My wife, one of those cyclists who actually prefers bike lanes, bike paths and MUP's, rides daily to work on the Charles River bike path, which runs alongside Soldier's Field Road. I've told her about the anti-bike facilities arguments that rage here in BF and she just doesn't get it- if she had to ride to work on the road as opposed to the bike path she simply wouldn't ride. I've told her that when she occasionally sees cyclists ride that section of Soldier's Field Road and forgo the bike path they are more than likely hardcore opponents of bike paths and prefer to ride on the road. She says she wouldn't feel safe doing that.

Today she called me to let me know that as she rode the bike path (it was pretty rainy in Boston today) she heard a loud bang and as she looked over she saw a car spinning out of control on Soldier's Field Road and sliding right at her. In no time it hit the guardrail smashing the guardrail and the support timbers behind it and shot back out into the roadway. She was physically unharmed but completely freaked out. I'm ever thankful that she was okay.

She is more convinced than ever of the value of a separated facility and so am I.

There's a certain logic in the fact that:

A helmet would not have saved her.

Cyclist education would not have saved her.

Dynamic lane positioning would not have saved her,

Wearing bright visible clothing would not have saved her.

But a separated bike facility did.

Here is a google map link to the location of the accident. If you zoom in all the way you'll see the guardrail bent from a similar crash that must have happened around the time of the photo. These kinds of spin outs are a regular occurrence on that stretch of road.

I'll try to grab a shot of it tomorrow in the daylight. I rode by the scene of the crash tonight in the dark and it was pretty scary to see the extent of damage to guardrail and the pieces of bumper.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Storrow+Drive+Boston+MA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,75.322266&ie=UTF8&ll=42.369751,-71.126277&spn=0.000237,0.000575&t=k&z=21&iwloc=addr&om=1

For what's it worth I was running late to work today and rode in on the road (Comm Ave) and there were some serious near misses between cars around me on the ride. It was a little freaky out there today.

I'm happy for you, I really am. I don't even want to contemplate losing my wife (or a child), I don't know If I could handle it.

I had a few teenagers roll a car and slide on the roof directly at me, only to be stopped by the 3 foot tall by 1 foot thick reinforced concrete wall that separtes the cycleway from the freeway (its legal for cyclists to use the freeway shoulder here) had I been on the shoulder I know I would be dead.

Segregated infastructure is, in my opinion, the most advocacy-worthy option if we are interested in seeing cycling become a real transport alternative.

I witnessed an accident when I was in line with vehicles in narrow lane. If a bike lane had been present and I had used it to filter forward to stop line I would have most likely been very seriously injured or possibly killed. I know you are primarily talking about the benefit of separated facilities, but it was mentioned as well the preference for bike lanes.

Al

I witnessed an accident when I was in line with vehicles in narrow lane. If a bike lane had been present and I had used it to filter forward to stop line I would have most likely been very seriously injured or possibly killed. I know you are primarily talking about the benefit of separated facilities, but it was mentioned as well the preference for bike lanes. Al

a pretty big "if" and hardly enough to turn this reader against well designed bike facilities.

You only further prove the point that the closer our proximity to automobiles the more likely we could be involved in a serious accident with them.

And had a rider filtered forward to the stop line even in the absence of a bike lane, something cyclists often do, they would have been positioned in the same position and in the same danger. So, for me, introducing the bike lane into your description does little to alter the primary given circumstances.

I can't see the country funding a separate bike lane along every road we're entitled to use. Can anyone here envision this? Don't separate bike lanes accumulate junk? That's what I see when I rarely see the segregated lanes. Glass, leaves, etc. So perhaps maintenance would need to include sweeping.

I can't see the country funding a separate bike lane along every road we're entitled to use. Can anyone here envision this? Don't separate bike lanes accumulate junk? That's what I see when I rarely see the segregated lanes. Glass, leaves, etc. So perhaps maintenance would need to include sweeping.

They don't accumulate anything when they're physically segregated, not just a white line.

It's a shame you 'can't see the country funding a separate bike lane along every road we're entitled to use'... I can.

I witnessed an accident when I was in line with vehicles in narrow lane. If a bike lane had been present and I had used it to filter forward to stop line I would have most likely been very seriously injured or possibly killed. I know you are primarily talking about the benefit of separated facilities, but it was mentioned as well the preference for bike lanes.

Al

Bike lanes are not segregated cycleways. The white line that delineates a bike lane is meaningless when it comes to the laws of physics. A physical barrier substantial enough to stop an out of control car, on the other hand, can make all the difference.

Glad she wasn't hurt. But my question is where should you ride when there are not segregated bike trails going to where you want to go?

Segregated facilities in my opinion condem bikes to "toy" or "recreational" status, and exclude them from transportational status. How can a bike be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present?

I also assume no one has ever been killed on a segregated bike lane?

I also assume no one has ever been killed on a segregated bike lane?

Not true, at least one cyclist was killed when a motorist drove on a segregated path. I cannot cite the exact details... perhaps someone can find the news item from some time back.

Bike lanes are not segregated cycleways. The white line that delineates a bike lane is meaningless when it comes to the laws of physics. A physical barrier substantial enough to stop an out of control car, on the other hand, can make all the difference.
Where did I ever say or suggest a bike lane is a segregated cycleway?

Al

Not true, at least one cyclist was killed when a motorist drove on a segregated path. I cannot cite the exact details... perhaps someone can find the news item from some time back.
This was discussed not to long ago on BF I recall. I had this in mind as well when I wrote about the accident I witnessed. The point is that accidents can happen in which the pedestrian or cyclist can do nothing about it. I am aware of several pedestrian deaths in the last few years from motorists crashing onto the sidewalk. (again not fully segregated facility) and the recent discussion here on BF of the cyclist killed while in the bike lane by the intoxicated Hummer driver.

But of course fully separated with barriers at all points to prevent any type of large vehicle incursion will be safer for pedestrians and/or cyclists. No argument there.

Al

a pretty big "if" and hardly enough to turn this reader against well designed bike facilities.

You only further prove the point that the closer our proximity to automobiles the more likely we could be involved in a serious accident with them.

And had a rider filtered forward to the stop line even in the absence of a bike lane, something cyclists often do, they would have been positioned in the same position and in the same danger. So, for me, introducing the bike lane into your description does little to alter the primary given circumstances.

Of course my comment was not intended as an argument against any type of facilities. I brought it up however as facilities or habits that bring cyclists closer to intersections for longer periods of time put cyclist at greater risk from accidents at those intersections. Yeah, seeing the accident messed with my mind that day and some following, just as the accident your wife saw did. She thought, oh my what if that barrier was not there, I thought, oh my what if I had filtered forward. It gets one thinking.

Al

Of course my comment was not intended as an argument against any type of facilities. I brought it up however as facilities or habits that bring cyclists closer to intersections for longer periods of time put cyclist at greater risk from accidents at those intersections. Yeah, seeing the accident messed with my mind that day and some following, just as the accident your wife saw did. She thought, oh my what if that barrier was not there, I thought, oh my what if I had filtered forward. It gets one thinking.

Al


absolutely, but more of an indictment of filtering forward and a reminder that proximity to the automobile increases the likelihood of being involved, even tangentially, in a serious accident with one. It's just a fact. I, too, wish it weren't so but I'm more of a realist than that.

Naturally, advocating for some separated facilities does not mean that I, or most bicycling advocates, believe that cyclists should be relegated only to those facilities- the only cyclists I hear making that argument are opponents of bike facilities when they rephrase the argument to suit their point of view.

My point is that separated facilities can be a safe alternative to riding on certain roads.

I also assume no one has ever been killed on a segregated bike lane?

Yes, occasionally people get killed on separated bike lanes or MUP's. In NYC last year someone drove onto the bike path quite late at night and had a head-on with a cyclist- if you consider that a strong argument against such facilities I don't see why. I think it's an argument for stricter enforcement of dangerous driving practices- if I recall correctly the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated.

And people even get killed and seriously injured on MUP's in accidents with other cyclists, pedestrians and even with no other vehicle or person involved. While the minor accident rate may be relatively high- and certainly something to be taken seriously and addressed by bike advocates- the rate of death and serious injury on bike paths is relatively low. The recent NYC study of the effectiveness of added bike lanes and separated paths supported this contention. It also showed that the vast majority of serious accidents happened at intersections. This is true with automobile/automobile collisions as well and intersections with and without bike lanes.

Therefore the argument always comes down to where these facilities intersect with roadway and automotive traffic. In addition to careful design considerations this is where cyclist and motorist awareness, education and experience comes into play. Many opponents of bike facilities advocate for teaching cyclists to effectively cycle on the roadway and blame cyclists for injuries and deaths resulting from improper cycling technique when on the road but seldom fault road design. When facilities are introduced into the conversation suddenly these same advocates seem to think that those of us who support such facilities believe that the design will cure all ills. It will not. Some older facilities are particularly poorly designed with regards intersections and should be approached with great caution or avoided. In countries with extensive bicycle networks of facilities motorists and cyclists are taught at an early age how to negotiate the intersection of bike facilities and roadways. It significantly reduces the number of serious incidents but no, it does not remove them entirely- again a kind of wishful thinking I do not engage in.

Segregated facilities in my opinion condem bikes to "toy" or "recreational" status, and exclude them from transportational status. How can a bike be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present?

I can't believe how frequently this argument is made and it's simply not true. I use an MUP to commute and for transportational purposes almost daily and most mornings the vast majority of cyclists are using that MUP to commute. If you read my OP more carefully you'd have seen that I said my wife was commuting not using it for recreational purposes. If you read the Commuting Forum, especially "How was your commute today?" you will be regaled with just as many posts about near misses with Canadian geese and clueless joggers as you will with posts about right hooking SUV's. Many of us use separated facilities as part or all of our cycle commute. Separated facilities are a part of an integrated use that cyclists make with roadways, bike lanes etc. My wife, like many other cyclists prefers and would probably not commute by bike if the MUP were not there. But she doesn't oppose other cyclists, like me, who choose otherwise. So, who, other than you, said, "they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present"? Who is making such a ridiculous argument- certainly not me?

Yes, occasionally people get killed on separated bike lanes or MUP's. In NYC last year someone drove onto the bike path quite late at night and had a head-on with a cyclist- if you consider that a strong argument against such facilities I don't see why. I think it's an argument for stricter enforcement of dangerous driving practices- if I recall correctly the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated.

...

Therefore the argument always comes down to where these facilities intersect with roadway and automotive traffic. In addition to careful design considerations this is where cyclist and motorist awareness, education and experience comes into play. Many opponents of bike facilities advocate for teaching cyclists to effectively cycle on the roadway and blame cyclists for injuries and deaths resulting from improper cycling technique when on the road but seldom fault road design.

The bike path in question was the westside greenway along the Hudson. The drunk driver leaving a party at Chelsea Piers mistook the path for the roadway. I believe he got jail time.

I don't understand why anyone would want to cycle down a six lane highway like Storrow Drive. I think roads like that should always have physically seperate bike paths.

The bike path in question was the westside greenway along the Hudson. The drunk driver leaving a party at Chelsea Piers mistook the path for the roadway. I believe he got jail time.

I don't understand why anyone would want to cycle down a six lane highway like Storrow Drive. I think roads like that should always have physically seperate bike paths.

I agree completely and I've had that argument in here before (and don't feel the need to beat that dead horse again:o) but this was actually on Soldier's Field Road just after the turn off to Harvard Square. Cyclists will sometimes use this stretch if they are continuing straight towards Belmont/Watertown or even, as I have done, a short section from JFK street to just before the accident site where they get on the bike path.

Glad she wasn't hurt. But my question is where should you ride when there are not segregated bike trails going to where you want to go?

Segregated facilities in my opinion condem bikes to "toy" or "recreational" status, and exclude them from transportational status. How can a bike be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present?
Trucks use separate roadways all over the states, they aren't considered toys....

And a driver taking you seriously isn't going to keep you from being anymore dead when he runs you over. If anything I think dedicate cycling routes would improve the vision of transportation, where people that may be afraid of driving in traffic can now ride all the way to work feeling safer. 6 lane roads are quite a fight to not-so-avid cyclists.


I personally like bike lanes because they're my own PERSONAL lane on the road, where cars shouldn't be by law except making turns. However they add no real protection. Separated facilities however do add a nice bit of safety, and you don't have to deal with pot holes nearly as much.

I think people just get all butthurt over not being in the road all macho like... hey you can still ride in the road, you're still legally allowed there.


Anyway, the argument that "people are going to be dumb" isn't a very supportive reason. People STILL think that bicycles shouldn't be on the road... your point? :P

Glad she wasn't hurt. But my question is where should you ride when there are not segregated bike trails going to where you want to go?

Segregated facilities in my opinion condem bikes to "toy" or "recreational" status, and exclude them from transportational status. How can a bike be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present?

"...in your opinion" being the operational phrase here. How can cars be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where roads take them? The answer is that roads take cars to where they want to go, so cars are a viable form of transportation given that an adequate road exists between points A and B. There is no reason why this cannot hold true for bicycles and bike paths, right?

Whether a bicycle is considered a "toy" is all in how the cyclist uses their tool - I own 4 bicycles, two are obviously for recreation, two are obviously for transportation, and I use them as such. Whether a bike path or other cycling facility is useful for something other than recreation is solely a function of where the path goes, isn't it? If a path goes around a park in a 5 mile loop, then it is for recreation. If the path connects suburbs to city, then perhaps it is for transportation, no?

... Whether a bicycle is considered a "toy" is all in how the cyclist uses their tool - I own 4 bicycles, two are obviously for recreation, two are obviously for transportation, and I use them as such. Whether a bike path or other cycling facility is useful for something other than recreation is solely a function of where the path goes, isn't it? If a path goes around a park in a 5 mile loop, then it is for recreation. If the path connects suburbs to city, then perhaps it is for transportation, no?

My Bianchi is a "toy," since it excels for recreational fair weather cycling on good roads. My mountain bike and my Peugeot commuter are serious transportation vehicles which can carry a load, can be ridden in the rain, and can be made highly visible at night.

I have never lived or cycled in Boston, but I have spent cumulative hours walking around both sides of the River Charles. Given the choice between Storrow Dr. and the path along the river, I'll take the segregated facility any day. However, I also firmly defend an individual cyclist's right to choose his/her facility for any given ride.

Specific case in point: Oceanside's San Luis Rey River MUP roughly parallels the Highway 76 expressway. Eastbound, I prefer the MUP, because of some particularly nasty (my description -- others call them "fun" or "challenging") high-speed free merges and diverges at the entrance and exit ramps. Westbound I often take the straighter and somewhat faster expressway, unless I am heading west into the setting sun, in which case it's back on the MUP.

Glad she wasn't hurt. But my question is where should you ride when there are not segregated bike trails going to where you want to go?

Segregated facilities in my opinion condem bikes to "toy" or "recreational" status, and exclude them from transportational status. How can a bike be a viable form of transportation if they can only go where segregated bike lanes are present?

Right. That's why in the Netherlands people look at you funny when you suggest that you ride for 'fun'. The vast majority of cyclists there are transportational... you'll find very few lycra-clad roadies around, compared to the throngs of people in 'regular' clothes on utility bikes of one sort or another.

If you are in a place where there aren't any cars, you can't be involved in a car accident now can you? It's so obvious to some of us.

Of course they accumulate crap when they're completely segregated. I used to commute on one, I see others every time I visit a few different urban areas. I see glass, leaves, twigs, etc. What is supposed to happen to the stuff that gets on the path? Fairies clean it at night? No, bike tires die sweeping the junk off.

Fairyland thinking - magic keeps junk off the separate paths.

The worst I experienced was a wood bridge with a slat missing. No warning, just a hole.

Now an integrated transportation system supporting bikes would be nice. Something that links major routes with minor ones, allows reasonably fast travel, is designed properly, gets maintained properly. I've not seen that. Maybe some of you have, but I haven't. I rarely see a bikeway that's safe. I see dangerous road crossings, posts, drops, root bumps etc. Some are really deadly.

We're going to see a mix of cycles, scooters, motorbikes, tiny cars, regular cars and so on. Can't see much way around it. Might as well develop a system that accommodates highly mixed traffic.

I still can't see separate paths along all the roads. I don't even see maintenance of the roads we have! I can't imagine being able to afford both a separate system and the money to maintain it.

What do we do first? Urban areas? Or connectors from suburban to urban? Or urban to urban bike throughways? How do we get from where we are now to some better system?

Regardless of the ultimate system, I would think that educating highway users (cyclists, cars, etc) and making existing roads suitable for current and near-term anticipated uses.

I want the fairies to get the glass off the road shoulders, too, as they must off the paths!

the guardrailian angel:


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/Theyrecalledroads.jpg

Of course they accumulate crap when they're completely segregated. I used to commute on one, I see others every time I visit a few different urban areas. I see glass, leaves, twigs, etc. What is supposed to happen to the stuff that gets on the path? Fairies clean it at night? No, bike tires die sweeping the junk off.

Fairyland thinking - magic keeps junk off the separate paths.

The worst I experienced was a wood bridge with a slat missing. No warning, just a hole.

Now an integrated transportation system supporting bikes would be nice. Something that links major routes with minor ones, allows reasonably fast travel, is designed properly, gets maintained properly. I've not seen that. Maybe some of you have, but I haven't. I rarely see a bikeway that's safe. I see dangerous road crossings, posts, drops, root bumps etc. Some are really deadly.

We're going to see a mix of cycles, scooters, motorbikes, tiny cars, regular cars and so on. Can't see much way around it. Might as well develop a system that accommodates highly mixed traffic.

I still can't see separate paths along all the roads. I don't even see maintenance of the roads we have! I can't imagine being able to afford both a separate system and the money to maintain it.

What do we do first? Urban areas? Or connectors from suburban to urban? Or urban to urban bike throughways? How do we get from where we are now to some better system?

Regardless of the ultimate system, I would think that educating highway users (cyclists, cars, etc) and making existing roads suitable for current and near-term anticipated uses.

I want the fairies to get the glass off the road shoulders, too, as they must off the paths!

After almost 30 years of using this path they are finally making improvements to it. It had been left in disrepair for decades. It is now being revitalized. It is being revitalized because the demand overwhelmed the opinions of some Massachusetts bike advocates who claimed, "we have all the bike paths we need- they're called roads."

You asked, "How do we get from where we are now to some better system?" by being open minded and looking for innovative solutions.

There are lots of "integrated transportation system(s) supporting bikes" popping up all over the US and Europe. I suggest you ride one when you get the opportunity. I've ridden several in the Netherlands and enjoyed it immensely.

I suggest you get a history of the town you live in- most libraries have a town history book- one with lots of photographs. Your town may even have a town historian. Look specifically at the two decades from 1905 to 1925 and watch the incredibly rapid transformation of the transportation infrastructure that takes place in only 20 years. The railroad had only just been established as the innovation of the 19th century when suddenly the automobile rolls in and things change in the blink of an eye. Now we are drowning in automobiles and though most people think that gas prices are what will make people drive less I think it's congestion and traffic. In Boston the cost of parking far exceeds the cost of gas. And the cost of trying to accomodate all these cars is stretching the budgets of most states, which is why so many roads and bridges are in such dangerous disrepair.

Our streets and roads will be redesigned to accomodate alternatives not because it's the right thing to do, not because we want to but because we will have to.

There are about 800 cyclists killed per year in the U.S.
About how many of these are killed by out-of-control cars? 1? 2?
How many cyclists per year are not killed by out-of-control cars thanks to a guardrail or similar facility that separates a cycling facility from the roadway? 1? 2?

How many cyclists are killed at intersections by turning traffic because they were riding outside what Franklin calls the zone of maximum surveillance [1 (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html)] and were overlooked? 100? 200? 400?

There is no comparison.

Well, I guess the next logical question in your sequence could be, "How many cyclists were not killed at intersection by turning traffic because they rode in a segregated, protected facility? 100, 200, 400...5,000?"

There is no comparison. Ha!

There are about 800 cyclists killed per year in the U.S.
About how many of these are killed by out-of-control cars? 1? 2?
How many cyclists per year are not killed by out-of-control cars thanks to a guardrail or similar facility that separates a cycling facility from the roadway? 1? 2?

How many cyclists are killed at intersections by turning traffic because they were riding outside what Franklin calls the zone of maximum surveillance [1 (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html)] and were overlooked? 100? 200? 400?

There is no comparison.


Whether the car is in the control of the driver or "out of control" it is still 3000 lbs of steel, glass and rubber hurtling down a road at relatively high speeds. The point of a separated facility is to put as much distance as possible between a car and a fully exposed vulnerable human being on a 25 lb bicycle in a collision (unlike the auto driver who is encased in the steel frame and airbagged and seat belted). The forces necessary to smash the guard rail in the picture are enormous. Even hitting another cyclist at full speed on the bike path barely compares to that force.

I assume from your moniker that you wear a helmet to protect your head. Think of a separated bicycle facility as a helmet for your entire body. And how many times have you hit your helmet? Once? Twice? Never? But I'll bet you wear that helmet every day. And so what if you need it only once? It's only one life- what's that compared to 100, 200, 400? I guess it's everything when it's your own life, isn't it? Or someone who matters to you.

There are about 800 cyclists killed per year in the U.S.
About how many of these are killed by out-of-control cars? 1? 2?
How many cyclists per year are not killed by out-of-control cars thanks to a guardrail or similar facility that separates a cycling facility from the roadway? 1? 2?

How many cyclists are killed at intersections by turning traffic because they were riding outside what Franklin calls the zone of maximum surveillance [1 (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html)] and were overlooked? 100? 200? 400?

There is no comparison.

If we know anything from traffic safety classes, rider 2 should also be watching the vehicle behind him, regardless of this "trust but verify" bull****. That doesn't cut it when I'm driving a car, it wont cut it when I'm on my bike.

You have the same rights on the road as a car, along with the same responsibilities of watching all around you, not just where is most convenient.]


Not to mention, the argument can be just as easily made that on a road with a mirror design (but bike path still on the north end, and the road entrance on the south) the rider in the road now needs to pay attention to way more than the guy on the bike path... amazing, but not really.

There are about 800 cyclists killed per year in the U.S.
About how many of these are killed by out-of-control cars? 1? 2?

Can't you see just how crazy this is? if its correct that means that the rest of the cyclists killed on the road were by drivers in control of their cars! If they were mostly killed by out of control drivers then you'd have a much stronger case for sharing the road.

Of the 800 cyclists per year killed in the U.S. how many were using physically segregated facilities at the time? 1? 2?... so maybe 798 or 799 were sharing the road when they were killed. Let me put it this way - if you have a choice to fly in two identical aircraft to reach the same destination, the only difference it that one will take a flight path that was 800 times more likely to end in a fatal crash, which would you choose to fly in? and I think I'm being gracious because I think that more people use segregated facilities than the number that practice VC-style sharing of the road, so the odds are probably worse than 800:1


How many cyclists per year are not killed by out-of-control cars thanks to a guardrail or similar facility that separates a cycling facility from the roadway? 1? 2?
That 1 or 2 plus all the cyclists that weren't killed by both out-of-control and in-control cars driven by distracted/drunk/drugged/belligerent/incompetent drivers because they were on a MUP or segregated cycleway at the time. Since there's no study that I'm aware of that quantifies these numbers it's an irrelevant fact-less argument either way. The only documented numbers we can look at is the number of cyclists killed sharing the road Vs the number killed on segregated facilities, that would be 798-799 Vs 1-2. The sad irony of the deaths on segregated cycleways is that at least 1 if not both were because of a belligerent driver in a car accessing the MUP illegaly.

How many cyclists are killed at intersections by turning traffic because they were riding outside what Franklin calls the zone of maximum surveillance [1 (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html)] and were overlooked? 100? 200? 400?
So those cyclists were killed while having to share the intersection with motor traffic. Too bad they weren't riding outside what I call the zone of maximum chance to be killed by a driver (It includes everywhere where drivers are legally allowed to drive). If you're implying that we need physically segregated cycling facilities at intersections more than anywhere else then I agree.

There is no comparison. 798-799 cyclist deaths sharing the road Vs 1 or 2 deaths on segregated facilities caused by drivers accessing the facility illegaly. You're absolutely right, there is no comparison.

Where did I ever say or suggest a bike lane is a segregated cycleway?

Al

You didn't, and I never suggested that you did. I just tried to emphasise that there is a big difference between a segregated cycleway and a bike lane. In fact, segregated cycleways are everything bike lanes are not (i.e. segregated from traffic by a real barrier, not merely a white line) hence the risk of being seriously injured or killed in your example.

I just don't want the bike lane debate to spill over into segregated facilities, they're two very different debates.

In riding a few miles, looking at riders and motorists, I tend to think the best use of money would be in making drivers and riders safer through training, responsibility, etc. I don't know that would be effective in this frontier USA country. Next best would be making roads appropriate for mixed use. Segregated facilities would fall somewhere below that. They're great, but they're essentially a second system of transportation. Likely too big a job and one that designers will screw up.

I'd like to see major radials from major suburbs backed up by cycle throughways with proper grading etc. No reason an Interstate or equivalent can't have a segregated facility along the right of way.

But segregated everywhere would be prohibitively expensive. Not only in terms of the construction, but in terms of design and in land / litigation to expand rights of way.

But segregated everywhere would be prohibitively expensive. Not only in terms of the construction, but in terms of design and in land / litigation to expand rights of way.

I don't think anyone is advocating for a fully segregated system nationally, regionally or even locally but that separated bike ways have a place in the transportation infrastructure and are something worthy of consideration if there is land space (often using abandoned public space) and the roadways that would otherwise be the route are poorly designed and could not be improved in such a way to make them safe to share with bicycle traffic.

If we are talking only about the US- it's a big and diverse country in terms of topography and how it's cities, towns, suburbs and rural areas are designed and accomodated for transportation- what may work well in one locale might not serve another area at all and could be counter productive.

"They don't accumulate anything when they're physically segregated, not just a white line.

It's a shame you 'can't see the country funding a separate bike lane along every road we're entitled to use'... I can."

Cyclaholic was advocating a separate system perhaps. At least that's what I took it to be. Matters little - we're not going to squeeze bike lanes into the endless strips of substandard road that traverse this country. Let alone something separate. Roads I ride on won't fit a dualie and a UPS truck side by side - someone has to drop tires over the edge. Bike lanes would take making each road an oversize lane, which would take complete regrading and widening. I doubt my little county could fund that!

In riding a few miles, looking at riders and motorists, I tend to think the best use of money would be in making drivers and riders safer through training, responsibility, etc. I don't know that would be effective in this frontier USA country. Next best would be making roads appropriate for mixed use. Segregated facilities would fall somewhere below that. They're great, but they're essentially a second system of transportation. Likely too big a job and one that designers will screw up.

I'd like to see major radials from major suburbs backed up by cycle throughways with proper grading etc. No reason an Interstate or equivalent can't have a segregated facility along the right of way.

But segregated everywhere would be prohibitively expensive. Not only in terms of the construction, but in terms of design and in land / litigation to expand rights of way.

This is probably overall the best approach... a mix of education for all users... implemented at the elementary, Jr High and High school level... a lifelong series for a lifelong activity. Training should start in elementary school for basic bicycle handling. Then at Jr High, road classes are taught, then finally in High School, a fully comprehensive year long driving course that emphasizes the responsibilities of all road users.

Finally a series of segregated bike hiways/arterials to enhance cycling longer distances by reducing the need for cyclists to have to stop at every intersection. These will have to be below or above grade bike paths similar to that in Oulu Finland. These paths should preclude the need for cyclists to share high speed arterials.

Lower speed downtown roads and residential streets can be used in the vehicular manner.

Bike paths for me! Ottawa has an extensive and growing system of bike paths that mostly runs parallel to roads and sometimes takes better routes than roads. My daily commute is 95% bike path and I'm not sure I would do it if I had to be on the road for the whole trip.
The argument for and against segregated lanes will always be a dialog of the deaf. I think people should do what they prefer and keep their preaching to the choir.

They are moving my office next week. So now I have a choice to make: Ride on the bike path and stay on it all the way through the university (which will be mighty scary due to bike traffic in the morning, but no car traffic at all) or to take "blood alley", the main drag through Old Towne Goleta where pedestrians and cyclists are killed on a somewhat regular basis. It's a tough call because the bike path does take me out of my way. But let's see, risk death or risk inconvenient bicycle traffic jams?

Twhere pedestrians and cyclists are killed on a somewhat regular basis.
Have you studied the causes and contributing factors for these fatalities?

Al

I don't think anyone is advocating for a fully segregated system nationally, regionally or even locally but that separated bike ways have a place in the transportation infrastructure and are something worthy of consideration if there is land space (often using abandoned public space) and the roadways that would otherwise be the route are poorly designed and could not be improved in such a way to make them safe to share with bicycle traffic.

If we are talking only about the US- it's a big and diverse country in terms of topography and how it's cities, towns, suburbs and rural areas are designed and accomodated for transportation- what may work well in one locale might not serve another area at all and could be counter productive.

I think the two of us agree. But what some people are trying very hard to brush under the carpet is that not all segregrated facilities ate really segregated. Something that keeps bikes and cars physically seperated until the next intersection are disasters waiting to happen. Intersections are the worst spot anyway and this makes the most dangerous spot worse. (Though I can think of some streets where it might still be worth it).

A case in point is the bike path here in L.A. next to the Orange line. Abiout 20 miles long. There are are a couple of very nice 2-3 mile sections, but there are also a lot of sections where it stays hidden from drivers until the crossing (often even worse that a normal intersection about 20-30 feet from an intersection somewhere you would never expect a crossing). The segregrated facilities will be a contributing factor in accidents, but they will not get recorded as such, the bike path officially ends at each and every intersection.

Have you studied the causes and contributing factors for these fatalities?

Al

If I have it right which sections of road she is talking about no study is needed, all one has to do is stand on a street corner near rush hour or other busy times. And again if I have the section right there is no easy fix.

BTW there have been fatalities on the bike path going through UCSB. Near the football stadium if I recall correctly. Might be worth finding out when classes start and avoind the last few minutes when late to class students are even more less than careful than usual.

If I have it right which sections of road she is talking about no study is needed, all one has to do is stand on a street corner near rush hour or other busy times. And again if I have the section right there is no easy fix.
So what do you on this road standing on the corner? What are most motorists doing? What are most cyclists doing?

Al

Well some of the people that ride on the street do it because it's well more convenient. They like to go fast, which on a bike path is dangerous (clueless walkers, etc), they don't want to constantly worry about what a guy/gal in front will do, slow down, yell, ring the bell. To them it's easier to deal with cars then to share a bike path. Bike paths are great if you want to just pedal along at 10mph. If you want to go 20mph, do intervals, and training rides in general, not so much.
My wife, one of those cyclists who actually prefers bike lanes, bike paths and MUP's, rides daily to work on the Charles River bike path, which runs alongside Soldier's Field Road. I've told her about the anti-bike facilities arguments that rage here in BF and she just doesn't get it- if she had to ride to work on the road as opposed to the bike path she simply wouldn't ride. I've told her that when she occasionally sees cyclists ride that section of Soldier's Field Road and forgo the bike path they are more than likely hardcore opponents of bike paths and prefer to ride on the road. She says she wouldn't feel safe doing that.

Today she called me to let me know that as she rode the bike path (it was pretty rainy in Boston today) she heard a loud bang and as she looked over she saw a car spinning out of control on Soldier's Field Road and sliding right at her. In no time it hit the guardrail smashing the guardrail and the support timbers behind it and shot back out into the roadway. She was physically unharmed but completely freaked out. I'm ever thankful that she was okay.

She is more convinced than ever of the value of a separated facility and so am I.

There's a certain logic in the fact that:

A helmet would not have saved her.

Cyclist education would not have saved her.

Dynamic lane positioning would not have saved her,

Wearing bright visible clothing would not have saved her.

But a separated bike facility did.

Here is a google map link to the location of the accident. If you zoom in all the way you'll see the guardrail bent from a similar crash that must have happened around the time of the photo. These kinds of spin outs are a regular occurrence on that stretch of road.

I'll try to grab a shot of it tomorrow in the daylight. I rode by the scene of the crash tonight in the dark and it was pretty scary to see the extent of damage to guardrail and the pieces of bumper.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Storrow+Drive+Boston+MA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,75.322266&ie=UTF8&ll=42.369751,-71.126277&spn=0.000237,0.000575&t=k&z=21&iwloc=addr&om=1

For what's it worth I was running late to work today and rode in on the road (Comm Ave) and there were some serious near misses between cars around me on the ride. It was a little freaky out there today.

I think the two of us agree. But what some people are trying very hard to brush under the carpet is that not all segregrated facilities ate really segregated. Something that keeps bikes and cars physically seperated until the next intersection are disasters waiting to happen. Intersections are the worst spot anyway and this makes the most dangerous spot worse. (Though I can think of some streets where it might still be worth it).

A case in point is the bike path here in L.A. next to the Orange line. Abiout 20 miles long. There are are a couple of very nice 2-3 mile sections, but there are also a lot of sections where it stays hidden from drivers until the crossing (often even worse that a normal intersection about 20-30 feet from an intersection somewhere you would never expect a crossing). The segregrated facilities will be a contributing factor in accidents, but they will not get recorded as such, the bike path officially ends at each and every intersection.


true, true... agreed. However, a while back I compared in one of these forums my commute when I take the road in to work (much of it on Commonwealth Avenue for those of you who know Boston) versus the bike path for the number of intersections. The bike path crosses 6 road ways- and they are admittedly poor designs for a total of 11 intersections with the bits of road I use on that commute. The road route, which is 3 mile shorter was upwards of 60 actual intersections not counting side streets, parking lots etc which would have been too numerous to mention.

The bike path intersections must be very carefully negotiated and require their own skill set but the lower number, in my opinion, would seem to reduce the potential for a collision with an auto over the road route.

Well some of the people that ride on the street do it because it's well more convenient. They like to go fast, which on a bike path is dangerous (clueless walkers, etc), they don't want to constantly worry about what a guy/gal in front will do, slow down, yell, ring the bell. To them it's easier to deal with cars then to share a bike path. Bike paths are great if you want to just pedal along at 10mph. If you want to go 20mph, do intervals, and training rides in general, not so much.

You know the funny thing is I find training on the streets to be just as dangerous... at all the intersections (which include mall driveways) I have to check and verify the right on red motorists, I have to stop at every red light, I have pedestrians crossing mid block, and motorists that prefer that I wasn't on the road. And don't you dare sprint through a green light... heaven forbid some motorist runs the cross red.

Oh sure on the unbroken stretches I can "train," but what is the difference between an unbroken stretch of street and a long unbroken stretch of good bike path? Of course it has to be good bike path, not the narrow sidewalk width stuff.

Oh sure on the unbroken stretches I can "train," but what is the difference between an unbroken stretch of street and a long unbroken stretch of good bike path? Of course it has to be good bike path, not the narrow sidewalk width stuff.

A good example would be the Central Park loop road in Manhattan. Is is a three lane one way road closed to cars on the weekend. The south end is very congested most of the time but the further north you go, the better it gets. You can ride much more quickly than you can on nearby streets.

My wife, one of those cyclists who actually prefers bike lanes, bike paths and MUP's, rides daily to work on the Charles River bike path, which runs alongside Soldier's Field Road. I've told her about the anti-bike facilities arguments that rage here in BF and she just doesn't get it- if she had to ride to work on the road as opposed to the bike path she simply wouldn't ride. I've told her that when she occasionally sees cyclists ride that section of Soldier's Field Road and forgo the bike path they are more than likely hardcore opponents of bike paths and prefer to ride on the road. She says she wouldn't feel safe doing that.

Today she called me to let me know that as she rode the bike path (it was pretty rainy in Boston today) she heard a loud bang and as she looked over she saw a car spinning out of control on Soldier's Field Road and sliding right at her. In no time it hit the guardrail smashing the guardrail and the support timbers behind it and shot back out into the roadway. She was physically unharmed but completely freaked out. I'm ever thankful that she was okay.

She is more convinced than ever of the value of a separated facility and so am I.

There's a certain logic in the fact that:

A helmet would not have saved her.

Cyclist education would not have saved her.

Dynamic lane positioning would not have saved her,

Wearing bright visible clothing would not have saved her.

But a separated bike facility did.

Here is a google map link to the location of the accident. If you zoom in all the way you'll see the guardrail bent from a similar crash that must have happened around the time of the photo. These kinds of spin outs are a regular occurrence on that stretch of road.

I'll try to grab a shot of it tomorrow in the daylight. I rode by the scene of the crash tonight in the dark and it was pretty scary to see the extent of damage to guardrail and the pieces of bumper.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Storrow+Drive+Boston+MA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,75.322266&ie=UTF8&ll=42.369751,-71.126277&spn=0.000237,0.000575&t=k&z=21&iwloc=addr&om=1

For what's it worth I was running late to work today and rode in on the road (Comm Ave) and there were some serious near misses between cars around me on the ride. It was a little freaky out there today.

I agree that, separated facitilieties are a good thing but, I don't trust a bike path, that is on a road, anymore than I would trust, having a 10-ton concrete barrier between me and the traffic. I do trust bike paths, when they are not on the road. I feel it would lead to, too much of a false sense of security, to have bike lanes painted on the road. That is why I 'take the lane', when I can. On heavily traveled roads like arteries that are used during rush hour, I will ride on the sidewalk. Bike paths, that are just that or, are also used by rollerbladers and/or, rollerskaters and/or, pedestrians are also good but, if I have to get somewhere that doesn't have a path and/or, a sidewalk that is in good shape, then, I have to 'take the lane'. Of course I don't go on the U.S. or state highways'.

Christopher

P.S. Another thing I just thought of, when I was living in Duluth(Minnesota), the state had apparently started to put bumps on the shoulder for, when drivers would fall asleep at wheel. This was after, the state had created the bike paths. That is another reason why a decided I should always 'take the lane'.

... I feel it would lead to, too much of a false sense of security, to have bike lanes painted on the road. That is why I 'take the lane', when I can...

Chris,

While I agree there is some truth to this statement- and certainly cyclists would be best served when using bike lanes to be as vigilant and aware of the traffic around them as if the lane markings were not there- I think there can be as much of a sense of "false security" with "taking the lane". Just as a bike lane is not a cure all nor a "cloak of invincibility" neither is "taking the lane".

When I "take the lane" I do it with the same level of caution and confidence I would use for most bike lanes.

This same argument is often used in the pro-/anti- helmet debates with some arguing that wearing a helmet gives a false sense of security to it's wearer. A tough assumption to prove since it's more than likely that the cyclist who chooses to wear a bike helmet may tend to be less of a risk taker in general than the cyclist who chooses not to wear one.

"Taking the lane" requires a certain level of confidence, skill and experience that not all cyclists have or ever will achieve. They may resist "taking the lane" because they are overly cautious and prefer the feeling of safety the bike lane gives them. Whether that feeling is an illusion I'll leave open to debate since it is dependent on such a variety of factors that most genralizations about them are rendered moot. However, sidewalk riding does have some inherent and provable risks that make it statistically a dangerous place to ride. If any place to ride lends the rider a false sense of security it is a sidewalk- it requires extraordinary vigilance to ride safely on the sidewalk.

If any place to ride lends the rider a false sense of security it is a sidewalk- it requires extraordinary vigilance to ride safely on the sidewalk.

Only at the intersections (which include driveways), otherwise, sidewalks are quite safe.

Only at the intersections (which include driveways), otherwise, sidewalks are quite safe.

Safe and efficient intersection configuration is the biggest challenge in designing a decent segregated facility, and most I have seen fail miserably in this regard. Oceanside's is pretty decent, only because they were able to take advantage of a partial grade separation between the river bank and the bridges above, but the grade separation does create some tricky and potentially dangerous curves and dips.

On a 25-30 mph / 40-50 kph street, I generally favor full integration of bicycles and motor vehicles, but on a 50 mph / 80 kph prime arterial, I want at least a Class II bike lane, and I shall go out of my way to avoid many of the local freeway-style interchanges with high-speed free merges and diverges, where I would fully welcome, and use, a "separate-but-equal" segregated facility.

Safe and efficient intersection configuration is the biggest challenge in designing a decent segregated facility, and most I have seen fail miserably in this regard. Oceanside's is pretty decent, only because they were able to take advantage of a partial grade separation between the river bank and the bridges above, but the grade separation does create some tricky and potentially dangerous curves and dips.

On a 25-30 mph / 40-50 kph street, I generally favor full integration of bicycles and motor vehicles, but on a 50 mph / 80 kph prime arterial, I want at least a Class II bike lane, and I shall go out of my way to avoid many of the local freeway-style interchanges with high-speed free merges and diverges, where I would fully welcome, and use, a "separate-but-equal" segregated facility.

I think we are on the same page there. Grade separation is a wonderful thing... not just for the intersections avoided, but also for the inertia preserved.

And those faster arterials... nothing but freeways disguised as surface streets... ugggg!

Cyclist education would not have saved her.

Dynamic lane positioning would not have saved her,

Wearing bright visible clothing would not have saved her.

But a separated bike facility did.
The most important thing is your wife is ok.

She should ride wherever she is safe. Nobody can make that choice for her.

I'm glad she's safe, and not hurt in any way.

:)