Interesting bike lanes

[bmclaughlin807]

If you noticed I answered both cases as it wasn't totally clear from you other post who you thought needd education.

So how does one eductate cyclists to ride in BLs in DZs safely?

There are tricks to reduce the chance of getting doored (exhaust, seeing people in car, riding very slowly, etc.) but none of these is certain to prevent dooring. (also in arizona exhaust is rarely visible and most cars have tinted windows) The only certain way is to not ride in the door zone.

So do you propose educating cyclist to ignore BL striping when BL is in DZ while at the same time wanting to paint BLs in DZs?

Al

I don't advocate painting bike lanes in door zones. But it does happen. Ride to the far left, and avoid doors. Unless the parking and bike lanes are VERY narrow you should be able to stay in the bike lane and still be out of reach of the doors. In the case of very narrow parking and bike lanes, then yes, I'd stay out of the bike lane.

I do like bike lanes in general. Bike lanes in a door zone are poorly thought out and implemented, but that doesn't mean that bike lanes in general are evil, any more than one bike lane with a 3" hole makes all bike lanes evil.

If you have any input with the city planners or others responsible for engineering streets, TALK TO THEM. All the words in the world won't do any good if they're not in the right ears. But telling them not to paint ANY bike lanes ANYWHERE is just plain idiotic.

Denver has a decent cycling infrastructure. They have off-road facilities (MUP's) that go for miles and miles with no street-level intersections. These are for the most part safe for travel at 20 mph and less (10 mph in heavily used areas). For part of one of them (the most heavily used portion) there are seperate paths for cyclists and skaters on one side, and pedestrians on the other (seperated by Cherry Creek down the middle)

We have a lot of decent bike lanes, some superb, and a few poor ones.

I for one certainly wouldn't want them to take away all the bike lanes because some idiots on the internet said that they make bicycling more dangerous.

[noisebeam]

If you have any input with the city planners or others responsible for engineering streets, TALK TO THEM. All the words in the world won't do any good if they're not in the right ears. But telling them not to paint ANY bike lanes ANYWHERE is just plain idiotic.
I mention WOLs.
But avocating for BL stripes without clear uniform easy to implement guidelines is asking for worse safety conditions for cyclists. BL advocates need to update a standard document to reference that does not include BLs in DZs, does not include BL striping for the 100-300' approach to all and every intersections where vehicles may turn across BL and includes standards, maintenance and inspection procedures to ensure BLs have a safe surface to cycle on. And more, but this is just an example.

Also BL proponents also should be advocating strongly to remove all the stripe in all bad bike lane implementations - firstly for cyclist safety, but also it can help their cause. I think this 'improper' bike lane removal should happen with far higher priority than pusing for new BLs.

Al

[sggoodri]

And where in the US do we have the volumes of bicycle traffic that I am talking about? Hint: nada.

You guys can try to rationalize your fear of paint all you want, but the fact remains, if the amount bike/car traffic on our roads were similar, it would be a freakin mess. In fact, I bet you'd be screaming for not only order...but painted lines!

I often see (and join) large groups of cyclists participating in group rides in my city. These group rides are quite safe and the cyclists ride in the ordinary travel lanes. On roads with multiple lanes in each direction, motorists pass using the leftmost lanes. If the lanes are very wide and the cyclists are less dense in concentration, drivers pass without changing lanes. In narrow-pavement conditions, drivers wait. Not much of a problem; certainly nothing to be fixed by paint.

I disagree with the methods of Critical Mass, but most of the cyclists participating in it claim that cycling on ordinary roads shared with motor traffic gets safer and more pleasant when the number of cyclists increases enough for them to take over the road.

I believe there is a contradiction in your logic when you say cyclists would want segregation more if their numbers increased. If there are enough bicyclists on the road to impede motorists whenthe cyclists are allowed the full width of the roadway, requiring all these cyclists to ride in a narrow portion of the road would crowd and impede the cyclists to the point that they would object. If the cyclists are few enough to fit comfortably in a narrow section of the road, then there are not enough of them to impede traffic on the rest of the road, and therefore, no segregation construct is required to maintain reasonable motorist convenience between junctions when passing is safe to perform.

[bmclaughlin807]

does not include BL striping for the 100-300' approach to all and every intersections where vehicles may turn right,

and includes standards, maintenance and inspection procedures to ensure BLs have a safe surface to cycle on. And more, but this is just an example.

Also BL proponents also should be advocating strongly to remove all the stripe in all bad bike lane implementations - firstly for cyclist safety, but also it can help their cause. I think this 'improper' bike lane removal should happen with far higher priority than pusing for new BLs.

Al

I disagree with the first part here... Bike lanes CAN exist safely even close to intersections. Intersections require more care on EVERYBODY'S part, regardless of whether or not there is a bike lane present.

Around here there are place where there are signs that state 'Begin right turn lane, YIELD to cyclists', or similar. In some places the right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane, with striped lines and signs, again stating that right turning vehicles should yield to cyclists. I've never had a case where someone even came close to hitting me at either of these two types of intersections.

The second part should apply to the ENTIRE road surface. Not just bike lanes.

And there are obviously different interpretations of 'bad' bike lanes, so the last item would be pretty difficult to accomplish. I'm sure SOME lanes could be easily identified as such (narrow bike lane adjacent to narrow parking lane, fully within door zone) but the rest?

[noisebeam]

I disagree with the first part here... Bike lanes CAN exist safely even close to intersections. Intersections require more care on EVERYBODY'S part, regardless of whether or not there is a bike lane present.

Around here there are place where there are signs that state 'Begin right turn lane, YIELD to cyclists', or similar. In some places the right turn lane is to the right of the bike lane, with striped lines and signs, again stating that right turning vehicles should yield to cyclists. I've never had a case where someone even came close to hitting me at either of these two types of intersections.
Should a cyclist ever be in the BL at the an intersection if they are not turning right and there is no RTOL?

Why should I rely on excellent habits which time and time again have proven to not be followed of other drivers.

Of course I am aware of RTOL. Whenever I mention this case, someone confuses that I am talking about major intersections and when I don't another person thinks I am talking about major intersections.

I ride every day thru three major intersections with a WOL and a RTOL. I too have never had anyone come close to hitting me. So what?

Al

[bmclaughlin807]

does not include BL striping for the 100-300' approach to all and every intersections where vehicles may turn across BL



This pretty much precludes an on-street bike lane ANYWHERE in any kind of urban area.

[sbhikes]

What the hell does any of this have to do with the pictures. Did any of you look at the pictures?

What did you think of all the bikes parked everywhere? What did you think of the bike parking at the train station? How did you like the LED lights as lane markers? How about the idea that you remove free public storage of private automobiles and replace them with bike facilities and that leads to an amazing 40% of trips now by bike and people happy with the arrangement?

Or is nobody capable of seeing outside their tiny little perspectives on the world?

[noisebeam]

What the hell does any of this have to do with the pictures. Did any of you look at the pictures?

Yes, brought back memories.


What did you think of all the bikes parked everywhere? What did you think of the bike parking at the train station?

I thought, wow, lots of bikes.
I thought I remember being at that train station.


How did you like the LED lights as lane markers?

I thought it was silly, over engineered, but done for style and looks I guess. Proper headlights and reflective paint are cheaper and more effective.


How about the idea that you remove free public storage of private automobiles and replace them with bike facilities and that leads to an amazing 40% of trips now by bike and people happy with the arrangement?

I wonder what would happen if they removed public storage of autos, restricted autos if folks would still use bikes (and walk, lots of walking done) and not only be happier, but safer and faster too when cycling.


Or is nobody capable of seeing outside their tiny little perspectives on the world?
Why do you think my perspective is little?

Al

[bmclaughlin807]

Should a cyclist ever be in the BL at the an intersection if they are not turning right and there is no RTOL?

In some instances it is safe. I won't move left if there's a car to my left that appears to be travelling straight through the intersection. I will, if travelling the same speed, speed up to be slightly ahead of the car and in their line of sight as they're looking for cross traffic, or slow down slightly, to give me time to respond if the car turns right with no signal.

If there is traffic stopped at a light, and I am in a bike lane, I will move up to one of two positions: a) slightly in front of the first car in a very visible position (I'd be blocking their view of the right portion of the intersection) or b) even with their back tire, where I'm not in danger of being hit if they decide to turn right with no signal.

Which position I choose depends on the situation. if they're positioned center or left in the lane and look like they're going straight through, I take the forward position. If they're towards the right or have their signal on, I'll stop in the second position.

[noisebeam]

Which position I choose depends on the situation. if they're positioned center or left in the lane and look like they're going straight through, I take the forward position. If they're towards the right or have their signal on, I'll stop in the second position.
OK, good luck.

But what about dynamic conditions. Say your moving along in BL being passed by faster vehicles to your right, there are entrances to gas stations, grocery stores, a residential street ahead. More lucky estimating?

Al

[galen_52657]

But telling them not to paint ANY bike lanes ANYWHERE is just plain idiotic.

I for one certainly wouldn't want them to take away all the bike lanes because some idiots on the internet said that they make bicycling more dangerous.

To the contrary. It's quite logical considering bike lanes have never proven any benefit to cyclist... now motorists on the other hand....

Nor would I want some idiot on the internet say that bike lanes make cycling more safe.

[joejack951]

On the one street that it is currently in use, the lights are synched to allow the streetcar to proceed through intersections with left turning vehicles halted. I imagine it will be the same on the route currently under construction.

So, with the lights synched so that no traffic is intersecting the path of the street car, it makes it possible to route traffic where traffic normally is not routed (down the middle of the road between the normal traffic lanes).

In fact, the streetcar traffic signals gave me the inspiration to suggest to the city to install bike lanes in the middle of appropriate streets (not the same streets that have street-cars naturally) as opposed to the outer right of the roadway adjacent to parking lanes. With similar signals, bicycles would travel down the centre of the street, within direct line of sight of motorists and have their own right-of-way through intersections both for through-traffic and left turning cyclists. Cyclists would not be endangered by car doors and their lanes would be cleared of snow and ice in winter.

So you expect to get the same right of way for cyclists as for the street cars? Good for you for shooting high, but good luck. I'm sorry but I just don't see that ever happening.

I disagree. Large semi's rarely reach road speed due to the volume of traffic and the close proxmity of intersections. I'm not a fast rider---in fact, I'm a slow one---and I rarely get passed by semi's. Even at slow speeds, they still require much more space to stop, unlike a bike that can come to a stop in a foot or two.

But they do move at a reasonable speed, i.e. they could make it completely through a normal traffic signal during a normal length cycle. Correct? Could a freight train? On the same token, can the semi stop in time when the signal turns yellow? Could a freight train? Is a cyclist more like the semi or the freight train in these situations? One more question: Does a bear? :)

Not according to the Highway Traffic Act, as I understand it. Filtering is technically illegal.


When overtaking on the right is permitted.

(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event, except as permitted in subsection (c) of this section, shall such movement be made by driving off the roadway, main traveled portion or regular moving traffic lane of the highway.

(b) Overtaking and passing on the right, except as permitted herein, shall be unlawful:

(1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;

(2) Upon any roadway which is officially marked for more than 1 traffic lane in 1 direction;

(3) Upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to 1 direction of movement and the roadway is of sufficient width for 2 or more lanes of moving vehicles.

(c) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, the vehicle approaching from the rear may pass on the right using the shoulder if necessary.

Based on b3, cyclists are allowed to pass on the right in a lane wide enough for both for a car and a moving cyclist. b3 doesn't specifically state that there has to be a lane striped in that space.

Most motorists expect it and it is safer, as we know, to filter when the right lane of motorists are stopped as it positions the cyclists at the front where everyone can see them and they can proceed through intersections without the fear of being right-hooked, provided motor-vehicle traffic is stopped at the time.

Whoa whoa whoa :), Motorists expect traffic to be coming from a space where the majority of traffic would not be able to physically come from? I highly disagree. I always extremely highly disagree that it is safer. Everyone who needs to see me can see me just fine when I am stopped behind a line of traffic. Filtering exposes me to plenty of risks that sitting stationary in a line of traffic does not. If that line of traffic starts to move, anything can happen and if I'm in tight quarters (which you almost always are when filtering), there's not a lot of space left to work with. The traffic around you does not expect you because they have not seen you until you actually pass them. It's very difficult to predict that traffic will not move at all when filtering. If there's space around someone, there's a chance they might move into it.

Indeed, filtering beside parked cars is dangerous and should only be done cautiously. If cars are moving and there is an indication cars will be turning right, it is better to slide across when safe and filter between the left and right lanes to avoid being right-hooked. However, even those cyclists who are hit from right-turning vehicles have every reason to blame the motorist. The motorist must not change direction until it is safe to do so and failing to check the right and use the right mirror is making an unsafe turn. They must anticipate cyclists being to their right and check for them. If they don't, they are liable.

Who cares if the motorist is technically to blame? A cyclist who gets seriously injured because they were impatient and decided to filter (which is the only real reason to do it) has only himself to blame for putting himself in that situation. Most motorists don't have eyes in the backs of their heads.

The way I understand our road regulations (maybe it's different here), a bicycle must be as far right as practicable, but also must come to a halt behind a stopped vehicle in front of them. Few cyclists ever actually observe such a rule for it almost defeats the purpose of riding a bike through traffic, but when the lane is too narrow, we have no choice.

In a narrow lane, I've gone into pedestrian mode to bypass a line of traffic at a stop sign at a tee intersection that I knew would take a few minutes to clear. I walked my bike through the grass, got to intersection and waited for a wave from a stopped driver to let me in front of them, and moved into position. That's the great thing about riding a bike; there's almost always an option. See my post of the local traffic laws above for passing when the lane is wide enough to share.

[JohnBrooking]

I haven't finished reading this thread, and I don't intend to before going to bed, but I want to say that I think the reason that we have so much disagreement, with people thinking only in their own situations, is that the there is so much variation in how well bike lanes are done. Some of you have good bike lanes, others bad ones, and some of us hardly any at all. So we are mostly trying to universalize the theory from our wildly divergent experience.

Therefore, I second someone's suggestions about standards for bike lanes. I'm sure someone somewhere has defined these, anyone know where to learn about them? A discussion about bike lanes should be more productive when we can at least limit the discussion to those that follow the standards, assuming we can all agree on the standards.

Sorry, Diane. They're very nice bike lanes they have over there. :)

[vrkelley]

interesting in the Seattle Times advocacy article to bring up fourty percent of the american populace doesn't drive. a significant portion of the population ignored by the design of public space to almost wholly benefit the automobile as transportation.



Well if you wait long enough, the same will be true here :p ...there are tons of old people everywhere in the Seattle area.

[Daily Commute]

. . . This whole debate is foolish...the FACT is that bike lanes and/or the use of lanes to segregate and 'order' traffic is a horse that's already out of the barn.
So your goal is to segregate cyclists from traffic? Thankfully, that is not a fact in my town.


does not include BL striping for the 100-300' approach to all and every intersections where vehicles may turn across BL
This pretty much precludes an on-street bike lane ANYWHERE in any kind of urban area.
Yep. They don't make a lot of sense on 25 mph urban roads with lots of intersections. The main benefit of bike lanes is to discourage rear enders, which are actually very rare as accidents go. Putting cyclists to the far right puts cyclists at risk at intersections because it decreases our visibility. We need to be far enough left to discourage right hooks and for cross traffic at intersections to see us easily. At most urban intersections, we should be at least in the left auto tire track, even when we are going straight. Except on roads with RTOL's, I have never seen a bike lane that did that.


I haven't finished reading this thread, and I don't intend to before going to bed, but I want to say that I think the reason that we have so much disagreement, with people thinking only in their own situations, is that the there is so much variation in how well bike lanes are done. Some of you have good bike lanes, others bad ones, and some of us hardly any at all. So we are mostly trying to universalize the theory from our wildly divergent experience.

Therefore, I second someone's suggestions about standards for bike lanes. I'm sure someone somewhere has defined these, anyone know where to learn about them? A discussion about bike lanes should be more productive when we can at least limit the discussion to those that follow the standards, assuming we can all agree on the standards.

Sorry, Diane. They're very nice bike lanes they have over there. :)
I generally agree, but the problem is not just the lack of standards, but the degree to which we are willing to put up with poorly designed bike lanes just to have bike lanes. On many roads, the only way to have a bike lane is to have a substandard one. If the only way to fit a bike lane onto a road would be to make it 4', 2' of which are in a door zone, is it better to stripe or not to stripe? Some of us think that lanes should generally not be striped near or through urban intersections.

At a city transportation meeting here, we were discussing whether the city should stripe a certain stretch of road. A local bike lane junkie was pushing for a striped lane. I said that if they were going to stripe it, they needed to budget in extra street cleanings (I know that the areas next to the travel lanes look like in Columbus). My suggestion would make the bike lane more expensive, less likely, but better if built. The local bike lane junkie's suggestion would make the bike lane less expensive, more likely, but problematic if built.

Bike lanes often come with mandatory use laws, which are a threat to traditional road cycling. If you think the lane stripe is too far to the right in Portland, you can't ride the road without risking a ticket. Many pro bike laners think that's a price worth paying. The objections to bike lanes would greatly diminish if the law were clear that it was the cyclist's decision whether to use them, but I see little support from pro-bike lane people for first pushing for permissive use legislation. The reality is that tranportation engineers see bike lanes as a get-bicycles-out-of-traffic device (remember the UT study?), and permitting road use next to striped lanes defeats that purpose. Again, the argument of bike lane skeptics makes bike lanes less likely but better (or at least less bad).


Here is a link to a summary of a study of the affect of sidepaths added in Copenhagen.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/unsafe.htm

Scroll down to "Additional Sources." The researchers studied the same roads, before and after sidepaths were added, for a three-year period. Overall bicycle traffic did not increase. Total accidents increased 26%; accidents at intersections increased 34%, and accidents between intersections increased 15%.
But bike lanes and side paths make cyclists feel so much safer. Why confuse our feelings with facts?

[sbhikes]

What causes a lack of visibility is all the free public storage of private automobiles, bushes and trees, real estate signs, telephone poles etc. Not bike lanes.

They also are not segregation or separation from traffic. They are simply roadway markings. It is your mind that makes you think it's segregation.

What makes for true cyclist irrelevance is to build a system that does not take cycliing into consideration as a normal mode of transportation. What also makes for true cyclist irrelevance is this constant delusion that people traveling at 5-15 mph under human power can mingle among 3000lb machines going 30-60mph.

[Bekologist]

in seattle, the bike advocates work to change the roadway accomodations that are substandard to ones that are safe for bicylists.

bike facilities and accomodations get more people out bicycling. a bike accomodation system, integrated into a regional transportation grid makes bikes more visible and seen on the roads, increases proper lane positioning by bicyclists, and trains bicyclists to use more appropiate lane position even when accomodations aren't present.

all streets don't require bikelanes, many streets can be reworked to become more bicyclist and pedestrian friendly.

traffic calming, bike signage, bikel lanes, all work to make a community more 'bikeable' and get more people out bicycling. the successses in cities across canada, and here in the northwest show strong correllations between on street facilities and numbers of bicyclists.

bike lanes here DO work pretty well. and roads can be restriped, rights of way can be reworked, emminent domain can even be declared for public works projects.

take out a lane of traffic to make a road more bike lane friendly.

a well provided bike system is speed and directional accomodating, move bikes away from the edges and bad sightlines, buffer bikes from traffic hazards as well as parking issues, and train bicyclists more appropiate lane positioning for the majority of roads that will remain unnaccomodated in a regional transport grid.


bikelanes. ain't going away people. get on board to improve your regions roads and make your neck of the woods friendlier for bicyclists of all stripes, from 8 to 80. kids to school and grandma to the walmart,

bicycling isn't all about steely eyed traffic cycling and taking the lane at a five time speed differentials.

[patc]

The main benefit of bike lanes is to discourage rear enders, which are actually very rare as accidents go.

....

Bike lanes often come with mandatory use laws, which are a threat to traditional road cycling.

...

The reality is that tranportation engineers see bike lanes as a get-bicycles-out-of-traffic device (remember the UT study?),

...

But bike lanes and side paths make cyclists feel so much safer. Why confuse our feelings with facts?

Don't you people get tired of repeating the same old BS?

[sggoodri]

What causes a lack of visibility is all the free public storage of private automobiles, bushes and trees, real estate signs, telephone poles etc. Not bike lanes.

They also are not segregation or separation from traffic. They are simply roadway markings. It is your mind that makes you think it's segregation.

What makes for true cyclist irrelevance is to build a system that does not take cycliing into consideration as a normal mode of transportation. What also makes for true cyclist irrelevance is this constant delusion that people traveling at 5-15 mph under human power can mingle among 3000lb machines going 30-60mph.

For many engineers and striping advocates, it's about segregation for the sake of segregation. Why else would Cary, NC add these lanes on 25mph residential streets with minimal traffic? They simply seek to add segregation markings wherever they can make them fit.

I pull my son in a child carrier on lots of streets with 35 mph posted speeds, and a few posted 45, without bike lanes or even wide outside lanes. Those are the routes I have to take to reach our destinations by bike; I take exception to the idea that using these safely requires "delusion". Such an attitude undermines the legitimacy of my travel by bike. It encourages society to hold motorists to a lower standard of competence, and ultimately reduces the safety of cycling.

Sure, I would like the fastest, busiest roads to have better passing facilities in the form of better pavement distribution, so drivers don't have to change lanes to pass our bike/trailer combination. But this is a matter of pavement width, while I think the emphasis on segregation markings for the sake of keeping cyclists out of the path of other traffic detracts from better and more useful engineering as well as better operator behavior.

[sggoodri]

This pretty much precludes an on-street bike lane ANYWHERE in any kind of urban area.

Which partly explains the preference of a lot of us for unsegregated wide outside lanes in areas with high junction density. They still allow passing without changing lanes if the cyclist decides to allow it.

[genec]

I pull my son in a child carrier on lots of streets with 35 mph posted speeds, and a few posted 45, without bike lanes or even wide outside lanes. Those are the routes I have to take to reach our destinations by bike; I take exception to the idea that using these safely requires "delusion". Such an attitude undermines the legitimacy of my travel by bike. It encourages society to hold motorists to a lower standard of competence, and ultimately reduces the safety of cycling.


It is interesting in your "denial of delusion" you lean toward the low end of the speed scale, whereas Diane pushed toward the high end of the speed scale. When motorists moving at 60MPH meet cyclists moving at 8MPH, there is a clear conflict. There is no delusion that "sharing the road" doesn't happen well at speeds that radically different. Don't get me wrong, it can be done, but few cyclists and few motorists will be very comfortable with it.

[sbhikes]

You know, there are way more people out there who find it completely unacceptable to ride in traffic or in bike lanes as long as there are drivers piloting 3000lb machines while drinking coffee, chatting on the phone and being drunk or even just driving. There is nothing I can do to convince them that it's not as bad as they think. Absolutely nothing. There is no way you can prove that you'll be "safe enough" when the difference between what you think is enough and what they think is enough is so great. As long as the risk remains, they are not willing to take it.

It's really great that you're willing to ride with your children on 35 mph streets in the back of a bike trailer. I believe there are multitudes more people who are completely unwilling to do that no matter what. Does that mean they are not critical thinkers, not rational, merely deluded, harboring insecurities or whatever? Or does it simply mean they don't think it's an acceptable risk to take with their children?

People are unwilling to take risks with their lives and their children's lives. Call it whatever you want, but you can't provide them with anything to change their minds. It's a sliding scale, too. So NOL roads with heavy traffic may be unacceptable but a bike lane may be ok. Or a bike lane may be unacceptable but a bike path may be.

You can cater to the risk-takers of the world or try to be more inclusive. I prefer to provide a means to include more people than exclude. But that's just me. I have heard that cyclists are safer when there are more of them. So anything that gets more of them out there will make me safer.

[sggoodri]

What the hell does any of this have to do with the pictures. Did any of you look at the pictures?

What did you think of all the bikes parked everywhere? What did you think of the bike parking at the train station? How did you like the LED lights as lane markers? How about the idea that you remove free public storage of private automobiles and replace them with bike facilities and that leads to an amazing 40% of trips now by bike and people happy with the arrangement?

Or is nobody capable of seeing outside their tiny little perspectives on the world?

If you have a captive audience, then removing car parking or making it more expensive and less convenient will certainly encourage bicycling. This is why college campuses have high levels of cycle-commuting even among students who own cars. It's also why adults in places like Denmark are happy to ride bikes for utility, because car parking is nearly impossible in the cities.

But in many areas of the USA, making urban motoring less convenient diverts much more car traffic to outlying areas with easier motoring than it converts to bicycle trips. Also, with utility cyclists being such a minority here, anti-car projects aimed at facilitating cycling tend to generate a lot of anti-cyclist backlash from the motoring majority. In most of the USA it's better to concentrate here on projects to improve the convenience and enjoyment of cycling without directly affecting the convenience of motoring.

[sbhikes]

In most of the USA it's better to concentrate here on projects to improve the convenience and enjoyment of cycling without directly affecting the convenience of motoring.

And what kind of project would that be?

[chipcom]

So your goal is to segregate cyclists from traffic? Thankfully, that is not a fact in my town.

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say, unless you're a politician and can't help it.

[Daily Commute]

Don't you people get tired of repeating the same old BS?
I was thinking the same thing reading posts supporting striped BL's on 25 mph urban roads with lots of intersections.

And if "you people" stop making the same old "BS" arguments in support of bike lanes and side paths, we'll stop responding to them.

[galen_52657]

And if "you people" stop making the same old "BS" arguments in support of bike lanes and side paths, we'll stop responding to them.

touche'

[Bekologist]

the benefits of greater bicycle accomodations in a community are manifest and seen across the globe. this is not delusional powerweaving dogma,

a system of integrated velotransit facilities and other community enhancements to encourage bicycling in a community ARE beneficial at increasing numbers, visibility, respect and absolute safety for bicyclists, decreases traffic congestion, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, encourages greater societal health.

this is on-the-ground reality, seen in cities around the world.

I imagine, for all you anti bike facilities blowhards, once well provided velotransit comes to your city, you can still go play in traffic on unaccomodated roads if it makes you feel more virile.


you know what some traffic engineers say about bike facilities once transportational bicycling gains a visible foothold in a community, dontchya?


"BUILD IT, AND THEY WILL RIDE...'


and its true. there are strong correlation between the viability of facilities and the numbers of transportational bicyclists in a community.

Measurable, quantifiable, on-the-ground reality.

[galen_52657]

there are strong correlation between the viability of facilities and the numbers of transportational bicyclists in a community.

I have no doubt that this is true. The most important word in your statement is 'viability'. In your neck of the wood, the facilities may be more-or-less viable. There also may be east coast-west coast cultural issues at play. No facilities like that here. And, I still say that from the photos you have posted, some of your 'facilities' are sub-standard. And, I still say that by and large, bicycle facilities are shunted to the crappiest portion of the road. And I still say these facilities do not make cycling measurably safer. In fact, I would say that cyclists using bike lanes need to be more vigilant at intersections than cyclists riding in the normal travel way. After all, even with the Copenhagen facilities, they still have problems with right hooks....

[Bekologist]

get em fixed, galen, get em fixed.

encourage viable bike facilities and a bicycle transportation network for the benefit of your community as a whole.

"BUILD IT, AND THEY WILL RIDE..."

[sggoodri]

And what kind of project would that be?

(1) Bicycle parking (especially out of the rain and close to building entrances. On our city's P&Z board I pushed hard for this, sometimes I got it.

(2) Improved street connectivity between land uses (street patterns that don't force cyclists to take long circuitous routes including mandatory use of high-speed arterials to reach nearby first-tier destinations). I notice that cities built before the 1960's have much better connectivity than suburban areas built in the 1980s-1990s, but our new suburban development where I live now has new connectivity requirements, and there is stronger support for connecting new residential and commercial areas directly with smaller streets (25-35 mph 2-lane collectors) rather than exclusively 45mph 4-lane arterials as was always the case in the 1980s and 1990s here.

(3) Short-cut paths between neighborhoods and destinations (these are often possible where automobile links are opposed by residents for traffic concerns or where environmental impact of full-scale roads would be undesirable or unacceptable.)

(4) Improved street maintenance

(5) City-organized bicycling activities (organized rides, bike commuting workshops/incentive/encouragement programs). Cary has an annual "Cycling Celebration" put on by the town, and other government groups here organize alternative-transportation incentive programs that include a lot of community-building among commuter cyclists.

And so forth....

[sbhikes]

Those sound like good projects. Some of them even sound like *gasp* bike paths, perhaps.

[sggoodri]

You know, there are way more people out there who find it completely unacceptable to ride in traffic or in bike lanes as long as there are drivers piloting 3000lb machines while drinking coffee, chatting on the phone and being drunk or even just driving. There is nothing I can do to convince them that it's not as bad as they think. Absolutely nothing. There is no way you can prove that you'll be "safe enough" when the difference between what you think is enough and what they think is enough is so great. As long as the risk remains, they are not willing to take it.

It's really great that you're willing to ride with your children on 35 mph streets in the back of a bike trailer. I believe there are multitudes more people who are completely unwilling to do that no matter what. Does that mean they are not critical thinkers, not rational, merely deluded, harboring insecurities or whatever? Or does it simply mean they don't think it's an acceptable risk to take with their children?

People are unwilling to take risks with their lives and their children's lives. Call it whatever you want, but you can't provide them with anything to change their minds. It's a sliding scale, too. So NOL roads with heavy traffic may be unacceptable but a bike lane may be ok. Or a bike lane may be unacceptable but a bike path may be.

You can cater to the risk-takers of the world or try to be more inclusive. I prefer to provide a means to include more people than exclude. But that's just me. I have heard that cyclists are safer when there are more of them. So anything that gets more of them out there will make me safer.

The leading cause of death to children is being inside a car when it crashes. People who want to avoid endangering their children shouldn't even drive cars. We know that bicycling greatly extends expected lifespan even when the risks are included; cycling with kids to destinations indoctrinates them into useful cycling.

All of this comes down to "acceptable risk." If you need or enjoy something, you are willing to accept some amount of risk. Equally importantly, you are willing to more closely examine the actual versus imagined risks, and discriminate between them. As I've said before, I believe from both personal experience and statistics that transporting my child by bike the way I do is less risky per mile than walking or pushing him in a child stroller. Yet, most of the non-cyclists would assume otherwise, and happily push their child strollers accross busy intersections.

I don't care to convince everyone that they should bike with their children. However, I object to the idea that I am a bad parent for cycling with my child on the roads we have, or that ordinary road cycling is an unreasonable risk. "Dangerizing" ordinary cycling on ordinary roads undermines my ability to ride with him by undermining public support for my right to do it, rather than focusing on proper driver behavior.

[sggoodri]

Those sound like good projects. Some of them even sound like *gasp* bike paths, perhaps.

Not bike paths. Paths designed to accommodate cycling in addition to other users, like pedestrians.

I promote "facilities useful for cycling" more than "facilities prohibited to non-cyclists." The former class includes a lot more utility; the latter carries more socio-political baggage, and are generally not worth the effort where I live, due to the small number of cyclists.

[Bekologist]

build it and they will ride is the consensus among transportation engineers these days, steve.

seen around the world via on the ground, velotransit facilities of every stripe and order.

maybe the lack of bicycle accomodated roads is what explains the lack of cyclists in your neck of the woods, eh, steeve?

bike accomodated roads and on and off road bike routes, lanes and paths are what will get more families out bicycling, steve. especially in your area (where there aren't many bicyclists?) not your personal ability to bicycle with (kinda) high speed traffic with your kid in tow.

[Brian Ratliff]

Not bike paths. Paths designed to accommodate cycling in addition to other users, like pedestrians.

I promote "facilities useful for cycling" more than "facilities prohibited to non-cyclists." The former class includes a lot more utility; the latter carries more socio-political baggage, and are generally not worth the effort where I live, due to the small number of cyclists.

Essentially MUPs then. I like the projects you mention.

[noisebeam]

These look like separated paths to me, ripe with danger relative to the realatively low speed road the space could be on:

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/IMG_0512_bikelane_inside_parkedcars.jpg
http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/IMG_0540_lane_inside_parkedcars.jpg

[Brian Ratliff]

The leading cause of death to children is being inside a car when it crashes. People who want to avoid endangering their children shouldn't even drive cars. We know that bicycling greatly extends expected lifespan even when the risks are included; cycling with kids to destinations indoctrinates them into useful cycling.

All of this comes down to "acceptable risk." If you need or enjoy something, you are willing to accept some amount of risk. Equally importantly, you are willing to more closely examine the actual versus imagined risks, and discriminate between them. As I've said before, I believe from both personal experience and statistics that transporting my child by bike the way I do is less risky per mile than walking or pushing him in a child stroller. Yet, most of the non-cyclists would assume otherwise, and happily push their child strollers accross busy intersections.

I don't care to convince everyone that they should bike with their children. However, I object to the idea that I am a bad parent for cycling with my child on the roads we have, or that ordinary road cycling is an unreasonable risk. "Dangerizing" ordinary cycling on ordinary roads undermines my ability to ride with him by undermining public support for my right to do it, rather than focusing on proper driver behavior.

You are missing the point entirely. The point is that many people are unwilling to take the risk of an accident on a bike with their children.

you make the common mistake of turning a statistic on how many children die in car accidents into a percentage chance that any on particular kid will die in a car accident. It is an error, because the risk to any one person in a car is dependent very heavily on the skill of the driver of the car. However, on a bike, there are many accidents which can be thought of as random happenings - not dependent on skill of the cyclist. Hence, since most people think themselves as skilled drivers, they will always see a random chance of an accident as "more risky" than an accident which depends on their skills to avoid.

The point that sbhikes was trying to make is that cyclists in traffic without facilities are percieved as risk takers because, by necessity, much of their safety depends on the skills of people other than the cyclist. Every time a car passes, the cyclist on an unaccomodated street will be dependent on the skill of the passing driver. Now, there are ways that we know of reducing the risk - sometimes down to nearly zero, but ultimately, the fate of the cyclist, so to speak, is still held in a stranger's hands. The whole concept of vehicular cycling, for instance, is premised on the simple notion that drivers don't want to run down cyclists, and moreover, have the facilities and skills to safely interact with that cyclist. Obviously, for the most part, these premises are true, since we all here cycle in a vehicular manner. But the perception of a potential cyclist is that these premises don't have to be true. That is the perception of risk.

The way to counter this perception is to put cyclists in a position where their "fate," so to speak, is not wholly in the hands of a perfect stranger. One way of doing this is to demark a portion of the roadway for the exclusive use of cyclists. A bike lane. Bike lanes work most of the time because motorists are used to staying within lanes in this country. One lane, one vehicle - everything else is an exception to the simple rule. Bike lanes follow this rule, and so keeps more of the cyclist's fate in the cyclist's hands, taking away the ambiguities of a shared lane which relies on the motorist to see, care about seeing, and avoiding the cyclist.

[Brian Ratliff]

touche'

I don't get it. I thought it was the person to whom the comment was aimed at that gets to say "touche'." Are you arguing with DC then?

[galen_52657]

You are missing the point entirely. The point is that many people are unwilling to take the risk of an accident on a bike with their children.

you make the common mistake of turning a statistic on how many children die in car accidents into a percentage chance that any on particular kid will die in a car accident. It is an error, because the risk to any one person in a car is dependent very heavily on the skill of the driver of the car. However, on a bike, there are many accidents which can be thought of as random happenings - not dependent on skill of the cyclist. Hence, since most people think themselves as skilled drivers, they will always see a random chance of an accident as "more risky" than an accident which depends on their skills to avoid.

The point that sbhikes was trying to make is that cyclists in traffic without facilities are percieved as risk takers because, by necessity, much of their safety depends on the skills of people other than the cyclist. Every time a car passes, the cyclist on an unaccomodated street will be dependent on the skill of the passing driver. Now, there are ways that we know of reducing the risk - sometimes down to nearly zero, but ultimately, the fate of the cyclist, so to speak, is still held in a stranger's hands. The whole concept of vehicular cycling, for instance, is premised on the simple notion that drivers don't want to run down cyclists, and moreover, have the facilities and skills to safely interact with that cyclist. Obviously, for the most part, these premises are true, since we all here cycle in a vehicular manner. But the perception of a potential cyclist is that these premises don't have to be true. That is the perception of risk.

The way to counter this perception is to put cyclists in a position where their "fate," so to speak, is not wholly in the hands of a perfect stranger. One way of doing this is to demark a portion of the roadway for the exclusive use of cyclists. A bike lane. Bike lanes work most of the time because motorists are used to staying within lanes in this country. One lane, one vehicle - everything else is an exception to the simple rule. Bike lanes follow this rule, and so keeps more of the cyclist's fate in the cyclist's hands, taking away the ambiguities of a shared lane which relies on the motorist to see, care about seeing, and avoiding the cyclist.

And the fallacy continues....

First and foremost, cyclist are protected from accident as much, if not more than motorists by their own skills. Why? Because the ability to ride a bicycle takes more skill that the ability to drive a car. Many, many motorists suffer various forms of impairment - legal and illegal - and still drive. How many bicyclist have a handicapped tag???? Just about zero? Yet these same people who are permitted to drive would have much more difficulty on a single track vehicle.

Second, any randomness of any possible collision makes no distinction between being a motorist or a cyclist. The only advantage a motorist would have is the fact that they are piloting essentially, an armored vehicle. That advantage only comes into play after the collision has occurred, not before. Demarcation of a portion of the roadway by paint stripe alone fails to add any protection to the cyclist. These painted lines have not been proven to prevent motor vehicles from striking cyclists. In fact, there is much evidence that the do the exact opposite.

[rando]

You know, there are way more people out there who find it completely unacceptable to ride in traffic or in bike lanes as long as there are drivers piloting 3000lb machines while drinking coffee, chatting on the phone and being drunk or even just driving. There is nothing I can do to convince them that it's not as bad as they think. Absolutely nothing. There is no way you can prove that you'll be "safe enough" when the difference between what you think is enough and what they think is enough is so great. As long as the risk remains, they are not willing to take it.

It's really great that you're willing to ride with your children on 35 mph streets in the back of a bike trailer. I believe there are multitudes more people who are completely unwilling to do that no matter what. Does that mean they are not critical thinkers, not rational, merely deluded, harboring insecurities or whatever? Or does it simply mean they don't think it's an acceptable risk to take with their children?

People are unwilling to take risks with their lives and their children's lives. Call it whatever you want, but you can't provide them with anything to change their minds. It's a sliding scale, too. So NOL roads with heavy traffic may be unacceptable but a bike lane may be ok. Or a bike lane may be unacceptable but a bike path may be.

You can cater to the risk-takers of the world or try to be more inclusive. I prefer to provide a means to include more people than exclude. But that's just me. I have heard that cyclists are safer when there are more of them. So anything that gets more of them out there will make me safer.


+1.
I'm not willing to try out the theories of VC risking my body, and maybe even my life, thanks very much. I stick to the quiet streets, sidewalks, WOLs and bike lanes. I'm not getting my ass out on a multi-lane 40-60 mph arterial just because I can.

is all this bickering really maybe about people who ride downtown in a big city where speeds are about the speed of a cyclist anyway, Vs those of us who are in places where the typical speeds are much greater, like the burbs? because I can see how people who cycle in 10-30 mph traffic would have trouble understanding how people would be hesitant to ride in traffic based on those conditions, when actually they are talking about very different conditions?

[noisebeam]

I'm not willing to try out the theories of VC risking my body, and maybe even my life, thanks very much. I stick to the quiet streets, sidewalks, WOLs and bike lanes. I'm not getting my ass out on a multi-lane 40-60 mph arterial just because I can.
Most everyone here uses VC 'methods' to some degree. Most BL proponents destination position, negotiate merges across multilane roads to make left turns. Diane and Bek do this and have helped others learn how to better do these skills as well.
Don't confuse the presence or lack of facilities with the need to ride vehicularly to be safe. Quiet streets and roads with WOL are excellent places to practice vehicular cycling.
Al

[sggoodri]

The way to counter this perception is to put cyclists in a position where their "fate," so to speak, is not wholly in the hands of a perfect stranger. One way of doing this is to demark a portion of the roadway for the exclusive use of cyclists. A bike lane. Bike lanes work most of the time because motorists are used to staying within lanes in this country. One lane, one vehicle - everything else is an exception to the simple rule. Bike lanes follow this rule, and so keeps more of the cyclist's fate in the cyclist's hands, taking away the ambiguities of a shared lane which relies on the motorist to see, care about seeing, and avoiding the cyclist.


I disagree entirely. The vast majority of car-bike collisions occur at junctions, and bike lanes don't reduce these, and in fact likely make them worse. Similarly, falls from poor pavement conditions and doorings are not helped by bike lane stripes, and may be made worse.

As I see it, bike lane striping takes my safety out of my hands and puts it in the hands of the drivers turning or crossing in front of me. Bike lane stripes might reduce certain types of overtaking-type collisions. But these collision types are so rare (and are mostly found on high-speed rural roads and fast arterials with few junctions) that this potential benefit needs to be kept in perspective. I'm far more concerned about right-hook, left-cross and drive-out hazards when I ride with my son to the ice cream store downtown than I am about overtaking collisions, which is why I take the lane through intersections on the way. I take as much control of the situation as I can by riding more visibly and assertively at these locations; by contrast, a striped bike lane puts me in a position of less visibility, maneuvering room, and control over the situation, and thus puts me at the mercy of drivers' competence at actions they perform less reliably than slowing behind me when they cannot pass me at junctions.

I've researched the police reports of car-bike collisions in Cary and the rest of Wake County including Raleigh. There is a lot of bike traffic on the roads I ride with my son, and no reports of overtaking-type car-bike collisions, just a lot of intersection-type collisions. There's no way a bike lane stripe is going to reduce my risk of collision on these roads, and I think a great disservice is done to cyclists when striping proponents claim that these roads are unreasonably dangerous without striping or that striping needs to be shoe-horned in any way that can be managed.

Misleading the public about what makes cycling safe, i.e. over-selling segregation striping and stencils, particularly on low-speed and city streets with lots of junctions, is no way to improve cycling safety.

[sggoodri]

+1.
I'm not willing to try out the theories of VC risking my body, and maybe even my life, thanks very much. I stick to the quiet streets, sidewalks, WOLs and bike lanes. I'm not getting my ass out on a multi-lane 40-60 mph arterial just because I can.

is all this bickering really maybe about people who ride downtown in a big city where speeds are about the speed of a cyclist anyway, Vs those of us who are in places where the typical speeds are much greater, like the burbs? because I can see how people who cycle in 10-30 mph traffic would have trouble understanding how people would be hesitant to ride in traffic based on those conditions, when actually they are talking about very different conditions?

Most of my family cycling is on 25-35 mph roads with light traffic, except downtown, where they are 25 mph roads with heavy traffic moving slower most of the time.

I ride vehicularly on these roads because it is safe and efficient to do so. Bike lane striping is or would be pointless on these roads due to the slow speeds and low traffic volumes.

Most of my commuting is on 35-45mph roads with narrow lanes and busy traffic, with lots of driveways and intersections.

I ride vehicularly, often taking the lane on these roads because it is safe and efficient to do so. The alternate routes with lower traffic are very much longer, and riding on sidewalks or gutters would both take longer and be more dangerous.

I would certainly appreciate the widening of my commuting route to provide wide outside lanes so drivers can pass me without chanigng lanes, and I have even promoted such a project to NCDOT as an alternative to the awful two-way sidewalk-bike-path proposal that the city had applied for funding on along the same corridor. But given that these are the roads I have, I think it's bad for cycling to dismiss cyclists like me as nutcases because we think segregation striping and two-way urban sidepaths can't help us.

[Brian Ratliff]

And the fallacy continues....

First and foremost, cyclist are protected from accident as much, if not more than motorists by their own skills. Why? Because the ability to ride a bicycle takes more skill that the ability to drive a car. Many, many motorists suffer various forms of impairment - legal and illegal - and still drive. How many bicyclist have a handicapped tag???? Just about zero? Yet these same people who are permitted to drive would have much more difficulty on a single track vehicle.

Second, any randomness of any possible collision makes no distinction between being a motorist or a cyclist. The only advantage a motorist would have is the fact that they are piloting essentially, an armored vehicle. That advantage only comes into play after the collision has occurred, not before. Demarcation a portion of the roadway by paint stripe alone fails to add any protection to the cyclist. These painted lines have not been proven to prevent motor vehicles from striking cyclists. In fact, there is much evidence that the do the exact opposite.

One thing struck me about your response. The sentence: The only advantage a motorist would have is the fact that they are piloting essentially, an armored vehicle. is a big lie.

There are at least three advantages a car driver in car traffic has over a cyclist:
1) you mentioned this, the "armored car" part
2) faster acceleration, both increasing and decreasing speed
3) matching speed with other traffic.

All these makes for a level playing field between cars, and a slanted playing field against cyclists. On the level playing field, driver skills are highlighted. On a slanted playing field, accidents are less connected to the cyclist's skill level. (notice I didn't say "disconnected.")

Your response is all about the big hole in the ground where you've stuck your head. Like the bird, if only you don't acknowledge some obvious characteristics, they don't exist for you. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that when a car plays with other cars, there is a much more level playing field than when a single bike mixes it up with hundreds of cars. Only when we are honest about this and address the issue, can we make cycling popular for the masses.

The "sticking the head in the sand" response of VC advocates is indicative of their difficulty in getting the masses to enjoy their technique. Any time you find someone needing to paint a particularly rosy picture when trying to "sell" something, you can assume that they are having a difficult time with the sale. By denying what is pretty obvious, we do transportational cycling, and vehicular cycling, a particular disfavor. We need to acknowledge the difficulties associated with cycling on the street, and then emphasis that there are techniques to lower the risk to acceptable levels.

Moreover, we need to acknowledge that even the very successful VC techniques don't make the risks go away. It will always be safer to drive amongst a mass of cars than it will be to bike amongst them. This has to be acknowledged and dealt with through engineering and road design. VC is a bridge technique, allowing early adopters of transportational cycling to travel on unaccomodated roads. Eventually thought, transportational cycling needs to move beyond the early adopter stage and toward more general acceptance. While VC will remain an important technique, it will by no means be the path to general acceptance of transportational cycling. General acceptance will only come around when roads are built specifically to handle bicycles.

Bike lanes on wider roads and sharrows on narrower roads will be the first step. Eventually, as cycling grows more popular, bike lanes will get wider to accomodate more cyclists, and roads with sharrows will be taken over by bicyclists. Ultimately, I can see a society which uses a car to travel distances over 5 miles, a bike from 5 to 10 miles down to one mile, and by foot for lesser distances. This has to be direction to move - every other direction is unsustainable in the long run.

Some say mass transit will be a salvation. I don't see is happening. Americans are all about flexibility. Cars travel long distances, and bikes will follow which can fit into these cars. Once in the vicinity of the destination, the car is parked, and bike is used.

[sggoodri]

Essentially MUPs then. I like the projects you mention.

Most of the engineering community refers to these as MUPs (Multi-Use Paths), but Cary refers to these pedestrian & bicyclist paths in their own right of way as "Greenways".

Cary uses the term "MUP" to mean a wide sidewalk intended for bicycle use, separated from the roadway by a curb or drainage ditch. Several of these have been built around town, although so far I have prevented the city from signing them as bike facilities, and I go the city to repeal the law that made it illegal for cyclists to ride on the roadway instead of the sidewalk bike path.

[sbhikes]

the ability to ride a bicycle takes more skill that the ability to drive a car.

If that were true we'd teach our 5 year olds to drive cars and make them wait until their 16th birthday for their bicycle license.

I'm not trying to argue what the actual risks are or are not. What I am trying to say is that to most people, riding a bike in traffic carries an unacceptable risk. Riding a bike in traffic with a child in a carrier has an even more unacceptable risk. Personally, I would not consider it an acceptable risk to carry my own infant or toddler in a carrier on a bike (I don't have children by the way). I would consider it an acceptable risk to have my 8 year old on a trail-a-bike. But other people I know don't even consider it acceptable to ride all by themselves as grown and rather large men on any kind of roads, with bike lanes or not.

So, when you advocate for only one type of facility--the non-facility--you advocate for the smallest subset of cyclists (actual and potential) than if you advocate for many kinds of facilities.

[gcl8a]

Are there figures that suggest it is safer and that there have been fewer injuries/deaths among comparable volumes of cycling traffic, particularly with children, when there were no bike lanes available? If the same number of fatalities/imjuries are being seen but with an increase in the number of cyclo-commuters, then it can be suggested that bike lanes are actually safer.

I was skeptical, but I folllowed some of the links in this thread and read some interesting studies. Unfortunately, they were in Danish. But here is a good one that compared accidents before and after construction of bike paths:

http://www.plan.aau.dk/~lahrmann/cykelsti/Trafikdage_cykelstier_050821.pdf

Basically, they found an increase in accidents after the construction of bike paths (cykelstier). They also cite other articles that show the same (except for a Dutch study that showed a decrease in the straights, but increase at intersections).

If you want to look at the figures, here are some useful words:

dræbte = killed
tilskadekomne = not quite sure but it can't be good
uheld = accident

bil(er)=car(s)
knallert = moped
cykel = bike

stigning = increase

strækning = straight
kryds = intersection

I haven't quite figured out how they accounted for before and after traffic, and how they counted accidents, but I'll look into it further.

In my Danish class, I have to read and summarize a Danish text each week. A complete translation is beyond my abilities, but if you want, I can try to get to as much as possible and post it somewhere.

Pas på! (Be careful!)

[patc]

I was thinking the same thing reading posts supporting striped BL's on 25 mph urban roads with lots of intersections. And if "you people" stop making the same old "BS" arguments in support of bike lanes and side paths, we'll stop responding to them.

I haven't bothered with a pro-bike lane argument in a long time. Why bother?

On the other hand, the bike-lane haters can probably claim a win, since I grew tired of the red-herrings and misleading statements and just gave up. Mandatory use laws my arse.

[sggoodri]

Bike lanes on wider roads and sharrows on narrower roads will be the first step. Eventually, as cycling grows more popular, bike lanes will get wider to accomodate more cyclists, and roads with sharrows will be taken over by bicyclists. Ultimately, I can see a society which uses a car to travel distances over 5 miles, a bike from 5 to 10 miles down to one mile, and by foot for lesser distances. This has to be direction to move - every other direction is unsustainable in the long run.

I believe that 100 years from now, most of the traffic on roads will be cars of some sort, with human and electric-powered cycles a minority part of the mixture. Bicyclists will still mix with traffic on most roads, operating according to essentially the same vehicular rules that we have now. More important high-speed arterial roads will likely have wide outside lanes or bike lanes depending on junction density.

Future cars will have sensors and artificial intelligence that either helps the driver avoid collisions with slower traffic ahead, including bicyclists, or that will report on the drivers' performance to their insurance company. This will be adopted en-masse by the public because of the cost savings it will afford to motorists by reducing insurance claims (and thus premiums) and reducing the public costs of crashes.

-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
(Graduate research in computer vision and autonomous vehicles)