Protected bike lanes: no me gustan

[C40_guy]

I don't know...some protected bike lanes are okay...

No glass or trash, only the occasional coyote to watch out for...

[72gmc]

No one piece of bike infrastructure is effective without a plan that is actually followed. In Seattle, the Bicycle Master Plan is being used as a whale carcass that sharky local pols can chomp on when it’s expedient for them. We will never see the full benefit of a city-wide plan because it will never be realized.

Meanwhile, police officers sweep the debris from car collisions into bike lanes and consider the job done.

[Pinned]

This made me think of the bike lane on Venice Blvd here in LA - it's the absolute worst bike lane I've ever experienced and I'd rather ride in the road there. It's "protected," but it's spaced so far from the road lanes and has parked cars between the road and the bike lane with right turn lanes that collide with the bike lane and nearly no notice for drivers.

LA has repeated this mistake with similarly terrible bike lanes all throughout DTLA.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

The Netherlands. Drivers have strict liability in a crash with cyclists. Definitely changes how you drive if you're on the hook for an accident by default.

https://www.cvbnlaw.com/2012/04/19/c...united-states/

... and my homeland Belgium - decades ago.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by martl

Looking at the Netherlands, where the concept seems to kinda work, i notice that they work because <snip> the concept has been in place for 40+ years now, so everyone learned to ride/drive with them.

This was my main thought regarding @FlashUNC's post -- that the benefit of changing liability laws will take a very long time to yield results, as new drivers instructed with this in mind gradually displace drivers with decades of ingrained behavior on the road. Not in any way an argument against making such a change, just recognizing that the time to payoff in cyclist safety and reduction in incidents will be lengthy.

Originally Posted by Pinned

This made me think of the bike lane on Venice Blvd here in LA

The experience that triggered my OP was on the "protected" lane on Broadway in Santa Monica. A couple of months ago, on the same stretch, someone had parked their car in the lane .

Another shortcoming of this design: drivers approaching the road with the lane on an intersecting street typically don't come to a full stop and nose their way into the intersection as they examine the flow of traffic. With cyclists in the flow of normal traffic this isn't a problem because there's plenty of space for them to stop once they see the rider, but with cyclists right up against the curb there's less room for them to react.

As usual, and expected, lots of thoughtful responses, which I appreciate. It's clear that any improvements will take a long time and require our own civic engagement, sometimes at odds with others who consider themselves cycling advocates.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

The experience that triggered my OP was on the "protected" lane on Broadway in Santa Monica. A couple of months ago, on the same stretch, someone had parked their car in the lane .

There are a couple blocks of that area of Broadway that are crap. Most of them are good, however.

I think I might have seen the same car there.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

This was my main thought regarding @FlashUNC's post -- that the benefit of changing liability laws will take a very long time to yield results, as new drivers instructed with this in mind gradually displace drivers with decades of ingrained behavior on the road. Not in any way an argument against making such a change, just recognizing that the time to payoff in cyclist safety and reduction in incidents will be lengthy.



The experience that triggered my OP was on the "protected" lane on Broadway in Santa Monica. A couple of months ago, on the same stretch, someone had parked their car in the lane .

Another shortcoming of this design: drivers approaching the road with the lane on an intersecting street typically don't come to a full stop and nose their way into the intersection as they examine the flow of traffic. With cyclists in the flow of normal traffic this isn't a problem because there's plenty of space for them to stop once they see the rider, but with cyclists right up against the curb there's less room for them to react.

As usual, and expected, lots of thoughtful responses, which I appreciate. It's clear that any improvements will take a long time and require our own civic engagement, sometimes at odds with others who consider themselves cycling advocates.

I'll take efforts at changing driver behavior, even with a potentially longer tail, over useless infrastructure projects that don't make anyone safer.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I'll take efforts at changing driver behavior, even with a potentially longer tail, over useless infrastructure projects that don't make anyone safer.

Absolutely: something in the culture has to change. Legislation might jump-start it.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[pasadena]

at least in CA, you don't have to use the bike lane. No violation to be in the roadway.

You don’t have to use the “protected bike lane.” Once a bike lane is separated from moving traffic with posts or car parking or anything else, it’s no longer a “bike lane” according to the law; it’s a “separated bikeway.” CVC 21208 does not apply. You may ride outside of the separated bikeway for any reason. (SHC 890.4d)

Originally Posted by cgolvin

From now on I'm riding on the street side of the parked cars. I'm willing to chance a ticket rather than my safety.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I'll take efforts at changing driver behavior, even with a potentially longer tail, over useless infrastructure projects that don't make anyone safer.

Part of the problem with this section of road is that it starts out as an sharrow, then changes to a sharrow in both lanes, then there is a bike lane, then there are these weird bollard thingies, and then it goes back to a bike lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0127...18.4972928,17z
This is Broadway from Ocean to about 26th.

It's inconsistent: it confuses drivers and causes problems with cyclists.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by tctyres

Part of the problem with this section of road is that it starts out as an sharrow, then changes to a sharrow in both lanes, then there is a bike lane, then there are these weird bollard thingies, and then it goes back to a bike lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0127...18.4972928,17z
This is Broadway from Ocean to about 26th.

It's inconsistent: it confuses drivers and causes problems with cyclists.

Yes. This. Bike lanes are a mixed bag. At best. I live near a very steep hill in Oakland. The City recently “improved” the street to make it more bike friendly. So there’s a wide bike lane.

The problem is two-fold. The steepness of the hill freaks out many cyclists, so they clutch their brakes while inching down the hill. They use the
“bike lane.” The issue is that the “bike lane” morphs into an area next to a park where plenty of cars are. So, suddenly, the cyclists have to veer out of the bike lane into the “regular” lane, which is dangerous.

They’d be better off in the middle of the road, much less at risk. Where they belong.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by tctyres

Part of the problem with this section of road is that it starts out as an sharrow, then changes to a sharrow in both lanes, then there is a bike lane, then there are these weird bollard thingies, and then it goes back to a bike lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0127...18.4972928,17z
This is Broadway from Ocean to about 26th.

It's inconsistent: it confuses drivers and causes problems with cyclists.

It's only a problematic area of six blocks, where the separated portion exists, the rest is fine … well, 'fine' to the extent of your tolerance of a painted bike lane, but at least there are none of the atypical visibility issues.

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I'll take efforts at changing driver behavior, even with a potentially longer tail, over useless infrastructure projects that don't make anyone safer.

Agreed, just a matter of setting expectations. And, in the case of these protected lanes, the projects aren't just useless but actually decrease safety for cyclists and increase the probability of incidents (that's my opinion, not claiming to base it on actual data).

[buddybikes]

Now this was doing is right (one thing) in Providence:

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by steveandbarb1

Now this was doing is right (one thing) in Providence:

(not sure why the image didn't take, here's the link)

http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uplo...inear-park.jpg

[Blue Jays]

Originally Posted by steveandbarb1

"...Now this was doing is right..."

That pic shows what appears to be countless opportunities for collisions with pedestrians, kids playing, skaters, dogs on retractable leashes, vendors selling food from carts, and anything else one might encounter in a popular playground. I will take my chances with cars!