Thought I'd start a new thread since the Bike Lanes sticky was spilling over : )
Last December, I had the greatest experience exploring Berlin on bike (yes, in the middle of winter), riding through Friedrichshain, through Treptow Park, along the Spree River, into Kreuzberg, bypassing Checkpoint Charlie, to the Jewish Museum, past the Reichstag, and much more, all in one day!
One thing that stuck out was the abundance of bike "lanes" all over the city. I use quotes because these lanes are actually sections of the sidewalk partitioned just for bikes. Imagine a large sidewalk, with the lefthand portion sectioned off for bikes traveling in the same direction as traffic. And, at each intersection, there are lights exclusively for bikes and pedestrians--no cars are allowed to go at the same time!
Obviously, Berlin has had a much different history and culture that has probably allowed for this kind of bike lane/sidewalk, but I was curious if there were any cities in the US that may have adopted this kind of bike lane. If not, do you think this would be an improvement over the kind of bike lanes that exist now?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I saw these same type of facilities in Munich and around Lake Constance (Bodensee) a few weeks ago, and used them. We call them "side paths" on this side of the pond. The one German I talked to about them noted that the only collision he had ever been in was on one of these paths.
I think this approach is generally considered unsafe by American traffic engineers, and I'd be surprised if you'd find any here.
The answer to your question, about whether this is an improvement to regular bike lanes, depends on one's perspective.
If one believes that cyclists fare best when separated from vehicular traffic, these would be considered an improvement over our bike lanes.
If one believes cyclists fare best when integrated with vehicular traffic, these would be considered a wash, or probably even worse than typical American bike lanes.
So the more fundamental question is whether segregation or integration of cyclists is best.
oboeguy
The bike lanes in Berlin totally PWN (err, own) the bike lanes in NYC. Seriously, we did the "Fat Tire Berlin" thing and it was a pleasure to ride there. It's the best way to see the city: http://www.fattirebiketoursberlin.com/ .
sggoodri
Those German sidepaths have been found to be more dangerous for German cyclists than German streets. Here is cycling safety expert John Allen's English translation of a press release from a German cycling organization, with his footnotes:
Sidepaths are often more dangerous than streets
ADFC recommends that bicyclists use caution on paths
Originally, sidepaths were constructed to protect bicyclists from motor traffic[1]. But since then, the number of studies which show that the risk of accidents is markedly higher on sidepaths than on the streets has been growing. Bicyclists who are traveling on a two-way sidepath in an urban area on the left side of the street have 11.9 times the accident risk they would have on the streets[2]. The cause of this danger is an incorrect political promotion of bicycling over the past few decades. In the past, travelers were segregated. Consequently, bicyclists and motorists could not see one another. At junctions, the bicycle traffic is directed onto the street, unexpected by the motorists. And so we have the typical urban bicycle accident. A bicyclist traveling straight ahead, struck by a turning motorist, is the most common type of bicycle accident involving a motor vehicle, states Stefan Brandtner, press contact for the German Cycling Federation ADFC Baden-Württemberg section. The ADFC therefore urges the elimination of sidepaths behind curbs, which have a high accident rate. With the changes in the traffic laws, local governments have the opportunity to lift this restriction. There is then no more mandatory use of what are called "other bicycle paths". The ADFC hopes that many cities and towns will make use of this change in laws. The new laws for cities and towns also require municipalities to review their bicycle facilities for compliance with certain minimum standards. This should be completed by October 1 of this year[3].
Nonetheless, there are still many bicycle paths whose use is mandatory but which are hazardous. The ADFC urges that plans for new bicycle facilities conform to the recommendations for bicycle traffic (ERA95). Instead of expensive sidepaths behind curbs, the ADFC recommends bicycle lanes on the streets. However, minimum widths must be maintained here as well. In addition, there should be no parking spaces next to bicycle lanes, because these are bound to lead to accidents when car doors are opened suddenly. The ADFC recommends that bicyclists ride so as always to be in the field of view of following drivers. When waiting at an intersection, the ADFC recommends not standing next to the first vehicle, but rather to pull somewhat forward of the stop line, and to assure having been seen by the driver of the vehicle behind, by looking to the rear[4]. Bicycle-friendly cities will install advanced stop lines for bicyclists. These increase safety for bicyclists tremendously[5]. In urban areas, the AFDC recommends that a 30 km/h speed limit be widely applied, since speeds are harmonized in this way and safety is increased for all travelers[6].
[1] This statement is not historically correct. The first cycle tracks were constructed before motor vehicles came into wide use, because dirt or cobblestone road surfaces were too poor for bicycling. Some cycle tracks were at the sides of the road and others were in the middle of the road. Once motor vehicles became common, a goal in constructing cycle tracks was to get cyclists off the roads for the convenience of motorists, and subsequently the sidepaths were all located at the side of the road. See John Franklin's Web page on the history of cycle paths.
[2] This figure is from a Swedish study which John Franklin references on his page about cycle path safety. Also see Web page with links to several other studies. Additional data from the same study is included in another document from the ADFC.
[3] Press release is undated but the year is recent as of 2002.
[4] I do not agree with the recommendation to pull ahead of the stop line, which contradicts the recommendation to be in the field of view of following drivers -- bicyclists may unexpectedly overtake motorists who are about to turn across their path. See my recommendation in Chapter 9 of Bicycling Street Smarts.
[5] Advanced stop lines are intended to allow bicyclists to overtake motorists on the right while a traffic light is red, pull ahead of them and then turn left. They can increase danger unless the bicyclist has some way of knowing in advance when the traffic light is going to turn green. See Web page about them.
[6] I have no problem with lowered speed limits other than that the speed limit recommended here is below the cruising speed of many bicyclists
H20.1
Thought I'd start a new thread since the Bike Lanes sticky was spilling over : )
Last December, I had the greatest experience exploring Berlin on bike (yes, in the middle of winter), riding through Friedrichshain, through Treptow Park, along the Spree River, into Kreuzberg, bypassing Checkpoint Charlie, to the Jewish Museum, past the Reichstag, and much more, all in one day!
One thing that stuck out was the abundance of bike "lanes" all over the city. I use quotes because these lanes are actually sections of the sidewalk partitioned just for bikes. Imagine a large sidewalk, with the lefthand portion sectioned off for bikes traveling in the same direction as traffic. And, at each intersection, there are lights exclusively for bikes and pedestrians--no cars are allowed to go at the same time!
Obviously, Berlin has had a much different history and culture that has probably allowed for this kind of bike lane/sidewalk, but I was curious if there were any cities in the US that may have adopted this kind of bike lane. If not, do you think this would be an improvement over the kind of bike lanes that exist now?
Many European cities have these bike lanes.
My wife is from Germany and I have been all over the country. Despite what some have posted the bike lanes in German cities are a marvel of efficiency. I never saw an accident and you can get ANYWHERE via bike using the lanes.Most people use their bikes as daily transportation and as a result Germans also have extensive trails that go out into the 'burbs or following the local river (which most cites have). Berlin is a great city to see by bike.
The only real danger on the bike paths is tourists and those that dont follow the rules, typically bikes pass through quite fast on the paths and pedestrians are not allowed to walk on the bike lane or near it. As far as automotive traffic, as long as cyclists and motorists follow the laws there usually arent issues.
In my opinion its a HUGE step up from what we have in US cities where many times if there even are bike lanes, they abruptly end.
H20.1
I saw these same type of facilities in Munich and around Lake Constance (Bodensee) a few weeks ago, and used them. We call them "side paths" on this side of the pond. The one German I talked to about them noted that the only collision he had ever been in was on one of these paths.
I think this approach is generally considered unsafe by American traffic engineers, and I'd be surprised if you'd find any here.
The answer to your question, about whether this is an improvement to regular bike lanes, depends on one's perspective.
If one believes that cyclists fare best when separated from vehicular traffic, these would be considered an improvement over our bike lanes.
If one believes cyclists fare best when integrated with vehicular traffic, these would be considered a wash, or probably even worse than typical American bike lanes.
So the more fundamental question is whether segregation or integration of cyclists is best.
I disagree, in Germany (at least) cyclists are found both mingling with vehicular traffic and separated in bike lanes. Its not accurate to suggest that bike traffic in German cities is completely separated from vehicular.
One thing that helps though is that most German cities dont allow much vehicular traffic; there are far more sections only open to bikes and pedestrians.
I-Like-To-Bike
I disagree, in Germany (at least) cyclists are found both mingling with vehicular traffic and separated in bike lanes. Its not accurate to suggest that bike traffic in German cities is completely separated from vehicular.
I agree with your disagreement. I lived and cycled in Germany for 10 years, the last 5 in the Heidelberg-Mannheim-Speyer area. The "suggestions" that Germans suffer from "segregated" facilities laws is a misleading and false scenario conjured up by American VC enthusiast/prophets.
Keith99
My wife is German, but has been over heere for years. So what I know about bikes and Germany may be out of date.
Comparing any U.S. system to Germany has some very real problems. In Germany people who are not "cyclists' will ride to the store or bistro. But this is usually less than a mile. Riding in the bike lane when available is required. BUT hit a cyclist in the bike lane as in right hook or drifting in abd it is your fault. Expect a fine of $1000 and up, that is IF you keep your license. Let's face it that is not going to happen here and until it does the systems are different at their roots.
Brian Ratliff
There is something like that on a section of the Burke-Gilman bike path in Seattle. It is a very short section though, so I cannot come to a conclusion about how well it works.
Helmet Head
Its not accurate to suggest that bike traffic in German cities is completely separated from vehicular.
Indeed. And, of course, I never did state nor suggest that bike traffic in German cities is completely separated from vehicular traffic.
I have no doubt that many, probably most, cyclists, including you, feel safer riding on these paths than in the street, and find cycling there to be much more pleasant. There is no debate on how people feel about them.
The issue is whether these paths actually make cycling safer. In theory (when you consider collision causes and the near irrelevance of from-behind "danger" coupled with the dominance of intersection related problems), and in practice (when you look at the studies), it is quite obvious that cycling on streets is considerably safer than cycling on these paths. Your personal observations ("I never saw an accident") hardly warrants a sample size upon which any rational conclusions can be made on this topic. In forty-four I've never seen a cyclist get hit on the street either, but I don't base my belief that cycling on the street is safer than sidepath cycling on that (I base it on theory and studies).
The "suggestions" that Germans suffer from "segregated" facilities laws is a misleading and false scenario conjured up by American VC enthusiast/prophets.
Suggestions? What part of the GERMAN study of the safety of their own paths cited by Dr. Goodrich above did you not understand? Oh, you didn't read it? Why bother your mind with facts when you already "know" the truth? I see...
Suffer? Now you're equating not faring as well (which is what we do claim about sidepath users as compared to vehicular cyclists) with suffering, your strawman misrepresentation of what we claim. It seems that without creating strawmen misrepresentations of our claims you'd have even less to say than you already do.
Helmet Head
Here's the thing. Perhaps if total segregation were possible, then indeed cyclists would fare quite well on segregated bikeways like these sidepaths. But a completely segregated infrastructure that actually gets cyclists between all points where they need to travel is practically impossible. To actually implement such a thing you'd have to build it at a separate level - on a separate plane from motorists - either cyclists up high, or perhaps all motorists underground.
In the mean time, we have to deal with the reality of cyclists and motorists sharing the same plane, which means our paths of travel must intersect. It is within that reality that theory and studies indicated that cyclists fare significantly better when integrated with traffic, rather than separated.
The real question is, given the reality that our paths of travel must intersect in the same plane, do cyclists fare better if we work towards the "ideal" (total segregation on a separate plane) with partial segregation on the same plane, or do we fare better the more integrated we are with vehicular traffic on the same plane?
Theory and studies show, quite convincingly to me, that sharing the same plane with vehicles, unlike pedestrians, cyclists are significantly better off integrated on the roadways than segregated on sidepaths.
H20.1
Indeed. And, of course, I never did state nor suggest that bike traffic in German cities is completely separated from vehicular traffic.
I have no doubt that many, probably most, cyclists, including you, feel safer riding on these paths than in the street, and find cycling there to be much more pleasant. There is no debate on how people feel about them.
The issue is whether these paths actually make cycling safer. In theory (when you consider collision causes and the near irrelevance of from-behind "danger" coupled with the dominance of intersection related problems), and in practice (when you look at the studies), it is quite obvious that cycling on streets is considerably safer than cycling on these paths. Your personal observations ("I never saw an accident") hardly warrants a sample size upon which any rational conclusions can be made on this topic. In forty-four I've never seen a cyclist get hit on the street either, but I don't base my belief that cycling on the street is safer than sidepath cycling on that (I base it on theory and studies).
Suggestions? What part of the GERMAN study of the safety of their own paths cited by Dr. Goodrich above did you not understand? Oh, you didn't read it? Why bother your mind with facts when you already "know" the truth? I see...
Suffer? Now you're equating not faring as well (which is what we do claim about sidepath users as compared to vehicular cyclists) with suffering, your strawman misrepresentation of what we claim. It seems that without creating strawmen misrepresentations of our claims you'd have even less to say than you already do.
I didnt say I liked it because I felt safer. I dont know if its "safer" though I do know that its nice that most German cities are designed with bikes in mind. In terms of saftey Im sure there is a study or two lurking around arguing that bike lanes (the way they are) are safer than mingling with vehicular traffic all the time.
I-Like-To-Bike
Suggestions? What part of the GERMAN study of the safety of their own paths cited by Dr. Goodrich above did you not understand? Oh, you didn't read it? Why bother your mind with facts when you already "know" the truth? I see...
As always you see what you want to see. The PRESS RELEASE cited by MR. Goodrich, refered to one Swedish Study. What German studies about German cycling did you see?
Helmet Head
In terms of saftey Im sure there is a study or two lurking around arguing that bike lanes (the way they are) are safer than mingling with vehicular traffic all the time.
What do you mean by "mingling with vehicular traffic all the time" and do you really believe that is the alternative to bike lanes?
Imagine a road with a U.S. style bike lane (painted stripe 4-5 feet from edge of the road). Now, without making any other changes on that road, remove the bike lane stripe. No more bike lane. Instead, you have a wide outside lane (WOL). Do cyclists have to "mingle" with vehicular traffic all the time? Do you really believe that cycling becomes less safe when the stripe is removed?
Helmet Head
You're right, it was a Swedish study, and Dr. Goodrich cited the press release, not the study.
H20.1
What do you mean by "mingling with vehicular traffic all the time" and do you really believe that is the alternative to bike lanes?
Imagine a road with a U.S. style bike lane (painted stripe 4-5 feet from edge of the road). Now, without making any other changes on that road, remove the bike lane stripe. No more bike lane. Instead, you have a wide outside lane (WOL). Do cyclists have to "mingle" with vehicular traffic all the time? Do you really believe that cycling becomes less safe when the stripe is removed?
I was referring to the German lanes. German bike lanes are sometimes paths that run parallel to the sidewalk and pedestrian foot traffic, and at other times they are in the street as a "bike lane." All I said was I preferred the German designated paths and lanes to the US equivalent. I dont believe that riding in traffic is any safer than using the bike paths/lanes found in Germany. Yes my view is based on personal experience rather than a study.
My last comment suggested that there may be other studies that suggest that the German path/lane system is safer than simply sticking cyclists on the road.
Helmet Head
My last comment suggested that there may be other studies that suggest that the German path/lane system is safer than simply sticking cyclists on the road.
Understood.
When cyclists are on the roadway integrated with same-direction traffic, the main threat to cyclists - cross traffic at intersections (including driveways, alleys, etc.) - is less likely to collide with them than if they are traveling in a segregated flow. This is why integrated cycling - simply sticking cyclists on the road - is safer than segregated cycling on bikeways that require cyclists and motorists to cross paths in the same plane anyway.
We have established that I believe integrated cycling is safer and that you believe that partial segregation is safer. I have explained why I believe what I believe. Could you explain why you believe partial segregation is safer? Or why you dismiss my explanation for why integrated cycling is safer?
Dahon.Steve
Article From the site: www.bikexprt.com
>>>1895: Ocean Parkway bike path opened in Brooklyn, New York. Said to be the oldest path still in existence today. Other early bike paths believed to have been constructed in USA, especially on the east coast, but construction ceased at turn of century as cycling waned as a common mode of transport. It seems quite possible that the US invented the bike path.<<<<<
I've travled on that bike path and here's my opinion.
It's OK on a Sunday morning if you intend to do no more than 5-10 mph. If you intend to ride 15 mph or greater on that bike parth, you're looking to end up in the hospital. The Ocean Parkway bike path has the following problems. You can only travel one block at a time just like riding on the sidewalk and you must come to a complete stop at every corner. You would be crazy to cut across the street without looking.
Here are some additional observations.
1. A highway built right next to it with intersections on both sides -- Those cars on the highway at full speed are constantly turning right into the path. You get both right and left hooks.
2. The road is made of concrete -- Concrete may be fine for walking but not for cycling. Once the surface gets old, concrete starts to lift off the surface or crack making it a horrible surface to cycle.
3. Walkers and Peds ----- Did I mention there are LOADS of them on the Ocean parkway bike path??
In 1895, the Ocean parkway bike path in Brooklyn must have been a great idea but not anymore. With no cars or trucks, having to ride on concrete was a much better alternative to riding in dirt, mud or cobblestone. Today, with that highway and all those cars going 55-70 mph turning right into the path at every corner make it very dangerous. As far as I'm concerned, that bike path is no different than riding on the sidewalk. Unfortunately, you would be crazy to ride on the road because the highway engineers did not design any shoulder for the cyclist.
genec
Understood.
When cyclists are on the roadway integrated with same-direction traffic, the main threat to cyclists - cross traffic at intersections (including driveways, alleys, etc.) - is less likely to collide with them than if they are traveling in a segregated flow. This is why integrated cycling - simply sticking cyclists on the road - is safer than segregated cycling on bikeways that require cyclists and motorists to cross paths in the same plane anyway.
We have established that I believe integrated cycling is safer and that you believe that partial segregation is safer. I have explained why I believe what I believe. Could you explain why you believe partial segregation is safer? Or why you dismiss my explanation for why integrated cycling is safer?
This is not to suggest that side paths are a good solution, nor that I know how the German system is set up. (I have never been there)
But simply I want to suggest that even a partial segregation system is safer based only on the fact that there may be fewer intersections for interaction on the "same plane." Several paths that I am aware of, offer alternative routes rather then the straight through streets... they use uninteruppted greenbelts for instance.
If on the other hand, the paths have the same intersections as the regular streets, there are no advantages.
Helmet Head
But simply I want to suggest that even a partial segregation system is safer based only on the fact that there may be fewer intersections for interaction on the "same plane."
False.
You have to look not only at the number of interactions, but the likelihood of collision at each interaction, and how the level of segregation affects that likelihood. For example...
If on the other hand, the paths have the same intersections as the regular streets, there are no advantages.
No advantages... we agree.
What about disadvantages? Are you saying that since the intersections are the same, there are no disadvantages either?
The problem is that the likelihood of collision at each intersection is higher for the same reason that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous than street cycling: the cyclist is more likely to not be seen at the intersection, because he is more likely to be riding somewhere where motorists are not looking.
You have to consider this factor too. So even if a partially segregated system reduces the number of interactions, by say a factor of 3, if the likelihood of collision at a given intersection goes up by more than a factor of 3, then the partially segregated system is not safer.
By the way, the German sidepaths do not reduce numbers of intersections/interactions.
genec
False.
You have to look not only at the number of interactions, but the likelihood of collision at each interaction, and how the level of segregation affects that likelihood. For example...
No advantages... we agree.
What about disadvantages? Are you saying that since the intersections are the same, there are no disadvantages either?
The problem is that the likelihood of collision at each intersection is higher for the same reason that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous than street cycling: the cyclist is more likely to not be seen at the intersection, because he is more likely to be riding somewhere where motorists are not looking.
You have to consider this factor too. So even if a partially segregated system reduces the number of interactions, by say a factor of 3, if the likelihood of collision at a given intersection goes up by more than a factor of 3, then the partially segregated system is not safer.
By the way, the German sidepaths do not reduce numbers of intersections/interactions.
If the intersections are the same... not mid block or something strange, then the only factor to consider are the numbers of intersections, if you reduce the number of chances for vehicles to interact, you will reduce the number of possible accidents.
If on the other hand ("there are no disadvantages either?") the intersections meet the street in strange ways or uncontrolled ways (the 56 bike path for instance) then the advantages of fewer intersections can be offset by an increased likely hood of not being seen. (as you point out)
This example can be easily illustrated locally by contrasting a couple paths:
The Mission Bay path that we took on the memorial ride offers few (if any) advantanges over simply riding down East Mission Bay Drive. The Santa Fe trail path offers many advantages over trying to negotiate the many streets and intersections bisected by the freeway interchange under which it sits.
It sounds like the German system is mainly sidepaths... which tend to offer no advantages.
H20.1
Understood.
When cyclists are on the roadway integrated with same-direction traffic, the main threat to cyclists - cross traffic at intersections (including driveways, alleys, etc.) - is less likely to collide with them than if they are traveling in a segregated flow. This is why integrated cycling - simply sticking cyclists on the road - is safer than segregated cycling on bikeways that require cyclists and motorists to cross paths in the same plane anyway.
We have established that I believe integrated cycling is safer and that you believe that partial segregation is safer. I have explained why I believe what I believe. Could you explain why you believe partial segregation is safer? Or why you dismiss my explanation for why integrated cycling is safer?
I believe partial segregation is safer because it removes cyclists from traffic. While I take no real issue with riding in traffic (do it all the time) I find that the bike lanes (such as in Germany) make life easier. They are clear from pedestrian/foot traffic, and I dont have to worry about watching the car to my left/right or glancing behind. There is somewhat of a danger that collisions could occur at intersections but usually an alert cyclist will see it coming. Major interesections operate on the light system like regular traffic. Issues involving alleys, driveways etc. are a bit more dangerous but if the cyclist is alert, and the driver is paying attention to the fact that he/ she is crossing a bike lane, I dont see that accidents are more likely. If they are, its probably due to negligence. Bike lanes also make bike travel quicker around the city. Many times I find myself travelling far faster than the city auto traffic when riding in the lanes (in Germany).
The US lane system is much more crude if it even exists at all some cities.
Helmet Head
Gene, good points. I think we're close to agreement.
I'll agree that there is some amount of partial segregation that is safer than total integration, but with the major caveat that that is a far cry from the apparent position of many: ANY partial segregation is better than none.
In particular, an isolated bike path with well designed intersections at its end points that allows a cyclist to avoid a series of intersections probably makes cycling safer (like Rose Canyon path).
But any bike lane or sidepath that does not reduce intersection interactions by one iota (which is true for all bike lanes and sidepaths, by definition), certainly does not fall into the category of partial segregation that makes cycling safer, but arguably makes cycling less safe, because of the "surprise factor" (which sidepaths increase more than bike lanes).
By the "surprise factor" I mean the problem of cyclists traveling where motorists are often not looking, thus increasing the probability of not seeing them at intersections, and makes an intersection interaction collision more likely, coupled with cyclists traveling with a misguided sense of safety, which also contributes to making intersection interaction more dangerous, because cyclists are not as "in tune" with watching out for traffic.
Helmet Head
I believe partial segregation is safer because it removes cyclists from traffic.
I believe you are underestimating the major role that intersection interactions (including intersections with alleys, driveways, etc.) play in car-bike collisions, which are not reduced by "partial segregation" facilities like the sidepaths and bike lanes we're discussing here (not including the completely isolated bikepaths that bypass intersections referred to by genec), are underestimating the factor that these type of facilities play in making these intersection interactions even more dangerous because of how they encourage cyclists to travel where motorists are typically not looking, are underestimating the role of the "surprise factor" (see above), and are grossly overestimating the tiny role played by same-direction "from behind" passing collisions.
genec
Gene, good points. I think we're close to agreement.
I think we are in total agreement... the Mission Bay path is a great bad example... especially as it forces cyclists to "merge" into traffic in an awkward area.
I had an equally disppointing moment on the 56 path the other day... with a right on red motorist coming off the freeway... (the freeway ramp and right on red dump right at the same point as a path crossing)
I naturally assumed that the motorist would not be aware of me at all and therefore I waited at the end of the path... only to discover the motorist was aware of me, and had hesitated herself, trying to figure out if I was going to suddenly take off or not. So this illustrates one problem of a path and how the path users interact with non-path users... and the confusion that can occur.
Helmet Head
I naturally assumed that the motorist would not be aware of me at all and therefore I waited at the end of the path... only to discover the motorist was aware of me, and had hesitated herself, trying to figure out if I was going to suddenly take off or not. So this illustrates one problem of a path and how the path users interact with non-path users... and the confusion that can occur.
Yeah, that's a big problem. But how would you fix it, assuming you have no money for an under/over pass?
I was thinking of having the eastbound bikepath traffic merge into the eastbound offramp - so that cyclists will be integrated with traffic at the intersection, cross it with motorist traffic, then merge off back onto the path on the other side.
But westbound is worse, because they're on the contra-flow side of the road. I don't think there is a good solution for this.
By the way, the way the Rose Canyon path merges with LJ Colony at the north end is also a great bad example. It's often very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to make these connections be safe and reasonable for all directions.
genec
Yeah, that's a big problem. But how would you fix it, assuming you have no money for an under/over pass?
I was thinking of having the eastbound bikepath traffic merge into the eastbound offramp - so that cyclists will be integrated with traffic at the intersection, cross it with motorist traffic, then merge off back onto the path on the other side.
But westbound is worse, because they're on the contra-flow side of the road. I don't think there is a good solution for this.
By the way, the way the Rose Canyon path merges with LJ Colony at the north end is also a great bad example. It's often very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to make these connections be safe and reasonable for all directions.
Probably the cheapest fix is to make it a "no right on red..." that would also work at LJ Colony... I think.
The better fix is actual lights and control buttons (with the flow... both west bound and east) that control the lights... or better yet, "path sensors."
To merge into traffic would be nice, but it would really complicate the path layout.
Keeping the path simple and adding crossing buttons that are accessable to cyclists, rather then pedestrian focused, is probably the easiest solution.
Santa Barbara does this by putting buttons on islands at the BL and in the direction of flow in paths. San Diego forces cyclists to get off their bikes, walk up to the button, push the button, mount up, and hope they can make the light. (some are actually quite short... )
Sidenote regarding the Rose Canyon path at LJ Colony: yeah, it is an awkward crossing, but the advantages gained overall by using the path: +20, less the awkwardness: -5, still yield a good +15... I'll take it. Years ago, LJ Colony did not exist, and the path worked even better. So much for street planning.
I swear our local traffic engineers really don't have a clue... Mission Valley confirms this any time I have to go down there. So does Convoy.
sbhikes
In places where people expect lots of bicyclists, those hazards people often refer to in this forum are not much of a problem.
Drivers who expect bicyclists will look for them when pulling out from alleys, driveways or streets. Pedestrians who expect a large volume of bicycle traffic won't walk on the bike path. I know this to be true from my experiences with Isla Vista and UCSB. There are so many bikes there that the streets belong to them. Cars stop at stop signs and wait for bikes that don't stop. Scofflaws all of them. But nobody gets mad. You just wait until the bikes have gone. You don't make a turn or anything without looking for a bike. On the campus you don't dare walk or cross a bike path or else you will die. Bike paths are only for bikes on campus.
Places where biking is done by lots of people, no matter how the bicycles are separated or integrated into the traffic system, just work better period because the drivers are expecting bicycles. Drivers in the US just don't expect bikes and they don't look out for them, and honestly, there aren't that many cyclists in the US anyway, compared to other places such as Europe or Isla Vista.
sbhikes
Santa Barbara does this by putting buttons on islands at the BL and in the direction of flow in paths. San Diego forces cyclists to get off their bikes, walk up to the button, push the button, mount up, and hope they can make the light. (some are actually quite short... )
Just out of curiosity, where were those islands? They might have gotten rid of them. The only place that I know of where I push a special button is on Las Positas and Modoc, and it is on the curb at bike height, as close to the street as possible for easy reach. Otherwise, there are lots of sensors now in the bike lanes, and even on some bike paths. Things may have improved since you've been here. (Oh, and you can ask the city to make regular traffic lane sensors sensitive to bicycles, too, and they'll do it.)
Helmet Head
No right on red won't fix the problem... Besides those that miss the sign (the no right on red from Prospect to Torrey Pines is ignored by probably half the drivers) , peds/cyclists have a walk signal at the same time the right turners have a green to cross their path. :eek:
genec
Just out of curiosity, where were those islands? They might have gotten rid of them. The only place that I know of where I push a special button is on Las Positas and Modoc, and it is on the curb at bike height, as close to the street as possible for easy reach. Otherwise, there are lots of sensors now in the bike lanes, and even on some bike paths. Things may have improved since you've been here. (Oh, and you can ask the city to make regular traffic lane sensors sensitive to bicycles, too, and they'll do it.)
Sounds like they did get rid of them. I found them coming south from Isla Vista to SB on the main route. Perhaps I was still in IV. But still "at the curb at bike height" is better then what we get... which is off the curb, about a sidewalk width away and really poorly set up to even use the curb cuts with a bike... Oh it can be done, but only by walk-straddling your bike into position...
Maybe it's time for me and my bike to pay another visit. I recall at one location a somewhat odd split lane with a BL on the right and another lane further to the right... something like some of the bus lanes in San Francisco.
genec
No right on red won't fix the problem... Besides those that miss the sign (the no right on red from Prospect to Torrey Pines is ignored by probably half the drivers) , peds/cyclists have a walk signal at the same time the right turners have a green to cross their path. :eek:
The light cycle would have to actually change... it would have to allow cyclists a separate crossing while holding all other traffic... which BTW was the argument used to get the Black Mountain Road bridge funding from the planning board: "The delays while waiting for cyclists will be terrible."
I thought it was a great approach... nothing about touting cycling and how great it is. Nope, the entire focus was on how bad the motorists will have it. Talk about great sales job... whew!
As far as the right on red signage... post a cop for a while... they enjoy those kind of "instant win" tickets. Heck, if the city really wants money, put in a red light cam. Cha Ching!
dchs
The light cycle would have to actually change... it would have to allow cyclists a separate crossing while holding all other traffic... which BTW was the argument used to get the Black Mountain Road bridge funding from the planning board: "The delays while waiting for cyclists will be terrible."
I thought it was a great approach... nothing about touting cycling and how great it is. Nope, the entire focus was on how bad the motorists will have it. Talk about great sales job... whew!
As far as the right on red signage... post a cop for a while... they enjoy those kind of "instant win" tickets. Heck, if the city really wants money, put in a red light cam. Cha Ching!
Just an addy if it wasn't clear in my original post--at intersections in Berlin, I noticed autos and bikes/pedestrians seemed to each have their own separate crossing/light. For example, pedestrians/bikes have their own green signals while all other traffic is stopped. Pedestrian/bike signal turns red, then auto traffic gets their green. My conclusion was that traffic and bikes/pedestrians would not be in the intersection at the same time (I don't think right turns on red is allowed there, but I may be wrong).
It might appear that this would cause longer delays, but when thinking about it, I would suspect the effect on traffic and amount of time spent at an intersection may not differ that much, since auto traffic would be normally be delayed when cars would have to wait for pedestrians while making a turn. So by giving pedestrians/bikes their own signals, it would actually speed up auto traffic. Does this theory sound right?
BTW all the folks I saw in the bike paths seemed to be everyday volk commuting, running errands, on pleasure rides, etc. The only road cyclist I saw (not that the previous description doesn't also apply to roadies) was riding in traffic down Unter den Linden.
I-Like-To-Bike
BTW all the folks I saw in the bike paths seemed to be everyday volk commuting, running errands, on pleasure rides, etc. The only road cyclist I saw (not that the previous description doesn't also apply to roadies) was riding in traffic down Unter den Linden.
This is the ONLY kind of cyclists I saw riding in traffic down the Unter den Linden, or anywhere else in Berlin on a workday on my visits; picture taken about 200 meters from the Brandenberg Gate.
genec
Just an addy if it wasn't clear in my original post--at intersections in Berlin, I noticed autos and bikes/pedestrians seemed to each have their own separate crossing/light. For example, pedestrians/bikes have their own green signals while all other traffic is stopped. Pedestrian/bike signal turns red, then auto traffic gets their green. My conclusion was that traffic and bikes/pedestrians would not be in the intersection at the same time (I don't think right turns on red is allowed there, but I may be wrong).
Yes, look at the attached pics... in the first one under the sign that says Velos Itineraire Obligatoire (obligatory "route" for bikes) you see the bike traffic light.
The second attachment is a close up of the light. The color did not reproduce well for some odd reason... it is a bike red light.
The last pic is looking up the bike lane at approaching traffic and the lane itself.
These were taken in Paris.
Keith99
In places where people expect lots of bicyclists, those hazards people often refer to in this forum are not much of a problem.
Pedestrians who expect a large volume of bicycle traffic won't walk on the bike path. I know this to be true from my experiences with Isla Vista and UCSB.
I know from my experience in Santa Monica that this is NOT always true. The most striking example is the beach bikepath just North of Washington (could have the street wrong). Here there is a pedestrian walkway just 10-20 feet inland from the bikepath, lots of bikes on the bikepath and many if not most pedestrians use the bikepath. It is the same for almost the whole length of the path, but elsewhere it is more understandable as often the choice is sand or bikepath.
MassBiker
I saw these same type of facilities in Munich and around Lake Constance (Bodensee) a few weeks ago, and used them. We call them "side paths" on this side of the pond. The one German I talked to about them noted that the only collision he had ever been in was on one of these paths.
I think this approach is generally considered unsafe by American traffic engineers, and I'd be surprised if you'd find any here.
Prepare to be surprised.
You're right about design standards in the US discouraging these things. The American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials recommends against these "bicycle sidewalks," and has done so for at least 23 years. Sidewalk bikeways appear to be the most dangerous bicycle facilities ever built.
But in Cambridge, Massachusetts, two have been built within the last five years. One is at Fresh Pond, where cyclists are routed out of the bike lane on Concord Street and onto a sidewalk bikeway that's only a few feet from the door of a home appliance store, and that crosses seven private driveways and two public roads over a quarter-mile stretch. To build it, the City and the now-defunct Metropolitan District Commission (an eastern Massachusetts waterways and parklands management agency that's been replaced by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation Resources) narrowed the roadway and routed the Concord Ave bike lane onto the sidewalk.
A few years ago, when this thing opened, John Allen and I passed out leaflets at its opening, protesting it. You can read my report on that event at
http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/FreshPond/index.htm . John's insightful description of the path, with color glossy photos and a paragraph on each one, showing the approach, the getaway, and all kinds of other stuff, is at
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/freshpond/parkpath.htm
Suffice to say, it never should have been built. But we were criticized for complaining about it after it was built, and not before. This presumes that Cambridge is more inclined to listen to two bicyclist advocates who don't even live in that city than it is to follow the design manuals that are on their engineers' shelves -- and that sounds like a bigger problem than I thought they had!
Taking this to heart, John and I also attended a meeting of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee to complain about their plans to have the Massachusetts Institute of Technology build a bicycle sidewalk along Vassar Street, a stretch of road that runs through the Institute's campus. We arrived, we presented our case, we referenced the necessary design documents, and John showed that he'd been involved in working against it ever since MIT decided to place an underqualified landscape architect in charge of an engineering project at one of the world's premiere engineering schools. (Which goes to show, just because your smart, it doesn't mean you can't be crazy.)
The result? It got built anyway -- and of course it got built! It didn't matter that we were active against it years before it was constructed. If we'd bought the land it stands on when Cambridge was founded in 1630, it *still* would have been taken by eminent domain and built, because that's how it works when you've got a city gummint committed to building stuff like this.
You can read John's critique of this sidewalk bikeway at
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm . It's a pretty big resource, and the large "Background info" section shows that John and other MIT alumni tried to get the project on the proper track again and again, but they were ignored.
For my part, I asked the landscaper what the goals of this facility were. She replied that it was to encourage cycling, and to increase safety. Following on, I asked what baselines they'd produced -- what bicycle counts they had for people using this street and other parallel streets, what the crash rates were on these streets, what types of crashes typically occurred, and so on. I also asked what follow-up studies were planned to determine whether the goals were met.
The response I received was, "It's European." Well, yes it is -- and so was World War I! (Maybe that's why they have these things in Berlin?)
Basically, MIT decided to throw engineering out the window when it came to building this thing, and the City of Cambridge let them. Remember what I said about smart and crazy, farther up?
Since that time, John's accumulated more on the Vassar Street path. Here, for example --
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/snow.htm , shows that, despite the fact that MIT promised to clear snow from this facility, after the first substantial snowfall they used the path to store snow plowed from the street!
Anyway, don't underestimate what can be done by True Believers when they get hold of gummint and the money to pay for stuff like this. All the engineering manuals in the world won't convince some folks that cyclists are better off out of the roads, the roads that belong to the cars!
Helmet Head
The response I received was, "It's European." Well, yes it is -- and so was World War I! (Maybe that's why they have these things in Berlin?)
ROTFLOL!
And thanks for sharing the info and history about the Cambridge sidepaths.
MassBiker
Many European cities have these bike lanes.
[...]
The only real danger on the bike paths is tourists and those that dont follow the rules, typically bikes pass through quite fast on the paths and pedestrians are not allowed to walk on the bike lane or near it. As far as automotive traffic, as long as cyclists and motorists follow the laws there usually arent issues.
So what you're saying is ...
"These things are very successful if everyone obeys the rules."
Well, I agree.
But how, exactly, is this an improvement over riding in a roadway when everyone is obeying the rules? And the response isn't, "Well, not everybody obeys the rules!", because then you're denying your own premise.
No one has ever shown that cyclists are safer, with equivalent efficiency, by riding on sidewalks of any kind than they are riding in the road according to ordinary traffic rules. But in the USA, the justification for these types of facilities often includes a statement asserting that facilities are for people who can't -- or won't -- follow ordinary traffic rules. (Yet no-one has ever built a bike facility that makes it safe for people who won't ride safely to be safe.)
But now, as you point out, the moment someone stops obeying sidepath rules on the sidepath, they become a hazard to everyone. Plus, sidepaths are never built or maintained to roadway standards.
So I'll ask again: if cyclists obeying the sidepath rules is what makes a sidepath useful, how is that better than having cyclists obey roadway rules and ride in the adjacent roadway?
genec
So what you're saying is ...
"These things are very successful if everyone obeys the rules."
Well, I agree.
So I'll ask again: if cyclists obeying the sidepath rules is what makes a sidepath useful, how is that better than having cyclists obey roadway rules and ride in the adjacent roadway?
So if the cyclists are obeying the roadway rules, riding in the roadway and doing all the right things... And yet accidents (or at least "incidents") still occur... What is the next step?
How do cyclists get co-operation from motorists moving along the roadway at 45, 50 and 65 MPH that barely co-operate with their fellow motorists?
I believe that I for instance, as a cyclist, am doing all the right things, but I find that often I am impeded by motorists that attempt to "correct" what they feel are my wrongs: not being close enough to the curb; riding in a traffic lane at a speed less then prevailing motor traffic; using the right only turn lanes to make right only turns; merging left and with traffic to make left turns. All these things seemingly have caused motorists some form of grief, and they have expressed their opinions in various ways with my "roadway rules" roadway use.
Is there any chance that perhaps the motorists don't know I should be there? Is there any chance that the motorists are perhaps wrong?
genec
ROTFLOL!
And thanks for sharing the info and history about the Cambridge sidepaths.
Perhaps the funniest (sadest) thing about the Cambridge sidepaths is that all those streets appear to be moving at around 30-35MPH... the last thing that was needed was some fancy "maze" for bikes.
Helmet Head
So if the cyclists are obeying the roadway rules, riding in the roadway and doing all the right things... And yet accidents (or at least "incidents") still occur... What is the next step?
We're such a long way from that step - when cyclists are obeying the roadway rules, riding in the roadway and doing all the right things - why worry about the next step? In fact, by the time we get here, if we ever do, the effect of any next steps from here would only make cycling slightly safer compared to the major strides we would have made getting here. I would estimate that if we ever got to this state, cyclist fatalities would be reduced from about 700 to 50 or less. So let's worry about the "next step" when we're down to 50 deaths per year, shall we?
Is there any chance that perhaps the motorists don't know I should be there? Is there any chance that the motorists are perhaps wrong?
Maybe, who cares? I ride in basically the same areas as you, and yet I am never "impeded" by motorists believing whatever you imagine them to believe.
sbhikes
I know from my experience in Santa Monica that this is NOT always true. The most striking example is the beach bikepath just North of Washington (could have the street wrong). Here there is a pedestrian walkway just 10-20 feet inland from the bikepath, lots of bikes on the bikepath and many if not most pedestrians use the bikepath. It is the same for almost the whole length of the path, but elsewhere it is more understandable as often the choice is sand or bikepath.
Yes of course, and our beach bike path is like that too. You don't understand the sheer volume of bike traffic in Isla Vista. As a pedestrian trying to cross the bike path you wait a long time for an opening. As a motorist, you wait a loooong time at stop signs as herds of cyclists ride 4 abreast down the street. It's so bad in IV that the cops have been doing mass ticketing of cyclists who don't stop at stop signs and they're trying to come up with a way to -- get this -- make IV more attractive to car traffic because they don't come to town to shop because of all the bikes.
You may quarrel with the outlaw bike riding there. But that doesn't change my original statement, which was where there is a lot of cycling, many of the hazards that come up on this list all the time aren't much of a problem for cyclists because car traffic learns how to behave around them.
As for the signals that were mentioned...I experienced some pedestrian only signals in San Francisco that stopped all traffic in all directions and let pedestrians cross at all angles. They were great. I can think of several intersections where I wouldn't mind something like that for bicycles.
genec
We're such a long way from that step - when cyclists are obeying the roadway rules, riding in the roadway and doing all the right things - why worry about the next step? In fact, by the time we get here, if we ever do, the effect of any next steps from here would only make cycling slightly safer compared to the major strides we would have made getting here. I would estimate that if we ever got to this state, cyclist fatalities would be reduced from about 700 to 50 or less. So let's worry about the "next step" when we're down to 50 deaths per year, shall we?
But I am there, and you are there and John Allen is there and so on... what about us? Huh, who is gonna tell the motorists that it's really OK for us to be there.
I ride in basically the same areas as you, and yet I am never "impeded" by motorists believing whatever you imagine them to believe.
Yup it amazes me too... perhaps the south end of my north south route is vastly different from your entire east west route... I donno. You saw me riding on that Sunday... not much different from you, yet I do get the freaks that try to right turn from straight through only lanes, and the idiots that tell me to "move right" on quiet Sundays with no one else on the 6 lane roads, and the clowns that swerve around me in the dual left only lanes to get right in front of me, and the jerks that do the dragster rev rev routine and swoop around me just so I can stay with them at the next 2-3 traffic lights. Must be some special mojo you got workin' there Serge. 'Cause it does happen to me... and it sure tells me that there are a heap of motorists out there that don't have a clue. I even got honked at in the Road 1 class... go figure. Maybe I need a haircut... yeah, that's it... sigh... :rolleyes:
Daily Commute
As always you see what you want to see. The PRESS RELEASE cited by MR. Goodrich, refered to one Swedish Study. What German studies about German cycling did you see?
This is ILTB's game. He demands statistics and studies, but never provides them himself. As usual, he's shouting insults from the peanut gallery.
Helmet Head
Yup it amazes me too... perhaps the south end of my north south route is vastly different from your entire east west route... I donno. You saw me riding on that Sunday... not much different from you, yet I do get the freaks that try to right turn from straight through only lanes, and the idiots that tell me to "move right" on quiet Sundays with no one else on the 6 lane roads, and the clowns that swerve around me in the dual left only lanes to get right in front of me, and the jerks that do the dragster rev rev routine and swoop around me just so I can stay with them at the next 2-3 traffic lights. Must be some special mojo you got workin' there Serge. 'Cause it does happen to me... and it sure tells me that there are a heap of motorists out there that don't have a clue. I even got honked at in the Road 1 class... go figure. Maybe I need a haircut... yeah, that's it... sigh...
Maybe my special mojo is that I just ignore this stuff, and you let it affect you?
Just this morning I had the following happen...
I'm in LJ on n/b Torrey Pines, approaching LJ Shores Drive, and need to start moving left out of the bike lane to get through "the throat" to turn left to continue up Torrey Pines towards UCSD instead of going up LJ Parkway (used to be Ardath) to 52. Are you with me?
So I look back, a car slows, I move into the right lane. Before I get a chance to look back and start on my next lane change, I hear a honk (not a nice one, an obnoxious extended double-honk). I look back to see an old lady who has slowed down to my speed in the left lane, apparently ready for me to go into her lane. So I do. No problem. I get to the stopped cars at the red light at LJ Shores and stop, noting that the old lady stops about 2 car lengths behind me. When the light turns green and the cars in front of me start moving, so do I. A small gap develops between me and the car in front of me, but it's not too big. At this point I've crossed LJ Shores and to me left is the median. Here I typically move to the left, riding near the median, to allow motorists to pass me on my right. The old lady honks at me again. What does she want? Me to move against the curb? Is she trying to tell me to get out of the road? Who knows? Who cares? I ignore it, of course, and move into the rightmost left turn only lane, stopping behind a SD city bus. She stops 2 car lengths behind me. After we get the left turn arrow, I proceed after the bus, and get to the right as soon as we cross Ardath Lane (behind the fire station) where the right lane gets wide enough to share. Actually, that's also the point where the (useless) bike lane starts.
Anyway, my point is I would never have thought about that honking old lady again, except for this thread made me think of it. I will tell you this: something like this might have happened to me last week and there is no way it would have seemed significant enough for me to remember.
Maybe cars pull around and in front of me in double left turn only lanes too. I just think nothing of it. What problem are you trying to solve?
Helmet Head
where there is a lot of cycling, many of the hazards that come up on this list all the time aren't much of a problem for cyclists because car traffic learns how to behave around them.
I tend to agree. I think this is why partial segregation tends to be less problematic where cycling is popular (the "surprise factor" of cyclists transtioning from segregated facilities to roadway is lessened when it's a fairly common occurence), which tends to be in areas that have the following characteristics:
relatively flat
relatively high population density
relatively poor car usage/parking options
speed limits mostly 20-35 mph
There are exceptions, but most areas with high cycling probably qualify in at least 3 of the above.
John E
You've got more guts than I do, Serge. In light or slow traffic, I would make the left turn in the manner you describe, but in fast, heavy traffic, I would "double cross" at Hidden Valley Rd., instead.
John E
One place I choose segregation is to avoid n/b East Mission Bay Drive at that infernal offramp from n/b I-5.
genec
Maybe my special mojo is that I just ignore this stuff, and you let it affect you?
Just this morning I had the following happen...
I'm in LJ on n/b Torrey Pines, approaching LJ Shores Drive, and need to start moving left out of the bike lane to get through "the throat" to turn left to continue up Torrey Pines towards UCSD instead of going up LJ Parkway (used to be Ardath) to 52. Are you with me?
So I look back, a car slows, I move into the right lane. Before I get a chance to look back and start on my next lane change, I hear a honk (not a nice one, an obnoxious extended double-honk). I look back to see an old lady who has slowed down to my speed in the left lane, apparently ready for me to go into her lane. So I do. No problem. I get to the stopped cars at the red light at LJ Shores and stop, noting that the old lady stops about 2 car lengths behind me. When the light turns green and the cars in front of me start moving, so do I. A small gap develops between me and the car in front of me, but it's not too big. At this point I've crossed LJ Shores and to me left is the median. Here I typically move to the left, riding near the median, to allow motorists to pass me on my right. The old lady honks at me again. What does she want? Me to move against the curb? Is she trying to tell me to get out of the road? Who knows? Who cares? I ignore it, of course, and move into the rightmost left turn only lane, stopping behind a SD city bus. She stops 2 car lengths behind me. After we get the left turn arrow, I proceed after the bus, and get to the right as soon as we cross Ardath Lane (behind the fire station) where the right lane gets wide enough to share. Actually, that's also the point where the (useless) bike lane starts.
Anyway, my point is I would never have thought about that honking old lady again, except for this thread made me think of it. I will tell you this: something like this might have happened to me last week and there is no way it would have seemed significant enough for me to remember.
Maybe cars pull around and in front of me in double left turn only lanes too. I just think nothing of it. What problem are you trying to solve?
OK... now we get a bit of acknowledgement that perhaps your commute is not perfectly silky smooth. Honks are one thing... yes, by the honk you know that someone has seen you... positive thing. But as you pointed out, why?
Since it was an old lady... perhaps you can just ignore her... no problem. But when a honk is then backed up with some radical driving behaviour, then it can lead to a problem. Suppose that old lady aggressively then moved in front of you and at the "useless bike lane" cuts you off... pulls hard over to the right with her engine roaring (so you know it was not an innocent act) and then she continues on. Near miss. Not so friendly. (of course you would probably blame it on the BL... and dismiss the driver... ;) )
So my point... these behaviours are NOT what these motorists would do to fellow motorists. Sure, there is aggressive behaviour on the road, and road rage does exist, but beyond that, there is also a more targeted behaviour toward cyclists... which really should not exist if we were "fellow users of the road." We are not... at least in some eyes... we are simply obstructions to either be avoided or worse, "cleared out." We are no more than an errant dog in the way of the motorist... not a fellow vehicle user.
Now this doesn't happen all the time... but it does happen often enough that I remember it. And frankly, it is the radical driving behaviour, that someone had to go out of their way to do, that really exemplifies this sort of thing. I do NOT get the same treatment when I drive my car... so it is not location based, it is not roadway based, there is some other basis for this... Oh... I am on a bicycle. That's it, it is vehicle based.
Finally my point... this dismissive/aggressive (don't know what else to call it) behaviour also shows up as a lack of simple road use courtesy... we are not given the same courtesy on bikes that might be extended to a driver of a motor vehicle.
Why... I contend that some drivers do not believe we belong on the roads. Until that issue is cleared up... us cyclists, we will always be treated as 2nd class users by the motorists out there. And that dismissive behaviour also "checks us off" the list of "things that must be watched for" on the road. I honestly think some drivers would work harder to avoid a dog in the road then a cyclist. And THAT is my point.
Frankly I can dismiss it if it just a dumb move by someone... those happen... but when it is an agressive move motivated simply because someone does not want to deal with me on a bicycle in "their lane," on "their road," etc... that is the part that bothers me.