Protected bike lanes: no me gustan

[jaketlb]

Totally agree! Especially when downhill speeds can be achieved! Just north of the UC Berkeley campus on Hearst you can hit almost 40mph, and there is a protected land there... Also coming into Downtown Oakland on Telegraph is a mess.

[martl]

Originally Posted by Blue Jays

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!

doesnt look like there is much car traffic there at all..

[Hilltopwalters]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Absolutely agree.

Protected bike lanes make some sense on a high speed roadway with very few intersections, like highways for example.

Most are simply not laid out intelligently enough to deal with intersections, and create enough confusion and misunderstanding that they are dangerous.

I've learned how to ride with and among traffic a long time ago, and I'm comfortable operating as a vehicle. bike lanes freak me out, generally speaking.

The worst is around here in NJ. Some politician will get a bug up their butt to make a town more "bike friendly" and add some bike lanes that are totally worthless. They start literally nowhere, and end abruptly and awkwardly. Very little cohesive thought put into them. No thanks, i'll ride in the street.

Ohhhhhh, yes. I used to live in Hoboken and they installed these bike lanes running down the main drag that make cycling a nightmare. They used a weird surfacing (idk what) that made them incredibly slick in the rain. Now, they're just temporary parking lanes that one must navigate around to the cajoling morons that tell me to "ride in the bike lane" lol.

[fiamme red]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...lane-expansion

But if the protected lanes are enjoyable for casual riders like Whitehouse, they are an inconvenience for the region’s most enthusiastic cyclists, such as Issakov.

While encouraging new riders, the coastal bike lanes in Encinitas have also been the site of dozens of crashes since last spring. Skilled riders, accustomed to traveling upwards of 30 miles an hour, have repeatedly clipped the plastic posts and concrete barriers. Riders emerging from protected lanes have collided in intersections with unwary drivers. A 10-year-old boy swerved to avoid a pedestrian in a bike lane this summer, hit a concrete separator and was thrown into a traffic lane.

Then in November, the prominent local scientist and cyclist described by Issakov was riding his bike along a different protected lane on Leucadia Boulevard when he was fatally struck by a vehicle turning right onto a side street...

“The design was not meant to make things more convenient for them,” said Abraham Bandegan, the Encinitas traffic engineer who oversaw the project along the coast. “The design was supposed to make life a little bit miserable for them, but now a 6-year-old kid can ride to the beach and feel totally protected.”

So "protected" bike lanes are not designed with the safety of the regular commuter or recreational cyclist in mind. They're designed to make a hypothetical 6-year-old feel safer. Why can't the 6-year-old ride on the sidewalk?

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

They're designed to make a hypothetical 6-year-old feel safer.

And while feeling safe that 6-year old can more easily get hit by a car. Way to go, traffic engineer.

I once spent a lot of time working with LADOT in an attempt to calm traffic in our neighborhood. Their mindset was 100% about make traffic move, so the premise of impeding this -- even in the name of safety -- was like a foreign language to them. (And by 'them' I mean the specific individuals, I am not extrapolating their attitude to everyone in the profession … but I'm inclined to.)

[tuscanyswe]

Ive always claimed that its much safer to ride a bike in regular lane vs bike lane. But then the drivers much think its okay to let bikes share the lane with them and that culture does not really seem to exist in the us.

What ya gonna do? Dunno. But i think the only way to make cycling safe is to make it okay to ride in traffic, how that is done in the us i have no idea .)

[fiamme red]

Here's an op-ed written by a cyclist who hates the new "protected" bike lanes in San Diego: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/...g-even-deadly/.

Experienced bike riders immediately see those dangers and most will not ride in a protected bike lane, preferring the safety of marked traffic lanes shared by both motorists and cyclists. They know the protected bike lanes give novice bikers a false sense of security.

Traditional buffered bike lanes with wide painted vehicle exclusion zones are a much safer design alternative facilitating safer right turns for vehicles and are routinely swept and paved...

[Turkle]

It's clear, here in NYC, that the "protected" bike lanes, which hide cyclists behind a row of parked cars and make intersections incredibly dangerous, are not designed to protect cyclists.

They are there to get cyclists out of the way of cars so the cars can go at maximum speed everywhere. Full stop.

If cyclists get killed using them, the engineers won't care one bit.

I absolutely refuse to use them.

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by Turkle

It's clear, here in NYC, that the "protected" bike lanes, which hide cyclists behind a row of parked cars and make intersections incredibly dangerous, are not designed to protect cyclists.

They are there to get cyclists out of the way of cars so the cars can go at maximum speed everywhere. Full stop.

If cyclists get killed using them, the engineers won't care one bit.

I absolutely refuse to use them.

Like you, I generally refuse to use segregated lanes. Once, I was riding with a friend who insisted on using the segregated lane on Second Ave, and every other block we had to deal with cars turning left across our path at the last moment.

I was riding up First Avenue in the bus lane a few days ago, and was stopped at a red light at E. 20th St. A woman crossing First Ave yelled at me that I didn't belong there, and had to ride in the segregated bike lane on the left side of the avenue. I told her that I was entirely in the right to be on the right. Then I had to deal with an aggressive M15-SBS bus driver who kept honking at me to get out of his lane.

Two weeks ago, I was riding south one evening in the right lane on Union Square East, because there was ice and snow in the segregated bike lane. A driver passing in the left lane shouted at me when we reached a red light that I wasn't allowed to be outside the bike lane.

Cycling in the city was much more enjoyable before we were given "separate but equal" facilities.

[chrismoustache]

Not surprisingly, many of the folks on this forum aren't the target users for bicycle infrastructure improvements. There are plenty of methods to evaluate the suitability of a roadway for biking. Bicycle Level of Service, Bicycle Compatibility Index, Bicycle Level of Comfort are all examples of these methods. Many of these approaches map the classification of a roadway's bikeabiltity to a user type. Municipalities typically seek to improve condition for the widest segment of type, sometimes called the 'Interested but Concerned' group. To improve comfort for this group, multi-use pathways, physically-separated cycletrack, striped bicycle lanes are all ways to achieve this.

This main issue is that these initiatives are almost always an afterthought for roadway transportation planners and engineers who focus on moving the greatest volume of vehicular traffic over a certain segment as quickly as possible with the fewest conflicts. Bicyclist improvements are often driven by bike/ped advocacy groups. In my experience, it is rare that roadway operators seek out improvements for bicyclists. It's also pretty typical to install infrastructure improvements iteratively.

NACTO has put out a number of resources that suggest design elements for typical roadway attributes. For instance, a section of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide specifically mentions 'blending lanes' for use as physically-separated bike lanes meet intersections, (especially those with a high percentage of left-turning motorized traffic.)

From my personal perspective, I have definitely gotten harassed less frequently after the city I live in installed bike lanes, shared lane markings, RRFBs, and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage. When it comes down to it, I'm going to ride in the manner that I feel most comfortable.

[Seramount]

yeah, we just got a bunch 'protected' bike lanes that put all riders on the same side of the road and they universally suck.

now, instead of cars being a hazard, it's other cyclists who may or may not have the decency/ability to ride in the correct lane, pedestrians who don't see a problem using a dedicated / signed bike lane instead of the sidewalk that's 2 feet away, residents who dump their yard waste in the bike lane, accumulations of road debris, ad nauseum...

I tend to avoid these now, they're just a total CF of traffic mis-management.

[LeMond123]

In south suburban Denver, we have lots of shoulder bike lanes, no separation (can't with snow plows and street sweeping as previously mentioned). But there are the ones that start and stop randomly, so you gotta scout by car and/or Google Maps with the cycling option turned on. Around where I live, these bike lanes are nice and wide, but on 45 mph roads. Lots of people veer into them in the normal course of driving, and use them as turn lanes. Garbage (and glass, yay) builds up even during the summer. Veered around the same glass pile that gave me one flat for about 2 months before it was cleaned up, I almost just drove over there with a broom one day when I got back.

I luckily kept rubber side down but early in my commuting efforts I was in the bike lane area, close to home, coming downhill to a newly green light, overtaking traffic that had been stopped. I didn't know to take it easy since I had a nice wide bike lane and a green light. A car decided to veer into the bike lane before his turn lane could be accessed, got antsy I guess. I braked hard and locked up the rear, stayed upright thankfully, and still nearly hit the guy. He had no clue I was there. Now I know to take it easy in those situations, ride defensively, not overtake cars like that. Had plenty of people zoom past me to slam on the brakes and turn right, forcing me to brake hard, and always on the lookout for left turners (use those DRLs). This is simply in the ~1.5 miles I spend on the wide bike lanes for commuting or accessing the MUP I usually use to get other places for rides from home. And we have tons of cyclists around here, year round.

I feel much more comfortable riding long distances on the 2 lane roads with no bike lanes outside the beltway so to speak, than I do the nice wide bike lanes right around my house. For me that's my real road biking where I can ride more "carefree". Luckily I can ride to work (whenever we go back) with 80+% on the MUP. Of course MUPs are a whole separate concern, but at least when I ride in (5am hour) there is little to no foot traffic.

[KJMUNC]

Couldn't agree more about the futility of the protected lanes. Never gave it any thought until we moved to San Diego as there are tons of them, especially along Hwy 1 up through Cardiff to Encinitas. I ride in the traffic lane (which also has bike lane markings in it), as the dedicated bike lane is typically full of people walking, despite "bike only, no pedestrian" signs and the transition from dedicated bike lanes to the main roads are always super hazardous due to parked cars and cars turning across the lane. The high curbs bordering dedicated lanes also prevent any sort of bail out if you need to get out of that lane.

there was a pretty good article in the SD paper in January describing the issue: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...lane-expansion

I love how bike friendly SD is compared to other major cities, but just shows that the best laid plans have unintended consequences....

[Bici-Sonora]

Originally Posted by bigbill

I lived in Sardinia and the laws are in the favor of cyclists. The mainland is the same, you can ride on any road except the major north-south highways. In Sardinia, I had an afternoon loop on the north side of the island that took me through Cannigione. I was harassed once by a group of non-locals in a car who were yelling out the window and were within a few inches of me. The Carabinieri pulled the car over and they were still being detained when I rode past in the opposite direction about 20 minutes later.

This is the way: laws need to change to reflect the seriousness of hitting a vulnerable road user. Otherwise, we will keep mowing down peds and cyclists and calling it an "accident." Unless we prioritize lives and safety by putting the onus (and stiff legal consequences) on the operator of the heavier and more deadly vehicle, behavior won't change.

[homagesilkhope]

Here's a brand new road feature in San Francisco's Presidio and on my regular way to the Golden Gate Bridge and out of town. Note the west-bound bike routing on Lincoln Avenue (right to left in the first photo), and so far there's no bike-marking in the main lane of travel. By way of explanation, the responsible officer at the Presidio says he "loves the Netherlands." Well, okay, but I'd bet he doesn't ride his bike that much.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/03/0...ch-roundabout/