personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[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/

[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 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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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)

[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.