Warning of "Transportation Alternatives" and Curb Lanes

[yama]

I just found a video that shocked me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo&eurl=

Don't know if this has been posted before, but i wanted to warn you. In Berlin 80% of all cyclist accidents happen on segregated curb lanes although only 10% of the streets are equipped with them. Even the insurance companies begin to urge the government not to build that kind of facility any more, because their statistics show that cycling on the street or on bike lanes is much safer and they have to pay lots of money for accidents on segregated curb lanes.


yama

[Da Tinker]

All well & good, but all bikes lanes suffer from the same issue: what the hell do you do at intersections?
They look great on paper, and are nice mid-block, where there are no driveways and little ped traffic. And they are loved by advocates & planners who do not have to ride them.

[eubi]

...and where are you going to put them?

[LCI_Brian]

In Berlin 80% of all cyclist accidents happen on segregated curb lanes although only 10% of the streets are equipped with them. Even the insurance companies begin to urge the government not to build that kind of facility any more, because their statistics show that cycling on the street or on bike lanes is much safer and they have to pay lots of money for accidents on segregated curb lanes.
Just curious, any statistics (in English) on this?

[chephy]

I just found a video that shocked me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo&eurl=

Don't know if this has been posted before, but i wanted to warn you. In Berlin 80% of all cyclist accidents happen on segregated curb lanes although only 10% of the streets are equipped with them. Didn't watch the video, but do these numbers take into account the fact that more cyclists are probably found on segregated cycling facilities as opposed to the average Berlin road?

At any rate, I've had a heated discussion on a non-cycling forum a while back about cycling. Some of its participants live in Berlin and brought up what a wonderfully bike-friendly city it was. And then posted pictures to prove it. Egads!! One picture showed a very narrow paved pathway (maybe 3 feet wide?) to the immediate right of a bunch of parked cars. :eek:

It's the ingrained incredibly wrong assumptions that a) biking in traffic is too dangerous and b) bikes must not get into the cars' way. I've long thought a technocratic government would be a very good thing. Right now most decisions governments pass regarding cycling (and very very many other things) have no rational basis whatsoever. Even smart politicians (is there such a thing?) realize that they need to please the majority of people (cause they want to be reelected) and guess what - the majority of people is using those wrong assumptions and is not changing their views because... well, because the majority isn't very interested in the subject and, ahem, isn't very bright. That's one disadvantage of democracy: you need to cater to the wants and needs of stupid people as they are perceived by stupid people - or you and your party are replaced by the more compliant ones... Anyway, I think I'm getting slightly off-topic here...

[sbhikes]

The problem is always cars getting in the bike's ways, not the other way around. And the other problem is about getting more people to leave their cars at home. I can't believe how much this forum is dominated by people who don't share the concerns, needs and desires of ANY of the bike advocates I know in person and just want to maintain the status quo at all costs.

[LittleBigMan]

I think cars ought to stick to the freeways. One of my favorite scenes in the mornings used to be crossing the freeway overpass on a small, quiet neighborhood street, looking down at the morass of cars crawling along, appearing like cattle with each other's snouts in each other's rears, me thinking how much I'm enjoying my trip.

What was that thing about billions of wasted hours...?

[sggoodri]

The problem is always cars getting in the bike's ways, not the other way around. And the other problem is about getting more people to leave their cars at home. I can't believe how much this forum is dominated by people who don't share the concerns, needs and desires of ANY of the bike advocates I know in person and just want to maintain the status quo at all costs.

I believe most of the integrated cycling proponents here want to change the status quo by improving motorists' treatment of bicyclists operating in integrated space, and in many cases by increasing the width of integrated pavement in order to make passing easier and cycling more comfortable.

In some congested areas, cyclists may be delayed by same-direction motor traffic. A physically separated path (be it in the same right-of-way or a separate one) may reduce those same-direction delays at the cost of increased delays from turning and crossing traffic at junctions. A sidepath type design also increases the crash rate for cyclists compared to operating on the roadway.

In my own bicycle commuting, my greatest delay is from cross traffic at signals. I minimize cross-traffic delays by using arterial routes with priority over cross traffic. Same-direction traffic does not back up enough for me to miss signals or face significant delay. Any bikeway design that removes me from the ordinary stream of prioritized vehicle traffic at junctions and puts me in a channel with reduced priority, such as a bike path with nonsignalized street crossings or a barrier-separated side path with bicycle-only signal phases would increase my travel time considerably, and would consequently reduce my desire to travel by bicycle compared to by automobile.

A separated bikeway that includes grade-separated street crossings, such as a streamside or rail-corridor greenway, could potentially reduce my travel time compared to roadway travel. I support construction of such facilities in the corridors that can properly accommodate them. However, my existing work and home locations do not have such a suitable corridor nearby, and so integrated cycling is the only viable solution for me to travel to work in a reasonably time-efficient manner.

-Steve Goodridge

[invisiblehand]

In some congested areas, cyclists may be delayed by same-direction motor traffic. A physically separated path (be it in the same right-of-way or a separate one) may reduce those same-direction delays at the cost of increased delays from turning and crossing traffic at junctions. A sidepath type design also increases the crash rate for cyclists compared to operating on the roadway.

It is too bad that two threads on the same subject are progressing.

With the caveat that my examination of cycling research is not exhaustive--I followed the veins of a few lines of research--I have come to the conclusion that the data really does not support sidepaths are more dangerous than main roads. Although I don't think that it supports the alternative either. To be brief, I don't think that the research adequately controls for rider skill and environmental factors.

Your argument regarding increased travel time is interesting ... I believe it just from my own casual observations. Although I am not sure whether the magnitude of the effect is that large. But I can't prove it either way: that the effect is small or large. Probably depends on your particular situation.

Given your point, however, I would expect both "winners" and "losers" with respect to separated bike lanes. Some people would commute/travel by bike that otherwise would not. Others would probably take a more direct (and I think safer) route on the separated bike lanes instead of avoiding congested areas to save time. Drivers also enter this equation as well. Some would fall into your situation.

Time to eat dinner.

[Brian Ratliff]

The best point taken from this film by myself was the use of a number of different cycling facilities and a clear guideline suggesting what facility goes with what street.

Someone asked about intersections. What do you do with intersections when you have a physically separated barrier between the bike lane and the traffic lane? The solution is also in the film, but is not expanded upon much in such a short clip. So what do you do? Well, first you minimize the number potential car crossings (this is, after all, the whole point of a physically separated bike lane), and second, you control the intersections explicity using a combination of lights, roadway features, paint, and regulation/enforcement.

I'd imagine that the efficiency of a cyclist is somewhat compromised. This is to be expected; life is full of tradeoffs. In this case, this is a tradeoff between making cycling popular and prevelant, and efficiency. At one end of the scale, with physically separated bike lanes, efficiency is compromised and bicycling popularity is increased, and at the other end with no road modifications and vehicular cycling training, efficiency is promoted while making bicycling less popular. Most bicycling advocacy is focused on getting more people to replace car trips with bike trips, and so it is no surprise that most advocates focus on facilities which make people comfortable and still afford a flexible way around the city.

[noisebeam]

I'd imagine that the efficiency of a cyclist is somewhat compromised. .
But is it compromised more of less that if the cyclists had been more vehicular and gone with the flow of traffic in the NYC videos? If you note pretty much all the cyclists in the city were going faster than motor vehicles, both creating actual and adding to the illusion of danger. Safety could have been increased by slower more vehicular cycling.

Cyclist in congested cities obvious can and want to go faster than motor vehicles, will extra wait times at intersections become a frustration leading to addtional unsafe behaviors, such as jumping low barriers, squeezing between gaps in barriers to get into motor traffic lanes to get the green lights, if the cycle light is red. Or running cycle lights? Or all the other creative ways they will come up with to 'beat' the then slower system?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

But is it compromised more of less that if the cyclists had been more vehicular and gone with the flow of traffic in the NYC videos? If you note pretty much all the cyclists in the city were going faster than motor vehicles, both creating actual and adding to the illusion of danger. Safety could have been increased by slower more vehicular cycling.

Cyclist in congested cities obvious can and want to go faster than motor vehicles, will extra wait times at intersections become a frustration leading to addtional unsafe behaviors, such as jumping low barriers, squeezing between gaps in barriers to get into motor traffic lanes to get the green lights, if the cycle light is red. Or running cycle lights? Or all the other creative ways they will come up with to 'beat' the then slower system?

Al

My experience is with suburban and rural commuting where vehicular cycling as you describe is much faster than any separated facilities can ever be, breaking rules or no. This is the perspective I am coming from with that comment.

The inner city environment is different. Safety or danger level is pretty much a constant anywhere you travel on a bike because all the speeds are on a human scale of 0-20 mph and unpredictability is the rule rather than the exception. Convenience then becomes a major factor in cycling. If more fully separated bike lanes were used in NYC, I'd imagine that the current law breakers will continue to flout the laws, but with probably smaller risk as they'd be on the separated bike lanes for at least part of the time. The cyclists who are inclined to stay within the law will probably actually come out and ride their bike!

Why deal with a problem indirectly when a direct approach is better? In other words, why rely on the indirect approach of forcing vehicular cycling behavior to enforce traffic law on cyclists rather than use straight up enforcement as like we do with every other situation?

[Daily Commute]

. . . If more fully separated bike lanes were used in NYC, I'd imagine that the current law breakers will continue to flout the laws, but with probably smaller risk as they'd be on the separated bike lanes for at least part of the time. The cyclists who are inclined to stay within the law will probably actually come out and ride their bike! . . .
According to a NYT article late last year, the last time New York City used a lot of physically segregated lanes, cyclists didn't use them. Mayor Koch put up "use them or lose them" signs, and cyclists smartly chose to lose them.

And if drivers right-hook cyclists with striped lanes (and TA candidly admits that this is a major problem with striped lanes), why wouldn't physically segregated lanes make the problem worse? How could the physical barriers possibly make the problem less bad?


And remember, TA's video includes a clip explaining that the ideal is for cyclists to share sidewalks with pedestrians. Nice.

It is too bad that two threads on the same subject are progressing. . . .
If both OP's request it, the mods will merge the second thread into the first thread.

[Brian Ratliff]

According to a NYT article late last year, the last time New York City used a lot of physically segregated lanes, cyclists didn't use them. Mayor Koch put up "use them or lose them" signs, and cyclists smartly chose to lose them.


Interesting. When was the article published and what was the title? I'd like to read it.

I know, you look for any "advantage" in this "debate" regarding facilities. I'm not into that anymore, which is why I didn't post here much until today. I am still very much interested in traffic cycling, but not interested in retorical harranguing which is common on this forum.

I'll ignore sniping posts like these in the future unless they have some real meat to them in terms of analysis or relevence to exploring the problem of traffic cycling.

[Daily Commute]

The (pro-barrier) op/ed piece is "Rolling Thunder" from 11/5/06. You have to have Times Select to pull it up. Here are the key paragraphs:

I was the Department of Transportation's assistant commissioner under Mayor Ed Koch, who, buoyed by a visit to Beijing, where he saw bike lanes used by tens of thousands, envisioned a network of physically separated bikeways up and down Manhattan.

In the summer of 1980, the mayor directed the department to install bikeways. From Washington Square Park to Central Park, the curb lanes of Fifth Avenue, Broadway and Seventh Avenue were separated from traffic by asphalt islands, giving bikers a lane of car-free roadway all their own.

Within days the complaints started to pour in. Most of the grumbling was from pedestrians concerned about reckless cyclists coming close to knocking them down (the three deaths were fresh in their minds). Some were from drivers who felt there was more congestion because of the loss of a lane.

The department's investigation found that pedestrians considered the bike lanes to be extensions of the sidewalk; they stood in the lanes waiting for the lights to change, where bikers often yelled at them. (The conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians is much more visceral than any between car drivers and pedestrians. You can see a biker's face and hear his words.)

Mr. Koch made his own observations and found many bike riders traveling outside the lanes. He had us install traffic signs along the bike lanes in typical Koch-ese -- ''Use it or Lose it.'' But even though the lanes were largely successful -- and car traffic didn't slow nearly as much as people thought -- criticism mounted.

During a limousine ride up Avenue of the Americas with Mr. Koch and President Jimmy Carter, Gov. Hugh Carey pointed out the bike lanes to Mr. Carter and joked, ''See how Ed is wasting your money.'' Within weeks, the mayor directed us to remove the barriers separating the lanes, which afterward were designated only by painted lines.
Reading it, it doesn't support my assertion that cyclists " chose to lose them" after Koch's warning, but it doesn't look like cyclists embraced them.

On 11/12/06, LAB board member John Allen wrote a letter to the editor responding to the op/ed titled: "Barrier Bike Lanes Are Dangerous":

Samuel I. Schwartz's nostalgia for the 1980 experiment with barrier-separated bike lanes in Manhattan (''Rolling Thunder,'' Op-Ed, Nov. 5) is naïve. These lanes were hardly usable!

In such lanes, bicyclists' travel is blocked by pedestrians, trucks or their delivery ramps; these also hide bicyclists and turning motorists from each other, increasing the risk of the most common car-bike crashes, those at intersections.

National design guidelines, and position statements of the League of American Bicyclists, strongly discourage the construction of barrier-separated lanes, as research consistently shows them to be more hazardous than riding on the same roadway with motor traffic.

Real improvements in bicycling conditions result, for example, from education, enforcement, bicycle boulevards (streets open for through bicycle travel but for only local motor-vehicle access) and reducing discretionary driving, as with London's successful congestion charge.

John S. Allen
Waltham, Mass.

The writer is regional director for New York and New England, League of American Bicyclists.


Someone from the sidewalk cycling group, TA responded soonafter in another letter.

As to the "sniping" assertion, isn't it fair to argue that the last time NYC tried barrier lanes, so many cyclists chose not to use them that it made city officials mad? Again, it backs up my assertion that many bicycle facilties are not good enough for cycliusts to use voluntarily. They require the force of law to coerce cyclists to use them. And putting in bike lanes (barrier or striped) often means the loss of the right to use the road.

[invisiblehand]

That is interesting Daily Commute. Growing up in NYC, I would imagine that it would be quite difficult keeping pedestrians out of the intersections ... although I did not think of it earlier. Some of the sidewalks are quite congested. I am unsure what the solution would be.

I recall that NYPD did crack down on jaywalking and such in certain areas of the city. If true, did that change pedestrian behavior?

[yama]

Didn't watch the video, but do these numbers take into account the fact that more cyclists are probably found on segregated cycling facilities as opposed to the average Berlin road?


Yes, that was also the first argument of the pro-segregation groups. But a police officer with access to the accident statistics (i guess he's a bicyclist himself and knows the problems) countered that argument in an interview with a cycling magazine. He said that there are many main roads without any cycling facilities and heavy cyclist traffic. And, surprise, there are hardly any accidents happening there according to the statistics. He came to the conclusion that if we take these facts serious we must assume that segregated cycling facilities are many times more dangerous than just a plain road.

@LCI_Brian

I'm sorry, but I have those statistics only in german.

Here you can see what "bicycle friendly" looks like in reality (please scroll down for pictures):

http://www.hamburg.adfc.de/pm-20070112

It's a mandatory cycling facility in Hamburg.