Facilities for encouraging novice/beginning cyclists

[Ngchen]

I had a recent exchange of emails with traffic engineering here in the city (Ann Arbor, for all you locals) about the schedule for removing the green "sidewalk bike route" signs. The guy was quite friendly and helpful, and pointed out that they are going to remove them on a case-by-case basis, rather than taking them all down. The reason is that they want novices/beginners to have a chance to start cycling w/o feeling intimidated and such. He specifically noted that the current setup is far from ideal.

So I was thinking that if a problem exists here, a similar one probably exists almost everywhere else. Does anyone have suggestions as to what could be done to accomodate novices, hopefully w/o creating more problems than they solve? I can understand novice riders feeling queasy in traffic; I know I sure was.

[Helmet Head]

The problem is the expectation of novices/beginners to ride anywhere. The fact is, traffic is too crazy on a lot of streets for novices to handle, and a "facility" to encourage them to ride there anyway is the last thing they need.

It's not a problem the traffic engineering department should be concerned with solving, any more than they should be trying to make the busy streets safe for beginning drivers who have had no training.

Novices should start with quiet low traffic volume streets, build up their bicycle handling skills, and move up from there to traffic skills on gradually busier streets, one step at a time, just like anything else. The idea that you should be able to skip all that and still ride all the way across the city is a bad one.

[sbhikes]

Why are they removing the green bike route signs? They can be valuable for people traveling through town to know the way to go. I often tell people to follow our signs when they're on a bike trip and coming through. They mark out various named routes such as the Coast route, the Cross-town route, the Foothill route and more. Makes it easy to give directions. Easier than trying to spell out every street name, many of which I don't know by name.

[Daily Commute]

Novices should start with quiet low traffic volume streets, build up their bicycle handling skills, and move up from there to traffic skills on gradually busier streets, one step at a time, just like anything else. The idea that you should be able to skip all that and still ride all the way across the city is a bad one.
This is the way to do it. Start simple and learn as you go. Except in most towns, you can drive most of the way across a city on lesser-traveled side streets.


Why are they removing the green bike route signs? They can be valuable for people traveling through town to know the way to go. . . .
I agree, but it sounds like they are removing the sidewalk bike routes, not all bike routes. I think that signed shared routes (posted "Bike Route" signs) are a big help. The best cycling route is not always obvious by looking at a map. The city can help novices by showing them less difficult routes to get around town.

[DCCommuter]

What I think is funny is that a lot of novices start out on multi-use-trails, which around here are an absolute mob scene on nice weekends. I ride every day in rush hour traffic, and I find a popular trail on a weekend to be far scarier, with the crowding and the lance wannabees passing recklessly. If people think that is easier than the road, no wonder so many people think cycling is so dangerous.

I think most people would be best served riding on the street in front of their house.

[Keith99]

I agree, except for one point. I do think this is something the traffic engineering department should address. NOT by trying to make all streets suitable for beginners, but by making a reasonable progression.

Let me use how I started. I got interested because of a trip to Yosemite and also doing a ride in Baja. But locally the streets were intimidating. I started riding in the Sepulveda flood control basin. I would drive there and take the bike out of my car. After a while I decided a 6 mile drive was stupid and worked on finding a 'safe' (to my beginners eyes) route. It was difficult, bordering on impossible as the back roads did not go through (I mean did not go through, not crossed busy streets). Eventually I decided that the semi-major street to get there was just fine. Not long afer that I hooked up with a local club and now ride just about anywhere.


My suggestion is take the bike trails/paths and spread out. From them put in bike lanes (where they work) so that people can ride to the paths/recreational areas. Where the bike lanes end put in bike routes (nothing more than signs so cyclists don't need to find the easy streets). This gives a progression.

This is sort of like a child and water. They start in wading pool (Bike paths) move to the shallow end of the big pool (Bike lanes) make their way into the deep end (bike routes) go into the ocean on a nice day (reasonable traffic, back roads) and finally decide they can go on almsot any street (the ocean on a rough day). The limit on either at the end is how 'rough' you are willing to deal with.

This can happen on bikes without help, I did it, but active design can help.

The problem is the expectation of novices/beginners to ride anywhere. The fact is, traffic is too crazy on a lot of streets for novices to handle, and a "facility" to encourage them to ride there anyway is the last thing they need.

It's not a problem the traffic engineering department should be concerned with solving, any more than they should be trying to make the busy streets safe for beginning drivers who have had no training.

Novices should start with quiet low traffic volume streets, build up their bicycle handling skills, and move up from there to traffic skills on gradually busier streets, one step at a time, just like anything else. The idea that you should be able to skip all that and still ride all the way across the city is a bad one.

[Ngchen]

Apologies for a late follow-up to my own post, but I was thinking about whether it would be a good idea at the end of a bike lane to remove the "sidewalk bike route" signs and replace them with the yellow bike sign plus a "share the road" plaque. IMO the yellow sign there would make perfect sense, b/c the bike lane ending means that autos ought to be extra-vigilant in that area for bikes merging (Packard at East Stadium comes to mind for me for you locals). On the wider recommended cycling streets, perhaps the signs can be repeated at regular intervals, replacing the green ones which are currently placed at regular intervals. No signs can be posted on the narrow, unfriendly to novices, routes. What do you all think, and should I politely suggest this to city engineering?

[budster]

What I think is funny is that a lot of novices start out on multi-use-trails, which around here are an absolute mob scene on nice weekends. I ride every day in rush hour traffic, and I find a popular trail on a weekend to be far scarier, with the crowding and the lance wannabees passing recklessly. If people think that is easier than the road, no wonder so many people think cycling is so dangerous.

I think most people would be best served riding on the street in front of their house.
I agree. I cringe everytime I see an obvious noob adult weaving all over a sidewalk, almost falling into (usually oncoming) traffic; or on a crowded MUP. Sidewalks, MUPs and bike lanes are a lot more dangerous than they seem, too dangerous IMO for new cyclists.

I learned to ride a bike (and later a motorcycle) in an empty parking lot. This would seem an ideal place to start. Or on an empty trail. Or as you suggest, an empty street. (Recurring theme?)

Then, once the new cyclist has mastered basic bicycle handling, as HH suggests, progressively less quiet streets.

[sggoodri]

Apologies for a late follow-up to my own post, but I was thinking about whether it would be a good idea at the end of a bike lane to remove the "sidewalk bike route" signs and replace them with the yellow bike sign plus a "share the road" plaque. ...What do you all think, and should I politely suggest this to city engineering?

Yes, I think "share the road" signs are a better match to best practices for improving conditions for beginning cyclists than are sidewalk bike route signs.

Consider sharing with the engineers the following quote from the book The Traffic Safety Toolbox published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1993, page 208):

"Sidewalk bike paths. From the late 1970s through the mid-1980s a number of communities signed some sidewalks or built new paths for bicyclists parallel to roadways. Several states even passed laws forcing bicyclists to use such facilities if they existed. Bicycle/car crashes increased dramatically in some corridors, especially at driveways, intersections, on bridges, and other locations. Sidewalks or paths parallel to a roadway force bicyclists to ride against traffic half of the time. In either direction, motorists are often surprised by the presence of cyclists [on sidepaths], since [motorists] are neither conditioned nor capable of searching these locations for traffic moving at 8-15 mph. Many pedestrians were also hurt, or complained that it was no longer comfortable to walk. Also, many motorists became less considerate of bicyclists who continued to use the often safer roadway sections....in no case should a bicyclist be forced to use the sidewalk pathway. Never sign a sidewalk or parallel path as a bikeway, since many motorists who see these signs will assume that those bicyclists riding on the roadway section are not permitted to be there."

That paragraph was written by Dan Burden, a longtime advocate of beginner cyclists and well-reputationed professional bicycle and pedestrian planner/consultant.

-Steve Goodridge

[LittleBigMan]

The problem is the expectation of novices/beginners to ride anywhere. The fact is, traffic is too crazy on a lot of streets for novices to handle, and a "facility" to encourage them to ride there anyway is the last thing they need.

It's not a problem the traffic engineering department should be concerned with solving, any more than they should be trying to make the busy streets safe for beginning drivers who have had no training.

Novices should start with quiet low traffic volume streets, build up their bicycle handling skills, and move up from there to traffic skills on gradually busier streets, one step at a time, just like anything else. The idea that you should be able to skip all that and still ride all the way across the city is a bad one.
The question that arises in my mind is, "What exactly are novice cyclists being trained to do?" If a streetside path is created for the purpose of "training novice cyclists to ride," what are these cyclists learning to do? Look over their shoulder at every driveway? Yield to left-turning opposing traffic? Look over their right shoulder before they make a left turn from the left side of the street in a crosswalk while the traffic light is green, but not during the green arrow?

All these "skills" would have to be unlearned to ride lawfully as a vehicle in traffic.

[sbhikes]

Unless the streets where the "novice" cyclist intends to ride are inviting, the novice cyclist probably won't ride at all. Especially if the novice cyclist has as his/her goal to use the bicycle for trips that might otherwise be done by car.

Nobody ever says to themselves, "Hey, I think I'd like to start cycling. I'll practice on pointless streets that have no relationship to where I want to go first."

[LittleBigMan]

Unless the streets where the "novice" cyclist intends to ride are inviting, the novice cyclist probably won't ride at all.
This mirrors my feelings when I started riding. There were certain streets I felt comfortable on and some I felt "uninviting." Although I now ride in more places than at first, it was a progression that started with comfortable, unintimidating streets.

[PaulH]

If the facilities make it easy for the novice to put together a route to work or shopping that bypasses more difficult roads, I think it is a benefit. Later, with experience, the cyclist can replace the path portions of the trip with faster or shorter ones on busy roads.

Unless the whole city is repaved with sidepaths, even a novice will have to spend some time on the road, in traffic, for anything more than a trivial trip. Once they get riding, the desire for a quicker, easier, or more convenient trip will motivate them to open up the envelope and try more challenging roads.

Paul

[patc]

If the facilities make it easy for the novice to put together a route to work or shopping that bypasses more difficult roads, I think it is a benefit. Later, with experience, the cyclist can replace the path portions of the trip with faster or shorter ones on busy roads.

Unless the whole city is repaved with sidepaths, even a novice will have to spend some time on the road, in traffic, for anything more than a trivial trip. Once they get riding, the desire for a quicker, easier, or more convenient trip will motivate them to open up the envelope and try more challenging roads.

Paul

That was the case for me. First it was parking lots, then residential streets, then pathways. After that I used my city's cycling map to locate bike routes (with or without bike lanes) and used that to help me plan longer trips. I quickly found that not all bike routes were really worth the name, but for most the street chosen as a bike route was the best pick in that area. Eventually I gained the skill and confidence to cycle on most roads, but I still use the cycling map to look for alternatives, suggestions when going to an unfamiliar area, and warnings of problem intersections.

[Roody]

Just down the highway from the OP, in Lansing MI, a local cycling club took the initiative to print detailed city maps with suggested bike routes. The routes are quieter streets that take you to within a few blocks of anywhere in the metro area. The maps are printed in a booklet similar to the city maps that taxi drivers use, and are free at LBSs, libraries, or on request from the club. I found them quite useful when I started riding. I don't often use the maps any more, since I nowfeel confident to ride on just about any street. However, I do still use a lot of the routes that they suggested, as they are easy and more scenic alternatives to the busy highways. Another advantage is that expenses were low, since no signs or bureaucratic expenses were incurred.

[csnyder]

Slightly further down the highway from the OP, Grand Rapids, MI has a map like Lansing's with suggested routes, stretches that need extra caution (such as around freeway offramps), and trails. I found it last night when I was procrastinating doing homework. Along with that map, the city's web site also has a pamphlet that encourages beginners to take up cycling and promotes the virtues of commuting, including car vs. bike comparisons.

[dedhed]

My city has gotten much better about bike routes, maps, etc.

http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/display/router.asp?docid=14143

[Roody]

Slightly further down the highway from the OP, Grand Rapids, MI has a map like Lansing's with suggested routes, stretches that need extra caution (such as around freeway offramps), and trails. I found it last night when I was procrastinating doing homework. Along with that map, the city's web site also has a pamphlet that encourages beginners to take up cycling and promotes the virtues of commuting, including car vs. bike comparisons.
Of course, Michigan leads the nation (or at least OHIO) in every area of concern. Who put out the map in GR? I mean, a club, city gov't or somebody else?

[chipcom]

Of course, Michigan leads the nation (or at least OHIO) in every area of concern. Who put out the map in GR? I mean, a club, city gov't or somebody else?

Except one:
Buckeyes - 25
Wolfpups - 21

I'll glady conceed the maps. :p

[csnyder]

Of course, Michigan leads the nation (or at least OHIO) in every area of concern. Who put out the map in GR? I mean, a club, city gov't or somebody else?

It's on the city's web site, and it looks like it was put together by the city as well.

http://www.ci.grand-rapids.mi.us/index.pl?page_id=2665

[Bekologist]

Odd, but I ride in a city with a lot of bike lanes, compared to many of you, and think the more facilities for alternate roadway use, the merrier.

I went riding today and found some shoulders that have been restriped from a 3 foot bike accomodation to a six foot accomodation, and signs reading 'right lane bikes only.' I'm also seeing more 'share the road' signs around as well, both on striped bikelane roadways and those without.

Love bicycling facilities, put them all over. They don't 'encourage' bicyclists to not ride for transportation because of some false onus of 'segregationist retardation', they act as enabelers for more biking for more people. I've been riding so long, i think when i started the term 'bike lane' didn't even exist. helmets certainetly weren't anything but leather hairnets for racers. I like the developments i see in cities with bike facilities.

Breaking away from the lanes should be part of bicyclist education, if kids actually receive bicycling instruction anymore. I would hope that before Ann Arbor removes any of the 'sidewalk routes' they create an alternative instead of just removing them. Rip out the sidewalk and the right of way easement, place a new, well designed bike lane and a new walking path. Doesn't U of M in Ann Arbor already have an entrenched system of 'sidewalk' bike paths?

[Ngchen]

I agree that added facilities encourage cycling. The only problem is that they tend to as a side effect promote the false notion that bikes belong there. and nowhere else (aka the street).

What do you mean by ripping out the sidewalks? They are a wonderful part of the city, and they make things far more pleasant for pedestrians. FWIW, the U of M doesn't have any of the infamous "sidewalk bike routes."In fact, recently, due to complaints from merchants downtown about sidewalk cyclists, they put up a bunch of small yellow "shared lane" signs facing the road, and painted bikes on the roads. Facing somewhat toward the sidewalks, they put up white regulatory "walk your bike" signs. Enforcement tends to be lax, if not non-existent though.

[Bruce Rosar]

What do you mean by ripping out the sidewalks?Perhaps they're thinking of removing the curb separating street and sidewalk? That can be a part of a new (to Europe and North America) engineering approach to urban traffic design that has been called designing for negotiation (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1888668&highlight=Monderman#post1888668).

[sbhikes]

Odd, but I ride in a city with a lot of bike lanes, compared to many of you, and think the more facilities for alternate roadway use, the merrier.
I do too, and I also feel the more the merrier.

That was the case for me. First it was parking lots, then residential streets, then pathways. After that I used my city's cycling map to locate bike routes...

I started out riding in my cul-de-sac. Then my Dad would take me to the shopping center for ice cream. That was like a 5 mile trip on regular suburban non-residential streets. Then I had to ride to Jr. High. Same route as the ice cream. Then I started going to the beach. That involved busier streets and some off-road riding. Then I rode to community college. That involved 15 miles cross-town. Then I would ride from my new home in the mountains. That involved twisty mountain roads and 55mph higways.

I didn't have to wait until I was an adult. There was always space for bikes.

In the cul-de-sac it was the whole street.

To the shopping center there were bike lanes and pleasant residential streets.

To the beach there were bike lanes, bike paths and off-road trails.

To cross town there were bike lanes, bike paths and some pretty scary urban streets but I got used to them. (I still live in the same town and I still try to avoid those same urban streets.)

The mountains were different. And from what I see there is no end to the stupidity of people driving in the mountains.