personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[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.

[rebeccaC]

on low-speed roads with lots of intersections any "facilities" appear to increase the risks.

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.

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?

[Eden]

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.

[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.

[Eden]

In Washington state cyclists are explicitly *not* required to use bike lanes even if they are present. In Oregon, I believe they are.

[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?

[shootingstar]

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.

Unless, there is hard lobbying to change the law for mandatory cycling education....I don't see not having signed, width marked cycling infrastructure, an even better situation. So the upshot of all this ...forget about cycling infrastructure and just stick to the way how things have been and are for vast urban areas in North America: cyclists on road and abiding by our present state or provincial road vehicle legislation.

Then we should never promote cycling for transportation or recreation that involve car roads because really it's too dangerous /risky for most people, correct? No matter how conscientious a cyclist may be, an error by a car driver, is inherently more dangerous and damaging. It's 1 ton vehicle vs. a bike/human being.

We don't even teach pedestrian safety formally and now we have problems, where some pedestrians are texting while they are walking and not paying attention at all sometimes they cross a path intersection, traffic road intersection or on MUPs. I've had this happen as a cyclist and have also watched such pedestrians behave with cars at traffic intersections.

I realize what you're saying Oakleaf because it appears cyclists are sacrificial lambs in separated bike lanes. However the big question to ask those cities: how many recorded accidents are there, that involve cyclist on/leaving/entering separated bike lane? Would make a fantastic research project...

Honest I am a bit intrigued...there seems to be overblown fears here on use of separated bike lanes even IF they have separation barrier that a car cannot easily drive over. Not all separated bike lanes are crappy and a lot of cyclists behind and ahead of me, are ok. Most cyclists coming towards me in the parallel lane beside my bike lane in a twinned bi-directional bike lane, pay attention, stay in their lane and don't look as if they want to plough down any other cyclist. Everyone respects the parent with cycling trailer with child(ren) or tandem attachments. Yes, the hardest design part isn't cyclists within the lane(s), but the transitions entering and leaving a separated bike lane.In my neighbourhood: https://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.w...45-360x480.jpg (Paste in your browser.)

Elsewhere: https://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpre...ed-bike-lanes/
https://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpre...own-vancouver/ (now there is a middle pavement yellow strip to separate cyclists in different directions. This 2010 article was opening day of lane to cyclists.)

If your intention is to go quite fast without other cyclists around, then bi-directional separated bike lane may not be for you.

All I keep on thinking is that I got hit by another cyclist a few months ago on a MUP. I shudder if I got hit by...a car!

May I suggest: Ideally, a municipality should respond quickly any photos of cars parked inside a bike lane. Action is taken swiftly in our city: I was in the car on a weekend, with a transportation dept. staff member who phoned in with her iPhone photo of errant truck with license number, to the city. She didn't identify herself as staff since she wasn't working on the job. The truck was removed within an hr. or so. There is actually a bylaw fine for this but I'm not sure if the contractor got fined.

[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)