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.

[PamNY]

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)

Why is that a bad idea?

[Helene2013]

Why Eden?

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.

[Crankin]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

[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.

[shootingstar]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

Vancouver and Toronto do have some downtown separated bike routes like this. I've cycled them plus one in Montreal. Our lst separated bike lane in Calgary is this 2-way, on 1 side of the road. It actually is not terrible. I use it all the time and it's connected directly to a core bike pathway in a linear park. I can see cyclists using it.....from my balcony.

The engineering dept. just has to ensure it's wide enough and pavement painted a different colour from the car road. (Of course, getting them to do it, is easier said than done.) There must be preferably raised curb median or box planters (VAncovuer), bike corrals, similar linear barriers etc.

The tricky part is when the lane ends and how the bike turns are handled so that the car drivers find it logical too. Some cities use the bike box on pavement for cyclists to position themselves to make a turn. I'm not too fond of them because it requires a lot of driver education.


Then the big question is: It has been thought to attract a higher cycling mode share of female cyclists, that there has to be properly safe cycling infrastructure. Then what is that? The reality is there has to be acceptance for also: slow down car speed limits in residential areas, stronger police enforcement/tracking of distracted drivers (texting while driving), etc.

[rebeccaC]

Why is that a bad idea?

Seattle did a two way protected bike path downtown on 2nd ave that was meant to demonstrate the potential safe bike lanes can bring to Seattle’s city center. Since bike traffic has tripled on that route since the lane was built I’d say people downtown are using it quite a lot. As the core downtown network of protected lanes increase you’ll hopefully see even more riders that also feel safer.

There are a number of two way paths now in the Seattle area. Personally i like any measures that increase bicycle and mass transit options over cars. Both of which Seattle is working towards. There has been an educational component that Seattle and the Cascade Bike club has done for motorists and cyclist especially with regards to signals which were a work in progress for the awhile and enforcement measures at the beginning of each new implementation which target both cars and cyclists.

[PamNY]

I would think that there's great potential for cyclists to crash into each other on a 2 way path. I rode on one like this outside Quebec City and it was totally disorienting, especially since I was going in the direction that was opposite traffic. And, given the behavior I see from other riders on bike paths, I shudder when you add in 2 way cyclists.

Certainly the potential for cyclists to crash into each other exists, but the alternatives are worse. I use several protected two-way bike lanes, and neither is a problem for me. One is separated from traffic by a line of parked cars -- it is a one-way street, but I don't find it a problem to go the opposite direction of traffic. It's much better than the alternative -- going a block to reach a street traveling the direction i want to go. There were a lot of complaints and even a lawsuit when this lane was added -- pedestrians are confused by the two-way bike traffic, and (rightly) complain that many cyclists don't stop at red lights.

The other is on a wide, busy street and separated from cars by Jersey barriers. In this case, a bike lane going the same direction as traffic would give me a left turn across multiple lanes of a busy street when I approach the Brooklyn Bridge. I don't know if there's a left turn arrow at the intersection, but even if there is, that's scary on a bike. I will gladly deal with a two-way bike lane to avoid it. This bike lane is at the end of the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge, so it's a crazy confluence of tourists, speeding drivers, and cyclists. Without the protected bike lane, I would probably just walk my bike a couple of blocks away from the crazy.