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 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.

[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.

[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/...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.

[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/...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.

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/

[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/...-lane-dilemma/