthought. If they commuted most of the time, maybe they'll see the light of day on what works and don't work.

Yes we NEED BICYCLE EDUCATION FOR EVERYONE AND NOT JUST CYCLISTS!!

AND YES BE SEEN. Ive had epithet thrown at me for my gaudy bright cloth. Hey, I'm still here BE VISIBLE AND BE SEEN!

[PamNY]

I agree, Oak. I wouldn't trust the drivers around one of these lanes, but even more, I wouldn't trust the behavior of the cyclists! And, when I used one, it was just totally disorienting to me.

Why would the behavior of the cyclists be different? Some cyclists ride safely; some don't. Traveling a couple of blocks in a separated, bi-directional lane isn't going to change that.

One factor that I haven't seen discussed here is that, at least where I am (NYC), cyclists are required to use bike lanes when they are available. Cyclists can be (and have been) ticketed for riding outside the bike lane if one is available.

[Crankin]

We don't have enough bike lanes for that to happen. Perhaps it does in the city, where there are more bike lanes each year. But, based on what I've seen driving into Boson every month for our theatre night, cyclists are still dodging cars and weaving between them. However, my son *was* ticketed in Cambridge, for running a red light on his bike. Every so often they go on a rampage and do this.
As far as my comment above, of course there are bad cyclists on the road, but being on a multi-directional path just has so many more opportunities for accidents. The cyclists I've seen on bike paths, don't seem to stay to the right and don't follow any rules, on the whole. So, I fear that these are the people who would just cross over into my lane and there would be a head on collision. When I rode the multi-directional path in Quebec, I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. I was not happy when I got to the cross street and had to make a left, off of the path. There were no special provisions to do this, whereas, if I had been on the road, I would have taken the lane and done as any other car would do.

[ny biker]

Why would the behavior of the cyclists be different? Some cyclists ride safely; some don't. Traveling a couple of blocks in a separated, bi-directional lane isn't going to change that.

One factor that I haven't seen discussed here is that, at least where I am (NYC), cyclists are required to use bike lanes when they are available. Cyclists can be (and have been) ticketed for riding outside the bike lane if one is available.

As near as I can tell you can pretty much be ticketed at any time for any reason in NYC. Recently a cyclist there was ticketed for "riding on the sidewalk" after he was struck by a car while riding on the road and thrown onto the sidewalk by the impact.

[Eden]

In Washington state cyclists are explicitly *not* required to use bike lanes even if they are present. In Oregon, I believe they are.

[OakLeaf]

Traveling a couple of blocks in a separated, bi-directional lane isn't going to change that.

A couple of blocks isn't. But when a cyclist is taught that their place is off the street, they're discouraged from learning traffic skills, and they literally don't know how to behave. It's not that their INTENT is to ride unsafely. More and more, I see riders kitted out on moderately or even higher priced bikes, in helmets and high-visibility jackets, riding on the sidewalks or against traffic or hugging the curb. It's no longer just the stereotypical people who look like they're either homeless or have lost their drivers' licenses to DUIs, people who never rode bikes before and have suddenly found it's their only transportation. It's people riding solely for recreation, trying to be safe, but with no idea how to do so, and in the process endangering everyone, themselves not least, but me as a pedestrian enormously.

I'm with Smilingcat. I've never been much of a fan of graduated licensing for cars only, but I've said for years that no one should get a car drivers' license until they've had a motorcycle license for at least two years, and mandatory bicyclist education before that. Sure my initial reaction to that statement is "good luck with that," just the same as yours probably is, but like I said before, which costs more, hundreds of millions of dollars for these terrifying dangerous separate-and-unequal roads - or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure everyone knows how to use the roads we have, and is cited when they don't?

[shootingstar]

A couple of blocks isn't. But when a cyclist is taught that their place is off the street, they're discouraged from learning traffic skills, and they literally don't know how to behave. It's not that their INTENT is to ride unsafely. More and more, I see riders kitted out on moderately or even higher priced bikes, in helmets and high-visibility jackets, riding on the sidewalks or against traffic or hugging the curb. It's no longer just the stereotypical people who look like they're either homeless or have lost their drivers' licenses to DUIs, people who never rode bikes before and have suddenly found it's their only transportation. It's people riding solely for recreation, trying to be safe, but with no idea how to do so, and in the process endangering everyone, themselves not least, but me as a pedestrian enormously.

Unless, there is hard lobbying to change the law for mandatory cycling education....I don't see not having signed, width marked cycling infrastructure, an even better situation. So the upshot of all this ...forget about cycling infrastructure and just stick to the way how things have been and are for vast urban areas in North America: cyclists on road and abiding by our present state or provincial road vehicle legislation.

Then we should never promote cycling for transportation or recreation that involve car roads because really it's too dangerous /risky for most people, correct? No matter how conscientious a cyclist may be, an error by a car driver, is inherently more dangerous and damaging. It's 1 ton vehicle vs. a bike/human being.

We don't even teach pedestrian safety formally and now we have problems, where some pedestrians are texting while they are walking and not paying attention at all sometimes they cross a path intersection, traffic road intersection or on MUPs. I've had this happen as a cyclist and have also watched such pedestrians behave with cars at traffic intersections.

I realize what you're saying Oakleaf because it appears cyclists are sacrificial lambs in separated bike lanes. However the big question to ask those cities: how many recorded accidents are there, that involve cyclist on/leaving/entering separated bike lane? Would make a fantastic research project...

Honest I am a bit intrigued...there seems to be overblown fears here on use of separated bike lanes even IF they have separation barrier that a car cannot easily drive over. Not all separated bike lanes are crappy and a lot of cyclists behind and ahead of me, are ok. Most cyclists coming towards me in the parallel lane beside my bike lane in a twinned bi-directional bike lane, pay attention, stay in their lane and don't look as if they want to plough down any other cyclist. Everyone respects the parent with cycling trailer with child(ren) or tandem attachments. Yes, the hardest design part isn't cyclists within the lane(s), but the transitions entering and leaving a separated bike lane.In my neighbourhood: https://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dscn0545-360x480.jpg (Paste in your browser.)

Elsewhere: https://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/time-for-emotions-thoughts-of-separated-bike-lanes/
https://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/building-on-low-cost-low-effort-opportunity-dunsmuir-viaduct-separated-bike-lane-into-downtown-vancouver/ (now there is a middle pavement yellow strip to separate cyclists in different directions. This 2010 article was opening day of lane to cyclists.)

If your intention is to go quite fast without other cyclists around, then bi-directional separated bike lane may not be for you.

All I keep on thinking is that I got hit by another cyclist a few months ago on a MUP. I shudder if I got hit by...a car!

May I suggest: Ideally, a municipality should respond quickly any photos of cars parked inside a bike lane. Action is taken swiftly in our city: I was in the car on a weekend, with a transportation dept. staff member who phoned in with her iPhone photo of errant truck with license number, to the city. She didn't identify herself as staff since she wasn't working on the job. The truck was removed within an hr. or so. There is actually a bylaw fine for this but I'm not sure if the contractor got fined.

[Jolt]

One factor that I haven't seen discussed here is that, at least where I am (NYC), cyclists are required to use bike lanes when they are available. Cyclists can be (and have been) ticketed for riding outside the bike lane if one is available.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ (funny, and makes the point that the bike lanes are often obstructed and not usable)

[Eden]

lol… I've watched that. Dude is a little crazy to be doing those stunts in shorts and bareheaded, but it looks like he manages all of his pratfalls without injuring himself.

I do like that Washington is pretty clear with it's laws that it's up to the cyclist to determine what is safest - you're the one on the bike and if the bike lane is making you uncomfortable (and it goes for how far right you are too) it's your prerogative to ride in a better position. Now if all drivers and law enforcement just knew about it….

[PamNY]

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ (funny, and makes the point that the bike lanes are often obstructed and not usable)

I've seen that video -- it's funny and makes a valid point.

[lph]

I've seen that one before, and it STILL makes me wince. He must have knees and elbows made of rubber. Hilarious, though.

[rebeccaC]

.......Honest I am a bit intrigued...there seems to be overblown fears here on use of separated bike lanes even IF they have separation barrier that a car cannot easily drive over. Not all separated bike lanes are crappy and a lot of cyclists behind and ahead of me, are ok. Most cyclists coming towards me in the parallel lane beside my bike lane in a twinned bi-directional bike lane, pay attention, stay in their lane and don't look as if they want to plough down any other cyclist.

Those who ride or have ridden on well-designed bike lanes know the value. It’s good to see some here who have and who posted in this thread. Perhaps those who haven’t or don’t have them locally may be just less likely to support them.....that's one of the values of education and local bicycle organizations. I guess I also give more credit to the learning ability of people who ride. I see all kinds of people on all kinds of bikes here commuting or just out enjoying the day on a bike and not having any serious problems on the bike paths or lanes. I saw it growing up in France, in other European cities, Canada and in the U.S. Nothing is going to be completely safe because there can always be someone making a bad mistake. Being aware of what’s going on around you is a good thing. Perhaps someone who can’t see a car/truck etc. parked in a bike lane and then can’t even manage to slow down enough, if even necessary, to get around it safely and instead just gets upset….should be thinking about where a negative attitude takes them. If someone wants to criticize an unfinished bike lane…so be it. If someone thinks there shouldn’t be any bike lanes…so be it. Anticipating failure isn’t something I do though.

Thankfully there are lots of people in North America working in a positive way to build bike lanes that make for more safety and usage…. especially in inner cities. Personally I would rather encourage those people to learn rather than just criticize their work.

[Crankin]

I don't have a negative attitude; I am being realistic. The behavior I have seen over the past 15 years has not been good. I've ridden on paths in other cities where it's more part of the infrastructure (Boulder, for example) and I still didn't like it. For some reason, I prefer riding on the road. I think part of it is because on a path, I have to look out for things that I find hard to predict behavior for, like kids, dogs and their walkers, riders who are squirrelly. Over the past 15 years I've become pretty good at predicting the stupid things that drivers will do. I also don't ride in places that are just too congested for me to feel comfortable in. I suppose if I lived in the city and I wanted to commute, I would appreciate a path. But, this is one of the reasons I live where I live. It's not that we don't have traffic, but basically, I go out my door and I am riding on country/suburban roads that people drive to, so they can ride. At one point, we had thought about moving to the city I grew up in, which is an older suburb, next to Boston. Then, we started riding. No way. I am not criticizing any bike advocacy work; in fact I belong to several of those organizations. But, I basically agree with Oakleaf. People who ride need to be seen as vehicles and ride as such. Otherwise, it's just confusing to drivers.

[OakLeaf]

I guess I also give more credit to the learning ability of people who ride.

My whole position is based on my feeling that people who use the roads, both with and without motors, CAN learn, and WILL learn. But there have to BE rules, and the rules have to be conveyed to road users, and neither is the case with segregated facilities. People can't learn if there's nothing there for them to learn and no one to teach them!



Anticipating failure isn’t something I do though.

And right there is the problem with bike lanes. The entire concept of safety, is anticipating failure and working to prevent it. Planners assume that they can build whatever they like with no rules at all, and that people willl somehow, by osmosis, figure out how to use it. But one person's a priori idea of how a separate-and-unequal facllity is supposed to work is often very different from another's, and that is precisely the source of the problems we're talking about.

[Eden]

My problem is that it is not actual safety, but only the illusion of…. There's plenty of data to back that up and one rather flawed Canadian study to refute it (they studied a 10 or so block section of separated bike track with *no* intersections and declared that separated cycle tracks reduce cyclist accidents by an amazing 80-90%!!! - total BS- though I do suppose that it prove well that intersections are the problem area… a place that cannot be separated, and the rest of the cycle track is simply window dressing)

I know that some people advocate for making people feel safer, even if it is totally fake, just to get more people out riding. I simply cannot agree with that approach. I don't think it's any coincidence that since Seattle started with these lanes the collision rate for cyclists has increased and it's not just because there are more people out there - the rate of collisions per 1,000 riders has increased, it's been proportional. I think that it's ridiculous that they installed facilities downtown that simply confused drivers… they actually have had to station volunteers and police officers down there to stop people making left turns on red across the lane when the cycling signals are green-straight and some of the volunteers were nearly hit by cars…

All these markings and signage confuse people more than ever… There was a fascinating experiment in Europe. There was a bad intersection in a small town - lots of collision between cars, lots of accidents with pedestrians. It had multiple crosswalks and signs, an ever increasing number of them. The town decided to strip them all away. Took away the lines, the signs, everything. People slowed down and paid more attention because they didn't think the signs and lines were doing the job for them. They started paying attention to what was happening, rather than trying to read all of the signs telling them what to do.. Accident rates went down.

[salsabike]

I would like to see the continuation of research and development on multiple ways for people who ride to ride safely--not just feel safer, but be safe, as well. Not everyone who rides a bike is going to be comfortable with vehicular cycling, and I'd like alternative ways for them to be able to ride. I think that can be done in time, and I'd like to see that work continue.

I did see the Roosevelt/UW bike lane as a driver and it scared the daylights out of me. It dumps out very sharply with little notice or signage just before the U bridge, where a third lane merges in from the left. I too would not ride it as a cyclist yet. But that doesn't mean I want all those bike path alternatives wiped out in general principle. I want them improved. I like greenways too--bike routes through quieter streets that can get you through parts of the city.

I think multiple approaches to safe riding are really worth continuing to look at as long as they are done well and carefully. The world each of us is comfortable in, riding-wise, isn't necessarily the same as other people's, and I'd like those other riders to also have safe ways to ride in the city.

[rebeccaC]

I think multiple approaches to safe riding are really worth continuing to look at as long as they are done well and carefully. The world each of us is comfortable in, riding-wise, isn't necessarily the same as other people's, and I'd like those other riders to also have safe ways to ride in the city.

totally agree....i've seen and ridden on many good designs and as already said would rather encourage than criticize.

btw when roosevelt is repaved soon the bike lane will connect directly to the bridges lane....that has always been the plan

[Eden]

I don't think the greenways are bad -there's really pretty minimal changes to the streets made for them and they don't separate traffic, just give people a pre-planned route on quieter streets. I personally wouldn't always choose those routes - my preference if I want to go fast or simply need to get to my destination is not a neighborhood street, as it would not be in a car, but sometimes I will use them if I do not want to take a more direct route. My street is becoming part of a greenway and the only change we will see is a mid-block speed bump, which I am totally all for. Too many drivers speed down our narrow little city block. When it goes in I shall probably have fun sitting on my front porch and listening to people bottom out on it for the first week or two… I also wouldn't mind seeing the street become one way.. it's too narrow with parked cars on both sides for 2 cars to pass anyway, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.

[Eden]

totally agree....i've seen and ridden on many good designs and as already said would rather encourage than criticize.

Why shouldn't we criticize? Too many things just get tried without real in-depth thinking about their consequences- green bike boxes which were supposed to be this great panacea to prevent right hooks were found to have at times doubled the rate of collisions in Portland, OR…. I'm sure it was all very well intentioned, but it seems to me, the planners lack the real world cycling experience to know that what may look good on paper doesn't always translate to actual safety.

Why shouldn't I criticize, when some things seem super obvious to me? Take 2nd Ave - why in the world did they keep it on the left!? While I probably wouldn't be any more inclined to use it (I believe that visibility is #1 - and any lane that hides me behind parked cars is not an option), at least if the whole thing had been relocated to the right it would still be better in a number of ways. 1 - it is expected by motorists that if there is a bicycle lane it will be on the right. 2 - more motorists are trying to make left hand turns to access I-5 than are generally trying to make right hand turns to access sr-99 or the waterfront 3- fewer garage entrances on the right hand side as compared to the left.

But feeling good is being good eh… people feel safer so they must be… sigh…

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

[shootingstar]

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

They're all good, practical suggestions, Eden.
For 2-4 in our city, the long-time residents here are prairie folks --they want wide open spaces, everywhere : on the roads, their homes with enough space to separate from their neighbours (which results in urban suburban sprawl bigtime. Calgary's geographic spread is twice as much as Metro Vancouver but Calgary has about half of the population of Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver has over 15 suburban cities.), etc.

It's actually tiring to live in a city (1.2 million people) with..this big space mentality. Just 2 blocks from my downtown neighbourhood are 4-lane one way downtown streets, several different equaly wide streets with cars clicking at 60 km/hr. a legal limit, ..that's what this obsession about wide roads and dedicated to cars means. This also includes allowing car parking in those side lanes. Which are nearly empty /very quiet 80% of the day. VERY different from Toronto where such wide 1 way downtown streets are heavily used with moving cars, over 70% of the day. Latter is proper use of cars for cars not when a wide multi-lane road is only used 20% of the whole day. I'm speaking as someone who lives only 2 blocks away from such a road. It's a laughable in a pathetic way ...as a cyclist and as a pedestrian waiting for the traffic light to change (almost 2 min. wait and no pedestrian activated light signals) for ...an empty road.

[PamNY]

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

Why would you say road diets are unpopular? And what does glamour have to do with anything? Road diets are very important and people are requesting them in some cases (in NYC, anyway). Granted, not everyone agrees and road diets are controversial -- but there is considerable support. Similarly, people are begging for more enforcement of speed limits.

Here's an example of a road diet that apparently has improved conditions. I was on the un-dieted portion of this avenue yesterday and I don't think anyone was driving under (or even near) the speed limit.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/05/21/speeding-ped-injuries-drop-sharply-after-4th-avenue-road-diet-in-sunset-park/

[salsabike]

Actually, road diets are increasingly used here, and seem to be working fairly well. I think most of the steps Eden mentioned are feasible in Seattle, to varying degrees. Some would require a longer-term policy-and-mind-changing approach than others. #5 is the only one I think will probably never happen.

[Eden]

Road diets are being used here - and to the credit of the planners, even they usually meet some pretty vocal resistance, they are still happening. The results so far have been, as far as I know pretty positive. It sound somewhat counterintuitive that reducing a street from 4 lanes to 3 can make it handle more traffic, but the center turn lane usually promotes better flow than happens when people are weaving to avoid left turners. MLK Boulevard got a road diet and it's much better than it used to be. 23rd Ave is getting a facelift soon as well.

[ny biker]

Why shouldn't we criticize? Too many things just get tried without real in-depth thinking about their consequences- green bike boxes which were supposed to be this great panacea to prevent right hooks were found to have at times doubled the rate of collisions in Portland, OR…. I'm sure it was all very well intentioned, but it seems to me, the planners lack the real world cycling experience to know that what may look good on paper doesn't always translate to actual safety.

That's interesting about the bike boxes and increased collisions -- in DC they are adding more of them, and I know a bike/ped advocate in one of the close-in suburbs here who thinks they're great. I personally find them mystifying -- they look like special green crosswalks for bicycles -- and I can't imagine using them.

[Eden]

The problem with green bike boxes is that they are really only effective when traffic is stopped and if there is 'no right on red' for the intersection. Bikes go to the front and wait in the box when the light is red and are able to start out before traffic, thereby avoiding a right hook. Sounds great right? Well… in theory, but the problem never really was when traffic was stopped and when traffic is moving they don't do anything aside from place cyclists in a poor road position.

It's been shown that when traffic is moving both automobile drivers and cyclists feel that because the intersection is marked that now the other party must have more awareness and consequently neither pays as much attention as they would at an unmarked intersection. Drivers are more likely to make a right without thoroughly checking for cyclists on their right and cyclists are more likely to proceed quickly, next to rather than behind traffic, straight through without being absolutely sure that traffic on the left is not going to turn across their path. The real solution to this use the middle of the lane at intersections - don't put yourself in a situation wherein someone might turn across your path.. it does require that you plan ahead so that you can merge safely with traffic before the intersection and discipline - when traffic is slow the temptation to pass all of the stopped cars can be really great, but if done it really needs to be done with a huge amount of caution.

This same problem makes downhill bike lanes bother me a great deal as well as a driver and as cyclist. On a bike I won't use them, as downhill I am generally equal to if not better than the autos in terms of speed and maneuverability. When driving and having to make a right - I check, double check, triple check before ever turning as I know how quickly a cyclist can come up on you and I never want to cause someone to crash.

[ny biker]

Around here, drivers generally ignore No Turn on Red signs. And despite all the efforts to get 3-foot laws passed around here to protect cyclists, most cyclists squeeze between stopped cars and the curb in order to pass all the cars and run red lights -- which to me tells drivers that the cyclists are comfortable being a few inches away from cars.

[Eden]

What I see with the green box they put near my house is that we don't generally have no right on red intersections, so drivers don't expect one. Many drivers have never noticed the sign that was put up and they don't know what the green box means, so they continue to make rights on red. Cyclists on the other hand more often know how the green box is supposed to work and are expecting that drivers will follow the rules… Fortunately it's on a moderately steep up hill section of street, so cyclists are not going so fast they cannot react to someone who turns across the box illegally. As far as I know only a few were put in as an experiment here, and while they haven't to my knowledge been removed, I don't think the program continued. The city is still using green pavement markings to indicate certain areas where bike lanes merge into regular traffic and some sections where regular traffic must cross bike lanes. I don't know if those make any difference or not to remind motorists to check and cyclists to prepare or if they suffer from the same problem of making it the other guy's problem. The green paint doesn't look gritty or non-slip, so it gives me the heebie jeebies to ride on if it's wet, but I don't think it's overly slippery - I do try to avoid it when possible though...

[ny biker]

Related to bike lanes, I just posted a thread with a link to a great column by Bob Mionske about door zones and bike lanes. He points out that it is often safer to ride to the left of a bike lane in order to avoid being doored. This is a big issue that I have with some of the roads in my town that were retrofitted -- restriped to narrow the car lanes and add bike lanes -- while on-street parking is allowed and in fact is heavily in demand.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=54738

[rebeccaC]

My problem is that it is not actual safety, but only the illusion of…. There's plenty of data to back that up and one rather flawed Canadian study to refute it (they studied a 10 or so block section of separated bike track with *no* intersections and declared that separated cycle tracks reduce cyclist accidents by an amazing 80-90%!!! - total BS- though I do suppose that it prove well that intersections are the problem area… a place that cannot be separated, and the rest of the cycle track is simply window dressing)

What Canadian study are you referring to?....I'd like to read it

The 7 month Anne Lusk Harvard Montreal study I mentioned earlier included 6 (two way on one side of the road) cycle tracks and then reference streets that were parallel to the cycle tracks with the same cross streets as endpoints, subject to the same intersection frequency, cross traffic, car volume and speed. It found the two way on one side of the road lanes safer with a crash rate of 10.5 per million kilometer vs 67 per million kilometer for the reference streets.



green bike boxes which were supposed to be this great panacea to prevent right hooks were found to have at times doubled the rate of collisions in Portland, OR….


To be more accurate…..if you're referencing the older study done by PBOT for the Federal Highway Administration (the only Portland one showing an increase)....the vast majority of those 32 accidents, over 4 years, 81% were right hooks at just a couple of intersections on a couple of streets that were also downhill so people riding were going faster through the intersections than other streets and one with a right turn on-ramp to a freeway. ALL the other streets, the majority, had a safer record, including with right hooks, after the green boxes were painted. With separate signals, no turn on red signs, a slow down sign for bicycles, a $242 fine for an illegal right turn and a prohibition of vehicle right turns at one intersection all those lanes are now safer. Right hooks are a problem for all transportation designers. Montreal, Chicago, Portland etc. have all worked on better designs and are continuing to think through new solutions that can help. My personal bicycle safety measure is to just approach an intersection with caution and make sure I’m seen. I’ve never had a problem while doing that.....if someone wants to just ride fast through an intersection without giving thought to cars possibly making a right turn then my hope is they always make it....unfortunately 88% of that 81% were people who didn't

[OakLeaf]

See though, comparing crash rates on segregated routes vs integrated streets completely misses my point about rider and driver education and behavior. How does the overall crash rate in the census metropolitan area change after segregated routes are added?

[Lelani Carver]

A street very close to home is being resurfaced right now, with bike lanes to be added during the final re-striping. It has on-street parking now, so it remains to be seen whether the bike lane will turn out to be too narrow, too close to the door zone, or both. As a very tentative road rider myself, I'm at least encouraged that my local town is finally doing something about cycle routes.

It turns out my street is considered a "bike route," so we're thinking of putting together some kind of "cyclist network" signing in our window. DH is doing a simple website, simpler than a couch-surfing site, where cyclists could check for a bike friendly location that offers air pumps, water, and so on (without actually opening our home up to strangers). We'd have to clean out the garage and make a space where cyclists could find the bike pump, and maybe a water cooler in the summer months.

[OakLeaf]

Wow, what a cool idea Lelani! Kudos to you and your hubby!