1nterceptor

"Study after study in recent years has shown exactly what might be common sense to the average person: Bike lanes protected from heavy traffic are safer. Not only that, but more people choose to get around by bike once a protected bike lane is installed.

The reason really is not complicated. There is something inherently human that tells us riding a bike in the same lane as fast-moving cars and trucks is dangerous. Biking with traffic can be learned, and it can be done with reasonable safety. But only a small percentage of people will ever want to try it, let alone make it a daily habit. Most people see someone biking down Rainier Avenue and think, “That person is crazy.”"

Read the full article:
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/...cycling-fight/

genec

There are two very important messages in the next paragraph in that blog:
Education alone was not enough to get people to bike, BUT, education was key to getting people to understand bikes on the road. There is nothing wrong with cycling education, and even in much touted Copenhagen, there is a strong bicycle education system that starts at the earliest grade levels.

Education gives people choices... it opens eyes. Cycling education as well as driving education should be a part of our regular school curriculum as much as math, reading and writing.

spare_wheel

horsecrap. there is no battle between those who want bike lanes and vehicularists. there is a battle between those who have a one size fits all solution for bike infrastructure (e.g. the cheap and poorly-designed north american bike sidewalk) and those of us who have a less black and white vision. the sad thing is that cyclists are literally dying in our streets because copenhagenista fanatics refuse to learn from mistakes made in europe (e.g. bike boxes and mixing zones).

bikemig 

I've ridden for decades in cities that had lots of traffic and little in the way of bike paths. I enjoyed it and it forces you to learn some useful riding skills. I now live in a city that has invested in an extensive system of bike paths. I like them a lot. What I really like about them is that it gets ordinary people to show up on bikes often without helmets and fancy gear. It really helps out people with small kids get out on bikes when they would understandably be too freaked out on the road with the little ones. It helps create a constituency for bicycling. The advantages of bike paths are clear.

thiocyclist

I think it's better for all cyclists when more of us get out there. The cultural awareness that we'll be on the streets in some shape or form goes up. For that reason alone bike lanes seem worth it to me. Vehicular cyclists should be grateful for them so they can pass up the slowpokes when needed. But the slowpoke is also a bellwether of new cyclists which is always a good thing in my book.

Bekologist

No one has any idea who you're talking about. Nobody in bicycling advocacy and concerned about bicycling for transportation fits your stereotype of wanting one size fits all solutions of "cheap and poorly designed north american bike sidewalks".what shallow and saccharine hyperbole about how people that advocate for varying degrees of traffic separation consider traffic fatalities. I'm surprised you've even been able to convince yourself. You think mixing zones unnecessary?

spare_wheel

I guess the online conversations with Scott Batson (PBOT transportation engineer) were in my imagination. In PDX, construction of bike lanes has ground to a virtual halt because the city is scrimping every penny of its depleted transportation budget so that it can implement the next hundred meters of cycle track. Meanwhile thousands of cyclists ride in traffic on heavily used bike routes that could be sharrowed or striped for a pittance.

Bike boxes have already claimed one victim in PDX.

And when it comes to mixing zones I agree completely with Hembrow. The point of infrastructure should be to mitigate conflict, not create it.

Bekologist

you really think a Portland transportation engineer thinks the ONLY way to move bike traffic in Portland is on cycletracks?

Really?

Like i said eariler, your fabrication of 'one size fits all, american bike sidewalk everywhere' bicycle advocates is so blatantly fabricated, i find it hard to believe you even believe yourself.

your following comment is rich beyond belief, too- you think there's streets with thousands of bicyclists on 'heavily used' bike routes that DON'T already have bike infrastructure on them.

there's only 'thousands' of cyclists on existing bike enhanced roads in portland. cyclists flock to infrastructure from blocks away to ride bike specific spaces. Dill did some research on this in Portland using bike transponders to record bike routes taken.

Six jours

As long as the militant VCers continue to behave in a way that is harmful to me as a rational cyclist, I will continue to attack them.

Bekologist

So, you're actually on the Hembrow plan of robust bike traffic separation. You want the city of Portland to spend much, much more building quality, separated path networks of the kind Hembrow lobbies for.

This contradicts your aim of bicyclists sharing the lane a lot of the time.

Yet, paradoxically, at the same time you think mixing zones on plain jane american bikelanes aren't intended to mitigate intersection conflicts......one wild and wacky position after another that defies reason and logic!

I-Like-To-Bike

Speaking of horsecrap, any URL references to facts and data about all those cyclists who have died in the streets of the U.S due to "bike boxes and mixing zones"?

FBinNY 

Good thing there's a truce.

Imagine what this thread would be like otherwise.

B. Carfree

I'm inclined to agree. A repaving/restriping project is slated for my neighborhood this Spring. I got involved with the city traffic engineer and the city traffic planner last Spring when they were deciding what this "neighborhood collector" would look like when they finished. The president of the local bike club, a copenhagenista, also got involved. He pushed hard for an extended section of cylcletrack on this road that averages four or five driveways on each side (mostly serving multi-unit housing) per 366-foot block. Needless to say, that would have been a nightmare from a safety standpoint; it would have been similar to the current situation where many of the cyclists ride on the sidewalks.

Fortunately, in the end we got the traffic engineer to remove the parking on one side (a decision that is currently under appeal) in order to remove the door zone problem from one side and to then put a small buffer hatch between the parking and the other bike lane (8-foot parking, 2-foot hatch, 5-foot bike lane).

Angry e-mails flew every which way that only subsided after the residents were surveyed and showed an overwhelming enthusiasm (91% support) for the parking removal and bike lane buffering. Yeah, it was a battle.

The battlefield is now moving to the south side of town where similarly competing visions are being debated, along with the option of nothing at all.

spare_wheel

I just road in the "ride of silence" near the bike box which is marked by Kathryn Rickson's ghost bike. For me these infrastructure battles are personal. I road by this accident 30 minutes after it happened. I saw this young woman's blood on the road. I am absolutely fed up with seeing or hearing about cyclists injured due to infrastructure that even the f***ing portland burea of transportation reluctantly concluded is not safe. I have personally witnessed 2 additional accidents at bike boxes, including a young woman who suffered a very bloody compound fracture at 11th and Hawthorne. F*** bike boxes and f*** the mandatory sidepath law!

https://bikeportland.org/2012/05/16/c...injuries-71838
https://bikeportland.org/2012/10/16/c...-madison-78859
https://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

And notice how the copenhagenistas at the portland bureau of transport blame the victim. The problem is not their crappy infrastructure but the speed at which cyclists are traveling. Bike boxes are ****ty infrastructure that were long ago discarded in the Netherlands.

Dutch bike infrastructure blogger Hembrow on bike boxes:

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...rt-at-asl.html

spare_wheel

This is a recurring theme in portland. The new cycle track on NE multnomah is a safety and engineering disaster. (Agent pombero and I were discussing it here on the fresh meat thread.) The willingness of copenhagenistas to build and promote infrastructure where cyclists are hidden behind a wall of parked cars prior to unsignaled intersections is infuriating. This type of unsafe infrastructure is a huge step backward.

spare_wheel

Perhaps I agree with Hembrow on bike boxes and disagree about the degree to which we should physically separate cyclists. Although given your absolutist views on infrastructure I can understand why you would have difficulty understanding this more nuanced position.


I have never advocated this. I am a proponent of DZfree bike lanes (and freedom of access to the lane for those who need or want it).

I-Like-To-Bike

One tragic fatal accident that involved a right turning vehicle occurred in a bike box no matter how personal it is to you does not make a case for or against bikeboxes or any other street design. Hundreds of fatalities have occurred that were not in bike boxes, some with right turning trucks or other vehicles; thousands if not millions of cyclists have passed through bike boxes without a scratch. What does that mean to you?

spare_wheel

I'll tell you what it means to me. It means you did not even bother to read the **DATA** in the links I provided. Moreover, given that this data originated from proponents of bike boxes its quite damning. I would love to see what less biased observers would conclude. Oh wait a second...this experiment was conducted in Holland in the 70s and 80s and their planners concluded that bike boxes are deeply flawed infrastructure:



(via Hembrow's blog -see link above)

Even PBOT has admitted, albeit very grudgingly, that this infrastructure is not working...while still managing to blame cyclists for wearing short skirts...ahem...speeding.

Bekologist

You consistently pretend to yourself i don't lobby for smart, context appropriate bikeways incuding the whole gamut of bike facilities including regular bikelanes with considerate intersection treatments.

you mischaracterize me, so i have to correct you, and then you do it again on the very next page, making up phantom 'copenhagenistas' despite my consistent message at bike forums to the contrary.

you've chose to ignore what i always say about bike planning here at bike forums, fabricate my beliefs, that you than rally against ceaselessly and group me into your made up category of 'bike sidewalks everywhere' advocates, despite no such advocates existing.

your 'nuanced position' ignores my consistent message of robust, context specific bikeway networks that encompass the entire range of accommodations, while ranting and raving anytime people mention the slightest amount of 'traffic separation', yet conveniently ignoring bikelanes also separate bikes and car traffic. Mix in periodic, paradoxical backtracking, promoting Hembrow style (robustly dutch) traffic networks, all the while conflating different types of street design into YOUR 'one size fits all' stereotyped screed against the vast majority bicyclists and their nuanced, bicycle advocacy positions.

Get a grip - spare us the histrionics.

And spare wheel fails to grasp that Hembrow would consider any intersection like the one pictured to call for much greater traffic separation. A cycletrack with preferential signal heads, and phase timing to support cyclists turning left if it saw significant amounts of left turning bike traffic.

I-Like-To-Bike

Baloney. You cried the blues about "the sad thing is that cyclists are literally dying in our streets because copenhagenista fanatics refuse to learn from mistakes made in europe (e.g. bike boxes and mixing zones)" You cited ONE death that you claim was caused by the bike box configuration.

i am not going to search through a gaggle of bike blogs for you to find the data that may or may not exist to support your hysterical rhetoric.

spare_wheel

evidently you will also not bother to "search for" the portland bureau of tranportation data i quoted above. well here it is again, ILTB:

In fact, the data was so negative that PBOT's chief engineer was forced to write a letter admitting to these issues to the head of the FHWA. Honestly, I suspect that PBOT's experience will make bike boxes much harder to implement elsewhere. Unfortunately PBOT has moved away from bike boxes to mixing zones where the onus is entirely on the cyclist to watch out for traffic since motorists see the cyclist pop out at the last moment.

Since you are apparently incapable of clicking on links or reading quotes its odd that you are so certain of my hysteria.

spare_wheel

still waiting for the example of an urban commercial street where you would prefer a bike lane to a fully separated facility.

*crickets*


hilarious. not only are you calling me a liar but you are insisting that separated infrastructure fanatics do not exist despite the fact that b_carfree posted in this very thread:

I'm inclined to agree...The president of the local bike club, a copenhagenista, also got involved. He pushed hard for an extended section of cylcletrack on this road that averages four or five driveways on each side (mostly serving multi-unit housing) per 366-foot block.

come to think of it i do not recall a single instance where bekologist has been critical of a cycletrack. maybe bekologist would care to correct me...

i guess the hundred thousand+ german cycling federation members (or the posters here who apprently prefer door zone free bike lanes) are "extremists". as i have repeated over and over again, i have no problem with separated infrastructure in zones of high speed differential or at transportation choke points. nevertheless, where these conditions do not exist i believe that door zone free buffered bike lanes and/or aggressive traffic calming/elimination are *BETTER* choices.


first you tell us what jan heine meant and now you tell us what hembrow believes. why don't you try speaking for yourself instead of putting words in others' mouths (including my own).


vague jargon.

and you complain that i am mischaracterizing you. you really are a piece of work, bekologist.

Bekologist

good grief, dude.

your histrionics continue, unabated. who in the world do you think you're battling at bike forums anyway? much less the phantoms of your stereotypes and quixotic riptose.



the phrase 'tilting at windmills' is oh so appropriate here.

FBinNY 

Yo! Chill! The title of this thread is "Truce in the ‘bike lanes vs vehicular cycling’ fight?"

You guys are engaged is a static trench battle like that for Verdun in WWI. Neither of you will ever change the mind of the other, so you might as well call a truce and resume the battle later on.

Bekologist

we've both pretty moderate about facilities, that's why i'm so amazed spare wheel has to scathe about 'separation' so much.

I've always been the 'context sensitive', reiterative loop design processes guy here. flaming on and on about copenhagenistas makes these threads read like a disaster at the steel mill.