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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
Why is that a bad idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
Be patient….:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeccaC
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.
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...hmmmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
i'm taking the first option :)....others can do what they want to.
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.
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.
+1 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by buffybike
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.
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/...nes/?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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
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/...ths-a-summary/
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by ny biker
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.
Here's some stuff about the Pennsylvania Ave bike lanes in downtown DC:
http://chasingmailboxes.com/2013/05/...-lane-dilemma/
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Helene2013
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 for those interested.
Some interesting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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/...rlds-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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lph
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shootingstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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?
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.