Are segregated bike lanes really safe?

[fiamme red]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/w...ally-safe.html

But this second incident left me wondering how sensibly some of the new bike lanes were designed. The relatively new Brooklyn bike lane I was on, like many others, runs between a curb on the right and parked cars on the left. Cars traveling to the left of the parked vehicles have no clear view of what may be coming along in the bike lane, and cyclists in that lane have limited ability to see a driver who turns right and fails to slow down enough to avoid a collision...

In the meantime, for the foreseeable future, until most drivers become more respectful of cyclists and the lanes dedicated to them, I plan to avoid riding on so-called protected bike lanes where turning vehicles can’t see me and I can’t see them until perhaps it’s too late.

Don't fence me in!

[benb]

The people advocating for segregated bike lanes everywhere will stop at nothing, they aren't doing this out of pure safety/science but more out of belief.

But yes, there are lots of studies.

They always show the segregated bike lanes to be safer in between intersections but more dangerous at intersections. It seems it's a net safety risk to ride in the bike lanes unless you go right at every intersection on your entire ride.

They will always come along and say "But Amsterdam!!!" but no one is building Dutch style intersections in the US.

All of the writer's incidents appear to be a result of her going straight in the bike lane through intersections where cars to her left are turning right. This is exactly why the vehicular cycling advocates have for decades wanted cyclists to ride at the right side of the thru traffic lanes, not hugging the curb no matter what. In this situation the bike lane is just the equivalent of hugging the curb. And in the case of the NYC lanes she is riding sometimes the bike lane is to the right of the parked cars as well, so the cyclists and drivers can't even see each other approaching the intersection. There is no safe way to go straight on the bike lane there without stopping and using the crosswalk as a pedestrian when the signal turns to walk.

[slowpoke]

Originally Posted by benb

They always show the segregated bike lanes to be safer in between intersections but more dangerous at intersections. It seems it's a net safety risk to ride in the bike lanes unless you go right at every intersection on your entire ride.

And to top of off.. most accidents happen at intersections.

Segregated bike lanes may feel safe for beginner riders and people designing on paper, but anyone who's been riding on the streets for a few months knows the hazards of their blindspots.

Originally Posted by benb

All of the writer's incidents appear to be a result of her going straight in the bike lane through intersections where cars to her left are turning right. This is exactly why the vehicular cycling advocates have for decades wanted cyclists to ride at the right side of the thru traffic lanes, not hugging the curb no matter what.

vehicular cyclists = folks who ride; however urban planning studies are full of Jeff Speck fans who don't get it.

[unterhausen]

Some of the New York segregated lanes also include treatments to slow turning motor vehicles. Many don't

[benb]

We have this style of bike lane in downtown Boston now as well. I have not rode in them yet. (Why on earth would I ever ride there when I live in the suburbs???)

But I have driven the car in there. And seeing as I've been cycling my whole adult life these bike lanes are terrifying. The cyclists are mostly clueless and barrel right across the right turning traffic.

The drivers are either:

- Clueless
- Terrified if they have to turn right across the bike lane and are not clueless

Last time I was commuting into the city and sometimes going by bike was 2012-2013. And that was Cambridge, not Boston. I remember there being some non-segregated lanes, but not this new green style that guides the cyclists to keep going straight through the right turning traffic area. Back then the bike lanes kind of disappeared at the intersections to make you realize you couldn't just barrel right across.

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by slowpoke

And to top of off.. most accidents happen at intersections.

Segregated bike lanes may feel safe for beginner riders and people designing on paper, but anyone who's been riding on the streets for a few months knows the hazards of their blindspots.

Exactly (on both)....

[Brusselsprouts]

Protected lanes are not created equally. They potentially vary greatly in effectiveness depending on the layout of the roads. Generally, I do feel safer with some kind of physical barrier as opposed to no barrier at all. When I was living in NYC (with few protected lanes, but painted bike lanes), cars didn't give any regard to the bike lane and would pull into it, park there, etc. Providing any physical obstacle to cars in my mind improves the situation greatly for cyclists.

Agreed that there needs to be emphasis on how to make intersections safer as that's where the majority of incidents are happening - how to do this while making it economical and practical for cities?

[dem]

Ugh, this is a super peeve of mine - they installed one next to the local community college. It is narrow, it is full of glass, you cannot pass a slow recreational cyclist, it is bumpy since they couldn't use a real paving machine, it has tall concrete curbing that I cannot exit where I need to exit without practically coming to a halt and cutting directly across traffic (vs. merging like a normal vehicle.)

The thing is absurd. I end up just riding in the traffic lane and taking the whole lane (since there is now no space for a car to pass)

Luckily it is only 2 blocks that I need to use it, but it is a bizarre, expensive solution.

[fredd]

Segregated bike lanes are a mess in NYC with pedestrians hopping in and out of them, uber drivers using them as parking at any opportunity, clueless citi bikers riding unpredictably and of course drivers rarely respect them when turning. NYC's been doing a decent job at building the infrastructure but there has been practically no work of educating people about using it/respecting it proper, most notably drivers rarely if ever are fined for breaking the law regarding them. I personally tend to avoid them and feel safer on the street most of the time
However, they do make less experienced riders feel safer and thus bring more people to cycle, and it's been shown that more people cycling makes it safer to cycle, as other users of the road become accustomed to expect cyclists.

[zzy]

The dot in NYC has been doing a very good job of not just laying bike path but restructuring intersections for safety. Most accidents do occur there so they have been installing barriers to force drivers to slow and make wider turns. They are also removing some parking for better visibility. There's time needed for a cultural adjustment but things have been getting getter and I prefer the segregated lanes. But 1st and 2ed are always kinda a nightmare.

[572cv]

This book, released late last year, is a really good primer on how to implement walking and cycling improvements in context. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic. There are a lot of useful actions to take with respect to bike lanes, but they don't work well unless they are meaningfully complete and well considered for both the location and for the uber-goals. Often, that means implementing more than one strategy at the same time. This is a great read and resource. Also, Jeff Speck is an entertaining and effective speaker, if you want to catch a video of him.

[bart998]

We have a few newly installed segregated lanes around here (Eastern L.A. county). Divided from traffic by either K-rails or permanent planters. What I've noticed is that the lanes are often full of debris including broken glass. I don't know if barbarians are tossing glass into the lanes purposely or if it is the result of traffic accidents... either way, the limited space of the lane makes it impossible for a street sweeper to clean the lane... the net result is I now avoid those streets because there is no suitable shoulder for me to ride on.

[texbike]

The City of Austin recently constructed a segregated bike lane on a popular route in North Central Austin called Shoal Creek. It's an abomination. Not only did it take away vehicle capacity and create extensive back-ups during rush hour (not actually too bad at the moment with our current SIP order), but it also created an extremely chaotic, confusing, and hazardous bike lane for cyclists. Runners/walkers in the lanes, dirt/gravel/glass/debris, trash cans, parked cars, opposing riders that don't understand how to handle oncoming riders headed toward them in close proximity, and concrete turtles have all conspired to create the most intimidating and challenging cycling environment that I've ever ridden in. Unfortunately, it's destroyed what was one of the best, most loved inner-city routes in Austin.

Texbike

[fiamme red]

Someone commenting on Streetsblog wrote this:

I wonder if the new Brooklyn protected lane Jane Brody is referring to is 4th Av going north from 9th St. Speeding drivers making both right and left turns eastbound have no idea there’s a bike lane in there, and you have to assume they won’t see you and yield if you don’t want to die. Bicyclists’ ability to see out past the parked cars is also terrible. In the morning, the sidewalk is indeed full of “inattentive“ pedestrians, often staggering in the bike lane staring at their phones with headphones on (kids on the way to school from the subway), which is just as dangerous as the cars given the especially narrow bike lane. I agree this protected lane is not worth using, and prefer nearby avenues for their visibility despite double parking.

[oldpotatoe]

Are segregated bike lanes really safe?

Like many questions that cover such a broad topic, the answer, like other broad topic answers and 'studies', is 'maybe'..Depends on a TON of variables, location, goals, structure, as in where are these, etc, etc, etc, etc.

So, they can be, or not and are NOT inherently unsafe or safe...