Google sponsored links
Here's a blog post with some really cool pictures of bike facilities in Copenhagen. I like the LED-lighted bike lanes, the bike lanes to the right of parked cars, and the part where they had a problem with "casulaties" at intersections, put some blue paint in the intersections, and are studying it to see if it helps. The comments are good, too.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/10/04/notes-on-bicycling-in-copenhagen/
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Interesting that even in a city with almost 40% of all trips made by cyclists and an almost completely seperated road system for cyclists, there are still enough cyclist deaths at intersections to prompt some people to throw more bandaid solutions (blue paint) at the problem (the problem that the bike lanes created at intersections). Why again do people want more bike lanes? Why do people think they are a good solution when there is a constant need to address the problems they cause with more "solutions"?
I guess you missed the part where they said that Copenhagen made a choice to increase bicycle trips over car trips, and that their efforts have paid off. But then I wouldn't expect Joejack to actually read something.
Do we want a city with abundant curbside parking that invites people to drive their cars into the city, or do we want a city where people can get around by bicycle? Forty-five years ago the City of Copenhagen made their choice. Slowly but surely, every year since then, the amount of land dedicated to parking space in the city center has been reduced, 2 or 3 percent annually, according to Gehl. The changes have continued because people continue to enjoy the results.
What makes you think I didn't read the site?
when i look at other street designs and other facilities in other countries that reclaim space from the automobile, one element i am impressed with are crosswalks in Tokyo. very very wide.
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.
america doesn't have to have a car culture forever, people. reclaim public roadway space for ALL users. increase accomodations to represent the fourty percent of the population that doesn't drive. increases in transit, on road facilities, multimodal paths and accomodations for low speed mobility devices. lets make the streets safer, so parents can wholesale consider having kids ride their bikes to school again.
make the walmart in cedar rapids as easy to ride a trike or electric wheelchair to, as some lardbutt in an suv can drive there. easier even.
Interesting that even in a city with almost 40% of all trips made by cyclists and an almost completely seperated road system for cyclists, there are still enough cyclist deaths at intersections to prompt some people to throw more bandaid solutions (blue paint) at the problem (the problem that the bike lanes created at intersections). Why again do people want more bike lanes? Why do people think they are a good solution when there is a constant need to address the problems they cause with more "solutions"?
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.
It would appear that Copenhagen keeps statistics on their construction choices. Perhaps you could find some.
What I thought were really neat were the LED bike lane lights. I wish we had those on all lanes instead of overhead street lights. I have always hated the way street lights take away the stars.
There were a lot of interesting designs in that Copenhagen article. It's too bad people's prejudices keep them from taking a look.
Copenhagen has always had forward-thinking leaders--something we haven't had for over a hundred years. The way it is now, simply taking space from auto's and "reclaiming" it for other use simply won't work. There has to be a very long-term plan put into place which will accomodate all users. Don't ask me how, or what--that's what we pay our leaders for.
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%.
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%.
It seems motorists in Copenhagen need to adjust their driving habits, skills, awareness and acknowledgement just as much as North American motorists.
From the article:
>>>>>Mostly, though, bike lanes are positioned between the parked cars and the sidewalk. To me, that arrangement felt a whole lot safer than the lanes that we have in New York City between the more frequently opened drivers’-side door and traffic<<<<<
Although this appars safer, I'm sure all those Lance Amstrong rodies would NOT like to see this ever happen because it would end group riding at fast speed. Since I'm not one of them, I would like to see it happen.
Did anyone notice that very expensive Pederson parked at the train station without any U lock with just cable wrapped around the frame! I couldn't believe my eyes because that's a bike costing over 1K just standing on the street and anyone can lift it up and carry it away. Incredible. I suspect that bike would last about 10 minutes in New York City.
Something not many people do not understand is that in order for bicycle commuting to be successful, the police have to treat theft more serious than today. Riding a junker requires carrying 20 lbs in locks which really kills transportation cycling. This is why I have to hide the bike and avoid parking on bike racks altogether.
There were a lot of interesting designs in that Copenhagen article. It's too bad people's prejudices keep them from taking a look.
If someone can provide another study which refutes the one that DCCommuter posted, then maybe my "prejudices" might change. For now, my "prejudices" are based on facts that seperating vehicular traffic at intersections based solely on vehicle type does not increase safety and usually makes the situation worse.
From the article:
>>>>>Mostly, though, bike lanes are positioned between the parked cars and the sidewalk. To me, that arrangement felt a whole lot safer than the lanes that we have in New York City between the more frequently opened drivers’-side door and traffic<<<<<
Although this appars safer, I'm sure all those Lance Amstrong rodies would NOT like to see this ever happen because it would end group riding at fast speed. Since I'm not one of them, I would like to see it happen.
I rarely ride in a pack but I'd hate to have to act like I was invisible (which I would be) at every intersection where I'm dumped into the middle of the intersection from a place where no one else in the intersection could see me. I'd have to stop at every intersection and wait for traffic to clear before proceeding. I might as well ride the sidewalk at that point and act like a pedestrian.
If you are concerned with getting hit by the driver's side door opening, don't ride next to parked cars. Complicating the flow of traffic simply because some cyclists can't figure this out is ridiculous and a big backwards step.
It seems motorists in Copenhagen need to adjust their driving habits, skills, awareness and acknowledgement just as much as North American motorists.
Right, get back to me when that happens around the world.
joejack, use some common sense for a second. Here in the US, we have very few bicycles operating on the roadways, which is nice for those of us who ride on them. But what happens when the number of cyclists on the roadways increase 10, 100 or 1000 fold without a matching decrease in motorized vehicle traffic? That's right, you have a mess which will be more dangerous for both motorized and human powered traffic. Think metro downtown areas with large amounts of pedestrian traffic - how would that work with no sidewalks?
Bicycle specific 'lanes' and/or facilities are a must for the safe and orderly flow of traffic if large quantities of bicycles are added to the equation. That's the dirty little secret you anti-bike lane zealots don't want to acknowledge.
But what happens when the number of cyclists on the roadways increase 10, 100 or 1000 fold without a matching decrease in motorized vehicle traffic?
...
Bicycle specific 'lanes' and/or facilities are a must for the safe and orderly flow of traffic if large quantities of bicycles are added to the equation. That's the dirty little secret you anti-bike lane zealots don't want to acknowledge.
Well, if there are more cyclists, then more will be riding in the lanes already legally permitted to. On multilane roads, the outside lane will be filled with cyclist, faster one using the inner to pass. Why is a bike only (except for turning, parking, etc.) lane needed at any point, especially with more bikes.
Oh, I've ridden a little in copenhagen, as a tourist on a rental cruiser type bike. One had to go slow and constanly watch for peds, vehicles, other cyclists. As the distances I traveled were short and for leisure, I didn't mind. Some, but very few, folks did push the speeds and some who did didn't use the bike lane and I imagine the further one got from downtown areas the faster one could go, anyway my recollections are pre-bike lane awareness and blurred by the cycling I've done in other cities like Zurich.
Al
If someone can provide another study which refutes the one that DCCommuter posted, then maybe my "prejudices" might change. For now, my "prejudices" are based on facts that seperating vehicular traffic at intersections based solely on vehicle type does not increase safety and usually makes the situation worse.
There are countries where truck traffic is separated from car traffic, or so I've heard.
By your suggestion of not separating vehicles simply by type of vehicles, should we allow trains on roads and highways?
Personally, I like bike-lanes and use them, but I use non-bike lane routes probably more often. I have been endangered more on non-bike lanes, but I am neither intimidated from them nor hesitant in using them. I appreciate that some motorists just disrespect cyclists in---ahem---'their' lane. I know what you're saying and agree with it in principle, but realistically, I understand the need for bike lanes. If there were a lot more bike lanes, there would be fewer motor-vehicle lanes and that can never be a bad thing, after all.
joejack, use some common sense for a second. Here in the US, we have very few bicycles operating on the roadways, which is nice for those of us who ride on them. But what happens when the number of cyclists on the roadways increase 10, 100 or 1000 fold without a matching decrease in motorized vehicle traffic? That's right, you have a mess which will be more dangerous for both motorized and human powered traffic. Think metro downtown areas with large amounts of pedestrian traffic - how would that work with no sidewalks?
Bicycle specific 'lanes' and/or facilities are a must for the safe and orderly flow of traffic if large quantities of bicycles are added to the equation. That's the dirty little secret you anti-bike lane zealots don't want to acknowledge.
How is one little bike lane going to keep a large amount of bicycle traffic "safe," or in reality, out of the way? Cyclists will be passing cyclists so they'll be (presumably) using the traffic lanes anyway to legally do so. At the point where there are as many cyclists on the roads as motorists, traffic will just have to move at a cyclist's pace. People will only want to use their car when they absolutely have to because they'll only be able to go at a painfully slow pace as the normal and reasonable speed on the roadway will be a cyclist's speed. Some of the speedy cyclists will have to slow down too. Bike lanes would be obsolete (not that they aren't already).
Ok, so I'm getting carried away but even when you start backing off from that human-powered-travel utopia, not much changes. Bike lanes are still useless. More pavement lets more traffic flow more freely. No disconnect there. Striping one section of pavement for one specific vehicle does not make it any better.
Metro downtown areas with no sidewalks would become car free zones because there'd be no need to drive a car through there as it would be slower than walking. There's no need for a car in a downtown metro area anyway.
Thwere are countries where truck traffic is separated from car traffic, or so I've heard.
By your suggestion of not separating vehicles simply by type of vehicles, should we allow trains on roads and highways?
Personally, I like bike-lanes and use them, but I use non-bike lane routes probably more often. I have been endangered more on non-bike lanes, but I am neither intimidated from them nor hesitant in using them. I appreciate that some motorists just disrespect cyclists in---ahem---'their' lane. I know what you're saying and agree with it in principle, but realistically, I understand the need for bike lanes. If there were a lot more bike lanes, there would be fewer motor-vehicle lanes and that can never be a bad thing, after all.
Do you know which countries seperate truck traffic from car traffic? I'd like to read about it.
In Philadelphia, the trolleys (just small trains really) still operate on the roads with cars. No problems there. My girlfriend uses it every day to get to work. Freight trains would be a problem because of their vastly different operation (extrememly slow acceleration, extremely long braking distances, extreme size, etc.). None of those things are applicable to bikes so why the need for seperation?
On the roads you use without bike lanes, is the lane wide enough to share but just without a bike lane stripe? I'm trying to distinguish the benefit you get from extra pavement width alone from the benefit you get of a bike lane striped on that extra pavement width.
I rarely ride in a pack but I'd hate to have to act like I was invisible (which I would be) at every intersection where I'm dumped into the middle of the intersection from a place where no one else in the intersection could see me. I'd have to stop at every intersection and wait for traffic to clear before proceeding. I might as well ride the sidewalk at that point and act like a pedestrian.
If you are concerned with getting hit by the driver's side door opening, don't ride next to parked cars. Complicating the flow of traffic simply because some cyclists can't figure this out is ridiculous and a big backwards step.
It's a good point. I do ride invisible regardless of the situation but having to stop at each intersection would be like riding on the sidewalk. The author of the article said the commuters tend to ride fast but how is that possible if you have to practically come to a stop at each corner? Unless they consider 12 mph fast, I can't see how anyone can travel 20 mph on those bike paths without endagering themselves or others.
Do you know which countries seperate truck traffic from car traffic? I'd like to read about it.
In Philadelphia, the trolleys (just small trains really) still operate on the roads with cars. No problems there. My girlfriend uses it every day to get to work. Freight trains would be a problem because of their vastly different operation (extrememly slow acceleration, extremely long braking distances, extreme size, etc.). None of those things are applicable to bikes so why the need for seperation?
On the roads you use without bike lanes, is the lane wide enough to share but just without a bike lane stripe? I'm trying to distinguish the benefit you get from extra pavement width alone from the benefit you get of a bike lane striped on that extra pavement width.
We have a streetcar (trolley) system in our downtown area here as well and on some routes, double-length streetcars. They operate on regular roads with cars and bikes with generally no problems although recently we began to 'separate' them as they get bogged down by car traffic. Now they are getting right-of-way lanes in the middle of the road. On one route it has been accepted, after much controversy, and it is being installed on another major route---again after many legal battles by area merchants and residents (those car-culture folks don't give up easily).
I would suggest that the same difference that exists with freight trains and motor vehicles also exist with large trucks and bicycles (slow acceleration, extremely long braking distances, visibility, etc.).
Technically, if we cyclists are in traffic lanes, we are not supposed to skim by on the right, but remain in the lane. By law, that is the way we are supposed to ride. Therefore, we are supposed to be subject to the same traffic congestion as cars are. Bike lanes allow us to go right on by it all making us alot faster during rush hour(s) periods and that is one reason I support them.
Here's a little of my personal experience with bike lanes,
I've been commuting by bike everyday since mid May. Along one stretch of road that I ride, there was no bike lane, and we're a block south of a major arterial into and out of downtown, so a lot of traffic trying to avoid the backups from there would use the road. I'd have about 3 incidents a month of some idiot in a car trying to force me off the road, honking, screaming, twice actually swerving at me, and twice something thrown at me from a moving car.
Then, about 2 months ago they finished repaving that section. They made the road about 2 feet wider, but painted bike lanes along both sides. Guess how many incidents I've had on that road since then? 0.
I don't even stay in the bike lane all the time... It's DIRTY in there... lots of loose gravel and broken glass. So I stay about 6" to the right of the line most of the time, moving left to avoid debris.
There's another road that I ride on occasionally that has a nice bike lane, but there's regularly several cars parked in it. In those areas where someone is parked in my lane I ride in the travel lane. Right smack in the middle of it, and don't even try to hurry. I've been honked at twice while doing this, and both times I just shrugged and pointed to the cars parked in 'my' lane. The drivers slowed down and stayed behind me and waited till the bike lane was clear and I moved back over.
There are bike lanes downtown, too. When I'm down there I use them occasionally, but other times I'll be in another driving lane (if I need to turn left, or if I'm going the same speed as everyone else). I've never had a problem.
So, in my opinion and experience, bike lanes are a good thing. I've never had an instance where I legitimately thought that someone didn't see me. I had one lady that I chased down after she cut me off to merge left in front of me, then she immediately made a right turn in front of me CLAIM she hadn't seen me, but I'd been riding to her left before she merged, and she ACCELERATED to get in front of me, and I could see her watching to make sure she could get in front of me.
I've had several people that I know for a fact saw me while they were making a turn, and do it anyway, regardless. One was a bus driver, and his eyes were glued to me as I swerved left and stopped right in front of him to scream at him. Yeah, he saw me, but just didn't care... I'm sure he'd have done the same thing to a car.
So, yeah. I like my bike lanes, but don't ride in them exclusively. I'm ready and willing to ride in traffic if I need to to get where I'm going, and even when I'm in the bike lane, I still watch traffic.
People kill each other in cars everyday through inattentiveness, what makes you think that bikes are any different??? Personally, I'd rather be a little off to the side when someone reaches under their seat to grab that CD they drop and fails to stop for a stop light or sign.
Yes, intersections are by far the most dangerous areas while riding a bike, but guess what? It goes the same for cars. (And by extension, bicycles being ridden as you'd drive a car...)
Getting rid of bike lanes is not the answer.
joejack, use some common sense for a second. Here in the US, we have very few bicycles operating on the roadways, which is nice for those of us who ride on them. But what happens when the number of cyclists on the roadways increase 10, 100 or 1000 fold without a matching decrease in motorized vehicle traffic? That's right, you have a mess which will be more dangerous for both motorized and human powered traffic. First of all, this couldn't happen. If there was a 1000-fold increase, there would be no one left to drive at all, even if you take population growth into account. Secondly, even if it did happen, it would make things better for cyclists, not worse. On any road they'll just claim at least one lane all to themselves... no need for special striping and puny little bike lanes. If there is a 100-fold increase of cyclists, do you think it is still a good idea to leave 90% of the roadway space to cars with a meager narrow stripe to fit all those cyclists?
If not, then those bike lanes would have to be more or less regular-width lanes. Then what is the point of painting a picture of a bike in it? What does it add apart from the most god-awful intersection confusion?
Then, about 2 months ago they finished repaving that section. They made the road about 2 feet wider, but painted bike lanes along both sides.
Was the improvement you noted due to the stripe or the extra pavement width?
Al
Was the improvement you noted due to the stripe or the extra pavement width?
Al
I'd have to say the striping and signs. They actually made the driving lanes NARROWER, and striped off about two and a half feet on each side. That and the pretty new signs with Bicycles on them. I think it increases driver's awareness that "Hey, there are bikes out here!" and also that bikes DO have a right to use the road. Yes, occasionally I'll have someone that passes too close while I'm in a bike lane, but you know what? They do the same thing if I'm in the travel lane. I've had people pass within 6" of me when I'm right in the middle of the travel lane and there's a whole empty lane to the left of me that they COULD use.
Some people will NOT learn until someone shows up to take their license away, and even then, these are probably the same people that would be out driving the next day with no license.
Here's a little of my personal experience with bike lanes,
I've been commuting by bike everyday since mid May. Along one stretch of road that I ride, there was no bike lane, and we're a block south of a major arterial into and out of downtown, so a lot of traffic trying to avoid the backups from there would use the road. I'd have about 3 incidents a month of some idiot in a car trying to force me off the road, honking, screaming, twice actually swerving at me, and twice something thrown at me from a moving car.
Then, about 2 months ago they finished repaving that section. They made the road about 2 feet wider, but painted bike lanes along both sides. Guess how many incidents I've had on that road since then? 0.
I don't even stay in the bike lane all the time... It's DIRTY in there... lots of loose gravel and broken glass. So I stay about 6" to the right of the line most of the time, moving left to avoid debris.
There's another road that I ride on occasionally that has a nice bike lane, but there's regularly several cars parked in it. In those areas where someone is parked in my lane I ride in the travel lane. Right smack in the middle of it, and don't even try to hurry. I've been honked at twice while doing this, and both times I just shrugged and pointed to the cars parked in 'my' lane. The drivers slowed down and stayed behind me and waited till the bike lane was clear and I moved back over.
There are bike lanes downtown, too. When I'm down there I use them occasionally, but other times I'll be in another driving lane (if I need to turn left, or if I'm going the same speed as everyone else). I've never had a problem.
So, in my opinion and experience, bike lanes are a good thing. I've never had an instance where I legitimately thought that someone didn't see me. I had one lady that I chased down after she cut me off to merge left in front of me, then she immediately made a right turn in front of me CLAIM she hadn't seen me, but I'd been riding to her left before she merged, and she ACCELERATED to get in front of me, and I could see her watching to make sure she could get in front of me.
I've had several people that I know for a fact saw me while they were making a turn, and do it anyway, regardless. One was a bus driver, and his eyes were glued to me as I swerved left and stopped right in front of him to scream at him. Yeah, he saw me, but just didn't care... I'm sure he'd have done the same thing to a car.
So, yeah. I like my bike lanes, but don't ride in them exclusively. I'm ready and willing to ride in traffic if I need to to get where I'm going, and even when I'm in the bike lane, I still watch traffic.
People kill each other in cars everyday through inattentiveness, what makes you think that bikes are any different??? Personally, I'd rather be a little off to the side when someone reaches under their seat to grab that CD they drop and fails to stop for a stop light or sign.
Yes, intersections are by far the most dangerous areas while riding a bike, but guess what? It goes the same for cars. (And by extension, bicycles being ridden as you'd drive a car...)
Getting rid of bike lanes is not the answer.
Funny how your post details a host of bike lane ills. You also state that you don't ride in the bike lane, but left of the line. And, you state bike lanes do nothing for you at intersections.
Yet you still are pro bike lane.
Your own post defies your conclusion.
I have a much smoother time of it on roads with bike lanes than on roads without them. Nobody ever tried to run me off the road while I was in a bike lane.
Although this appars safer, I'm sure all those Lance Amstrong rodies would NOT like to see this ever happen because it would end group riding at fast speed
The Copenhagen side paths are not for fast training rides. They are for commuting. I am sure the 'Lance Armstrong roadies' can head out of town for a fast ride.
Galen you just can't read, can you:
So I stay about 6" to the right of the line most of the time, moving left to avoid debris.
Funny how your post details a host of bike lane ills. You also state that you don't ride in the bike lane, but left of the line. And, you state bike lanes do nothing for you at intersections.
Yet you still are pro bike lane.
Your own post defies your conclusion.
You're an idiot with no reading comprehension.
Ok, that's a bit uncalled for, but the ONLY incident I wrote about where I was in a bike lane was with the bus driver. And he damn well saw me and didn't care.
I'm with sbhikes, nobody has ever tried to run me off the road in a bike lane. I could go on all day listing things that have happened while NOT in a bike lane.
I'd have to say the striping and signs. They actually made the driving lanes NARROWER, and striped off about two and a half feet on each side. That and the pretty new signs with Bicycles on them. I think it increases driver's awareness that "Hey, there are bikes out here!" and also that bikes DO have a right to use the road. Yes, occasionally I'll have someone that passes too close while I'm in a bike lane, but you know what? They do the same thing if I'm in the travel lane. I've had people pass within 6" of me when I'm right in the middle of the travel lane and there's a whole empty lane to the left of me that they COULD use.
Your saying that brand new BLs are installed with a 2.5' width. Astonishing.
Again, why not just the 2' extra pavement width and share the road signs for driver awareness?
Al
I don't even stay in the bike lane all the time... It's DIRTY in there... lots of loose gravel and broken glass. So I stay about 6" to the right of the line most of the time, moving left to avoid debris.
There's another road that I ride on occasionally that has a nice bike lane, but there's regularly several cars parked in it.
So, in my opinion and experience, bike lanes are a good thing. I've never had an instance where I legitimately thought that someone didn't see me. I had one lady that I chased down after she cut me off to merge left in front of me, then she immediately made a right turn in front of me CLAIM she hadn't seen me, but I'd been riding to her left before she merged, and she ACCELERATED to get in front of me, and I could see her watching to make sure she could get in front of me.
I've had several people that I know for a fact saw me while they were making a turn, and do it anyway, regardless. One was a bus driver, and his eyes were glued to me as I swerved left and stopped right in front of him to scream at him. Yeah, he saw me, but just didn't care... I'm sure he'd have done the same thing to a car.
So, yeah. I like my bike lanes, but don't ride in them exclusively. I'm ready and willing to ride in traffic if I need to to get where I'm going, and even when I'm in the bike lane, I still watch traffic.
Yes, intersections are by far the most dangerous areas while riding a bike, but guess what? It goes the same for cars. (And by extension, bicycles being ridden as you'd drive a car...)
Draw your own conclusion....
Your saying that brand new BLs are installed with a 2.5' width. Astonishing.
Again, why not just the 2' extra pavement width and share the road signs for driver awareness?
Al
I'd like to see more of the share the road signs on roads, and not just ones where they're redoing the pavement!
In this area the amount of room they had for road expansion was limited. The 'bike lane' varies from about 3 1/2' to about 2' at the narrowest. I'm sure if they had more room in the public right of way, they'd have made them wider. As it is there's just enough room on the one side to complete the sidewalk across the blocks where it doesn't exist. It's private property after that.
The ONLY complaint I have about the bike lane along that road is that they didn't fill in one manhole cover... it's right in the middle of the bike lane and has about a 3" drop. I'm pretty sure it was just an oversight, they raised all the other ones up to the new street level, including other ones in the bike lane.
I don't even stay in the bike lane all the time... It's DIRTY in there... lots of loose gravel and broken glass. So I stay about 6" to the right of the line most of the time, moving left to avoid debris.
> So, I'm in the bike lane for 95% of the way, moving left *gasp* near certain intersections and driveways where the debris is heaviest
There's another road that I ride on occasionally that has a nice bike lane, but there's regularly several cars parked in it.
> One block distance at one point, and about a half block at another point on about a 5 mile road. SAME CARS, SAME SPOTS. This is a problem with parking enforcement, not with the bike lane
So, in my opinion and experience, bike lanes are a good thing. I've never had an instance where I legitimately thought that someone didn't see me. I had one lady that I chased down after she cut me off to merge left in front of me, then she immediately made a right turn in front of me CLAIM she hadn't seen me, but I'd been riding to her left before she merged, and she ACCELERATED to get in front of me, and I could see her watching to make sure she could get in front of me.
> NOT IN A BIKE LANE. I was riding in the traffic lane, she was turning right and merging onto the road I was on.
I've had several people that I know for a fact saw me while they were making a turn, and do it anyway, regardless. One was a bus driver, and his eyes were glued to me as I swerved left and stopped right in front of him to scream at him. Yeah, he saw me, but just didn't care... I'm sure he'd have done the same thing to a car.
>Yes, this was in a bike lane. But he DID see me, so it wasn't a 'bike lane' issue.
So, yeah. I like my bike lanes, but don't ride in them exclusively. I'm ready and willing to ride in traffic if I need to to get where I'm going, and even when I'm in the bike lane, I still watch traffic.
Yes, intersections are by far the most dangerous areas while riding a bike, but guess what? It goes the same for cars. (And by extension, bicycles being ridden as you'd drive a car...)
>This has nothing at all to do specifically with bike lanes
See my bolded comments above.
I'd like to see more of the share the road signs on roads, and not just ones where they're redoing the pavement!
I agree, I think a properly designed StR sign like the one I attached can provide helpful information to cyclsits and motorists.
In this area the amount of room they had for road expansion was limited. The 'bike lane' varies from about 3 1/2' to about 2' at the narrowest. I'm sure if they had more room in the public right of way, they'd have made them wider. As it is there's just enough room on the one side to complete the sidewalk across the blocks where it doesn't exist. It's private property after that.
Is there any other BL proponent here who supports the idea of installing sub-standard BLs, that thinks this is a good idea. Please speak up.
2'! marked as a BL. Is there anyone who can say that riding 1' from curb is safe? Add to this the likelyhood that motorists expect cyclist to be riding this close to curb. I'd say a 2' marked bike lane is negligently unsafe.
The ONLY complaint I have about the bike lane along that road is that they didn't fill in one manhole cover... it's right in the middle of the bike lane and has about a 3" drop. I'm pretty sure it was just an oversight, they raised all the other ones up to the new street level, including other ones in the bike lane.
So having poor QC is acceptable as an oversight, a complaint? The result being a fault in the road in a place where cyclist are guided to ride sufficient enough to easily lead to a death.
Al
So having poor QC is acceptable as an oversight, a complaint? The result being a fault in the road in a place where cyclist are guided to ride sufficient enough to easily lead to a death.
Al
I complained, they said they put it on the list to be fixed. *shrugs* I avoid it, as I would avoid any other road hazard, including pieces of cars, potholes, two by fours, branches, etc.
An oversight by the construction crew is hardly reason to be against bike lanes.
I forwarded the link to the City Councillor who chairs the Bike Committee. In spite of meeting with him back in June of this year and forwarding information that he requested, he has not responded to any e-mails (including several follow-ups inquiring if he had succesfully received the info) and has demonstrated a distinctly unco-operative and unprofessional attitude, at least by my standards. I even stated in the e-mail today that I didn't expect a response from him as he doesn't seem to know where the reply button is on his screen unless there's a payoff for his career or his pocketbook by hitting it.
Curiously he replied...and somewhat nicely, stating he has been arguing for more lanes and less parking for years. I advised it's time to stop arguing for and begin working for more bike lanes, less parking. Action, not words.
I'm actually not suprised he replied. You see we have municipal elections in a few weeks and he'd like to kiss everyone's behind before he goes back to ignoring everyone.
I complained, they said they put it on the list to be fixed. *shrugs* I avoid it, as I would avoid any other road hazard, including pieces of cars, potholes, two by fours, branches, etc.
An oversight by the construction crew is hardly reason to be against bike lanes.
A 3" drop and ledge can easily cause a cyclist to loose control and end up in the primary lane with fast passing traffic. Instant death.
If the construction crew is who is reponsible for the road inspection post work and uses a procedure that allows something as dangerous as this to not get immediately noticed and addresed, then that is an obvious indication that the purpose of striping the BL is not for cyclist safety. BL advocacy needs to be about setting standards for safer cycling and include standards built into planning processes, implementation and maintenance that address the well known problems with bike lanes. Insteads as is obvious in your town's advocacy results, BLs are more about installing miles of stripes for a feel good talking point.
Al
How is one little bike lane going to keep a large amount of bicycle traffic "safe," or in reality, out of the way? Cyclists will be passing cyclists so they'll be (presumably) using the traffic lanes anyway to legally do so. At the point where there are as many cyclists on the roads as motorists, traffic will just have to move at a cyclist's pace. People will only want to use their car when they absolutely have to because they'll only be able to go at a painfully slow pace as the normal and reasonable speed on the roadway will be a cyclist's speed. Some of the speedy cyclists will have to slow down too. Bike lanes would be obsolete (not that they aren't already).
Ok, so I'm getting carried away but even when you start backing off from that human-powered-travel utopia, not much changes. Bike lanes are still useless. More pavement lets more traffic flow more freely. No disconnect there. Striping one section of pavement for one specific vehicle does not make it any better.
Metro downtown areas with no sidewalks would become car free zones because there'd be no need to drive a car through there as it would be slower than walking. There's no need for a car in a downtown metro area anyway.
I'm not talking about one little bike lane...nor utopia, I'm talking about larger numbers of cyclists on the road, more like it already is in Europe and Asia (can't tell you about Africa or South America). Our transportation system is based on motor vehicles, hence the roads are designed for motor vehicles. Order comes from traffic signals and, you guessed it, LANES. Now, if bicycle traffic on those roads increased by any meaningful amount, we'd have chaos, because even if we follow the rules and laws of the road, we are smaller, slower and not as visible. You know I'm right. There has to be some orderly way to move multiple types of vehicles on the roadways...designating some lanes as the 'default' lane for different types of vehicles is one way to accomplish that.
Intersections will always be a problem for bicycles as long as we are sharing the road with cars - again because we are smaller, slower and less visible. The debate on bike lanes in regards to intersections is pointless - the only way intersections will ever be safe for bicycles is if we can avoid them...which would mean seperate facilities...which turn into MUPs and present their own problems. 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.
We have a streetcar (trolley) system in our downtown area here as well and on some routes, double-length streetcars. They operate on regular roads with cars and bikes with generally no problems although recently we began to 'separate' them as they get bogged down by car traffic. Now they are getting right-of-way lanes in the middle of the road. On one route it has been accepted, after much controversy, and it is being installed on another major route---again after many legal battles by area merchants and residents (those car-culture folks don't give up easily).
It makes sense that if a large, public transportation device was getting bogged down by single occupant vehicle traffic to give it a right of way lane assuming the space was available for it. A right of way lane down the middle of the road for a trolley car is in no way related to a bike lane regardless of where it's striped. Bike lanes do not give cyclists right of way and cyclists are not trolley cars. I'm assuming also that all of the traffic lights are synced to allow the trolley car the right of way that it needs to operate efficiently. Am I correct?
I would suggest that the same difference that exists with freight trains and motor vehicles also exist with large trucks and bicycles (slow acceleration, extremely long braking distances, visibility, etc.).
For downtown traffic speeds, a cyclist, a car, and a large truck can accelerate up to speed with only a few seconds difference. It can take a freight train minutes just to get barely moving and then miles to stop.
Technically, if we cyclists are in traffic lanes, we are not supposed to skim by on the right, but remain in the lane. By law, that is the way we are supposed to ride. Therefore, we are supposed to be subject to the same traffic congestion as cars are. Bike lanes allow us to go right on by it all making us alot faster during rush hour(s) periods and that is one reason I support them.
As cyclists, we are allowed to share lanes when safe and to pass on the right or left when safe just like other vehicles. Cyclists can fit into smaller spaces so we can bypass traffic when other traffic cannot move. Bike lanes give many cyclists the impression that bypassing traffic on the right through intersections is safe and recommended practice, which it most certainly is not. Especially when there are parked cars just to the right, filtering needs to be done with utmost care and at intersections, one needs to be extremely vigilant as you are basically invisible as you enter. Novice cyclists don't get any of these recommendations when bike lanes are striped (supposedly mostly for their own benefit) and think nothing off filtering at full speed next to parked cars and through intersections. Then they get hit and blame motorists for not watching out for them.
I'm not talking about one little bike lane...nor utopia, I'm talking about larger numbers of cyclists on the road, more like it already is in Europe and Asia (can't tell you about Africa or South America). Our transportation system is based on motor vehicles, hence the roads are designed for motor vehicles. Order comes from traffic signals and, you guessed it, LANES. Now, if bicycle traffic on those roads increased by any meaningful amount, we'd have chaos, because even if we follow the rules and laws of the road, we are smaller, slower and not as visible. You know I'm right. There has to be some orderly way to move multiple types of vehicles on the roadways...designating some lanes as the 'default' lane for different types of vehicles is one way to accomplish that.
The default lane for slow moving vehicles in the right lane. This system has been in place for a long time and it works. Why change it? Bikes can use traffic lanes just like cars can except bikes can easily ride two abreast in a lane that can only fit one car. I think that the roads are designed perfectly for cyclists already. It's rare when I see a shoulder or bike lane wide enough to allow me to ride side by side with my girlfriend to allow us to chat. I love a good narrow lane roadway for that. What is so complicated and dangerous about traffic having to slow down for a slow moving vehicle? It happens ALL THE TIME even when no cyclists are using the road (school buses, garbage trucks, tractors, etc.). Yes, a cyclist is less visible simply because we don't have the size but I think the actual difference is marginal for a cyclist who operates where traffic is expecting to see other traffic.
Intersections will always be a problem for bicycles as long as we are sharing the road with cars - again because we are smaller, slower and less visible. The debate on bike lanes in regards to intersections is pointless - the only way intersections will ever be safe for bicycles is if we can avoid them...which would mean seperate facilities...which turn into MUPs and present their own problems. 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.
Intersections will always be a problem for a driver of any vehicle who does operate defensively while crossing the intersection. Bike lanes/shoulders and MUPs or bike highways (which will eventually intersect the roadways) don't solve this problem.
Then they get hit and blame motorists for not watching out for them.
Sorry but dooring is the car's fault buddy.
Novice cyclists don't get any of these recommendations when bike lanes are striped (supposedly mostly for their own benefit) and think nothing off filtering at full speed next to parked cars and through intersections. Then they get hit and blame motorists for not watching out for them.
And this is because of bike lanes? No, it's a lack of education. Just like the idiots that can't operate a quick release safely. It's NOT an inherent design flaw.
And this is because of bike lanes? No, it's a lack of education. Just like the idiots that can't operate a quick release safely. It's NOT an inherent design flaw.
Would you trust your life to any attempt, even a massive campaign, at educating car door openers (drivers and passenger i.e. even folks who don't get drivers license)?
Can one educate cyclists to avoid dooring by any other reliable method other than staying out of the door zone?
Of course legally its the door openers fault, but who has the control to prevent being hit?
Al
I'm not talking about one little bike lane...nor utopia, I'm talking about larger numbers of cyclists on the road, more like it already is in Europe and Asia (can't tell you about Africa or South America). Our transportation system is based on motor vehicles, hence the roads are designed for motor vehicles. Order comes from traffic signals and, you guessed it, LANES. Now, if bicycle traffic on those roads increased by any meaningful amount, we'd have chaos, because even if we follow the rules and laws of the road, we are smaller, slower and not as visible. You know I'm right. There has to be some orderly way to move multiple types of vehicles on the roadways...designating some lanes as the 'default' lane for different types of vehicles is one way to accomplish that.
Intersections will always be a problem for bicycles as long as we are sharing the road with cars - again because we are smaller, slower and less visible. The debate on bike lanes in regards to intersections is pointless - the only way intersections will ever be safe for bicycles is if we can avoid them...which would mean seperate facilities...which turn into MUPs and present their own problems. 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.
Localities with higher volumes of bicycle traffic have lower car-bike collision rates, per cycling mile, regardless of facilities. The segregated sidepaths like those between parked cars and the sidewalk have higher car-bike crash rates, per bicycle mile, than ordinary roads in those same cities. Bike lane stripes alone don't have any measurable effect on car-bike crash rates, despite efforts to demonstrate this. Therfore, most of the segregation constructs are not improving safety for cyclists in areas with high cycling volumes. Drivers' compensation for increased volumes of bicycle traffic more than makes up for the increased car-bike interactions without special facilities.
The main motivations behind the invention of bike lane striping and sidepaths in those high-cycling-volume nations that developed them were to improve the convenience of motoring, not to improve cycling safety. Holland and China already had high volumes of cycling (and mopeding) and it was reasonably safe, but car and bus travel was slow and inconvenient because of the number of cyclists. So, those governments, in their effort to speed motor travel, developed segregated paths and laws to keep cyclists out of the way, often crowding the majority of roadway users (cyclists) into a minority width of pavement and forcing them to ride more slowly and hazardously.
The focus of the bicycle transportation engineering papers I've seen come out of China is clearly to prioritize motorist convenience over bicyclist safety. They speak of "controlling" bicycle traffic like it is an infestation to be contained. The Chinese engineers' strategies include prohibiting cyclists from making left turns at some intersections and requiring them to turn left from the curb at others, in addition to outright prohibitions of bicycle use on roads previously congested with bicycles. Such restrictions do not improve the safety and convenience of cycling.
At mid-block locations on high-speed roads, speed positioning implies a lateral separation between bicyclists and motorists that I think is often compatible with special-purpose road markings. But in most other cases, particularly near urban intersections and driveways, explicit segregation by vehicle type does more harm to cyclists than good.
A bike lane that is placed in a door zone IS a poor design. And I'd use it anyway, and ride it just the way I ride other bike lanes. In the left hand portion, with the ability to move right or left to dodge problems from either direction.
Unless I'm on a large shoulder (ie: more than 4 or 5 feet) that's VERY clear of debris, this is my standard riding position, if there's a white line. If it's a shoulder and not a bike lane, I'll move left if it's very narrow, or I'm going at high speed. I also move left to avoid debris and other obstacles, or if it's a narrow lane with no shoulder and no room to share a lane.
Generally a bike lane means I have more room to dodge right if necessary, and from my experience, drivers on roads with marked and signed bike lanes tend to be more alert for cyclists. Could this be accomplished by simply putting share the road signs and painted symbols? Probably. But the white line also gives them a visual indicator of where the driving lane is. I've had people crowd the line, but never had someone come across it at me.
In contrast, one part of my commute is a very wide residential road along a park. The road is about 3 miles long (guessing, I've never measured it) and is EASILY wide enough for 4 lanes of traffic, though it's only two lanes, with VERY rarely used parking on each side. I get buzzed on this stretch about once a week, with a car passing me within about 6-12" despite the fact that they've got a good 5' or more clearance to the centerline on the other side of their car. This is also the stretch of road that someone was right hooked on right in front of me, destroying her bike and ending up with police and ambulance on scene.
So... no bike lane, right hook. Would a bike lane have made any difference? In this instance, probably not. Better visibility on the cyclist MIGHT have helped. She was a roadie wearing dark kit, no lights or blinkies. I also never once saw her look to see who was coming up behind her on her left for the mile and a half that I followed her.
My personal way of dealing with this issue is to make sure that if I'm coming up on an intersection and there's a car to my left, I'm watching them... if they appear to be readying for a turn, signal or not, I swerve left about 6", and return to my spot. Something coming TOWARDS them always seems to get their attention.
I also take resposibility for my own safety, whether I'm on an mup, a trail, or on an open road. When driving, it's called defensive driving. You don't just make sure you're driving correctly, you watch for the other drivers, too. It's just as applicable to cycling, and even more important. In a car vs bike crash, it's almost always the cyclist that gets the worst end of the deal.
My very first experience with what could be considered Vehicular Cycling involved a crash when I was about 17. I was riding IN THE LANE, proceeding at the speed that traffic would normally be travelling at (about 15 mph or just slightly higher) in the driving lane along the edge of a large parking lot. A truck coming the other direction made a left turn and hit me broadside. I saw her coming just in time to pull my foot out of the way of her front bumper, and aimed for the only soft spot around, a bush in a concrete planter. She hit me, I went over the hood and landed in that bush. My bike frame was bent, and I had a few scrapes and LOTS of bruises. The next day (after she got an estimate for her truck) she called claiming it was all my fault, and wanting me to pay for her truck. Turns out the collision did $980 damage to the front of her truck. :) I straightened my bike frame with a pair of two by fours, and rode that bike for another year.
The lessons I learned from that event:
1. NEVER leave your safety and well being to the other driver(or assume another person will take care of it for you in cases not involving driving.)
2. ALWAYS get a police report
Every once in a while, I'll let my guard down, and get a reminder about the first lesson.
Just like I wouldn't head out on a 100 mile ride and assume my ride partner checked the weather and brought enough food for both of us, I don't assume that someone else is going to watch out for me as well as I'd watch out for myself.
Does this mean I can't totally zone out and concentrate on riding to the exclusion of everything else? Unfortunately, yes. If that's what you want, put on a pair of headphones, a nice scenery tape, and ride a stationary cycle. Otherwise some part of your mind should ALWAYS be looking out for your safety. Whether you're riding, hiking, kayaking, driving, or anything else you care to do in life.
Does this mean that cycling can't be fun? Absolutely not. I have over 3000 miles in since the first of June, and I've loved it, and look forward to many more.
Would you trust your life to any attempt, even a massive campaign, at educating car door openers (drivers and passenger i.e. even folks who don't get drivers license)?
Can one educate cyclists to avoid dooring by any other reliable method other than staying out of the door zone?
Of course legally its the door openers fault, but who has the control to prevent being hit?
Al
I was referring to CYCLIST education. :) As is probably readily apparent by my previous post.
Localities with higher volumes of bicycle traffic have lower car-bike collision rates, per cycling mile, regardless of facilities.
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 was referring to CYCLIST education. :) As is probably readily apparent by my previous post.
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
It makes sense that if a large, public transportation device was getting bogged down by single occupant vehicle traffic to give it a right of way lane assuming the space was available for it. A right of way lane down the middle of the road for a trolley car is in no way related to a bike lane regardless of where it's striped. Bike lanes do not give cyclists right of way and cyclists are not trolley cars. I'm assuming also that all of the traffic lights are synced to allow the trolley car the right of way that it needs to operate efficiently. Am I correct?
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.
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.
For downtown traffic speeds, a cyclist, a car, and a large truck can accelerate up to speed with only a few seconds difference. It can take a freight train minutes just to get barely moving and then miles to stop. 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.
As cyclists, we are allowed to share lanes when safe and to pass on the right or left when safe just like other vehicles. Cyclists can fit into smaller spaces so we can bypass traffic when other traffic cannot move. Bike lanes give many cyclists the impression that bypassing traffic on the right through intersections is safe and recommended practice, which it most certainly is not. Especially when there are parked cars just to the right, filtering needs to be done with utmost care and at intersections, one needs to be extremely vigilant as you are basically invisible as you enter. Novice cyclists don't get any of these recommendations when bike lanes are striped (supposedly mostly for their own benefit) and think nothing off filtering at full speed next to parked cars and through intersections. Then they get hit and blame motorists for not watching out for them.
Not according to the Highway Traffic Act, as I understand it. Filtering is technically illegal. 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. 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.
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.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.