Creating Bike Lanes Isn’t Easy. Just Ask Baltimore. Or Boulder. Or Seattle. WSJ

[simplemind]

In todays WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/creating-bike-lanes-isnt-easy-just-ask-baltimore-or-boulder-or-seattle-1524043800), if you have a subscription.

[fiamme red]

As a commuter who rides 15-20 mph, I hate, hate, HATE segregated bike lanes. Don't fence me in!

[BobO]

As a commuter who rides 15-20 mph, I hate, hate, HATE segregated bike lanes. Don't fence me in!

Seconded. Tucson tried to do not only separated, but elevated bike lanes along Broadway. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

[93KgBike]

that link won't let me read on without paying.

but I think I've heard this argument long enough to write it myself.

someone should argue this issue based on physics and nothing else.

[jtakeda]

As a commuter who rides 15-20 mph, I hate, hate, HATE segregated bike lanes. Don't fence me in!

And all of the sudden you have to stay in “your” lane even though it’s dangerous and often littered with trash, glass and inexperienced road users.

[dbnm]

Albuquerque tried and failed.

They also made an "around the city" bike lane that is about 50 miles but they refuse to clean it. It's filled with glass and debris and bullet shells. Sometimes I don't like my city.

[cgolvin]

BALTIMORE—Cities’ drive to expand bike lanes keeps running into a wall of opposition—even in bike-friendly places like Seattle or Boulder, Colo.

In Baltimore last week, residents of the upscale Roland Park neighborhood beseeched city transportation officials at a boisterous public meeting to remove a roughly mile-long protected bike lane that opened about two years ago along a major thoroughfare.

When the city’s transportation director called it a “complex situation,” several people in the crowd of more than 100 responded with shouts of “No, no!” and “It’s very simple!” and “Put it back the way it was!”

“This is tearing us apart as a community,” said Claudia Diamond, one of the residents asking the city for a “reset” and renewed planning process.

Baltimore is hardly alone. Similar fights have broken out from Philadelphia to Seattle, Boulder to Brooklyn. At issue are protected bike lanes that use barriers like parked cars or bollards to separate bikers from moving cars. Creating such lanes often requires eliminating parking or a lane for cars, changes that affect people’s daily lives.

Supporters say they help prevent car-bike collisions and are a big step up from painted lanes or shared road access. But critics complain about reduced street parking, increased traffic congestion and challenges for delivery trucks navigating city streets.

The number of bike commuters nationwide has ebbed in recent years, but rose nearly 40% from 2006 to 2016, when 864,000 rode to work, according to the Census Bureau. In addition, dozens of cities have rolled out bike-share programs, and ridership nationwide soared to 28 million trips in 2016 from barely 300,000 in 2010, according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

Part of cities’ intent with the lanes is to reverse a trend of increasing cyclist fatalities around the country. The number of cyclists killed in motor-vehicle crashes edged up in 2016 to 840, the most since 1991, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Only 3% of those fatalities occurred in bike lanes, the agency said, compared with 28% at intersections and 61% on roadways.

The protected bike lane trend began in New York City about a decade ago when Michael Bloomberg was mayor, said Kate Fillin-Yeh, who directs strategy at the nonprofit National Association of City Transportation Officials and worked in the Bloomberg administration.

A partial list maintained by People for Bikes shows U.S. cities, led by New York, have added more than 230 miles of protected bike lanes since 2014, a far quicker pace than in prior years.

Tim Blumenthal, president of the Colorado-based advocacy group People for Bikes, said the increase in protected lanes is fueling what has come to be known as “bikelash.”

“Bike infrastructure improvements are a hot button, and some people react really strongly and emotionally and negatively to them,” he said.

In Philadelphia, officials nixed plans to add a protected bike lane on a downtown street after neighborhood pushback, but they are moving ahead with similar projects around Center City.

A battle has also emerged in Seattle over a protected lane on the north side that officials say will be under construction by early summer. Rival groups have squared off over the plan, which would limit parking to one side of the street. Opponents are rallying to “Save 35th Ave,” as supporters clamor for a “Safe 35th Ave.”

In Boulder, the city installed a protected bike lane three years ago and three months later removed part of it, after howls of protest over the loss of one of two vehicle travel lanes in both directions.

“There was kind of a full-speed assumption that we’re Biketown USA, let’s do this. Of course people will understand it,” said Bill Rigler, chairman of the city’s Transportation Advisory Board. “People felt very strongly that it was the dumbest thing Boulder had ever done.”

Though Boulder’s disputed bike lane quickly yielded benefits—less speeding and a 58% jump in cycling traffic, with only minimally longer car travel times—the city did a poor job explaining the rationale beforehand and preparing the public, he said.

[BikeNY]

I can understand the backlash from drivers loosing their precious parking spots or clown car travel lanes, but I can't understand cyclists not wanting segregated bike lanes. This is what pretty much every city street in Europe looks like, and their city streets are narrower than ours!

[fiamme red]

I can understand the backlash from drivers loosing their precious parking spots or clown car travel lanes, but I can't understand cyclists not wanting segregated bike lanes. This is what pretty much every city street in Europe looks like, and their city streets are narrower than ours!Try riding up 8th Ave in Manhattan during rush hour and you'll understand. I just ride with traffic, much faster and safer.

[cachagua]

I can't understand cyclists not wanting segregated bike lanes...


I will go on record saying I don't want segregated bike lanes, and here's why: they make bike riders approach drivers from where they're least expected.

There was an article in the Seattle newspaper last week about bike-riding on sidewalks. This isn't illegal in Seattle, but the article emphasized that it's quite dangerous. They quoted statistics showing the vast preponderance of car-bike collisions, when the bike was being ridden on the sidewalk, occur when the sidewalk ends at a cross-street and the rider enters crossing and turning traffic. It explained that when a bike rider emerges from the "protection" of the sidewalk, a driver will be taken completely by surprise: "He came outta nowhere!"

But the article failed to note that segregated bike lanes duplicate that problem exactly. They give both the bike rider and the driver a sense of security which ultimately proves false, as soon as a cross-street interrupts the bike lane. This has been cyclists' objection to them all along.

The bottom-line problem is that drivers habitually watch for traffic from a specific set of directions. You look around, and if nobody's coming from there, or there, or there -- you're cleared for takeoff, you step on the gas. The configuration of the bike lanes, however, forces bikes to approach drivers from directions other than those they expect traffic from. In contrast, when you are riding with traffic -- when you ARE traffic -- you are where drivers look to see if there's any traffic. And you are infinitely safer there.

That photo of the European bike lane is intriguing -- the bike lane and the sidewalk are combined, not the bike lane and the street. Is there a matching one going the other way, on the opposite side of the street? The lanes Seattle is building put two-way bike traffic on one side of the street, sometimes between parked cars and moving cars. Throw in some islands for bus passengers to embark and disembark, in some places but not in others, and -- it's total chaos. Really, it's worse than simply... um... riding with traffic! The people in, was it Baltimore? --who said "Put it back the way it was!" I'm right with them.

[OtayBW]

As a commuter who rides 15-20 mph, I hate, hate, HATE segregated bike lanes. Don't fence me in!

Seconded. Tucson tried to do not only separated, but elevated bike lanes along Broadway. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

And all of the sudden you have to stay in “your” lane even though it’s dangerous and often littered with trash, glass and inexperienced road users.

I will go on record saying I don't want segregated bike lanes, and here's why: they make bike riders approach drivers from where they're least expected.
I spoke at that Roland Park meeting in Baltimore last week. That 'cyclotrack' is a mess, IMO. I don't live in the city and tend not to ride down there, but I would not ride it if I was down there - at all. Last year, local organizers promoted it heavily and the community 'bought it'. Now that it's implemented, they've taken a historic neighborhood and plastered it over with paint, confusing lane changes, erratic intersections, and high probability of getting doored on both the bike lane and auto through lane. The community realizes now that this thing is a FAIL and are overwhelmingly trying to have this removed with continued push back from local organizers and bike advocacy groups. Really effed up situation, IMO....

[n1ey]

I can understand the backlash from drivers loosing their precious parking spots or clown car travel lanes, but I can't understand cyclists not wanting segregated bike lanes. This is what pretty much every city street in Europe looks like, and their city streets are narrower than ours!

Not True! In many places they add the bike lanes in the wrong places. The bike lanes terminate in very bad intersections. Dublin is a prime example.

Most of Europe is car orientated and it is not a panacea for Bicycling. NPR just carried a segment on Hamburg and the traffic situation. 60% of the people actually drive. Most don't take public transit in Europe; there is no heavy rail subway. Most don't walk.

Bill

[General69]

When they created bike lines in Chicago, I started completely avoiding them. Slow people on rental bikes, cars making right turns right into you, pedestrians standing or walking in them, and cops waiting for you to blow a stop sign or a light. On a street without bike lines, I can ride faster without fear of cops or pedestrians. I do understand a family out on a ride feeling safer in the bike lane and also not having to watch for the dreaded car door. The only way to do it right is to put all cars underground and make the whole city motorized free.


1697958830

[zap]

I'm not a fan of taking a motor vehicle lane and/or parking away from motorists. Other posters already pointed out several reasons why.

I would rather have the monies spent on drivers education, greater motoring fines when cyclist/peds are involved and signage such as cyclists may use full lane.

[cmg]

Often times the bike lanes are designated by city staff that don't ride. They put a set of bikes lanes on a busy south side street in SA and removed the outside lanes to do so. It transformed the street and created long wait periods at the intersections. After 5 years and lots of citizen complaints the city removed the bike lanes. If the city staff had actually ridden in the area they would have discovered cyclist used the cross street immediately to the east for going into town.

[fiamme red]

I will go on record saying I don't want segregated bike lanes, and here's why: they make bike riders approach drivers from where they're least expected.

There was an article in the Seattle newspaper last week about bike-riding on sidewalks. This isn't illegal in Seattle, but the article emphasized that it's quite dangerous. They quoted statistics showing the vast preponderance of car-bike collisions, when the bike was being ridden on the sidewalk, occur when the sidewalk ends at a cross-street and the rider enters crossing and turning traffic. It explained that when a bike rider emerges from the "protection" of the sidewalk, a driver will be taken completely by surprise: "He came outta nowhere!"

But the article failed to note that segregated bike lanes duplicate that problem exactly. They give both the bike rider and the driver a sense of security which ultimately proves false, as soon as a cross-street interrupts the bike lane. This has been cyclists' objection to them all along.

The bottom-line problem is that drivers habitually watch for traffic from a specific set of directions. You look around, and if nobody's coming from there, or there, or there -- you're cleared for takeoff, you step on the gas. The configuration of the bike lanes, however, forces bikes to approach drivers from directions other than those they expect traffic from. In contrast, when you are riding with traffic -- when you ARE traffic -- you are where drivers look to see if there's any traffic. And you are infinitely safer there.

That photo of the European bike lane is intriguing -- the bike lane and the sidewalk are combined, not the bike lane and the street. Is there a matching one going the other way, on the opposite side of the street? The lanes Seattle is building put two-way bike traffic on one side of the street, sometimes between parked cars and moving cars. Throw in some islands for bus passengers to embark and disembark, in some places but not in others, and -- it's total chaos. Really, it's worse than simply... um... riding with traffic! The people in, was it Baltimore? --who said "Put it back the way it was!" I'm right with them.Last year, a young woman was killed by a truck that turned left and hit her in the First Avenue segregated bike lane in Manhattan (the bike lane is on the left side of the avenue): http://thevillager.com/2017/04/13/cyclist-struck-by-truck-on-first-ave-dies-of-her-injuries/. When a driver is making a left turn there, it's hard to see cyclists in advance, since they're behind a row of parked cars.

Paul Steely White, head of Transportation Alternatives (the organization that advocates for cyclist segregation in NYC), has continued to state even after that crash that no cyclist has ever been killed in a "protected" lane in NYC. So what about that woman? He said that she wasn't in the lane, she was in the "mixing zone." :rolleyes:

[EDS]

Try riding up 8th Ave in Manhattan during rush hour and you'll understand. I just ride with traffic, much faster and safer.

Goes both ways. My drip south on fifth avenue (with no bike lane) during rush hour is not fun. I find that when I am on a citibike I prefer the bike lanes, but hate them if I am on my road bike.

[jtakeda]

I will go on record saying I don't want segregated bike lanes, and here's why: they make bike riders approach drivers from where they're least expected.

There was an article in the Seattle newspaper last week about bike-riding on sidewalks. This isn't illegal in Seattle, but the article emphasized that it's quite dangerous. They quoted statistics showing the vast preponderance of car-bike collisions, when the bike was being ridden on the sidewalk, occur when the sidewalk ends at a cross-street and the rider enters crossing and turning traffic. It explained that when a bike rider emerges from the "protection" of the sidewalk, a driver will be taken completely by surprise: "He came outta nowhere!"

But the article failed to note that segregated bike lanes duplicate that problem exactly. They give both the bike rider and the driver a sense of security which ultimately proves false, as soon as a cross-street interrupts the bike lane. This has been cyclists' objection to them all along.

The bottom-line problem is that drivers habitually watch for traffic from a specific set of directions. You look around, and if nobody's coming from there, or there, or there -- you're cleared for takeoff, you step on the gas. The configuration of the bike lanes, however, forces bikes to approach drivers from directions other than those they expect traffic from. In contrast, when you are riding with traffic -- when you ARE traffic -- you are where drivers look to see if there's any traffic. And you are infinitely safer there.

That photo of the European bike lane is intriguing -- the bike lane and the sidewalk are combined, not the bike lane and the street. Is there a matching one going the other way, on the opposite side of the street? The lanes Seattle is building put two-way bike traffic on one side of the street, sometimes between parked cars and moving cars. Throw in some islands for bus passengers to embark and disembark, in some places but not in others, and -- it's total chaos. Really, it's worse than simply... um... riding with traffic! The people in, was it Baltimore? --who said "Put it back the way it was!" I'm right with them.

This +1

Here in the Bay Area the segregated bike lanes have turned into an Uber/Lyft loading zone.

If you happen to ride clear of ride hailing services then you have people attempting to merge into the main thoroughfare—thereby blocking the bike lanes or people trying to turn off the main thoroughfare—thereby right hooking a biker.

People just don’t care—get out of my way attitude

[benb]

I'll use them if they seem safe and don't slow me down.

A lot of them seem to be designed to only allow a cyclist to travel at a speed barely faster than walking, or as others have mentioned they end up giving you a net negative on safety because of the way they interact with road intersections. There's a great section on the Cape Cod Rail Trail in Harwich, MA which I probably have a picture of, perfect example of this. There's a 1/2 mile stretch of the path where there are 5-6 stop signs on the bike path for each driveway. The road is low traffic, flat, great visibility. So the cyclists on the road zips down and has the right of way at all the driveways, and has horizontal separation from the cars pulling out and can see them faster. The cyclist on the path has to stop & start 5-6 times and can't see the cars as early because they have a greater blind spot since they're riding right on top of hedges that block the view into the yards/driveways. It's way safer to ride on the road in situations like that.

Obviously not all the segregated bike lanes in Europe end up causing the cyclists to travel 10mph but the one pictured in the thread would cause me to slow down.. that's essentially a sidewalk, no way I'm going to go 20mph there with American pedestrians/dogs/kids who will turn right into you at the last minute just like they do on our MUTs.

If you slow us all down it negates the entire point of bikes too.. bikes are inconvenient compared to walking unless they let you move faster with less effort.

[cachagua]

Last year, a young woman was killed by a truck that turned left and hit her in the First Avenue segregated bike lane in Manhattan (the bike lane is on the left side of the avenue): http://thevillager.com/2017/04/13/cyclist-struck-by-truck-on-first-ave-dies-of-her-injuries/. When a driver is making a left turn there, it's hard to see cyclists in advance, since they're behind a row of parked cars.

Paul Steely White, head of Transportation Alternatives (the organization that advocates for cyclist segregation in NYC), has continued to state even after that crash that no cyclist has ever been killed in a "protected" lane in NYC. So what about that woman? He said that she wasn't in the lane, she was in the "mixing zone"...

The first fatality in (whoops, sorry, can I say adjacent to?) the Seattle "protected" lanes was almost exactly the same scenario. Happened when the lanes had been in use for something like two weeks.

But the illogic there underscores the fallacy behind the notion that segregated lanes provide "protection": the mixing zones are wildly dangerous, and also, they are inevitable and unavoidable.

Rather than reducing the danger to riders, all segregated lanes do is concentrate it all in fifteen or twenty feet every eighth of a mile. That's not any improvement.

[benb]

I think they actually make it worse overall because you're basically entering/exit traffic each time you go through a "mixing zone", the rider riding in the road is already integrated into traffic going into the mixing zone and so is only taking on the extra risk of the intersection, not the additional risk of entering traffic in the intersection.

We all know it feel super sketchy to start from a stop at an intersection, compared to just riding through the intersection. You have no speed and no one knows you're entering traffic.

Not many people get hit on the sections between intersections. We're all afraid of it because when some DUI wipes out a group of riders from behind it's near national news for cyclists but that's not that many of the incidents, most of the incidents are intersection related right of way issues.

Bike lanes and such only really deal with those "between intersection" scenarios that don't contribute much risk.

[Bradford]

I have about two miles of city riding on my commute between my client's office and the bike path. The segregated lanes on 14th and 15th St. in Denver have made it a much better commute home.

The mixed zones today are the same mixed zones that were there before the path, and the approach and management of those areas hasn't changed at all--they were dangerous before the lanes and are dangerous now. Cars take sudden lefts in front of bikes, cars don't see bikes (or even look for them), and cars tend to illegally park in the lanes if there isn't a hard curb. And don't get me going about the hipsters on fixed gears who blow through red lights and by safer riders like their life goal is to get a Darwin award. All of this was equally true before as it is now, but at least I get something safer a block at a time in between.

Poor execution isn't a good argument against a concept, it is an argument for improvement of the concept. I'll take my lanes, warts and all, and hope they keep getting better as cities learn more.

[fiamme red]

Bike lanes and such only really deal with those "between intersection" scenarios that don't contribute much risk.In my experience, segregated bike lanes are also more dangerous mid-block, because they create a false sense of security. Pedestrians blithely step into the bike lane without warning because they consider it a sidewalk extension, and cyclists feel free to treat a narrow one-way segregated lane as two-way. I often see delivery men on e-bikes riding the wrong way in segregated bike lanes at night and without lights.

[sandyrs]

poor execution isn't a good argument against a concept, it is an argument for improvement of the concept. I'll take my lanes, warts and all, and hope they keep getting better as cities learn more.

+1

[fiamme red]

The Eighth Avenue bike lane in Manhattan, looking north:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-01-18-1453158129-477122-10444442_10152660814181226_389114583491593110_n.jp g

[rousseau]

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread. How is it not obvious that it's exponentially more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic? Cyclists get left and right hooked all the time when pulling up alongside cars stopped in traffic, and they get passed too closely and run the risk of getting doored.

Who drives along a street with a curb-separated bike lane full of cyclists and turns at the corner without checking for bikes? Well, obviously there are idiot drivers out there, but if you leave enough of a no-man's land at each end of the block (instead of having cars parked right to the edge of the intersection) you have more than enough room for motorists to see and be aware of cyclists crossing the intersection.

As for the speedy commuters, the onus is on you to ride safely. If the bike lane gets busy, well...tough luck. One can only dream of North American cities being so Dutch-like that we have critical mass in the bike lanes.

As someone else pointed out, the issue is not existential; it's in the execution.

[cachagua]

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread. How is it not obvious that it's exponentially more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic?

Of course it's more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic than it is for them to ride in a lane all their own, with walls on both sides. The trouble is that lanes like that dump you out into traffic every block, to the absolute surprise of everyone in a car.

Cyclists get left and right hooked all the time when pulling up alongside cars stopped in traffic...

NEVER DO THIS. Never. You've said yourself the best reason not to, but in addition, it is never necessary, and it is never permissible. When you're in traffic, you ARE traffic, and you follow the same rules everyone else does.

Who drives along a street with a curb-separated bike lane full of cyclists and turns at the corner without checking for bikes? Well, obviously there are idiot drivers out there, but if you leave enough of a no-man's land at each end of the block (instead of having cars parked right to the edge of the intersection) you have more than enough room for motorists to see and be aware of cyclists crossing the intersection.

The problem isn't that drivers can't see cyclists. The problem is they don't know they're supposed to look. As I suggested earlier, drivers expect approaching traffic from only a few directions, and bike lanes force bike riders to approach from somewhere drivers aren't even thinking about -- it's literally not in their awareness. Could we educate drivers better? A beautiful idea, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the speedy commuters, the onus is on you to ride safely...

The onus is on you to ride safely in traffic. That doesn't make an argument for segregated bike lanes.

The issue is not existential; it's in the execution.

I'd love to hear your idea about how a separated lane could be built so it overcomes the problems we've been discussing.

[Gummee]

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread. How is it not obvious that it's exponentially more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic? Cyclists get left and right hooked all the time when pulling up alongside cars stopped in traffic, and they get passed too closely and run the risk of getting doored.

Who drives along a street with a curb-separated bike lane full of cyclists and turns at the corner without checking for bikes? Well, obviously there are idiot drivers out there, but if you leave enough of a no-man's land at each end of the block (instead of having cars parked right to the edge of the intersection) you have more than enough room for motorists to see and be aware of cyclists crossing the intersection.

As for the speedy commuters, the onus is on you to ride safely. If the bike lane gets busy, well...tough luck. One can only dream of North American cities being so Dutch-like that we have critical mass in the bike lanes.

As someone else pointed out, the issue is not existential; it's in the execution.
Actually, I feel lots safer riding with the cars than I do in bike lanes or on paths.

It isn't the bikes that are typically the problem, it's everyone else. That includes cars in the bike lane. Pulling in. Pulling out. Turns. Walkers. Joggers. IME on paths, people turn off their brains because 'it's safe.' ...which makes it not safe any more.

M

[Ken Robb]

San Diego has had a protected bike lane along Friars Road in Mission Valley for years. It is separated from auto traffic by a curb which prevents street sweepers from being able to clean the pavement in the bike lane so it's full of trash. I gave up riding in that lane years ago.

[BobO]

AZ-77

https://goo.gl/maps/zSKdCNqrKqM2

There are two bike lanes in this image. One on the roadway with traffic, the other separated. I will not ride on the latter for two reasons. 1. Drivers pulling out of driveways and side streets don't look for cyclists on that path. They are looking for cars on the main road and they usually pull up to the curb not the bike lane. 2. Drivers exiting the main road hook cyclists constantly. It is far, far safer to be on the road with the cars, or, stop at every single crossing to make sure it's clear.

[bobswire]

And all of the sudden you have to stay in “your” lane even though it’s dangerous and often littered with trash, glass and inexperienced road users.

Those bike lanes here in San Francisco are really not made for the likes of us.
They are being built to encourage folks to get on a bicycle who otherwise wouldn't. Think, Netherlands.Let's not become know it all condescending braggarts because we're "real" cyclists.

http://www.sfbike.org/news/safe-streets-for-the-excelsior/

[cinema]

as a cyclist who commuted 40 miles a day 15-20mph

i would prefer to not be hit by a car once a year

however i'd also prefer not to be hit with a bat and robbed by a homeless person who lives on the bike path

can't really win here. in one scenario i would get a check from the insurance agency though.

[rustychisel]

I think every city everywhere is going through the throes of trying to work this one out, with varying degrees of pain, hostility, indifference and success.

FWIW, having spent literally decades thinking about it - on and off - I feel that painted bike lanes often aren't worth the paint expended on them, though I use them, as I require. Segregated bike lanes are a evil idea, for reasons explained in this thread; and sidewalk riding made legal might be great for the slow, and children, but have their own attendant dangers.
Serious education and enforcement is the only way forward, probably involving strict liability.

As it stands, we have an excellent network of well marked bike paths which encompass our city. They're called roads.

[OtayBW]

Of course it's more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic than it is for them to ride in a lane all their own, with walls on both sides. The trouble is that lanes like that dump you out into traffic every block, to the absolute surprise of everyone in a car.



NEVER DO THIS. Never. You've said yourself the best reason not to, but in addition, it is never necessary, and it is never permissible. When you're in traffic, you ARE traffic, and you follow the same rules everyone else does.



The problem isn't that drivers can't see cyclists. The problem is they don't know they're supposed to look. As I suggested earlier, drivers expect approaching traffic from only a few directions, and bike lanes force bike riders to approach from somewhere drivers aren't even thinking about -- it's literally not in their awareness. Could we educate drivers better? A beautiful idea, but I'm not holding my breath.



The onus is on you to ride safely in traffic. That doesn't make an argument for segregated bike lanes.



I'd love to hear your idea about how a separated lane could be built so it overcomes the problems we've been discussing.
Well said. The cycletracks that I have seen have been disasters, counterintuitive to every effective cycling measure that I've ever learned.

[BikeNY]

I'm surprised by all of these responses as well. As far as I'm concerned, pretty much all of the issues brought up against bike lanes are related to poor implementation and education.

That picture I posted earlier is from Munich, where I've spent a lot of time. Pretty much all roads are designed like that, a sidewalk, then the bike lane, then a small grassy island or just parked cars. And yes, they are on both sides of the road. It works perfectly. Pedestrians know not to walk in the bike lanes and drivers know to look at the bike lanes at intersections. The bike lanes have their own traffic lights just like the roads.

I guess it helps that drivers in Germany are immensely better than they are in the US. It's a long process(and expensive!) to get a drivers licence in Germany, with many hours of professional instruction required.

And yeah, I agree, those painted bike lanes between traffic and parked cars are worse than no bike lane at all.

I guess the money would be better spent on education...

[Avispa]

In todays WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/creating-bike-lanes-isnt-easy-just-ask-baltimore-or-boulder-or-seattle-1524043800), if you have a subscription.

Here, in case you don't have one:
http://www.paywallnews.com/news/Creating-Bike-Lanes-Isn%E2%80%99t-Easy--Just-Ask-Baltimore--Or-Boulder--Or-Seattle-.B1JwOeHhz.html

[benb]

Maybe pedestrians in Germany are more intelligent/disciplined too?

It seems to be a fact of life they all act like 5 year olds on a sugar high here.

The Google Street View picture BobO posted is almost an exact example of what I was talking about with the Cape Cod Rail Trail.

Just looking at what's visible in the picture, you can seem in 1/4 mile. The rider riding in traffic with the street has to cross traffic 0 times and is in the same place as the cars that the drivers are looking for.

The rider on the segregated bike path has to negotiate 3 intersections in the same 1/4 mile where both the bike rider & car driver entering traffic may be unsure of who has the right of way. And the car drivers are looking for traffic in the roadway, NOT on the segregated bike lane. They need to turn their head further away from traffic to see you when you're on the bike lane, and you might be more likely to be in the blind spot of the car's A-pillar.

I feel like an awful lot of the LAB style advocacy for this stuff comes out of the commuting crowd. My experience outside of the Boston area is limited but maybe danger is just what the commuter crowd actually wants, I don't see any other groups of cyclists flaunting the rules of the road as much. Whether it's moving onto/off of sidewalks and paths to skip intersections, taking left turns at red lights, you name it. Maybe it's the same "I'm in a rush" mentality that makes drivers act worse on commutes. An awful lot of riders commuting act like they're in some drug fueled midnight alley cat race.

[zap]

edit


I guess it helps that drivers in Germany are immensely better than they are in the US. It's a long process(and expensive!) to get a drivers licence in Germany, with many hours of professional instruction required.


In terms of motoring, Germany is very very different from the USA. In addition to the expense and instruction posted, fines for hitting a pedestrian or cyclist are fairly significant. And blaming the sun will not work in Germany.

[fiamme red]

Try riding up 8th Ave in Manhattan during rush hour and you'll understand. I just ride with traffic, much faster and safer.https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/05/30/eighth-avenues-narrow-sidewalks-land-a-cyclist-in-the-hospital/

Streetsblog blames the crash on narrow sidewalks, but what is really needed here is either a fence between the sidewalk and bike lane, or better yet, being honest and admitting that this segregated bike lane is always going to be an extended sidewalk. But the anti-car zealots will never admit that a segregated lane is inherently a bad design and that cyclists are much safer riding as part of city traffic than as pedestrians on wheels.

[Drmojo]

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the responses in this thread. How is it not obvious that it's exponentially more dangerous for cyclists to ride in traffic? Cyclists get left and right hooked all the time when pulling up alongside cars stopped in traffic, and they get passed too closely and run the risk of getting doored.

Who drives along a street with a curb-separated bike lane full of cyclists and turns at the corner without checking for bikes? Well, obviously there are idiot drivers out there, but if you leave enough of a no-man's land at each end of the block (instead of having cars parked right to the edge of the intersection) you have more than enough room for motorists to see and be aware of cyclists crossing the intersection.

As for the speedy commuters, the onus is on you to ride safely. If the bike lane gets busy, well...tough luck. One can only dream of North American cities being so Dutch-like that we have critical mass in the bike lanes.

As someone else pointed out, the issue is not existential; it's in the execution.

In some parts of Davis--we have the 2 State Solution--a bike lane next to car traffic, and a parallel bike path/sidewalk for slow pokes--works like a charm.
Of course Davis "pioneered" the bike lane in 1967...
And riding in NYC--I thought they did a pretty good job

[Johnnysmooth]

Not True! In many places they add the bike lanes in the wrong places. The bike lanes terminate in very bad intersections. Dublin is a prime example.

Most of Europe is car orientated and it is not a panacea for Bicycling. NPR just carried a segment on Hamburg and the traffic situation. 60% of the people actually drive. Most don't take public transit in Europe; there is no heavy rail subway. Most don't walk.

Bill

This may be a case of high variability depending on locale and culture.

Lived in Vienna for a year, very strong bike culture there, bike lanes pretty much everywhere. High respect among drivers for cyclists on the road outside of city. Excellent mass transit system and trains to outlying areas. At those outlying train stations, they had huge facilities for parking bikes and they were almost always filled as commuters would ride bike to train station and take train into city.

Spent several months in Netherlands and Denmark - similar situation to Vienna but even more bikes and more bike infrastructure.

Despite having the Tour d'France, France's biking infrastructure is lacking. Paris was particularly hard to get around when I lived there working for a French company.

[eippo1]

In Boston, the bike lanes should just be re-purposed as Uber drop off lanes because that's what they're used for. And in the Seaport it's a game of "bounce off the construction barriers while picking up nails."

[tctyres]

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/05/30/eighth-avenues-narrow-sidewalks-land-a-cyclist-in-the-hospital/

Streetsblog blames the crash on narrow sidewalks, but what is really needed here is either a fence between the sidewalk and bike lane, or better yet, being honest and admitting that this segregated bike lane is always going to be an extended sidewalk. But the anti-car zealots will never admit that a segregated lane is inherently a bad design and that cyclists are much safer riding as part of city traffic than as pedestrians on wheels.

I think it always is in rush hour. There are too many people. I've had pedestrians yell at me on 9th headed south that I could stop ringing my bell --- it's not for the pedestrians that see me, it's for those who don't.

That's a pretty typical way the cops did their job there, saying that the elbow was unintentional. The cyclist needs to talk to someone at Vaccaro and White to see what can be done. Steve V. is a cyclist and pretty much shows up wherever there is an injury or death of a cyclists --- taking pictures and recording info.

[beeatnik]

People were coming to blows over this road diet:

South Bay commuters looking to avoid the 405 Freeway have long taken an alternate route through Playa del Rey, passing the coastline and the Ballona Wetlands to reach Santa Monica.

The route is popular — with more than 24,000 vehicles per day — but some residents complained that harried commuters speeding through the neighborhood put pedestrians and children at risk.

The friction came to a head this month, when Los Angeles officials eliminated 9.4 miles of traffic lanes and added 4.3 miles of bike lanes in an effort to reduce collisions.

The restriping led to bumper-to-bumper traffic, sending drive times and tempers soaring. Opponents have drafted an online petition calling on City Councilman Mike Bonin to reverse the "one-lane madness," as well as a fundraising campaign for a formal appeal to the City Council — and a lawsuit to reverse the project, if it comes to that, organizers say.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bike-lane-backlash-20170623-story.html


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mike-bonin-road-diet-20171003-story.html

[tuscanyswe]

I can understand the backlash from drivers loosing their precious parking spots or clown car travel lanes, but I can't understand cyclists not wanting segregated bike lanes. This is what pretty much every city street in Europe looks like, and their city streets are narrower than ours!


I dont use the segregated bike lanes at all here (stockholm) as they are much more risky for anyone trying to go faster than 10 mph. Sure there are likely a bigger chance of a serious accident when riding in the car lanes but the number of smaller accidents in those bike lanes must be 10 x as high.

Average cyclists and pedestrians are not safe to be around imo. Sad but true .)
Theres also a much larger gap in the slowest speed versus the highest speed in those lanes than in car lanes which makes it less safe as well. Much better flow out in the "traffic".

[avalonracing]

This +1

Here in the Bay Area the segregated bike lanes have turned into an Uber/Lyft loading zone.


At least drivers in the Bay Area recognize cyclists has humans instead of some object that needs to put pushed out of the way of their SUV (as they do here on the East Coast).