personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[VeganBikeChick]

Eden, it doesn't sound like 2nd ave is any better. I rode it once by bike when it just had the left bike lane - and once was enough for me. I likened it to a death trap.

[smilingcat]

Oui!! No matter how well the cycling and car traffic is integrated onto one road, there is always some idiot who is willing to disrupt it.

sharrows: shared bile and car lane. TAKE THE LANE!! Well some idiot try to run me over on one never mind what all the street signs said and sign on the road said. He WANTED TO RUN ME OVER!!

bike lanes next to a parked car: Boy do I hate those things. I take the road. I've also had a guy going the wrong way on a bike lane. He forced me into the road and he kept trying to go to my left forcing me literally onto the yellow line. We stopped face to face and he said I need to be going on his left. We had a screaming match. HUH? He thought the bike lane was bi-directional.

For city planners and street designers, bike lanes and pedestrian traffic as an afterthought. If they commuted most of the time, maybe they'll see the light of day on what works and don't work.

Yes we NEED BICYCLE EDUCATION FOR EVERYONE AND NOT JUST CYCLISTS!!

AND YES BE SEEN. Ive had epithet thrown at me for my gaudy bright cloth. Hey, I'm still here BE VISIBLE AND BE SEEN!

[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)

[Eden]

lol… I've watched that. Dude is a little crazy to be doing those stunts in shorts and bareheaded, but it looks like he manages all of his pratfalls without injuring himself.

I do like that Washington is pretty clear with it's laws that it's up to the cyclist to determine what is safest - you're the one on the bike and if the bike lane is making you uncomfortable (and it goes for how far right you are too) it's your prerogative to ride in a better position. Now if all drivers and law enforcement just knew about it….

[PamNY]

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ (funny, and makes the point that the bike lanes are often obstructed and not usable)

I've seen that video -- it's funny and makes a valid point.

[lph]

I've seen that one before, and it STILL makes me wince. He must have knees and elbows made of rubber. Hilarious, though.

[rebeccaC]

.......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.

Those who ride or have ridden on well-designed bike lanes know the value. It’s good to see some here who have and who posted in this thread. Perhaps those who haven’t or don’t have them locally may be just less likely to support them.....that's one of the values of education and local bicycle organizations. I guess I also give more credit to the learning ability of people who ride. I see all kinds of people on all kinds of bikes here commuting or just out enjoying the day on a bike and not having any serious problems on the bike paths or lanes. I saw it growing up in France, in other European cities, Canada and in the U.S. Nothing is going to be completely safe because there can always be someone making a bad mistake. Being aware of what’s going on around you is a good thing. Perhaps someone who can’t see a car/truck etc. parked in a bike lane and then can’t even manage to slow down enough, if even necessary, to get around it safely and instead just gets upset….should be thinking about where a negative attitude takes them. If someone wants to criticize an unfinished bike lane…so be it. If someone thinks there shouldn’t be any bike lanes…so be it. Anticipating failure isn’t something I do though.

Thankfully there are lots of people in North America working in a positive way to build bike lanes that make for more safety and usage…. especially in inner cities. Personally I would rather encourage those people to learn rather than just criticize their work.

[Crankin]

I don't have a negative attitude; I am being realistic. The behavior I have seen over the past 15 years has not been good. I've ridden on paths in other cities where it's more part of the infrastructure (Boulder, for example) and I still didn't like it. For some reason, I prefer riding on the road. I think part of it is because on a path, I have to look out for things that I find hard to predict behavior for, like kids, dogs and their walkers, riders who are squirrelly. Over the past 15 years I've become pretty good at predicting the stupid things that drivers will do. I also don't ride in places that are just too congested for me to feel comfortable in. I suppose if I lived in the city and I wanted to commute, I would appreciate a path. But, this is one of the reasons I live where I live. It's not that we don't have traffic, but basically, I go out my door and I am riding on country/suburban roads that people drive to, so they can ride. At one point, we had thought about moving to the city I grew up in, which is an older suburb, next to Boston. Then, we started riding. No way. I am not criticizing any bike advocacy work; in fact I belong to several of those organizations. But, I basically agree with Oakleaf. People who ride need to be seen as vehicles and ride as such. Otherwise, it's just confusing to drivers.

[OakLeaf]

I guess I also give more credit to the learning ability of people who ride.

My whole position is based on my feeling that people who use the roads, both with and without motors, CAN learn, and WILL learn. But there have to BE rules, and the rules have to be conveyed to road users, and neither is the case with segregated facilities. People can't learn if there's nothing there for them to learn and no one to teach them!

Anticipating failure isn’t something I do though.

And right there is the problem with bike lanes. The entire concept of safety, is anticipating failure and working to prevent it. Planners assume that they can build whatever they like with no rules at all, and that people willl somehow, by osmosis, figure out how to use it. But one person's a priori idea of how a separate-and-unequal facllity is supposed to work is often very different from another's, and that is precisely the source of the problems we're talking about.