Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Are you in favor of Bike Lanes or Separate Bike Trails (just off the main road)?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: Bike Lane or Bike Trail
Bike Lane
50.00%
Separate Bike Trail
50.00%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Are you in favor of Bike Lanes or Separate Bike Trails (just off the main road)?

Old 11-18-14, 07:15 AM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by RoadTire
Considering the context and my geographical location, I think you just agreed with my blanket statement. "I am not aware of a single junction that is up to even 40 year old Dutch standards, much less current." pretty much covers it, don't you think?
No. You made a blanket statement that off-road bike trails are dangerous. They are not. Poorly designed ones are. Well designed ones are actually safer than going through the same junction in a car.
CrankyOne is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 07:19 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
RoadTire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,968

Bikes: '09 Trek 2.1 * '75 Sekine * 2010 Raleigh Talus 8.0 * '90 Giant Mtb * Raleigh M20 * Fuji Nevada mtb

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, this thread degenerated into a p*g contest of syntax. Go figure. This is going to be a long winter.
__________________
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.

Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
RoadTire is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 08:20 AM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
i also think you are oversimplifying infrastructure terminology. for example, the term "protected/enhanced bike lane" is used to refer to cycle tracks. many of these facilities are in-road or at-road-grade and are hardly fully separated.
A protected bike lane and enhanced bike lane are quite different (at least if you are talking with a traffic engineer, knowledgeable politician, etc). A protected bike lane (effectively a cycletrack) has some form of physical segregation between the bicycle lane and motor traffic. This can be a curb, bollards, planters, or any number of things. An enhanced bike lane is the same as a buffered bike lane—paint but dilineating a wider buffer or shy zone than a single line of paint.

For More: 5 ? Cycleways 101 (Draft) | LocalMile
CrankyOne is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 03:36 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by jwarner
There seem to be a range of views here from "You should just put on a hi-viz vest and take the lane" to "all cars should be permanently banned and driversand their offspring made to clean up oil spills with their toothbrushes for eternity."
Well, that pretty much sums it up. Time to close the forum and just put this line up in its place.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 04:44 PM
  #55  
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times in 255 Posts
And take away all you guys' fun?
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 04:47 PM
  #56  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CrankyOne
The problem though is that they are not good enough for most people. A few more people will ride a buffered bike lane than a road without, but not many.
This is often repeated but is not actually based on evidence, as far as I can tell.

When was the last time you rode in Munich? Much of the popular infrastructure in the central city (~50% mode share) is either a bike lane or shared space.

But the cost of this is that it could take decades to convert that buffered bike lane to a segregated bikeway and during those decades you've got a piece of infrastructure that the vast majority of people may be scared to ride on and so choose not to ride.
And I think the increase in mode share due to exapnding a network outweighs the boost that is derived from a short-stretch of cycle track. When there is a government grant for a well-engineered cycle track I'm all for it but when it comes to triaging the limited funding available in most north american cities, not so much.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 05:03 PM
  #57  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CrankyOne
A protected bike lane and enhanced bike lane are quite different (at least if you are talking with a traffic engineer, knowledgeable politician, etc). A protected bike lane (effectively a cycletrack) has some form of physical segregation between the bicycle lane and motor traffic. This can be a curb, bollards, planters, or any number of things. An enhanced bike lane is the same as a buffered bike lane—paint but dilineating a wider buffer or shy zone than a single line of paint.

For More: 5 ? Cycleways 101 (Draft) | LocalMile
I guess I should have used something like "enhanced/protected bike lane/way" . The term "enhanced bike lane/way" is sometimes used as a synonym for protected lanes:

https://www.placespeak.com/uploads/a...overview_1.pdf
Portland Bikeway Design Implementation ? Alta Planning + Design

Alta, in particular, uses enhanced bikeway as a generic term for a buffered lane, painted lane, protected lane, or genuine cycletrack.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 06:06 PM
  #58  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 37

Bikes: Raleigh Cadent; Specialized Secteur

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Umm, I'll just take whichever path takes me where I want to go. I've never felt unsafe in a bike lane, but then again I live in a relatively bike-friendly town. Here, we do have some bicycle "trails," but they're for recreation only and don't end in anyplace useful. If they did, I might use them, depending on my mood.

About having a separate bike path close to the roadway: Wouldn't this be similar to riding on the sidewalk? You're still virtually invisible to motorists, you still have to cross other busy roadways, and it's still harder for you to make left-turns. Unless it's along a long highway or something, I don't get the point.
mannie3moon is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 06:17 PM
  #59  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I'm just going to throw this out there and let the flame go on, but comparing on-road cycling and other cycle infrastructure in the US, to on-road cycling and other cycle infrastructure in other countries is not a fair comparison. These other countries have different laws, different enforcement policies, different cultural/social acceptance of cycling and walking as a viable means of transportation, different physical layouts... -- they are vastly different.

Please, someone show some relevant verifiable statistics disproving these statements:

1) Separating cyclists from cars increases the number of cyclists.
2) As the number of cyclists increase in an area, the number of accidents per cyclist decreases.
3) Increasing the number of users, and providing an inroad into an activity at a younger age, will increase the number of participants, social acceptance of the activity, and the allocation of resources to support that activity.

Finally, in terms of infrastructure, how many people are willing to put their kids or grandkids out on the road for a bike trip downtown? If you do that in my town, I guarantee you will have a very unhappy ending, and at best, be locked up for child endangerment. Hell, half the people I know think I should be committed for riding as far as I do in this town. Add a MUP, or well designed and maintained separate path leading places people want to go -- no problem. You can actually start raising a generation of children who see bicycles, walking, (and my personal favorite, skis) as as viable methods of transportation again. In my mind, this is the only way we are going to turn this around. Do this, and the infrastructure we need will develop over time.

Hopping (sharing traffic space with cars) out on the road has its place, but it is only the best choice for some individuals, and then only when the cars let you on their road (sorry VC guys, willing to bet not one of you would climb out on the road and stay there on my commute route -- this effectively makes it "their road" by force. I'm sorry I don't have a good way to test this -- then again, I don't think we would want to). Sticking to on-road shared infrastructure does nothing to increase participation in cycling among the young and non-cycling public -- in fact, I think it hurts us for a lot of reasons. I think this is one of the biggest arguments for separate paths (well that and the whole, "less likely to die thing" for me).

Disclaimer: Again, I am for any and all options that reduce conflict, collisions, and fatalities, and increase other-than motorized use across a larger segment of our population. These options need to make sense given the traffic load, road design, prevalent weather, and driver/political attitudes. Anyone should be able to safely ride a bicycle without having expert skills. No-one should be guaranteed the smoothest and quickest journey possible by automobile at the expense of other users in terms of safety and accessibility (I know the reality, just saying -- call it a goal).
jwarner is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 07:16 PM
  #60  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by jwarner
I
Please, someone show some relevant verifiable statistics disproving these statements:

1) Separating cyclists from cars increases the number of cyclists.
2) As the number of cyclists increase in an area, the number of accidents per cyclist decreases.
3) Increasing the number of users, and providing an inroad into an activity at a younger age, will increase the number of participants, social acceptance of the activity, and the allocation of resources to support that activity.
Surprisingly, there isn't a lot of research examining the effect of different types of bike infrastructure on mode share. Most studies compare cycle tracks to no facility or bike lanes to no facility but I'm not aware of single study that directly compares enhanced bike lanes to separated facilities. Given the paucity of funding for bike facilities in the USA it's probably a good idea to start testing which facilities work best and in which context.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 07:19 PM
  #61  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
double post

Last edited by spare_wheel; 11-19-14 at 11:03 AM.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-18-14, 07:43 PM
  #62  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
Surprisingly, there isn't a lot of research examining the effect of different types of bike infrastructure on mode share. Most studies compare cycle tracks to no facility or bike lanes to no facility but I'm not aware of single study that directly compares enhanced bike lanes to separated facilities. Given the lack of funding for separated facilities in the USA it's probably a good idea to start testing which facilities work best and in which context.

PS: It's interesting to see who voted and who did not vote. I vote for both (depending on context).

You meant it enough to say it twice . All good.

I'll admit I did not vote. I just don't think there is one right answer to the problem, only one desirable result -- and that is to make safe, non-motorized transportation a viable alternative for all human beings. I think this falls under the heading of "basic human right." Since we realistically won't be able to change our car-centric attitudes and infrastructure for awhile (I don't even think we know what we need yet), I think we need to build the infrastructure needed to get people out of cars, make observations, gather data, and propose problem-specific solutions with the understanding that these can grow and change as we gain a better understanding. Like most things, I suspect having a range of solutions is the best way to go. One size fits all only seems to work for crappy stocking caps.
jwarner is offline  
Old 11-19-14, 04:45 PM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
Alta, in particular, uses enhanced bikeway as a generic term for a buffered lane, painted lane, protected lane, or genuine cycletrack.
That would seem correct if they've said bikeway (or cycleway) since those refer to all manner of bicycle facilities though I've never heard anyone call something an enhanced bikeway. I wonder what they think the difference is between a bikeway and an enhanced bikeway?
CrankyOne is offline  
Old 11-19-14, 04:55 PM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
This is often repeated but is not actually based on evidence, as far as I can tell.
There have been a few published studies supporting it. Wasn't there one recently from LAB or someone?
CrankyOne is offline  
Old 11-19-14, 06:11 PM
  #65  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CrankyOne
There have been a few published studies supporting it. Wasn't there one recently from LAB or someone?
As far I recall recent north american studies compare new infrastructure to no infrastructure. (The question of whether one form of infrastructure is better and in what context it's better is not addressed.)
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-19-14, 07:16 PM
  #66  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
In the spirit of extrapolating results from the data one has, here is an interesting open-source peer-reviewed article with discussion of some of these issues:

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street -- Lusk et al. -- Injury Prevention

I think the "Implications for Policy" summarizes their results quite well:

Implications for policy

Public health and bicycling advocates in the USA have faced a dichotomy, believing from surveys and European experience that cycle tracks encourage more bicycling, yet being warned that they lead to higher crash and injury rates. Our results suggest that cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared with the street. The construction of cycle tracks should not be discouraged.
What is already known on this subject

  • Individuals, in particular women, children, and seniors, prefer to bicycle separated from motor traffic.
  • Cycle tracks (physically-separated bicycle-exclusive paths along roads) exist and continue to be built in The Netherlands where 27% of all trips are by bicycle and 55% of bicycle riders are female.
  • Engineering guidance in the United States has discouraged bicycle facilities that resemble cycle tracks, including parallel sidepaths and sidewalk bikeways, suggesting that these facilities and cycle tracks are more dangerous than bicycling in the street.

What this study adds

  • Overall, 2 ½ times as many cyclists rode on the cycle tracks compared with the reference streets.
  • There were 8.5 injuries and 10.5 crashes per million-bicycle kilometers respectively on cycle tracks compared to published injury rates ranging from 3.75 to 67 for bicycling on streets. The relative risk of injury on the cycle track was 0.72 (95%CI=0,60-0.85) compared with bicycling in the reference streets.
  • Cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street.
jwarner is offline  
Old 11-19-14, 08:25 PM
  #67  
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I chose 'Separate Bike Trail'. Because a less experienced cyclist should not be a novice at cycling on the road. Without 'cutting their teeth' on lightly traveled roads first. Like a residential neighborhood for instance. Where the could get used to the existence of motorized vehicles of all sorts being on the road.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 07:30 AM
  #68  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by jwarner
In the spirit of extrapolating results from the data one has, here is an interesting open-source peer-reviewed article with discussion of some of these issues:

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street -- Lusk et al. -- Injury Prevention

I think the "Implications for Policy" summarizes their results quite well:

Implications for policy

Public health and bicycling advocates in the USA have faced a dichotomy, believing from surveys and European experience that cycle tracks encourage more bicycling, yet being warned that they lead to higher crash and injury rates. Our results suggest that cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared with the street. The construction of cycle tracks should not be discouraged.
What is already known on this subject

  • Individuals, in particular women, children, and seniors, prefer to bicycle separated from motor traffic.
  • Cycle tracks (physically-separated bicycle-exclusive paths along roads) exist and continue to be built in The Netherlands where 27% of all trips are by bicycle and 55% of bicycle riders are female.
  • Engineering guidance in the United States has discouraged bicycle facilities that resemble cycle tracks, including parallel sidepaths and sidewalk bikeways, suggesting that these facilities and cycle tracks are more dangerous than bicycling in the street.

What this study adds

  • Overall, 2 ½ times as many cyclists rode on the cycle tracks compared with the reference streets.
  • There were 8.5 injuries and 10.5 crashes per million-bicycle kilometers respectively on cycle tracks compared to published injury rates ranging from 3.75 to 67 for bicycling on streets. The relative risk of injury on the cycle track was 0.72 (95%CI=0,60-0.85) compared with bicycling in the reference streets.
  • Cycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street.
Wait for it...

Someone will come along and tell you how that report is wrong, and that vehicular cycling in the road is the only solution.
genec is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 10:03 AM
  #69  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by jwarner
In the spirit of extrapolating results from the data one has, here is an interesting open-source peer-reviewed article with discussion of some of these issues:

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street -- Lusk et al. -- Injury Prevention

Lusk et al compares protected bike lanes with no infrastructure so it does not address which types of infrastructure are the best bang for a given buck/loonie. It's also a very controversial study but this has been covered here and elsewhere ad nauseum.

My biggest issue with Lusk et al is that they studied bidirectional bike lanes. These facilities are accepted as flawed infrastructure in Europe. I'm a proponent of curb separated cycle tracks and have publicly argued them at city meetings but I intend to fight recent plans to implement a bidirectional bike lane here in Portland (and I'm not the only one). I also don't think "safety" is a strong argument for increasing mode share. Portand's mode share has plateaued for ~6 years and the cycling fatality rate is comparable with european nations with higher mode share (e.g. Germany and Sweden).

In that North America we have only a few narrow studies based on small "n" while in Europe larger studies provide a more complex and nuanced picture of which type of infrastructure is optimal from a safety or "build it and they will come" perspective.

Last edited by spare_wheel; 11-20-14 at 10:18 AM.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 10:16 AM
  #70  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Wait for it...

Someone will come along and tell you how that report is wrong, and that vehicular cycling in the road is the only solution.

Or that grade-separated cycle tracks are better or fully separated cycle paths are better or buffered bike lanes are better or traffic-calmed bike boulevards/bike streets are better.

Also: troll.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 05:11 PM
  #71  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
Lusk et al compares protected bike lanes with no infrastructure so it does not address which types of infrastructure are the best bang for a given buck/loonie. It's also a very controversial study but this has been covered here and elsewhere ad nauseum.

My biggest issue with Lusk et al is that they studied bidirectional bike lanes. These facilities are accepted as flawed infrastructure in Europe. I'm a proponent of curb separated cycle tracks and have publicly argued them at city meetings but I intend to fight recent plans to implement a bidirectional bike lane here in Portland (and I'm not the only one). I also don't think "safety" is a strong argument for increasing mode share. Portand's mode share has plateaued for ~6 years and the cycling fatality rate is comparable with european nations with higher mode share (e.g. Germany and Sweden).

In that North America we have only a few narrow studies based on small "n" while in Europe larger studies provide a more complex and nuanced picture of which type of infrastructure is optimal from a safety or "build it and they will come" perspective.
In these types of observational studies, it can be difficult to make meaningful direct comparisons between different types of infrastructure. There are far too many variables to normalize beyond cycling infrastructure type unless one has the luxury of changing infrastructure type in the same location over time. This doesn’t invalidate these types of investigations. In fact, this is how a huge amount of science is done. We make observations, collect data, look for trends and correlations, make reasonable assumptions, develop conclusions, and form new hypotheses. I think the best “take-home” from this study, is that creating separate cycling infrastructure is likely to substantially increase the number of users (from memory, 2.5X in this case). I don’t remember if they addressed this, but generally, this increase is most often not equal across demographics. If you provide protected infrastructure, the number of female and younger child users increases in greater numbers than the number of male users (who are your predominant users of on-road systems, which has been attributed to greater acceptance of risk). Women and younger children have been identified as keystone users. Basically, if we can get more women and kids on bikes moving safely between destinations they desire, we will have made huge strides towards the acceptance of cycling as a viable means of transport, and are likely headed towards more rational and sustainable transportation infrastructure. There are a number of good reasons this is true, all of which might take a small essay here, and this is already long enough.


No offense, but although data from Europe is valuable, I don’t think comparing European infrastructure to North American infrastructure is a valid comparison. They have different laws, social and cultural norms…, and their cities are generally laid out in a radial pattern with more consideration (by design or not) of lines of desire. The places people want to go from day to day are more spread out and less centralized (i.e. there is bakery, a butcher shop, an a smaller grocery every few blocks, as opposed to one giant store in a centralized location where one buys everything). Our model is great for large companies, and looks much better on maps, and in accounting ledgers. It is horrible for human beings, especially if they want to travel using anything but an automobile. We can fix this, we just have to think long-term, work from what we have towards a desired result, and accept that change involves much more than throwing in a bicycle path.


In my opinion, which I think is backed by evidence, the best place to start is to get more butts in bicycle seats (especially women, children, and seniors). In order for that to happen, we have to put up cycling infrastructure that addresses their range of risk tolerance (meaning in many places, a preponderance of infrastructure giving no possibility for cars and bikes to mix except in a very controlled, predictable, and "mode fair" fashion), and this infrastructure has to actually take them places they want to go — without requiring expert cycling skills or a marathon effort. Build this, be patient, adjust as needed, and I am firmly convinced everyone’s world will become much better. Once we get them on the bike, and start getting greater social acceptance of cycling (or walking) as a means to get around, then we can more reasonably look at mixed use lanes and whatnot (call it a bait and switch if you want -- I don't care if it gets more butts in seats, or Pro Keds beating the street).


By the way… the free right… has anyone ever considered what a bad idea this is, how many problems might disappear, how much money might be saved, and how much easier and safer designs would be if we would just get rid of the bloody free right?

Last edited by jwarner; 11-20-14 at 10:31 PM.
jwarner is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 11:27 PM
  #72  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by jwarner
In my opinion, which I think is backed by evidence, the best place to start is to get more butts in bicycle seats (especially women, children, and seniors).


I'd like to see you cite that evidence. Fixation on 8/80 is definitely part of advocacy group think in the usa...but I'm skeptical. I'm more of a 16/60 advocate.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 11:39 PM
  #73  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Here is a place to start. Results of a single google search. Some, but not all peer reviewed. Still of value I think, as even anecdotal evidence has its place when proper studies are in short supply, and many of these do cite secondary cite peer-reviewed research. I'm sure I can grab more if I dig into the NIH/NSF and other scholarly databases, or spend more than a couple seconds searching.

How to Get More Bicyclists on the Road - Scientific American

Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle inf... - PubMed - NCBI

https://health-equity.pitt.edu/916/1/12pm.pdf

Sexism behind over-investment in cycling infrastructure: report

Workshop or Seminar on Women and Family Transportation Cycling - Cindy Marven's suggestion

Increased Comfort = More Women Biking | League of American Bicyclists

Edit to add and close the circle in respect to more cyclists = safer cycling:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...ork-calderdale

https://www.care2.com/causes/keep-rid...udy-shows.html

https://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/11...accidents.html

https://ecomodder.com/blog/cyclists-means-accidents/

By the way. I did minimal vetting of these. Please forgive me if there is some repeated first or second level information. In short, here is a place to start. The knowledge you seek is out there. I just don't have time to dig it out right now. Also want to say, not trying to start a flame war, just presenting my opinion, which I think is based on some pretty solid facts and reason (not that yours isn't).

Last edited by jwarner; 11-20-14 at 11:56 PM.
jwarner is offline  
Old 11-20-14, 11:55 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
jputnam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Posts: 1,260

Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
The question is too general to have a meaningful answer.

Where street speeds are reasonable and intersection density is high, I prefer the safety of riding in the travel lane, since the great majority of car/bike accidents in this environment are turning/intersection conflicts and doorings. Sidepaths and bike lanes both increase the risk of turning/intersection accidents, unless the bicycle facility has entirely separated signal phases.

Where street speeds are reasonable and intersection density is low, a well-designed bike lane can make less experienced cyclists more comfortable without a significant increase in accidents.

Where street speeds are high and intersection density is low, a sidepath can be an excellent solution.

Attached Images
jputnam is offline  
Old 11-21-14, 01:51 AM
  #75  
Fahrradfahrer
 
jwarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 367

Bikes: n+1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by jputnam
The question is too general to have a meaningful answer.

Where street speeds are reasonable and intersection density is high, I prefer the safety of riding in the travel lane, since the great majority of car/bike accidents in this environment are turning/intersection conflicts and doorings. Sidepaths and bike lanes both increase the risk of turning/intersection accidents, unless the bicycle facility has entirely separated signal phases.

Where street speeds are reasonable and intersection density is low, a well-designed bike lane can make less experienced cyclists more comfortable without a significant increase in accidents.

Where street speeds are high and intersection density is low, a sidepath can be an excellent solution.

The table you have posted is extremely counterintuitive if I am reading it correctly, and flies in the face of my experience in multiple cities on several continents. Do you have a primary source? Can you tell me how this applies to cities in North America?

As you seem to be a adult male, your comfort level, and wiliness to accept risk is greatest among all the groups that I have seen studied. Would you feel comfortable (would you let) your adolescent daughter ride on the street with traffic in most American cities? If the answer is no, then there is inadequate infrastructure in my opinion.

Again, no flame war wanted, but if we are going to explore this question as presented, then we must do so from all angles.

If intersections are the cause of accidents (which is only logical if the autos are physically prohibited from entering the rest of the cycle path) then we need to be discussing better engineering at these intersections. There is no possible way that riding on the streets where a single distracted driver can kill you, vs. riding in a cycle path with a physical barrier can be safer, unless of course the cars can somehow enter the protected cycle path. In this case, your physical barrier is not effective, and you don't actually have a physically protected cycle path. Eliminating free rights would be a good start. Granted, drivers will raise holy hell, but when don't they raise holy hell when something that might slightly inconvenience them comes up, or a bit of physical infrastructure designed to make them obey traffic codes comes up? On this point, I simply don't care if they are inconvenienced, or that they are put off because they have to follow the traffic code. Someone's life is way more precious than a few seconds of their time.

Last edited by jwarner; 11-21-14 at 02:02 AM.
jwarner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.