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

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by cachagua

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/cy...-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."

[EDS]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cachagua

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]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

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/cy...-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]

Originally Posted by benb

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]

Originally Posted by bradford

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:

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.