personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[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.

[Eden]

My problem is that it is not actual safety, but only the illusion of…. There's plenty of data to back that up and one rather flawed Canadian study to refute it (they studied a 10 or so block section of separated bike track with *no* intersections and declared that separated cycle tracks reduce cyclist accidents by an amazing 80-90%!!! - total BS- though I do suppose that it prove well that intersections are the problem area… a place that cannot be separated, and the rest of the cycle track is simply window dressing)

I know that some people advocate for making people feel safer, even if it is totally fake, just to get more people out riding. I simply cannot agree with that approach. I don't think it's any coincidence that since Seattle started with these lanes the collision rate for cyclists has increased and it's not just because there are more people out there - the rate of collisions per 1,000 riders has increased, it's been proportional. I think that it's ridiculous that they installed facilities downtown that simply confused drivers… they actually have had to station volunteers and police officers down there to stop people making left turns on red across the lane when the cycling signals are green-straight and some of the volunteers were nearly hit by cars…

All these markings and signage confuse people more than ever… There was a fascinating experiment in Europe. There was a bad intersection in a small town - lots of collision between cars, lots of accidents with pedestrians. It had multiple crosswalks and signs, an ever increasing number of them. The town decided to strip them all away. Took away the lines, the signs, everything. People slowed down and paid more attention because they didn't think the signs and lines were doing the job for them. They started paying attention to what was happening, rather than trying to read all of the signs telling them what to do.. Accident rates went down.

[salsabike]

I would like to see the continuation of research and development on multiple ways for people who ride to ride safely--not just feel safer, but be safe, as well. Not everyone who rides a bike is going to be comfortable with vehicular cycling, and I'd like alternative ways for them to be able to ride. I think that can be done in time, and I'd like to see that work continue.

I did see the Roosevelt/UW bike lane as a driver and it scared the daylights out of me. It dumps out very sharply with little notice or signage just before the U bridge, where a third lane merges in from the left. I too would not ride it as a cyclist yet. But that doesn't mean I want all those bike path alternatives wiped out in general principle. I want them improved. I like greenways too--bike routes through quieter streets that can get you through parts of the city.

I think multiple approaches to safe riding are really worth continuing to look at as long as they are done well and carefully. The world each of us is comfortable in, riding-wise, isn't necessarily the same as other people's, and I'd like those other riders to also have safe ways to ride in the city.

[rebeccaC]

I think multiple approaches to safe riding are really worth continuing to look at as long as they are done well and carefully. The world each of us is comfortable in, riding-wise, isn't necessarily the same as other people's, and I'd like those other riders to also have safe ways to ride in the city.

totally agree....i've seen and ridden on many good designs and as already said would rather encourage than criticize.

btw when roosevelt is repaved soon the bike lane will connect directly to the bridges lane....that has always been the plan

[Eden]

totally agree....i've seen and ridden on many good designs and as already said would rather encourage than criticize.

Why shouldn't we criticize? Too many things just get tried without real in-depth thinking about their consequences- green bike boxes which were supposed to be this great panacea to prevent right hooks were found to have at times doubled the rate of collisions in Portland, OR…. I'm sure it was all very well intentioned, but it seems to me, the planners lack the real world cycling experience to know that what may look good on paper doesn't always translate to actual safety.

Why shouldn't I criticize, when some things seem super obvious to me? Take 2nd Ave - why in the world did they keep it on the left!? While I probably wouldn't be any more inclined to use it (I believe that visibility is #1 - and any lane that hides me behind parked cars is not an option), at least if the whole thing had been relocated to the right it would still be better in a number of ways. 1 - it is expected by motorists that if there is a bicycle lane it will be on the right. 2 - more motorists are trying to make left hand turns to access I-5 than are generally trying to make right hand turns to access sr-99 or the waterfront 3- fewer garage entrances on the right hand side as compared to the left.

But feeling good is being good eh… people feel safer so they must be… sigh…

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

[shootingstar]

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

They're all good, practical suggestions, Eden.
For 2-4 in our city, the long-time residents here are prairie folks --they want wide open spaces, everywhere : on the roads, their homes with enough space to separate from their neighbours (which results in urban suburban sprawl bigtime. Calgary's geographic spread is twice as much as Metro Vancouver but Calgary has about half of the population of Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver has over 15 suburban cities.), etc.

It's actually tiring to live in a city (1.2 million people) with..this big space mentality. Just 2 blocks from my downtown neighbourhood are 4-lane one way downtown streets, several different equaly wide streets with cars clicking at 60 km/hr. a legal limit, ..that's what this obsession about wide roads and dedicated to cars means. This also includes allowing car parking in those side lanes. Which are nearly empty /very quiet 80% of the day. VERY different from Toronto where such wide 1 way downtown streets are heavily used with moving cars, over 70% of the day. Latter is proper use of cars for cars not when a wide multi-lane road is only used 20% of the whole day. I'm speaking as someone who lives only 2 blocks away from such a road. It's a laughable in a pathetic way ...as a cyclist and as a pedestrian waiting for the traffic light to change (almost 2 min. wait and no pedestrian activated light signals) for ...an empty road.

[PamNY]

I suppose the the steps that I think would make the streets actually safer (for all of us.. drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) would be too unpopular, unglamorous and not high visibility
1- no right hand turn on red *ever* in high density areas
2- road diets - narrow streets to discourage speeding and place center turn lanes to discourage lane weaving
3- more enforcement of speed limits
4- less on street parking on arterial streets and more enforcement of parking violations (keep intersections clear with good sight lines)
5- no cell phone usage period, even hands free, for drivers

Why would you say road diets are unpopular? And what does glamour have to do with anything? Road diets are very important and people are requesting them in some cases (in NYC, anyway). Granted, not everyone agrees and road diets are controversial -- but there is considerable support. Similarly, people are begging for more enforcement of speed limits.

Here's an example of a road diet that apparently has improved conditions. I was on the un-dieted portion of this avenue yesterday and I don't think anyone was driving under (or even near) the speed limit.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/05/2...n-sunset-park/

[ny biker]

Why shouldn't we criticize? Too many things just get tried without real in-depth thinking about their consequences- green bike boxes which were supposed to be this great panacea to prevent right hooks were found to have at times doubled the rate of collisions in Portland, OR…. I'm sure it was all very well intentioned, but it seems to me, the planners lack the real world cycling experience to know that what may look good on paper doesn't always translate to actual safety.

That's interesting about the bike boxes and increased collisions -- in DC they are adding more of them, and I know a bike/ped advocate in one of the close-in suburbs here who thinks they're great. I personally find them mystifying -- they look like special green crosswalks for bicycles -- and I can't imagine using them.

[Eden]

I don't think the greenways are bad -there's really pretty minimal changes to the streets made for them and they don't separate traffic, just give people a pre-planned route on quieter streets. I personally wouldn't always choose those routes - my preference if I want to go fast or simply need to get to my destination is not a neighborhood street, as it would not be in a car, but sometimes I will use them if I do not want to take a more direct route. My street is becoming part of a greenway and the only change we will see is a mid-block speed bump, which I am totally all for. Too many drivers speed down our narrow little city block. When it goes in I shall probably have fun sitting on my front porch and listening to people bottom out on it for the first week or two… I also wouldn't mind seeing the street become one way.. it's too narrow with parked cars on both sides for 2 cars to pass anyway, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.