personal safety & signed bike routes in residential neighbourhoods

[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]

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.

[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/

[salsabike]

Actually, road diets are increasingly used here, and seem to be working fairly well. I think most of the steps Eden mentioned are feasible in Seattle, to varying degrees. Some would require a longer-term policy-and-mind-changing approach than others. #5 is the only one I think will probably never happen.

[Eden]

Road diets are being used here - and to the credit of the planners, even they usually meet some pretty vocal resistance, they are still happening. The results so far have been, as far as I know pretty positive. It sound somewhat counterintuitive that reducing a street from 4 lanes to 3 can make it handle more traffic, but the center turn lane usually promotes better flow than happens when people are weaving to avoid left turners. MLK Boulevard got a road diet and it's much better than it used to be. 23rd Ave is getting a facelift soon as well.

[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]

The problem with green bike boxes is that they are really only effective when traffic is stopped and if there is 'no right on red' for the intersection. Bikes go to the front and wait in the box when the light is red and are able to start out before traffic, thereby avoiding a right hook. Sounds great right? Well… in theory, but the problem never really was when traffic was stopped and when traffic is moving they don't do anything aside from place cyclists in a poor road position.

It's been shown that when traffic is moving both automobile drivers and cyclists feel that because the intersection is marked that now the other party must have more awareness and consequently neither pays as much attention as they would at an unmarked intersection. Drivers are more likely to make a right without thoroughly checking for cyclists on their right and cyclists are more likely to proceed quickly, next to rather than behind traffic, straight through without being absolutely sure that traffic on the left is not going to turn across their path. The real solution to this use the middle of the lane at intersections - don't put yourself in a situation wherein someone might turn across your path.. it does require that you plan ahead so that you can merge safely with traffic before the intersection and discipline - when traffic is slow the temptation to pass all of the stopped cars can be really great, but if done it really needs to be done with a huge amount of caution.

This same problem makes downhill bike lanes bother me a great deal as well as a driver and as cyclist. On a bike I won't use them, as downhill I am generally equal to if not better than the autos in terms of speed and maneuverability. When driving and having to make a right - I check, double check, triple check before ever turning as I know how quickly a cyclist can come up on you and I never want to cause someone to crash.

[ny biker]

Around here, drivers generally ignore No Turn on Red signs. And despite all the efforts to get 3-foot laws passed around here to protect cyclists, most cyclists squeeze between stopped cars and the curb in order to pass all the cars and run red lights -- which to me tells drivers that the cyclists are comfortable being a few inches away from cars.

[Eden]

What I see with the green box they put near my house is that we don't generally have no right on red intersections, so drivers don't expect one. Many drivers have never noticed the sign that was put up and they don't know what the green box means, so they continue to make rights on red. Cyclists on the other hand more often know how the green box is supposed to work and are expecting that drivers will follow the rules… Fortunately it's on a moderately steep up hill section of street, so cyclists are not going so fast they cannot react to someone who turns across the box illegally. As far as I know only a few were put in as an experiment here, and while they haven't to my knowledge been removed, I don't think the program continued. The city is still using green pavement markings to indicate certain areas where bike lanes merge into regular traffic and some sections where regular traffic must cross bike lanes. I don't know if those make any difference or not to remind motorists to check and cyclists to prepare or if they suffer from the same problem of making it the other guy's problem. The green paint doesn't look gritty or non-slip, so it gives me the heebie jeebies to ride on if it's wet, but I don't think it's overly slippery - I do try to avoid it when possible though...

[ny biker]

Related to bike lanes, I just posted a thread with a link to a great column by Bob Mionske about door zones and bike lanes. He points out that it is often safer to ride to the left of a bike lane in order to avoid being doored. This is a big issue that I have with some of the roads in my town that were retrofitted -- restriped to narrow the car lanes and add bike lanes -- while on-street parking is allowed and in fact is heavily in demand.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=54738

[rebeccaC]

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)

What Canadian study are you referring to?....I'd like to read it

The 7 month Anne Lusk Harvard Montreal study I mentioned earlier included 6 (two way on one side of the road) cycle tracks and then reference streets that were parallel to the cycle tracks with the same cross streets as endpoints, subject to the same intersection frequency, cross traffic, car volume and speed. It found the two way on one side of the road lanes safer with a crash rate of 10.5 per million kilometer vs 67 per million kilometer for the reference streets.

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….

To be more accurate…..if you're referencing the older study done by PBOT for the Federal Highway Administration (the only Portland one showing an increase)....the vast majority of those 32 accidents, over 4 years, 81% were right hooks at just a couple of intersections on a couple of streets that were also downhill so people riding were going faster through the intersections than other streets and one with a right turn on-ramp to a freeway. ALL the other streets, the majority, had a safer record, including with right hooks, after the green boxes were painted. With separate signals, no turn on red signs, a slow down sign for bicycles, a $242 fine for an illegal right turn and a prohibition of vehicle right turns at one intersection all those lanes are now safer. Right hooks are a problem for all transportation designers. Montreal, Chicago, Portland etc. have all worked on better designs and are continuing to think through new solutions that can help. My personal bicycle safety measure is to just approach an intersection with caution and make sure I’m seen. I’ve never had a problem while doing that.....if someone wants to just ride fast through an intersection without giving thought to cars possibly making a right turn then my hope is they always make it....unfortunately 88% of that 81% were people who didn't