Fast Streets W/Bike Lane or Side Streets?

[KnottedYet]

I will go out of my way to get on the quiet side streets.

I feel safer riding in the road than in a bike lane, and much prefer sharrows on quiet streets to bike lanes on arterials.

But then, I live in a city that has pretty heavy bike traffic year 'round and many traffic calmed streets with bikes and busses given right of way.

[Eden]

I tend to be riding a bit on the faster side when I'm in the city as I'm usually riding to get somewhere and I prefer arterials (faster streets) with no bike lane, to side streets. I am not comfortable going faster than about 12-15mph on the side streets here - most of the intersections are uncontrolled, with either nothing or a small round about and visibility usually doesn't extend very far. That means cross traffic (which is often speeding....) doesn't have to stop so to be safe I have to be able to stop fast - so no riding very fast unless I want to risk being T-boned. (or worse yet hit head on by some bone head going around the traffic circle the wrong way.... this almost happened to me once)

If I'm out in the arterial I can go much faster - the lanes are wider, and there are more of them. There is also less curb side parking on arterials, which I think is inherently dangerous as it blocks your and entering drivers' views. Traffic entering from side streets always has to stop, either for a stop sign or a light and drivers have to be more alert because they know they have to expect traffic, so I don't have to worry as much about someone pulling out in front of me - and if they do I there is more space (more lanes) that could be a possible escape route. I think I get harassed less on multi lane streets too....

[OakLeaf]

City streets are one thing, but on highways with an actual speed of 55+, I feel safer when I don't have to share a lane with traffic. The highways aren't nearly as pleasant as the back roads, that's for sure (except for the shallower grades, which is definitely worth the traffic on a day when I'm sore), but IMO they're safer, and obviously they're quicker just by being direct.



I know the difference between 15 and 23 is enormous when you're on a bicycle, but when you're in a car doing 55, I don't think that difference between bicyclists is significant at all.

[Velocivixen]

@Oakleaf, the streets I'm talking about aren't "highways", but "arterials" where the speeds range fro 30-45 mph.

Overall I will try to take side streets, even if I have to get somewhere in a hurry. I feel safer on quiet side streets. Only problem is that some cars also feel "safer" and they don't always completely stop at stop signs, etc. My average speed around is typically 10-14 mph.
I think, in my case, it wouldn't have been so bad taking side streets if I hadn't gotten completely LOST! Seriously, I have NEVER gotten lost while using a street map. I have a natural ability with "directionality". It was cloudy and I couldn't get a clear idea of where the sun was. I seriously thought I was having a stroke or something because things weren't where they were supposed to be. I am going to DRIVE this route and figure out where I went wrong because I do want to be able to ride it without having to look at my map 20 times.

[Mr. Bloom]

Velo, you're on the road to becoming a member of the "bold 1%", a phrase I first heard from Portland's own Mia Birk.

I suspect that with time, experience, and confidence, you'll evolve toward simply seeking well paved roads and traffic speed will become a secondary consideration.

On a recent trip to Sarasota, I rode a couple hundred miles, mostly on roads with designated bike lanes. It was a gut check for me since their straight and flat roads allow for traffic regularly going 50-70mph in the dense urban areas...three feet from me! I remember one spot where I had to merge from a bike lane through five lanes (at an interstate interchange) as the road quickly went from 5 lanes to 1 lane...I stuck to the rules, signaled often, and it went well

[OakLeaf]

That's what I meant. If the posted speed limit on an "arterial" is 40 or over, the actual "ambient" speed is usually closer to 60-65. It isn't the speed per se, but the likelihood that drivers won't be paying attention precisely because they're on a road that feels and drives like a limited access highway, even though in fact it isn't. And if we're talking about commuter hours, then we're talking about people who are so distracted that they can't even be bothered to remember if they left their baby in the back seat, let alone look at the road when they're driving.

Mr. B., I don't know Sarasota at all, but I'm a little surprised that Indianapolis doesn't have similar roads - I know Columbus has many, and used to have more until they added bike lanes on some of the east-west connectors.

[Catrin]

Mr B. is in southern Indiana, though he can be in Indy in about an hour. Indianapolis has arterials, of course, but not many like he described in Sarasota. Generally speaking they are two lanes (each direction)'with lots of lights. There are a few with three lanes each way but typically anything more is one of our four interstates. I can only think of a few exceptions in the city - I build travel model simulations of the area in my job.

My trainer has been riding all of his life and couldn't be bolder on road or mountain bike, and has told me that urban riding in Indianapolis isn't like other places he has lived - he thinks the lanes tend to be more narrow. We do have bike lanes, but few outside downtown and most roads don't have a shoulder, not a real one, and often are filled with cr*p though I imagine that is the case in most areas. Thankfully the Mayor just announced plans to really increase the number of bike lanes in the city this year - by next spring we will have quite a few more miles of lanes

Hmmm, no wonder I prefer my country roads!