CrankyOne

Yes. You can and I can and both of us likely would, but 95% of people would, quite rationally, not. In advocating for bicycling facilities I don't really care about the brave 2% or even the brave 5%. We'll ride with or without facilities. The facilities (cycletracks, side paths, and associated well designed junctions) are needed for the other 95%. The moms and their kids riding to the grocery store, the 9-year-olds riding to school, the disabled folk on mobility scooters or handcycles.

rydabent

It would be great if traffic engineers rode bikes, and actually had to live and drive cars where they design roads. They put in far too many islands so people cant drive and turn where they want to. That forces cars and some bikes to go thru several more intersections. Intersections in town is where most of the accidents occur. The more you are forced to drive or ride thru, the more exposure you have to being hit.

irwin7638

Same here, having an avid cyclist for a traffic engineer is really nice.

Marc

dynodonn 

I wouldn't mind traffic engineers who are cyclists, as long as they ride their own designs, or the roadway that they are about to redesign, and on regular basis. I would also like to see these same traffic engineers ride during times of heavy traffic, and being able to see how other cyclists contend with their design.

AngeloDolce

Where do you live? Do they punish motorists for hitting pedestrians or bicyclists where you ride?

I've yet to see these well designed junctions or bike lanes. Locally bike lanes go all they way to the intersections (requested by new cyclists), or may be dotted for the last 10'-20'. Right turning motorists are routed to the left of the bicyclists, while the bike symbols are not close to the traffic detector loops. Beginners then have to watch for right hooks, and can't turn traffic lights green, while motorists wonder why experienced bicyclists won't stay in the bike lane.

I'm not sure your 95% are making a rational decision about 10mph traffic, but they are recognizing a culture that lets drivers swear at bicyclists delayed by motorist congestion, and designs facilities to keep bicyclists from leaving the door zone.

I'm not particularly brave - planners that don't see a problem with bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes on to I-76 do scare me even more than door zones, and I don't see why transportation bicycling should be limited to speeds and distances an 9 year old can manage.

CrankyOne

Intersection redesign in Utrecht | BICYCLE DUTCH

CrankyOne

It need not be. Cycleways in The Netherlands are safe and comfortable for 9-year-olds riding to school, 90-year-olds riding to the pub, and for those who want to ride fast.

On the other hand, most Americans would have difficulty keeping up with Dutch 9-year-olds (and 90-year-olds).

When designed properly higher speeds are not a problem. Paths are wide enough to pass slower riders, curves are designed for riding at higher speeds, and there are fewer stops for bicycle riders than for cars since bicycle riders need only a yield (sharks teeth) at junctions with other bicycles that cars would require a stop sign or red light and bicycle riders are often given right-of-way when crossing motor traffic.

Cycleway Fundamentals: Safety, Momentum, Comfort | streets.mn

genec

To the bolded statement above... few jurisdictions punish motorists for any infraction... especially the ones you cited. Often the local authorities simply take down some of the facts and then leave it to civil courts to iron out the bottom line... if there are concerned parties that invoke the civil courts. Motorists are often not otherwise "punished" unless abuse of alcohol is involved.

KD5NRH

Judging from the way they configure the lights, they ought to be wearing helmets 24x7 anyway.

They'd probably be confused on bikes, where there aren't any windows to lick.

Keith99

I'd much rather have the engineers talk to cycling groups, and grade school kids and parents and business owners than to spend lots of time riding and perhaps focusing in on one aspect of cycling design.

I've seen too many 'good ideas' that really are pretty good ideas, as long as one understands in detail how they are supposed to work.

I'd do not want designers who are constant users, designers easily trapped into thinking a design they made and understand is a good one because it works well when they use it exactly the way it was designed to be used.

That said it would not be a bad idea to have designated core routes that the designers had to ride at the worst possible times to ride those routes.

Maxillius

Elevated greenways. Paths that are elevated 20 feet above ground level with large elevators for access. Elevators should be large enough to accommodate 12 xtracycles with trailer with lift capacity to transport all 12 fully loaded plus riders. This should allow 18 regular bikes aboard. Busier intersections can have more than one elevator, and there should be at least one per intersection. Obviously I'm not saying every street should be shaded by an elevated greenway, but the most traveled paths for cyclists would be a good idea. This way, just like a freeway, cyclists could use the EG, get off at the elevator nearest their destination, and finish on the ground. This would make motorists happy by removing their "obstacles", cyclists happy by giving them a clear, safe path throughout the city, and business owners happy with increased foot traffic. Everyone wins!

Just one caveat: these should be NOWHERE NEAR the motor freeways! Just to further avoid confusion, saving money by putting the EG on the edge or (gasp!) in the median of a motorist freeway would be counterproductive and dangerous, not worth the microscopic price saving.

rydabent

Actually when you see some of the streets and intersections traffic engineer design, I dont think they can walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone being able to ride a bike.

genec

I wonder at times how certain streets ever managed to be connected, or worse, "win" the speed limits they are granted.

mconlonx

"A kid..."

Right off the bat, I have an issue with the reality presented in the link:

Even if we had the best cycle paths in the world and motor vehicle operators respected them, USA fear culture would prevent a majority of kids from utilizing them. While the theory is sane -- paths so simple, even an 8-yr old can figure them out -- the reality is that you'd be hard-pressed to find fear-instilled parents willing to let their kids out alone on such paths, or with friends.

Fear for kids' safety on the road, in traffic is certainly a barrier now, but there are other cultural barriers to consider which will keep kids from commuting.

CrankyOne

Yes, I think you are partially correct. That is certainly an issue some places, but not nearly as big of an issue elsewhere as it's made out to be. More important, if more people begin walking and riding bicycles won't parents also feel that it's safer for their kids to venture out—more eyes on the street?

Related: Free Range Kids

English3Speed

I think you are overestimating many traffic engineers. At public workshops, they do talk to cyclists; we want them to listen too. I've met one that I believe actually rides in traffic. Almost all of the others are too scared to ride in traffic, so they design door zone lanes and lanes next to the curb that keep obedient bicyclists from being found by traffic signal detectors.

One even told me that a number of experienced bicyclists complained about lanes in the door zone, or containing storm drains; he said he checked and motorists told him bicyclists in the lane were not a problem. He still designed door zone lanes and lanes to the right of right turn arrows (he was more afraid of telling motorists to change lanes to pass than of being doored), said the lanes were meant to encourage new bicyclists, not help existing riders.

These lanes are intended to be used for short (1-2 mile) trips at low speeds (6-8 mph), and may be sae but useless within these limits. I'll bicycle 25-30 minutes (7 miles) instead of driving 18-20 min, especially if I save $100+ per month on parking. I won't ride (walk) my bike for an 60-80 minutes instead of driving 20 minutes each way.


The fundamental issue is that different locations require different behavior, but the designs and discussions ignore these differences. Personally, I see no difference in blocking a lane to make a left turn whether I have a U Haul van, a car, a motor cycle, or a bicycle. Motorists and some police seem to think cars and vans are fine, but bicyclists should not use the left lane. (Including bike lane designers that told me I had to make left turns from the bike lane on the right side of the road).

I am firmly in favor of making them use their facilities; talking to bicyclists is no good if they can't make sense of replies (bicyclists can rider further than 2 miles, and need to be able to change traffic lights).

English3Speed

Do you live in the US, or the Netherlands? I'd still like to know if/where you actually experience good facilities in real life.

Drivers here aren't required to yield to pedestrians or bicyclists. This infrastructure isn't built in PA/DE/MD because drivers are not required to respect it.

I still think the legal status of pedestrians and bicyclists as people rather than obstructions is more important than infrastructure, and required for the facilities to be built or be effective.

jon c. 

I'd agree with that. Around here, kids don't even wait for the school bus alone. There's line of cars they all sit in with a parent until the bus arrives.

dpeters11

I'm feeling even with the issues Cincinnati has, we're fortunate. We have traffic engineers at each meeting of the cycling advocacy group and they actually ride. I came across one of them on the road myself while he was out riding.

Grillparzer

I agree, none of the Board of Directors members of the D.C. area Metro actually ride the Metro. While I don't think they're doing a bad job, perhaps they could be doing a much better one.

CrankyOne

I live in the U.S. but spend considerable time every year in Europe, including Amsterdam, Utrecht, and elsewhere in NL. I experience great infrastructure almost all over The Netherlands. Interestingly, Amsterdam actually has some of the worst infrastructure in The Netherlands, but it's still better than anywhere else in the world.

Good point. Yes, pedestrians and bicycle riders may need better legal status, but even so they do not mix well with motor traffic. There are simply too great of differences in speed, power, mass, maneuverability, protection, and deadly capability. The approach of The Netherlands (and increasingly other countries such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, etc.) is to recognize this and not create a situation where either is an obstacle for the other. The Dutch segregated network removes conflicts between all users as much as possible, gives each their own appropriate space, and where they come together it is made exceptionally clear who has right-of-way (usually via sharks teeth to indicate the need to yield).

CrankyOne

Why is that? Is it a fear of kids being assaulted? Kidnapped? Hit by cars? Would this change if there were more people walking and biking (eyes on the street)?

English3Speed

What you describe is very from what I see locally. Facilities are not installed to recognize differences in speed; they are installed to restrict bicyclists.

The bike lanes in Philadelphia and Baltimore in the door zone and to the right of turning traffic are installed where there is no difference in speed or maneuverability between cars and bikes. Travel distances are shorter and congestion keeps speed lower than in suburban or rural areas, so there are more bicyclists in the cities. Planners install bike lanes because motorists don't want bicyclists using the lane or making left turns in 10-15 mph traffic.

In the suburban areas and arterials with lots of shopping centers, where actual differences in speed might make some facilities useful, the highway departments refuse to install continuous shoulders or bike lanes because there are so few bicyclists on those roads. Roads that currently require high levels of skill and assertive bicycling don't get facilities because they are already difficult, while easy roads get bad facilities.

I don't see more bad facilities helping bicyclists; I also don't expect good facilities to be built before motorists with red lights are required to yield to pedestrians in cross walks or bicyclists with green lights.

If your US facilities are better, that is good; locally even many new cyclists quickly see the problems with bike lanes designed by motorists.

jeichelberg87

Makes sense...who would want to ride in a crappy GM auto? I hope the bikes are not built by GM. They will be recalled in less than a month.

CrankyOne

How much do you trust GM?