Cycle tracks.... what do you think?

[Eden]

Seattle is adding more and more cycle tracks to our streets these days. A cycle track is a semi protected lane that can be uni or bi directional. There is a proposal and now some money to add a bi-directional cycle track to a street just one down from mine.

I am very much against this..... I think that cycle tracks, and especially ones that have cyclists traveling *against* traffic are an extremely bad idea. Even the Dutch admit that this arrangement is less safe at intersections (in their study collisions at intersections rose 18%! and I think that may have been with uni-directional lanes) and Dutch drivers are much more accustomed to bike traffic and suffer stricter penalties/liability laws than our drivers ever will.

The argument is that they encourage more people to ride as they feel safer.... to me this is a very painful way of thinking... The idea of putting people in more danger to make them feel safer - it really hurts my brain that real data and experience are discarded to make people feel warm and fuzzy, rather than doing the hard work of actual education and law making that really could increase safety.

Do cycle tracks reduce overtaking accidents - yes... marginally - are overtaking accidents scary to new cyclists - yes. Are cyclists on city streets likely to be hit in an overtaking accident.... no (they comprise about 4%... and are more likely to take place at night, on narrow, poorly lit, often rural, roads with speed limits over 35mph) Even the city's own web site all but admits these tracks only make people *feel* safer... they say "Cycle tracks help eliminate perceived risk and fear of collisions". Is it worth it?

[tulip]

Are you against all cycle tracks or only the bi-directional ones?

[shootingstar]

I would love to believe that ongoing heavy education of both car drivers and cyclists will reduce collisions but now with drivers texting (which was never possible 25 yrs. ago) and despite legislation in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta which bans car driving while texting, I'm not convinced much on driver "education". We can't even stop people from texting while they're driving despite police efforts.

It depends how carefully the cycle track is designed in relation to roads, with adequate barrier separation from cars, at intersections, signage, lighting and how cyclists enter/leave them.

Bi-directional tracks are a challenge to design for safety.

Yes, I do use one...there's one in my neighbourhood. I also lived in Vancouver where there were/are bidirectional cycle tracks with barriers from cars, within half km. from home which I used.

[ny biker]

Here are some recent thoughts on cycle tracks from the editor of Bicycle Quarterly. It's very interesting reading.

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...rate-or-equal/

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...ths-a-summary/

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...ths-in-berlin/

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...-the-cyclists/

[Eden]

lol - NY Biker - the first article's photos are Seattle (or at least quite close - I recognize many of those streets) - ... I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't care for the trend.

[OakLeaf]

I'm totally with you, Eden.

Yes, there need to be parks where children can learn to ride and disabled people can have recreation. Conflating those parks with transportation thoroughfares is a Very Bad Idea. We don't let children learn to ride motorcycles on public streets, and yes it's unfortunate how expensive the trails are if they don't have access to property, but that doesn't mean we *should* let them learn to ride on public streets.

There will never be enough funding to create segregated facilities that go everywhere, and so the default will be roads accessible to cars. Then what? People assume that all those businesses and homes are not accessible by bicycle.

Another aspect of segregated facilities that doesn't get much, if any, thought, is that if adults get used to riding in segregated facilities, then where there are no segregated facilities but there are pedestrian facilities, they will ride on those. Even when it's illegal. Even when the streets are exceedingly safe for cycling.

I can't tell you how many times, while I've been running on sidewalks, that people on bicycles have run me off the sidewalk and into car traffic. That is the natural and predictable consequence of segregated bicycle facilities, as far as I'm concerned, and it's extraordinarily dangerous. Last year (shortly after the injury I'm still rehabbing, where someone on a bicycle on the sidewalk was a contributing factor), I called someone out on this when I caught up to them on a drawbridge. They proceeded to argue with me about whether or not it was legal for them to be riding on the sidewalk. Like, dangerous and rude isn't enough??? They're going to do it unless someone outlaws it, no matter how dangerous it is to themselves and other sidewalk users?

[lph]

The closest I've come to a cycle track is a very lightly "protected" bike lane, with a couple of rows of cobblestone dividing it from the rest of the road. It's absolutely terrible, as it's way too narrow and full of potholes, being close to the edge of the road, but drivers still expect you to stay within that narrow little strip.

My gut feeling is that cyclists that will need to merge or interact with car traffic at some point should be visible to drivers, and not just pop up out of nowhere. Pedestrians do, but they're moving a lot slower and do not have the same need to keep up momentum that cyclists have.

Bi-directional ones sound like an accident waiting to happen.

[Eden]

I am not a fan of cycle tracks in general. I think that even uni-directional ones are at best slightly less safe at intersections and bi-directional ones are somewhat suicidal. I think they provide a bit of a distraction to motorists and cyclists and create a situation for cyclists that makes it more difficult to navigate (it's like being on a limited access roadway), though they do at least provide a car door free area for riders who either don't know better or are too timid to ride a safe distance from parked cars.

The way they are being set up here they increase the amount of conflict between pedestrians and bicycles, as there are bus stops on the street side of the protected lane, which means people exiting or entering buses end up crossing/or waiting in the bike lane...(and may not treat it like a traffic lane - I saw a guy standing in it texting...) I don't think the little bit of curbing put in for a cycle track is any better than simply removing on street parking. I do think that any bike lane/wide lane that is shared with cars greatly increases he likelihood of being right hooked, so have a personal preference to using streets without any sort of "accommodation". I want motorists to be very aware that they are passing me - putting me off in a separated lane removes me from their immediate thinking, so they can pass me without even noticing then suddenly turn...

I do accept that not everyone is fast enough or comfortable enough to ride like I do, however I remain unconvinced that this is a good solution. I dislike the idea of anyone creating an illusion of safety - it makes everyone, cyclists and motorists alike more complacent and less careful. Even European countries do not recommend this type of facility for the type of areas that Seattle is putting them on- city streets. Experience from other countries indicates that the design and location of cycle tracks can greatly impact their safety. Cycle tracks may be appropriate along roads that have high vehicle speeds and high traffic volume, but few intersections, driveways, and other junctions (From a Florida DOT study) The street near me is a regular city street with a 30mph speed limit and normal short Seattle city blocks - not a place that is appropriate at all.