Advocacy & Safety - AC: Are intersections truly dangerous for bike paths?

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true. In concept it may be true, but in practice motorists seem more aware of bikes on the bike path than they are of bikes anywhere else on the road.

Whenever I come to an intersection they have already seen me approach and are waving me through as I arrive. I can never stop. They won't let me. I feel guilty about it sometimes.

Whenever I try to make a left from the street to get on the bike path they'll stop and wave me through as well. They all seem to know that's where the bike path is, that's where the bikes are, and they seem really happy to help me get there.

This happens in Ojai and in Santa Barbara, and believe me the Ojai bike path has so much more potential for trouble. But trouble just doesn't materialize. That's not to say all are perfect. They recenly built a doozy that I'm sure won't work out so well.

So I kinda wonder now what all the fuss is about. Is it always so bad? Does anybody who actually uses a bike path see the same thing? If not, why do you suppose this is?

I see this is some areas, but not in others. In particular, The W&OD trail runs 44 miles (I believe) from just outside of Washington DC out west into horse country. Real close in, most people will look out for people crossing the trail, but most are just looking out, not yielding the right of way. A little further out, people will drive you nuts because they will stop even though you have the stop sign and they don't. Once you get out in the country, most drivers seem barely aware of you so you better be watching out for yourself. There were two deaths out there last summer, both with the bike riders blowing stop signs crossing roads that generally have little regular traffic.

Now where I am, there are no trails and only a couple of bike lane areas in town. You're pretty much on your own but if you ride like you belong in traffic, and with traffic, you have few problems. We have a couple of major roads that connect one end of the county to the other, that have MUPs along one side. Crossing intersections along there is tricky. There are a few where people tend to watch, but for the most part they come on out, only looking for cars, and being waved through is rare. I think it's compounded by the fact that there's only trail on one side, so if you are coming from the driver's right, they are never going to see you. As mentioned in another thread, the right on red turners often barely pause, if they think they can make it, they are coming out, and they aren't looking for bike traffic from the right.

I have to say our local MUP's work suprisingly well. I am always pleasantly suprised at how often I am recognized by drivers. I do slow down more often and typically ride slower there than I would on the road, but I also ride an old MTB for my commuter and only commute 5 miles. If I was on a roadie with a longer commute I might stay in the road more, but the MUP's around here work fine for me.

BTW, your bike lanes I assume are a striped off part of the actual road correct?

It really depends on the intersection design and how much bicycle use there is.

In San Diego, the SR-56 bike path parallels the SR-56 freeway and eastbound offramps on the south side of the freeway. At the intersections it is effectively a sidepath and eastbound traffic on the offramp intending to turn right (south) at the end of the ramp cross the crosswalk where the path crosses the road. Right-turning drivers on the offramp tend to be looking left as they are turning right. They can have a green at the same time as the cyclist. It's almost designed to cause right hooks.

The problem is that in many situations it is difficult, sometimes prohibitively expensive, to do it right.

But in terms of AC, the main thing is to be really careful at these intersection. For example, safety usually requires you to go slower than if you were crossing the same street from another street.

not if you treat them like any other intersection.

look and yield if necessary. if you've got a stop sign, stop.

I’ll second that it really depends on the area, in some places I’ll experience what the op does and in others I am tempted to pick up the broken stop for pedestrian sign and start whacking cars with it (read that as openly hostel to people in crosswalks.)

My personal theory it really depends on how empathetic the drivers are to MUP users. In areas where a lot of cyclists live (not necessarily out using the MUP) tend to be the more courteous and areas that are over auto centric tend to be the worst. This theory is loosely based on the fact that everyone has a friend so one cyclists can have several empathetic neighbors as well.

As a sidebar I will note that I have seen census maps of the density of bicycle ownership for the state and it seems to closely follow mass transit availability and use. If the car is perceived as the only option of getting around then everything else seems to takes a back seat, it’s sad but seems to be true.

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true.Bike lane intersection designs vary greatly, so it's hard to generalize. But I haven't found bike path intersections to be noticeably more dangerous than other intersections. And this is true even of some bike path intersections that I consider to be horribly designed.


In concept it may be true, but in practice motorists seem more aware of bikes on the bike path than they are of bikes anywhere else on the road.This is exactly what I have noticed, as well. Motorists seem to recognize a potential hazard and use extra caution, thereby making some very poorly designed intersections actually fairly safe. On the other hand, while I have noticed that motorists seem to take extra caution, many bicyclists do not.

Intersections on one particular local bike path with which I am quite familar vary from ones I consider safer than the average intersection to one, in particular, which is one of the most poorly designed and potentially dangerous intersections I have ever seen (if I'm not mistaken, the really badly designed one is soon to be rebuilt). I am actually somewhat amazed that I have never seen an accident at that intersection.

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true...

So I kinda wonder now what all the fuss is about. Is it always so bad? Does anybody who actually uses a bike path see the same thing? If not, why do you suppose this is?
Better start another Forester debunking thread. This alleged deadly mixture is another oft repeated Forester chestnut based on Forester Brand statistical analysis of cherry picked data. Believed without question, and, repeated religiously, by the Forester acolytes.

not if you treat them like any other intersection.

look and yield if necessary. if you've got a stop sign, stop.

Exactly - sometimes we cyclists are as bad as any driver when it comes to being impatient. Sometimes I think Rule #1 in not only cycling, but perhaps life in general, should be: WHEN IN DOUBT, SLOW THE FLOCK DOWN!

Two-way bike paths that are set up like sidewalks are more dangerous than normal intersections because half of the bike traffic is coming from a direction that motorists aren't looking for traffic. Drivers who are turning right from a red signal or stop sign are constantly running into contra-flow sidewalk cyclists here in Cary. The right-side same-as-other-traffic-direction sidewalk cyclists don't have nearly as high a collision rate.

Mid-block intersections with greenways that are routed in their own right-of-way are usually as safe as any other isolated intersection, assuming the cyclist stops and yields. The only substantial difficulty is when the intersection is not signalized and there is very busy traffic on the roadway.

Sidewalk-type bike paths are where most cyclists object to safety and convenience being lower than using the roadway due to intersection conflicts. I've seen many local sidewalk bike path projects in Raleigh and Cary that have enough intersection and junction conflicts that I would never use them. As a student I used to bike commute on Avent Ferry road near NC State University, which features a designated sidewalk bike path where I had many near-collisions with drivers pulling in and out of driveways to apartments. But some greenways in their own right of way, with minimal junction conflicts, can provide a good route with the occasional intersection designed just like a normal road intersection.

-Steve Goodridge

BTW, your bike lanes I assume are a striped off part of the actual road correct?
Yes our bike lanes are a striped part of the road. But I'm talking about fully separated bike paths that are not necessarily even parallel to another road.

The one I ride on daily, when it intersects with a road, it intersects as a four-way stop, with the bike path crossing the road. Not like a sidewalk.

In Ojai it does cross like a sidewalk, and does seem on the surface to be quite troublesome, however I have found it isn't very troublesome in practice. The people who live there are well aware the bike path is there so they leave room and keep an eye out for you, and usually wave you through with a smile. They'll even back up to give you room if needed.

I think because bike paths work better than they should that might explain why I see so many different ages and abilities riding there, everything from children to old folks to racing teams. Yes. Racing teams. I think it's another falacy that all bike paths are choked with non-cyclist users.

And ILTB, I guess in a way this is another Forester Debunking thread because we hear so often as if it were gospel truth that bike paths are worse than the road, but if I just open my eyes and look at actual reality, this "truth" doesn't appear to be so universally true. And I was hoping by tacking on AC to the front of my subject that I could learn if actual reality is similar elsewhere and not engage in another theoritical argument about bike paths.

OK, gotcha. Then that is also what I am referring to as a MUP. Basically a wide sidewalk.

sggoodri: I wouldn't dispute that intersections can be more dangerous with this type riding, but IMHO it is a manageable risk with a part of that risk/reward equation being that it is safer between intersections. At least I feel that is the case where I ride.

On one part of my journey to work the MUP crosses the road at a major intersection. So using AC I go from a bike path rider to VC and jump into the right lane before this happens so I can make it back to the path after the intersection.

How ADAPTIVE of you, deputy!

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true. In concept it may be true, but in practice motorists seem more aware of bikes on the bike path than they are of bikes anywhere else on the road.

Whenever I come to an intersection they have already seen me approach and are waving me through as I arrive. I can never stop. They won't let me. I feel guilty about it sometimes.

Whenever I try to make a left from the street to get on the bike path they'll stop and wave me through as well. They all seem to know that's where the bike path is, that's where the bikes are, and they seem really happy to help me get there.

This happens in Ojai and in Santa Barbara, and believe me the Ojai bike path has so much more potential for trouble. But trouble just doesn't materialize. That's not to say all are perfect. They recenly built a doozy that I'm sure won't work out so well.

So I kinda wonder now what all the fuss is about. Is it always so bad? Does anybody who actually uses a bike path see the same thing? If not, why do you suppose this is?


I think it depends on how well the intersection is designed, how many bikes use the path and whether people are notified of the bike path, from the road.

I've ridden on bike paths like the one described in the OP and the biggest problem on those is what I call the Chip and Dale response- "After you." "No, no, after you..." (edit: where we are in danger of harm through courtesy)

But the bike path I ride almost daily has only 6 intersections on the whole 9 miles that I ride it into Boston but each intersection presents it's own set of problems. The bike path was built in the 70's and not clearly thought through in design. The cyclist must therefore make up for the design flaws with their own vigilence.

The #1 issue is right turning traffic. The roads that run parallel and perpendicular to the path are all major commuting arterials for traffic headed to and from Boston to the western suburbs. Any driver who complains about cyclists running red lights need only sit at any of these intersections and watch as car after car rolls through without stopping to make a right turn on red to get a cyclist's perspective. Even when a jogger or cyclist is clearly about to cross or even in the middle of crossing they will still go on the red. Some of the intersections have pedestrian cross signals but they take forever to run through the cycle before they finally give favor to those crossing.

I know that the cars may tend to ignore my presence, that the lights are not to be trusted to stop the traffic and I need to look right at the driver's face to try to ascertain whether they do in fact see me and often to even signal the driver that I am about to cross the street. I wear bright reflective clothing and am, paradoxically, what I would call "cautiously assertive" but with a big dose of patience. Intersections are never a place to try to zip through in an attempt to save time.

I think it depends on how well the intersection is designed, how many bikes use the path and whether people are notified of the bike path, from the road.

This is an AC thread, not a theoritical thread. So why I appreciate your suggestion, tell me what it's Actually Like for you.

The cyclist must therefore make up for the design flaws with their own vigilence.

So why is this an acceptable given for riding in traffic but a minus for riding on a bike path?

In my mind you simply can't ride a bike totally oblivious to your environment. It requires vigilance all the time, for many different things. These things can be right turning traffic anywhere or it can be dogs and baby strollers on a MUP, or it can be frogs after a rain (I don't like to run over frogs.)

This is an AC thread, not a theoritical thread. So why I appreciate your suggestion, tell me what it's Actually Like for you.

Gawd Diane, do you have any idea how much you turn me on when you go getting all assertive on someone? :love: :D

The cyclist must therefore make up for the design flaws with their own vigilence.

So why is this an acceptable given for riding in traffic but a minus for riding on a bike path?

Are you asking this of me specifically? Because I did not mean to imply or say it was "acceptable" on the road or "a minus" for a bike path.

I think it's just the way it is.

And, in a sense, to follow what I think we're talking about as "Adaptive Cycling" I "accept" it in both circumstances. By accept it I don't mean that I wouldn't advocate for better road or path design when it comes to intersections but I took your OP to mean, "how do we adapt?" Not how does it shape our perception in terms of advocacy or what we deem acceptable politically.

not if you treat them like any other intersection.

look and yield if necessary. if you've got a stop sign, stop.

I started by trying to think of all the bike path/road crossings that were really bad that I could remember.

With every one of them a big part of the problem was that they were not like 'any other intersseection".

Some were where a path crosses a road after several miles of uninterupped path. When that happens with roads there is usually a warning sign. Not so on all bike paths.

One other that comes to mind is the entrance to Lake Balboa in the Sepulveda Flood control basin. With just a little inattention cyclists can be unaware they have cross traffic, same but more so for cars. (like a right hook, but with just enough time to finish the turn for the cars).

Or some sections of the Orange line. Where you cross a dozen truck access points where there will 'never' be any cross traffic, then get one where you will have cross traffic.

Or when the bike path crosses an access road to the drydock area of the marina. There is a huge circut box in hte middle of the road, perfect to blocl visability.

But In general I'd say road crossings really are not much of a problem. Almost all of the same problems would happen on lightly traveled roads.

This is an AC thread, not a theoritical thread. So why I appreciate your suggestion, tell me what it's Actually Like for you.

Well, the only bike paths I ride on, are through a park, it runs from Finch Avenue (Kinda), to North of Steeles, just East of Dufferin, the Park is called G Ross Lord.

Now, on the south (Finch) end, there is a street (Wilmington), but it's about 20m from the Reservour entrance, it's unofficially a bike route, but bike lanes have not been installed, nor has signage, and the traffic light is not one that can be tripped by a bicycle. Going North, you can swing wide on a left turn, going into the right lane, and catch the Entrance to the park. Coming South the only way to do it, is to ride the 20m on the sidewalk, and use the traffic light crosswalk. Finch is a major arterial, with a posted speed limit of 60km/h although speeds in excess of 80km/h are not uncommon.

There is a nice wide paved "street" into G Ross Lord Reservour, which leads to a dirt path, along the Finch Hydro corridor, it is this transition point, where I had my worst bike crash ever, see my blog for details. The dirt path runs straight East, to a wood chip path, that crosses the corridor, you then cross the road leading into a cemetary, almost no traffic, you then go through a gap in a fence, that leads to a part of a street, along the street, which always has cars parked on both sides, but very little traffic, as it is a dead end. The entrance to the park, is along the street.

Paths in the park are paved, and meat pylons:D are quite common, there are a series of wood decked bridges over a creek, these are curved, and there is a bit of a trick to them, as long as they are dry, they are okay.

At the North end of the park, is Steeles Avenue, the path ends here, but there is a connecting path north of Steeles, this is another arterial similar to Finch, lots of high speed auto traffic. I usually turn around at this point, because the North side path doesn't go anywhere. There is a large tree, with a bench under it, and it's a nice resting point, before heading back.

I could say more, but I need to go, I can post more later.

I wouldn't dispute that intersections can be more dangerous with this type riding, but IMHO it is a manageable risk with a part of that risk/reward equation being that it is safer between intersections. At least I feel that is the case where I ride.

On my commute at NCSU my coasting speed downhill on the roadway was about 30 mph, but I had to slow to under 10 mph when using the sidepath due to all the apartment driveway traffic and pedestrians. Even then, I still had near collisions. Riding uphill on the sidepath put me traveling contra-flow, so I had even more right-turn hazards. Riding on the roadway with narrow lanes I got occasional horn honks and some closer than comfortable passes. However, I decided that I preferred that to the sidepath, particularly after including problems with broken pavement on the sidepath. By contrast, in 14'-16' outside lanes I don't get close passes or horn honks, and I don't have to slow down to a crawl at intersections. I find these conditions much more pleasant. YMMV.

I've seen some sidepaths in other states along expressways with very few intersections and few pedestrians. If those were the type of path that Raleigh had been building, I probably wouldn't have such negative expectations of sidepaths. But most of my real-world experience with sidepaths is urban sidewalks with lots of driveways and bike-specific signage. The trouble locally is that the government here will typically build either a WOL or a designated sidepath, but not both, so the cyclists who want better conditions for road sharing have to compete for mind-share with those promoting sidewalk cycling.

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true. In concept it may be true, but in practice motorists seem more aware of bikes on the bike path than they are of bikes anywhere else on the road.

Whenever I come to an intersection they have already seen me approach and are waving me through as I arrive. I can never stop. They won't let me. I feel guilty about it sometimes.

Whenever I try to make a left from the street to get on the bike path they'll stop and wave me through as well. They all seem to know that's where the bike path is, that's where the bikes are, and they seem really happy to help me get there

They see you are on a tricycle so the naturally assume you are an invalid of some sort and take pity on you. From a distance they think you are riding a battery powered personal transportation device. If you were on an upright bike they would run you down in a heartbeat. Or, if the do conclude that you are astride a pedal-tricycle, the know full well that your speed will be pitifully slow so they want to encourage you to get off the road as soon as humanly possible.

Deadly mixture? It depends a lot on how the path and intersection are designed.

Proper design would call for stop signs or traffic lights on the road which has the least traffic, which means that in many situations, the street or road would have a stop sign and the bike path would NOT.

However, in all cases I have seen where there are at-grade intersections, cyclists have to stop. In many cases, asking cyclists to stop when the crossing road sees one car per day is a good way to "teach" them disrespect for stop signs. In other cases, the crossing road is a major street and crossing it is a major challenge, even for good adult cyclists. Imagine bringing your child to "practice" cycling on such a "safe" path! (example of that, the former railroad in Trois-Rivières, with 4 or 5 such dangerous crossings in 5 km).
The best we can hope for is – sometimes – a traffic light activated by a push button, meaning cyclists cannot aim for a green light; they have to stop and sometimes even dismount to reach the button.


If you want to talk about "deadly" features of many (most?) multi-use trails, I'll give you two: bollards and chicanes. There should never be anything in the path itself, and railings on the side should either raise gradually from the ground or start further away from the path, so that people can't bump in them.

I started by trying to think of all the bike path/road crossings that were really bad that I could remember.

With every one of them a big part of the problem was that they were not like 'any other intersseection".

Some were where a path crosses a road after several miles of uninterupped path. When that happens with roads there is usually a warning sign. Not so on all bike paths.

One other that comes to mind is the entrance to Lake Balboa in the Sepulveda Flood control basin. With just a little inattention cyclists can be unaware they have cross traffic, same but more so for cars. (like a right hook, but with just enough time to finish the turn for the cars).

Or some sections of the Orange line. Where you cross a dozen truck access points where there will 'never' be any cross traffic, then get one where you will have cross traffic.

Or when the bike path crosses an access road to the drydock area of the marina. There is a huge circut box in hte middle of the road, perfect to blocl visability.

But In general I'd say road crossings really are not much of a problem. Almost all of the same problems would happen on lightly traveled roads.


Sorry Keith, I don't agree. Every cross road, alley, path and driveway is an intersection. Yes they have their own unique challenges, but in the end simply paying attention and slowing down or stopping as necessary will enable you to avoid trouble. Of course the root problem is that we don't want to be inconvenienced by slowing or stopping and don't always pay attention.

Yes, bollards are a problem.

One of our local advocacy guys tirelessly created a complete inventory of all the bollards on all the bike paths in the 30 mile x 7 mile area in which we live. Complete with photographs and everything. His purpose is to try and make a case for consistency of implementation (like is there a little diamond painted on the ground around the bollard, is it the same size as all the other little diamonds, is the bollard the same size as all the others etc) and to make a case that in some places they are not needed. They really should not put bollards up until there is a problem with motor vehicles, not just because there might be. Also, why put bollards up in front of bridges that motor vehicles can't even fit on.

As for my question, it is not directed to anyone in particular.

Here it is again, paraphrased: why is it ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be "safe", yet any dangers on the bike path are considered "evidence" that bike paths are more dangerous than the street.

The way I see it on my commute, I have a choice to ride on the street with more than 15 cross streets and more than 5 traffic signals, plus a high school, hospital, and three shopping centers. On the bike path I have 3 cross streets, no traffic signals and nothing else but bike path. When you talk about safety, the choice isn't even close. When you talk about aesthetics, the choice isn't even close.

So there is often a lot of hand-wringing over the intersections, but there are hardly any and that is the only dangerous part, if you can even call it that since everybody waves me through with a smile.

Just telling it like it really is.

So there is often a lot of hand-wringing over the intersections, but there are hardly any and that is the only dangerous part, if you can even call it that since everybody waves me through with a smile.

Just telling it like it really is.

On several other bike path/MUP's that I ride with some regularity, like the Minuteman Trail, The Cape Cod Rail Trail, The Ashuwilltocook or the Norwottuck Rail Trail, which are better designed and run through less urban areas this has often been my experience as well.

But the MDC path along the Charles River to Boston is a little bit more like playing a hockey game at the intersections. As you rightly point out the comparison of intersections on my road ride to work, which is 2 miles shorter, means I go through 88 intersections. Often the road design issues as well as the number of double parked vehicles as I go through Brighton and down Commonwealth Avenue make the street ride more challenging per minute of riding. The bike path has 6 intersections but they are particularly bad. I'll try to post some photos of my own but here is one from MassBike member Doug Mink via John Allen's homepage.

I don't know what day of the week or time of day Doug took this picture but it is rare that these roads are not much more clogged with automobile traffic. And this is by no means the worse IMO at least it has pedestrian signals. But especially take note of the high barrier wall to the left. Watching trikes and recumbents approach these intersections is particularly daunting- they barely have room to pass the wall before their front wheel is off the curb. And the drivers are very aggressive at these intersections not the suburban crowd who gives a smile and a wave to every passing cyclist. And cyclists often have limited space as they come on and off the curb cut. While I agree that intersections of bike paths and streets are probably dangerous at the same rate as intersections of streets and streets but they can present their own unique issues. I would not want to send a message to cyclists that a smile and wave can or should be expected at the bike path/street intersections I encounter on my daily commute.

Okay, here is a beauty, in Monterey, CA, no less. Map. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=889+Fountain+Ave,+Monterey,+CA+93940&sll=32.841785,-117.26947&sspn=0.00914,0.017703&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=36.575249,-121.907623&spn=0.008737,0.024741&t=h&om=1)

There is a short freeway bypass path that runs parallel to Highway 1 from the Highway 68 interchange and merges into Viejo road.

Southbound is no problem. You go up (southwest) Viejo, and the path connects on the right. You follow it up to 68, where it ends, go across the freeway, and head south on Highway 1 (bikes allowed on that stretch south of the Pebble Beach gate).

Northbound is something else again. Well, getting on is fine, from the 1/68 interchange. And the path is really nice going through a pine forest, downhill. Downhill, yes, so you pick up speed. What comes at the end is fine if you know about, but a rude surprise if not. Right before the end of the all-downhill path is a dip and last second little climb (too short to lose much momentum, but long enough to block your visibility). Because of the climb, what you can't see is that as soon as you crest it the path ends and you are dumped right onto Viejo Road, into the opposite direction lane! Surprise! Also, because Viego Road is climbing, all of it is below the crest at the end of the path, so there is no way to see if there is any traffic on Viejo Road from the path, until that last moment.

The good news is that Viejo road sees almost no traffic, so it's relatively safe game of Russian Roulette.

Oh yes, there is a mini stop sign at the end of the path, but it old and faded, and by the time you figured out what it was, you're already in the middle of Viejo Road.

yep. they should improve that. maybe improve the signage, eh? will you lobby the county to improve the useability of that exchange, Mr. Head? it sounds as if you use that path by your familarity with it.

Yep, some paths are more well designed than others. seems some need some fixing. There's some GREAT paths in and around the greater seattle area, used by MANY transportational cyclists to transect huge swaths of urban grid, on high speed paths with limited intersctions from the suburbs to inside the city limits.

I don't think that picture looks all that bad. You could add more cars and it still doesn't look bad. It would only be bad if you added more bikes, but then again, maybe not. It's not utopia, and it probably wouldn't be fun to do day after day, but once in a while would be ok.

Honestly though, it does resemble a sidewalk well enough that I probably would use the street instead out of principle, unless there was a clear reason not to.

I don't know about 'dangerous', but 'annoying' is definitely the case with the belt line trail in Toronto. To take these crossings legally, one must dismount, walk your bike some distance (about 1/2 block) wait at the light, walk across the intersection (depending on wether you are going east or west you can actually merge with the car traffic to cross the main street if you like), walk the 1/2 block, and then start riding again.

Needless to say many (if not most cyclists) either cut across the main streets (I'm thinking of Bathurst and Avenue road as being the major culprits here), and/or ride their bikes on the sidewalks (illegal in T.O.). Most joggers, dogwalkers, kids, and parents with strollers just cut across the main street as well so the bad design is not cycle specific. If the intersection is used as most do, it is indeed dangerous due to the relatively high speeds and width of road (30 -35 mph are fairly common and in each case i'm discussing there are two lanes of traffic each way).

The problem is not inherent in the path, but in the fact that the city more-or-less ignores the fact that there are two intersecting main roads, because one of these roads is closed to motor traffic. A pedestrian crossover (peds have right of way in xover) would be impractical for the city as there is a lot of ped/bike/dog traffic and at busy times the crossover might be constantly occupied, but a light with a switch would go a long way (and might cause minimal disruption if coordinated with nearby light signals)

My solution - I wait for a break in traffic and cross. As far as I'm concerned there are two intersecting highways (the one I'm on doesn't even have a stop sign), and cross the intersecting highway when the coast is clear. However, due to speeds, distance, and sightlines this might be dangerous, particularly for dogwalkers, impatient cyclists, peds with strollers, etc.

I haven't figured out how to link to this but google maps has a good satellite photo if you search for 2400 bathurst street, toronto canada. The belt line runs east west here, and unfortunately the stretch east of bathurst is shaded, but you should be able to make out the 'intersection'.

While this is unlikely to be feasible - a means to make the trail intersectionless (or some way of making the crossings without stopping at each one) would result in a fast trail leading to a central location with lots of shops, offices, schools, parks and services nearby (Yonge and St. Clari), which would make for a HPT highway linking a forest of residential mansions (and scruffy apt buildings on the other side of a highway) to the city.

What's an Adaptive Cyclist to do?

It depends on the intersection and the MUP. If there are too many intersections on an MUP, an MUP becomes pointless for transportation purposes. Intersections can be well designed or poorly designed. There is one in Columbus by the OSU Horseshoe. OSU traffic planners got tired of football fans jaywalking across Woody Hayes Blvd., so they installed 8+ foot flowers in the median near where the bike path intersects a road. You couldn't see whether there was cross traffic until you were half way across the road.

I complained. They moved back the flowers, and decreased their height, so now you can see an SUV coming, but not a car. In the Summer and Fall, you still have to stop halfway across the street to check for cross traffic.

Minor edit in second sentence.

This is an AC thread, not a theoritical thread. So why I appreciate your suggestion, tell me what it's Actually Like for you.

Hmmmm, sorry about this question. I am trying to catch up here. How is the original comment inappropriate for AC?

I thought it was in response to Diane's question, "So I kinda wonder now what all the fuss is about. Is it always so bad? Does anybody who actually uses a bike path see the same thing? If not, why do you suppose this is?" I thought the post began with some general statements about whether bikepaths and road intersections are dangerous. It looks like Wogsterca's comment was appropriate according to the passage below. Is there something else in that 60-post thread that applies?

From the AC defined thread ...

Some ground rules:

1. Existing Bike Forums rules and guidelines concerning posts apply, as always.

2. Threads that fall under the Adaptive Cycling paradigm will have their subjects appended with 'AC'
Example: AC: How do I ride a widget?

3. Debates concerning the pros and cons of facilities versus the roadways are prohibited. There are plenty of non-AC threads for those. NO PRO-ANTI BIKE LANE DEBATES

4. Debates concerning the pros and cons of Vehicular Cycling as a methodology, paradigm or concept are prohibited. There are plenty of non-AC threads for those. This DOES NOT prohibit discussion of vc techniques as can be applied to solving specific problems within the environment under discussion. Vehicular cycling IS part of the toolbox a cyclist can choose from, so applying vc techniques to the environment in question is proper.

Example: (Edited) If the environment of choice or necessity is a MUP, while one can advise that perhaps the roadways might be safer, such advise should be accompanied by advise that fits the MUP environment.

5. Occasional off-topic humor and light banter are always welcome. Advocacy does not have to always be serious and boring. Think of this as sitting around sharing an evening with friends, not a schoolroom or formal public meeting. Have fun!

This is an AC thread, not a theoritical thread. So why I appreciate your suggestion, tell me what it's Actually Like for you.


Here it is again, paraphrased: why is it ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be "safe", yet any dangers on the bike path are considered "evidence" that bike paths are more dangerous than the street.
Do you even read what you post? Edit: Post 16 bars theoretical discussion. Post 26 asks a theoretical question.

Invis, the reason I objected was because the response was "it depends". There was no actual information based on personal experience. Of course the answer always is "it depends". But by stating just that and offering no personal experience the answer only serves to provide an opening for theorizing and arguing what ifs as usual. I only want to hear about what is, not what if.

Rajman, I think you hit on what makes my path so successful. It is treated as the intersection of two highways, one for bikes and one for cars. Sounds like you adapt to your path by not bothering to dismount at crossings. I wouldn't dimount, either. Afterall, nobody ever asks you to get out and push your car across intersections.

I have mixed feelings about the MUP that I ride on. But I perfer it to riding in the street, which is a Parkway that will likely end up in me coming down with a slight case of death.
On my ride to work I take the MUP WEST, which is on the South side of the parkway, so that means I am traveling AGAINST the flow of traffic. Impatient right-on-red drivers can cause a scare from time to time but since then I have learned that even though the light is in my favor, Murphy isn't, so I always approach the intersection very slowly and cautious and do not begin my cross until the driver looks at me. sometimes this means that I have to let out a yell or make some sway motion to get their attention. It's no bigie really. The funny part is, the law is totally on my side here since right-on-red is not allowed, but these people do it anyways.
So in closing I can say this, the MUP and intersections IS NOT a problem, it is the ILLEGAL actions of the motorists. But being the good AC cyclist that I am, I just "addapt" to the situation. :D

<edit for brevity>

Rajman, I think you hit on what makes my path so successful. It is treated as the intersection of two highways, one for bikes and one for cars. Sounds like you adapt to your path by not bothering to dismount at crossings. I wouldn't dimount, either. Afterall, nobody ever asks you to get out and push your car across intersections.

Lol - I'd love to see that 'please exit your automobile and push across intersection' - it would likely promote safety (except for minor fenderbenders and back strain), and definitely be humorous for all who watch :p

Long post alert!

This post, about St. Louis' Forest Park Bike Path, is long, and divided into 3 parts: 1.) a summary of intersection dangers 2.) comments about indiviual intersection 3.) a short history.

To answer the original question. No, I don't think bike path intersections are more dangerous than other intersections. I think that's a myth that has been strongly and somewhat successfully promoted by facilities opponents.

I do think that bike paths present traffic engineers with some problems they probably aren't used to dealing with.

----

The Forest Park Bike Path has 10 intersections, and they're all different.

In general, traffic speeds on park roads are low, which can obscure intersection design flaws. At many of the intersections, there is a temptation for path users to use somewhat less caution than they probably should. Signal timing can be goofy, which may encourage a general disregard for traffic signals.


Summary of intersections (10) on main bike path loop:

(type)(number)

(A)(1) dangerous due to multiple problems
--Hampton Ave. between I-64/US-40 and Wells Drive

(B)(1) potentially dangerous because of poor sight lines due to parked cars
--Clayton Road east of the Planetarium

(C)(3)-potentially dangerous because of motorists possibly making turns from a parallel road
--DeBalivere Ave. (turns from Lindell Blvd.)
--Forsyth Avenue (turns from Skinker Blvd.)
--?Art Hill? Drive (turns from Wells Drive)

(D)(4)-probably not too dangerous despite potential confusion
--McKinley Drive/Clayton Ave. (north of the Jewel Box)
--Grand Drive (near Round Lake)
--Union Ave. at Grand Drive
--Wells Drive near Skinker

(E)(1)-only dangerous if you make it dangerous
?drive of unknown name? near Field House


Comments regarding individual intersections
-starting at McKinley Drive north of the Jewel Box, going counter-clockwise:

1 Intersection with McKinley Drive/Clayton Avenue
The path crosses a 4-way stop intersection diagonally. Most of the motor vehicle traffic turns (there is little traffic on the dead-end roads going south and west). This design only works because traffic volume is low and motorists are generally not aggressive here.

2 Intersection with Clayton Avenue east of the Planetarium
The path crosses a park road at mid-block. Motorists don't have to stop. Path users are supposed to stop but many don't. Parked cars can make it very difficult to see if cars are coming. I approach this intersection with caution.

3 Intersection with Grand Drive (near Round Lake)
The path crosses a road, with "STOP" signs for both the path and the road. Sounds foolproof, right? The problem is the pedestrain path comes together with the bike path at this point, creating possible conflicts due to ambiguous "whose lane is it?" situations. If the pedestrian path is on your right, do you pass a pedestrian coming toward you on the left? (passing on the left seems wrong to me) What if the pedestrian suddenly decides to keep right? A bike path adjacent to a pedestrian path creates the keep right? or keep left? dilemma. Note: this is really more a problem with the path than with the intersection. The same problems can exist even where there is no intersection.

4 Intersection with Union at Grand Drive
This is a "T" intersection with "STOP" signs all around, with the path going across the top of the "T". This intersection also suffers from the keep right or keep left dilemma, as the bike path and pedestrian paths come together at this intersection.

5 Intersection with ?name unknown? road (east of the Field House)
The path simply crosses a lightly travelled road mid-block, with great sight lines, no turning movements. Note: the path was re-routed a few years ago- it used to be just a few feet from Lindell Blvd., and there were potential left hook and right hook problems with cars turning from the unmarked intersection on Lindell. Moving the path away from Lindell eliminated those problems.

6a Intersection with northbound DeBalivere--
(at the History Museum)
There's traffic coming only from one direction. Light timing is absurd and many path users ignore the light. I generally obey lights but this is one is just too stupid. I pay little attention to the signal for the path. I look at the traffic light on Lindell, instead. If it's green and there's no potential right turning vehicle on DeBalivere, I go.

6b Intersection with southbound DeBalivere
The problem here is that a bad time to cross is when the signal for the path turns green. Look out for right-turning and, especially, left-turning traffic from Lindell, which is probably the greatest potential danger at this intersection. It's probably as safe to go against the light because the danger of being left-hooked is gone because traffic on Lindell is stopped (you still have to look for a right hook (right turn on red)).

7 Intersection with Forsyth
This intersections has prblems but they're probably more annoying than dangerous.
For one thing, there's the problem of motorists that don't obey signals. The left-hook or right-hook, "a bad time to cross is when the light turns green" problem exists, except that motorists have to violate a signal to hook you here-- I see it happen frequently (fortunately, speeds are fairly low). I wait for this signal, THEN I check for turning traffic. If somebody turns, I try to politely inform them that they went through either a red NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signal or a red LEFT TURN ONLY ON LEFT ARROW signal.
Other problems at this intersection include: 1. motorists who don't stop at the stop line and block the intersection 2. motorists on Forsyth crossing the stop line and trying to turn right on red (again, there's no RT on red) and 3. bicyclists that cross against the light and anger motorists.

8 Intersection with Wells Drive near Skinker
The path crosses a one-way street with low volume low speed traffic. One possible problem might be the keep right or keep left dilemma.

9 Intersection with ?Art Hill Drive? near Wells Drive
Wierd. You have the keep right or keep left dilemma, a potential for left or right hooks, a potential for pedestrian traffic, including people pushing baby carriages, on the sidewalk, plus, as if that's not enough, a potential for collisions with other path users when approaching and/or leaving this area (there's a 90 degree turn on the path, and another, almost blind one, nearby). This is probably not the best place to be in a hurry. The good news is, if you're going clockwise and there's no traffic on the path to interfere, you can start cranking soon. The bad news is if you're going counter clockwise.

10 Intersection with Hampton Ave./Concourse Drive between Wells Drive and I-64
This intersection is a nightmare. Even when you have the light, you've got traffic turning left from Wells Drive onto Hampton or onto the I-64 westbound ramp. And then you've got the traffic coming off of I-64 or from Hampton and making a right turn on red-- and some of them are not about to stop for anybody.
Fortunately, this intersection is probably not long for this world. Work is just beginning on rebuilding this section of I-64 and I'm guessing this intersection will be rebuilt in the process.


Some history

The following brief history is off topic (so don't read it) but I think some might find it interesting (I know I do :)).

We begin before there was a bike path in Forest Park.

"While thousands of people arrived at the park on the trains and the streetcars, others drove their carriages and buggies. Still others in the 1890s used that new method of transportation and national craze, the bicycle, sometimes called 'the silent steed.' Bicyclists, often called wheelmen although many were women, rode from downtown St. Louis to Forest Park, a distance of about four miles. 'The afternoon is the favorite riding time and groups of pretty girls may be seen dashing over the western approaches to the park, disappearing onto its shady lanes,' the Post Dispatch reported..."

"The large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, added to the continuing stream of horses and carriages, soon made the park's road system inadequate. Commissioners Fechter and Ridgeley requested funds for a separate bridle path, a bicycle path and pedestrian walkways..."

Pedestrian walkways were built and improvements were made to the roads.

"And the cyclists were still on the park roads. Carriage drivers complained about bicycle riders on the roads, and cyclists complained about the roads. In 1895 a 'meeting of wheelmen' in Forest Park had called the city's attention to potholes and puddles in roads throughout the city. A street department employee agreed that bicycling required 'a careful readjustment of old notions of what will do for a road.' "

"An 1896 ordinance provided some traffic separation by requiring 'all persons driving vehicles of any kind on the park roadways... and all persons riding horses, bicycles or tricycles... to keep to the right of the center' or risk a fine of five dollars to twenty-five dollars."

"Two years later cyclists had what they wanted--a cinder bicycle path. It opened May 7, 1898, with a bicycle parade to honor completion of the path..."

"Bicycling continued, though less popular than it had been before the turn of the century. A 1902 St. Louis guidebook remarked, 'Even nowadays, when this sport has given way to others to a great extent, there can always be seen scores of wheels flashing through the trees' of Forest Park..."

"Dusty roads were still a problem. As one letter writer complained, 'Forest Park is so thick with dust out there that it is difficult to see a horse when you are driving; besides, the park is being ruined out there because of the dust...' "

By 1910, Forest Park had become less a destination for cyclists than a starting point for tours into the countryside to the west. The bike path fell into disuse and became bridle path, which is more or less what it remained for 50 years.

I first became familiar with the path in the 1960s, when it was a bridle path and I was a runner. For many years I used the bridle path for training. I was annoyed in 1968 when the city started paving over the wonderful cinder running surface.

The path has changed a lot. Hardly any of the route of the original pre-1900 bike path (which I know only from old maps) corresponds to the bike path that exists today. For the past several years, the bike path has been in a more or less constant state of being rebuilt. Many of the roads in the park have changed, too. And the River Des Peres that runs though the park today is a fake. The real river was put underground in the 1920s.

Quotes in blue are from the book Forest Park by Caroline Loughlin and Catherine Anderson; the Junior League of St. Louis, 1986.

. . .Here it is again, paraphrased: why is it ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be "safe", yet any dangers on the bike path are considered "evidence" that bike paths are more dangerous than the street. . . .


. . . To answer the original question. No, I don't think bike path intersections are more dangerous than other intersections. I think that's a myth that has been strongly and somewhat successfully promoted by facilities opponents.
Sbhikes, what is your evidence to back up the assertion that some think it is "ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be 'safe,' yet any dangers on the bike path are considered 'evidence' that bike paths are more dangerous than the street"?

JRA, what is your evidence that "facilities opponents" have promoted the idea that "path intersections are more dangerous than other intersections"?

(Note to sbhikes and JRA, if you want faciltities skeptics to avoid generalities and theory, you should avoid generalities and theories. This is especially true when you are the OP, and you are asking people to avoid generalities and theories. I'd be happy for the mods to delete this if you want to edit your posts accordingly.)

So many posters have complained that bike paths and intersections tend to be a deadly mixture, but honestly I am not finding this to be true. In concept it may be true, but in practice motorists seem more aware of bikes on the bike path than they are of bikes anywhere else on the road.

Whenever I come to an intersection they have already seen me approach and are waving me through as I arrive. I can never stop. They won't let me. I feel guilty about it sometimes.

Whenever I try to make a left from the street to get on the bike path they'll stop and wave me through as well. They all seem to know that's where the bike path is, that's where the bikes are, and they seem really happy to help me get there.

This happens in Ojai and in Santa Barbara, and believe me the Ojai bike path has so much more potential for trouble. But trouble just doesn't materialize. That's not to say all are perfect. They recenly built a doozy that I'm sure won't work out so well.

So I kinda wonder now what all the fuss is about. Is it always so bad? Does anybody who actually uses a bike path see the same thing? If not, why do you suppose this is?

two words ... WEST COAST

DC my evidence is every thread that descends into HH-driven arguing. And that's as far into an argument as will allow this thread to become.

JRA that is interesting reading you provided. Seems people have had trouble integrating the bicycle since it was invented.

DC my evidence is every thread that descends into HH-driven arguing. And that's as far into an argument as will allow this thread to become. . . .
I don't remember seeing that, but since you think there are so many threads in which HH has made that argument, you shouldn't have trouble providing three examples.

Edit: sbhikes still hasn't linked to a single thread supporting her assertion.

Fascinating reading, JRA.


..... a 'meeting of wheelmen' in Forest Park had called the city's attention to potholes and puddles in roads throughout the city. A street department employee agreed that bicycling required 'a careful readjustment of old notions of what will do for a road.'

In 1895, a careful readjustment of old notions of what will do for road accomodations for bicyclists! Love the golden age of bicycling. Just finishing up "the Six Day Bicycle Races" book published last year. Fascinating how much America loved bikes at one time, juxtaposed with the grudging tolerance or sheer unacceptance by the auto-addled populace today.....

DC my evidence is every thread that descends into HH-driven arguing. And that's as far into an argument as will allow this thread to become. . . .


I don't remember seeing that, but since you think there are so many threads in which HH has made that argument, you shouldn't have trouble providing three examples.

Moderator's Note: She could provide examples of threads that descend into HH-driven arguing, but she won't because she doesn't want to start anything that's going to get this thread shut down or herself warned. I'm also certain no one here would deliberately attempt to goad her into doing that, would they?

I once crossed a street in front of a stopped motor vehicle, whose driver hit the gas when I was in front of it. No damage done, but this is representative of my experience.

I once crossed a street in front of a stopped motor vehicle, whose driver hit the gas when I was in front of it. No damage done, but this is representative of my experience.

Next time I won't miss. :eek: :D

Sbhikes, what is your evidence to back up the assertion that some think it is "ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be 'safe,' yet any dangers on the bike path are considered 'evidence' that bike paths are more dangerous than the street"?

DC my evidence is every thread that descends into HH-driven arguing. And that's as far into an argument as will allow this thread to become. . . .

I don't remember seeing that, but since you think there are so many threads in which HH has made that argument, you shouldn't have trouble providing three examples.

Moderator's Note: She could provide examples of threads that descend into HH-driven arguing, but she won't because she doesn't want to start anything that's going to get this thread shut down or herself warned. I'm also certain no one here would deliberately attempt to goad her into doing that, would they?

Just in case context was lost, I've included all of it above.

There seems to be a confusion between "threads that descend into HH-driven arguing" (the existence of which no one disputes, I'm sure, least of all me) and the existence of "threads that descend into HH-driven arguing where HH is arguing that it is "ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be 'safe,' yet any dangers on the bike path are considered 'evidence' that bike paths are more dangerous than the street".

Also, I thought taking a topic to a personal level (reference to "HH-driven arguing") is not supposed to be tolerated. Here it seems to be defended.

Why it would be inappropriate to challenge and defend a claim that was made in this thread, I don't quite understand. Some examples of what she's talking about, per the challenger's request, or withdrawing the original claim, would seem to be appropriate, in another thread if not here.

Next time I won't miss. :eek: :D
I didn't know you used to be female. :D

I didn't know you used to be female. :D
Used to be? IS!!
You haven't seen the new Chipster? He's CHANGED!

Moderator's Note: She could provide examples of threads that descend into HH-driven arguing, but she won't because she doesn't want to start anything that's going to get this thread shut down or herself warned. I'm also certain no one here would deliberately attempt to goad her into doing that, would they?

She did "start something" when she made an unprovoked attack on a strawman idea, and then claimed that a specific forum member had made that argument. I asked her to defend the statement. She could not. What's wrong with the simple request to back up an assertion with facts? Is labeling a thread "AC" license to make attacks, and then hide behind a mod when you can't back them up?

If an OP wants to avoid theoretical discussions, he or she can always avoid asking theoretical questions.

Edit: I started another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3974304) to give sbhikes the opportunity to defend her assertion. Edit: This thread is gone without explanation. I started the thread so that this one did not have to be diverted to discuss sbhikes' argument. Does "AC" mean that pro-facilties people get to make unsubstantiated (and arguably false) accusations and then hide when they are asked to back them up?

Edit: Donnamb, which forum guideline (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines) could sbhikes or I even be at risk of violating in this thread?

Edit: And donnamb, I assert that you are wrong when you say that sbhikes "could provide examples of threads." You can use another thread, or a PM if you want, but I think you are making an assertion that is just plain wrong. You can prove that you are right easily enough by citing to three threads that back up sbhikes' assertion that there are numerous examples of HH-driven threads in which someone asserts that "it ok to tolerate the many dangers of street riding and still consider street riding to be "safe", yet any dangers on the bike path are considered "evidence" that bike paths are more dangerous than the street."