Advocacy & Safety - How bout some REAL bike lanes?

I know that Sacramento County has a minimum bike lane width of 5' but
unfortunately that includes sidewalk gutter.

Who seriously is going to bike in the gutter when it means your tires
take some extra abuse. How bout we get the full 5' minimum width of
asphalt for a smoother/easier ride?

5' minus gutter is still plenty of space for a bicycle.

5' minus gutter is still plenty of space for a bicycle.
even when it adjoins a 12' lane on an arterial with a posted speed limit of 40+ mph?

maybe i'm just spoiled by my town's nearby arterial with 14'-wide outside lane and 8'-wide bike lane.


i'm just glad i don't live in clayton, CA. clayton rd. has a PSL of 40 mph and the nearby bike lane (which includes the gutter, btw) is barely wide enough to contain "bike lane" (stenciled one above the other).

5' minus gutter is still plenty of space for a bicycle.

Beats the crap out of what we have! Try nothing, nada and that is on a 55mph posted but they run 65 mph curvy country road...with no shoulders.:eek:

Aaron:)

5' minus gutter is still plenty of space for a bicycle.


even when it adjoins a 12' lane on an arterial with a posted speed limit of 40+ mph?

I think it is, too. Some of us are riding 60 mph roads with 12' lanes and 3 usable feet of paved shoulder; and 55 mph roads with 11' lanes and no BL or paved shoulder. Granted designing a BL to include the gutter is bad engineering, but it sounds to me like you still have 3-4 feet of usable pavement.

I think it is, too. Some of us are riding 60 mph roads with 12' lanes and 3 usable feet of paved shoulder; and 55 mph roads with 11' lanes and no BL or paved shoulder. Granted designing a BL to include the gutter is bad engineering, but it sounds to me like you still have 3-4 feet of usable pavement.
i should have phrased my post better. it's still rideable, but i know which road i'd rather ride on (given a choice).

as nice as it is with that one arterial, my town is far from perfect. on an intersecting arterial (PSL 40 mph with 3 "automobile lanes" and a bike "lane"), the bike lane, which is not much wider than the span of my handlebars, was torn up last year to put in a pipe of some sort--right down the middle of the lane. so now this debris-collecting lane is divided into three segments--the small strip between the striped line and the pipe cut, the pipe cut (now the most rideable surface), and the small strip between the pipe cut and the gutter (which is interspersed with storm drain grates). i'd be happier if the town would eliminate the bike lane altogether and put up a few "share the road" signs, but i guess they're content with keeping cyclists out of the way of motorists, just not out of harm's way.

... i'd be happier if the town would eliminate the bike lane altogether and put up a few "share the road" signs,...

I agree this would be better. I've been of the contention for a long time that the best cycling infrastructure is multiple narrow lanes with sharrows in the right lane and signage establishing that cyclists have the entire lane that proceeds in the desired direction of travel.

The de facto purpose of bike lanes is simply to move cyclists out of the way of motorists.

the de facto purpose of bike infrastructure is to allow vehicles of different speed and mode characteristics efficient use of roadways, encourage bicycling via infrastructure and effectively reduce the numbers of sidewalk cyclists.

bike lanes in cities like bogota or copenhagen are not designed to 'keep bikes out of the way of cars', biker infrastructure is designed to encourage cycling and safer conditions for bicyclists.

proven, seen in cities around the world. why do american bicyclists suffer with poor road conditions? (not that a 5 foot bike lane is poor ) thank the vehicular cyclist movement and jon forestor for that debacle.

in the last decade some american cities are reversing the trend with more thoughtful bike lane designs built in excess of AASHTO guidelines that five feet with gutter pan is minimum. traffic engineers are repeatedly instructed to consider bike infrastructure in excess of the aashto minimums. cities can legally design a wider bike lane. push for it, dude!

And streetscape design is taking a step back from autocentrism; the 2004 AASHTO 'green book' manual downgrades arterial requirements and additionally directs communties to design neighborhood 'local' streets with the motorists secondary to peds and bikes. CARS SECONDARY!


thats just neighborhood streets, but government road design mandates are progressing and moving away from autocentricity and the corresponding cycling debacle that has haunted american bicycling infrastructure efforts for decades.

1.5 meters = 59" is code minimum for a bike lane in California, but 1.8 meters = 71" is strongly recommended for the most popular bike routes.

I concur with Bekologist that we are finally getting some decent progressive road design in residential and business districts, but we still have miles to go (so to speak) in rural arterials and in freeway access points.

The bike lane in front of my house is 11' wide.

despite the pithy reassurances of maddyfish, every lane on the road is NOT a bike lane.

I think maddfish is describing his legal use of an unacommodated road with 11 foot lanes.


Unless its legally striped and painted as a bike lane, maddyfish, its not a 'bike lane'. you're describing what is commonly called a 'road'.

and if an eight year old cannot ride there safely, it's NOT a bike lane.

I'd expect no less from a bicyclist that claims he doesn't ride on shoulders of roads :rolleyes:

so you've joined the 'eight to eighty' crowd now, Bek?!?!?!

and if an eight year old cannot ride there safely, it's NOT a bike lane.I see plenty of eight year olds safely riding the 11 foot bike lane in front of my house.:thumb:

standard lanes on roads should not be confused with bike lanes, you guys! I think two of you are being dishonest with the forum!

AASHTO and the MUTUCTD do not reference standard width lanes of roads as 'bike lanes'

the vacuous and worthless witticism 'every lane is a bike lane' falls flat in the face of reality.

a road striped with 11 foot travel lanes is not an 11 foot bike lane; bikes ride in general travel lanes in the two scenarios CBHI and maddyfish reference.

so you've joined the 'eight to eighty' crowd now, Bek?!?!?!

I'm a member of the 'planning of every public road should include accomodating bikes and limited mobility devices;'

I recognize 8 and 80 year olds shouldn't have to be so terrified of the road landscape in america because of worthless talking points like every lane is a bike lane. WORTHLESS.

people like maddyfish and CBHI need to get on board with the growing trend of accomodating bikes thru thoughtful infrastructure implementation, and recognize the value a facilties rich streetscape can bring bicyclists and pedestrians.

'11 foot bike lanes' that motorists also travel in a 2-3-4 times the speed of bikes doesn't cut it as a blanket accomodation model for bikes and cars sharing public roads, sorry. unless you want to encourage .5 percent bicycling modal shares......

If an eight year old cannot ride a particular road safely, then it does not matter if there's a bike lane present or not.

Show something that proves roads with bike lanes are safer than roads without bike lanes.

do you REALLY need me to point out the bevy of stats supporting this?

i'd rather you just stop referring to 11 foot travel lanes also used by cars as a 'bike lane'. that's an unaccomodated road with no bikelane.

that's dishonest by all measure. no government official, bicyclist (except the radical minorty of 'integrationalists') no member of the general public, no traffic engineer would confuse and conflate the two, hoping to validate a dishonest point of view.

but the integrationalists will!

A question for Bek: can an 8 year old ride safely in a door zone (or partial door zone) bike lane?

Bek, the new HH.:lol:

Yeah, I REALLY do. Because I know you can't produce anything credible that does.

Show me where I referred to an 11' lane as either a bike lane, or an "unaccomodated road". Show me where I referred to it as anything other than an 11' lane.

Actually the term "unaccomodated road" is a misnomer. By state law, a road with 2 x 11' lanes accommodates cyclists and motorists. Which I often prove to be true.

standard lanes on roads should not be confused with bike lanes, you guys! I think two of you are being dishonest with the forum!
Bek, calling others dishonest with the forum!:roflmao2:

Bek, the new HH.:lol:
Maybe, not so NEW.:p

and if an eight year old cannot ride there safely, it's NOT a bike lane.

:

My 7 year old rides to school on it most days ( though she sometimes walks instead).

...Yeah, I REALLY do...

I would be interested also to see a credible source that shows that roads with bike lanes are statistically safer than roads without bike lanes.

Here in Wisconsin, I think that the word on the street is that bike lanes are not inherently safer...

Regardless, I'm just curious

Steve

yeah, yeah, let me dig up the stats.

REGARDLESS, Calling a road with a lane for both cars and bikes a 'bike lane' is dishonest use of language and a worthless talking point.

'the bikelane in front of my house is 11 feet wide?' I call BS.

and stats:

PBCAT typing, the nationally accepted data typing program for analyzing bike and pedestrian crash statistics, consistently show accidents occur at a higher rate on roads with 'shared roadways' versus roads with bike lanes.

1996 Moritz Study showing bike laned roads less hazardous per miles travelled. This was a study data culled from thousands of 'experienced' LAB bicyclists.

A 1996 study determined the likelihood of a bicycle accident by facility type. (This is the only major study that adjusts crash data for the number of miles bicyclists actually travel on these facilities.) The study found that riding on bike laned roads was statistically safer than roads without bike facilties...

Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled

Street with bike lanes 26
Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) 32
Major street with no bike facilities 41
Minor street with no bike facilities 59
Multi-use trail 88
Off road/unpaved trail 282
Sidewalk 1026


Source: William E. Moritz, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" Transportation Research Council, 1996

The Moritz study is here if anyone is interested: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

The Moritz study tracks two types of accidents -- "minor" and "serious." Serious is defined as causing more than $50 in damage to a person or equipment. (That doesn't sound necessarily serious to me, but we go to war with the facts we have). Note that the vast majority of these accidents are simple falls -- collisions with motor vehicles only account for 11% of all reported accidents and 24% of serious accidents.

The numbers that Moritz reports -- and Bek echoes -- are for all accidents, minor and serious. Moritz doesn't report rates for serious accidents, and he doesn't make it easy to deduce them from the data he presents, as most of what he gives is percentages, not numbers. However, from the data he presents I was able to deduce that there were 176 serious accidents and 567 total accidents reported. From his percentages I was able to then calculate the number of each type, and from his crash rates I was able to calculate the kilometers traveled for each facility type.

That allowed me to calculate serious accident rate for each facility type. What I got was a very different picture:

Major w/o bike facilities 17.6
Minor w/o bike facilities 17.9
Signed bike route only (BR) 19.9
On-street bike lanes (BL) 16.0
Multiuse trail 24.3
Off road/unpaved 38.9
Other (most often 'sidewalk') 318.4

Now, do these numbers show anything meaningful about relative safety? No.

There were only 7 reported serious accidents in bike lanes. If there had been 8, the accident rate for bike lanes would have been higher than for streets with no facilities. Is 8 significantly different from 7 in a population of this size? With a population of 1956 and 8 observations the standard deviation is 2.8, so we're not even talking half a standard deviation. Not even close to significant.

Now, what is interesting is that bike lanes do have a statistically significant advantage when it comes to non-serious accidents -- those causing less than $50 in damage. What this mostly reflects, however, is that bike lane accidents are far more likely to be serious. In bike lanes, 64% of the accidents are reported as serious, as opposed to 30% for minor roads and 14% off road. Of course this could all be coincidence since there were only 11 total bike lane accidents reported in the study.

Try again?

despite your attempts to discredit a nationally vetted and referenced study that shows bike laned streets are safer than roads with no bike facilites, both your data mining and Moritz' show bike laned streets are safer per mile travelled.

you'll be familiar with this catchphrase, DCcommuter - you seem to have a working knowledge of obfuscatory statistics........

"figures don't lie, but liars can figure!"


bike lanes do have a statistically significant advantage when it comes to non-serious accidents... Did you really say "going to war with the facts we have?" :rolleyes:

1996 Moritz Study showing bike laned roads less hazardous per miles travelled...

Thank you.

Steve

additionally, there are nationally vetted studies that show bike lanes both reduce wrong way cycing AND decrease sidewalk riding at intersections (Hunter), and strong correlations between bike infrastructure and indexed reduction in accident rates, all the while increasing cycling participation in communities. (everywhere)

moving on, perhpas we can get back to the OP:

bike lane widths built to code are recommended minimiums, the AASHTO Green Book encourages more width if there is significant bike traffic. with strong bike advocacy in your community you could work to better accomodate cyclists on these arterials with additional width in the bike lane.

Maybe if you are safer restricted to your bike lane, you'd more safe restricted to your garage?
If it were all about perceived safety, then we'd all stay in our beds all day long and play on the internet.

no bicyclist in america is 'restricted to bikelanes' in any state in the nation if safety considerations, road condition, traffic or turning motions preclude their use.

the bonifide results of bikelanes in communities, maddyfish, is they reduce wrong way cycling AND reduce sidewalk use at intersections, encourage cycling as transportation AND remain safer than unaccomodated roads.

this holds true for any cyclist, maddyfish. the Moritz study was of thousands of LAB cyclists, people that generally are 'experienced cyclists' with thousands of km of road riding a year.

you'll be familiar with this catchphrase, DCcommuter - you seem to have a working knowledge of obfuscatory statistics........

"figures don't lie, but liars can figure!"

Did you really say "going to war with the facts we have?" :rolleyes:

As expected, when I attacked Bek's facts, he attacked my person.

despite your attempts to discredit a nationally vetted and referenced study that shows bike laned streets are safer than roads with no bike facilites, both your data mining and Moritz' show bike laned streets are safer per mile travelled.


What part of "not statistically significant" don't you understand?

woah, woah, DC commuter. the phrase "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" is statistics 101, dude. I'm sure you are familiar with the obfuscatory effects of statistics analysis to prove different POVs?

'attacking the person?' :rolleyes:


bike lanes do have a statistically significant advantage when it comes to non-serious accidents... I don't know, you tell me. Why should I consider your number crunching (to discredit vetted research) more significant than than the author of the study?


A RELATIVE DANGER INDEX is calculated which shows that streets with bike lanes have a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities (38 and 56% respectively). [/b] both DCcommuter and the author considers bikelanes statistically 'significant' in reducing crash rates...

Additionally, bike lanes have other bonifide and verifiable positive effects on cycling in communities.

...Additionally, bike lanes have other bonifide and verifiable positive effects on cycling in communities.

I would have to agree with that. The mere presence of bike lanes tends to draw casual riders out to use their bikes to actually GO places, rather than doing laps around the MUP.

And, it tends to be a demonstration of the city's commitment to cycling in general.

Having said that, proper cycling behavior is a prerequisite to safe biking, regardless if there are bike lanes or not (I know, stating the obvious...).

Steve

For over 30 years, researchers have been trying to show that bike lanes have safety value. It has never been done. Why?

Researchers usually cite the lack of available data, but that's only half of the picture. Let's look at how an experiment would be designed if we had perfect data available about exposure and location of accidents. According to the National Personal Transportation Survey, Americans travel about 4 billion miles by bicycle a year. Moritz in 1996 found that 5% of bicycle travel is in bike lanes. I don't think much of his survey, but I'll buy that number. About 700 cyclists a year are killed in the US.

Given those numbers, our null hypothesis would be that bike lanes are no safer than other parts of the roadway, so we would expect bike lanes to account for fatalities proportionate to miles traveled, 5%, or 35 fatalities a year. Here's the key question in experiment design: How many accidents a year would there have to be in order for us to conclude that bike lanes are statistically significantly safer? Would 34 be enough? 33? 32?

In academic research a confidence interval of 95% is required in order for a result to be considered statistically significant. This is associated with a result that is three standard deviations from the null hypothesis. In our case, the standard deviation would be expected to be 5.9 accidents/year. In order to conclude that bike lanes are safer, we would have to see 17 or fewer fatalities per year -- less than half the expected rate. In order to conclude that bike lanes are less safe, we would have to see 52 or more fatalities a year.

Bike lanes may be safer and they may be less safe, but the effect if any is small. Certainly, if bike lanes were twice as safe -- or 50% more dangerous -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since the effect is small, and the rate of accidents is so low, the effect on safety is not measurable.

Anyone who makes any safety claims about bike lanes is playing loose with the facts.

both DCcommuter and the author considers bikelanes statistically 'significant' in reducing crash rates...



Moritz makes no claims of statistical significance. He doesn't even discuss it.

The only way that Moritz's data even suggests that bike lanes have a safety effect is when the data on non-serious accidents are included. By his definition, these are accidents where less than $50 in property damage or personal injury occurs. Think about what a ridiculously low standard that is -- we're talking people falling off their bikes and not hurting themselves. By his standard, when I bang my shin on the trailer hitch of my car that should be counted as a "non-serious" automobile accident. If bike lanes can keep me from banging my shin on the trailer hitch, I'm all in favor of them, but in the meantime I'm just going to put a tennis ball over the damn thing.

Even his definition of "serious" is ridiculous. By his definition, when I knocked over my bike in my driveway and broke the light, that was a serious accident. When I forgot that I had my Ipod in my pocket and the headphones go tangled in the front wheel, that was a serious accident. Sadly, bike lanes don't seem to prevent those sorts of accidents.

anyone who needs to strongly attempt to discredit a growing body of research and vetted conclusions surrounding the positive effects of bicycling infrastructure is blowing smoke.

accident mitigation is not the sole purpose of bikelanes; there are myriad other positive effects that support bike lanes - Increasing bike modal share, increasing comfortability of roads for both motorists and bicyclists, increasing coginznace of bikes using roads, reduction of sidewalk riding at intersections and reducing wrong way riding.

Here are some excerpts from a 2007 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM report "GUIDE TO REDUCING ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BICYCLISTS...


"...Bicycle lanes are often appropiate when most bicyclists on the route are less experienced"

"Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collissions. Evidence also shows that riding with traffic reduces bicyclists' chances of collission with a motor vehicle. Locations with bike lanes have lower rates of wrong-way bicycling"

"Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent seperation between bicyclists and motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver movements, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists."


Anyone who makes any safety claims about bike lanes is playing loose with the facts. :rolleyes:

Moritz makes no claims of statistical significance. He doesn't even discuss it.

really??? :rolleyes:
what does the word significant refer to when distilling statistics then??? ;)


streets with bike lanes have a significantly lower crash rate


seems moritz DID find it significant, statistically!

LAME-O.

I still claim the elephant in the room is speed differential. In low-speed traffic, which I define as roads with posted speed limits of no more than 25mph / 40kph, I favor full integration of bicyclists into the main traffic flow -- call me VC in this context. On high-speed roads, which I define as those with posted speed limits of at least 40mph / 65kph, I strongly favor lateral separation, which can be a marked bike lane, a well-maintained shoulder, or simply a wide curb lane. There is a 30-35mph / 50-60kph hazy transition zone in between, in which well-designed bicycle facilities can help calm traffic, and which have to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

There are other specific contexts in which I favor bike lanes, such as those between through-only and right-only lanes, because they tell motorsts where to expect bicyclsits to be, and they remind timid or clueless bicyclists not to set themselves up for a right hook.

i'm with you on speed differentials affecting infrastructure design. the OP is referencing a 40MPH road i believe.

Bike lanes here locally in my area are a mixed bag of results, some would have me riding in a mud strewn gutter, and others place me riding far more "vehicular" than if there was no bike lane in place.
Most bike lanes here put me in the "door zone" making it a challenge to work the rear approaching traffic and still watch for the door flinging motorist parked on the side of the street(just had one yesterday, getting out of his vehicle with his six pack of beer). I could ignore the "door zone" bike lanes all together and ride outside them, but that action seems to enrage the "territorial" motorists even more, so just staying just inside the bike lane seems to be the best compromise.
To add insult to injury, even with the better implemented bike lanes in place on some of our streets, the majority of cyclists I see are still riding on the sidewalk, so much for the "build it and they will come" theory.

despite your observations, bike lanes increase bike modal share and reduce sidewalk riding.

despite your observations, bike lanes increase bike modal share and reduce sidewalk riding.

You got any proof for that very broad generalization?

What is true is that bike facilities tend to be built in places where bike usage is popular and growing. But correlation is not causation.

Any proof for causation?

accident mitigation is not the sole purpose of bikelanes; there are myriad other positive effects that support bike lanes


You're backing away from your earlier statement that bike lanes have been "proven" to enhance safety.




Here are some excerpts from a 2007 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM report "GUIDE TO REDUCING ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BICYCLISTS...


"...Bicycle lanes are often appropiate when most bicyclists on the route are less experienced"

"Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collissions. Evidence also shows that riding with traffic reduces bicyclists' chances of collission with a motor vehicle. Locations with bike lanes have lower rates of wrong-way bicycling"

"Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent seperation between bicyclists and motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver movements, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior, and enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists."



Your quotes just prove my point that 30+ years of attempting to prove that bike lanes improve safety have failed. Let's take them one at a time:

"Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collissions. " Well, that's the very definition of a qualified statement. "Bicycle lanes may provide protection?" Even I can't deny that, because I can't prove they don't. But that certainly is a long stretch from proving that they do.

"Evidence also shows that riding with traffic reduces bicyclists' chances of collission with a motor vehicle. Locations with bike lanes have lower rates of wrong-way bicycling." Still no proof that bike lanes improve safety, perhaps an inference that they increase behavior associated with safety.

""Bike lanes have been found to provide more consistent seperation between bicyclists and motorists than shared travel lanes. The presence of the bike lane stripe has also been shown from research to result in fewer erratic motor vehicle driver movements, more predictable bicyclist riding behavior ..." Again, no proof of anything having to do with safety.

"...enhanced comfort levels for both motorists and bicyclists." Bingo! That's what bike lanes are all about. Enhanced comfort levels -- particularly for motorists. Many motorists just don't like sharing the road with cyclists.

I still claim the elephant in the room is speed differential. In low-speed traffic, which I define as roads with posted speed limits of no more than 25mph / 40kph, I favor full integration of bicyclists into the main traffic flow -- call me VC in this context. On high-speed roads, which I define as those with posted speed limits of at least 40mph / 65kph, I strongly favor lateral separation, which can be a marked bike lane, a well-maintained shoulder, or simply a wide curb lane. There is a 30-35mph / 50-60kph hazy transition zone in between, in which well-designed bicycle facilities can help calm traffic, and which have to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

There are other specific contexts in which I favor bike lanes, such as those between through-only and right-only lanes, because they tell motorists where to expect bicyclists to be, and they remind timid or clueless bicyclists not to set themselves up for a right hook.

While I really tend to agree with your thoughts and statements here... there is an even higher speed issue at hand. The 55 and 65MPH arterial. A 6 or 8 inch line does not provide enough separation between very high speed motor traffic traveling on said arterials... even the wind from a passing motorist (especially large SUVs) on such roads can wobble a cyclist.

The irony is that the same speeds on these arterials, is present on limited access roads known as interstate freeways... which have wide 10 foot shoulders that are a far cry better then that of the typical 5 foot bike lane on such an arterial. I have ridden on interstate freeway shoulders and personally testify that the comfort level is far better on the interstate than riding in a 5 foot bike lane on a 55-65MPH arterial.

I realize that few states have such high speed arterials, but these are indeed becoming a standard here in California... and are used to link housing tracts with commercial areas... where cyclists may typically want to go, once leaving their suburbs.

You got any proof for that very broad generalization?

What is true is that bike facilities tend to be built in places where bike usage is popular and growing. But correlation is not causation.

Any proof for causation?


Yes, the Hunter study showed roads without bike lanes had over five times as many sidewalk cyclists than bike laned roads at the numerous intersections he studied.

and please. Evidence is overwhelming that building bike infrastructure increases modal share of bikes. seen in repeated locales acround the world. the paltry argument 'causation doesn't imply correlation' is yet another tired talking point, often used in forensics and debate, but turns a blind eye to the positive effects infrastructure has on bike riding.

Bike riding share was declining in Denmark after WWII, the addition of bike infrastructure has nearly tripled modal share in Copenhagen in the lasty thirty years. what reversed the decline? bike infrastructure. Repeated turns in declining bike share seen in Germany, also, many american cities.

Simply taking a look at american accomodated cities versus poorly unaccomodated ones, the cities with vigorous bike infrastucture programs CONSISTENTLY show higher modal share- to claim bike riders 'just increased', magically somehow, to 12 times the nation average in some cities is an ignorant and arrogant denial of reality. I'd link to a recent Oregon study showing the positive effects bike infrastrucure has there, but suspect it wouldn't sink in past the vigorous anti-infrastructuralist stance of some of the posters.

Despite worthless attempts to deny portlands bike infrastructure has anything to do with the numbers, portlands bike infrastructre has increased numbers of bicyclists there. It's on the ground reality, seen in dozens, hundreds of cities around the world: bike infrastructure increases bike modal share.

ALL off topic, however. why did i have to dredge up statistics and quotes from federal and cross agency reports to rebutt internet talking heads with an axe to grind against the accomodationalist model?


what is this thread about? OP complaining about bike lanes just 5 feet wide on higher speed arterial roads? Bike lanes aren't limited to five feet, AASHTO repeatedly instructs traffic engineers to consider wider lanes for bikes if bike use and/or road speeds are high. LOBBY the community to improve road conditions for bicyclists- and that doesn't mean 'rip out the bike lane' :roflmao:

Yes, the Hunter study showed roads without bike lanes had over five times as many sidewalk cyclists than bike laned roads at the numerous intersections he studied.

and please. Evidence is overwhelming that building bike infrastructure increases modal share of bikes. seen in repeated locales acround the world. the paltry argument 'causation doesn't imply correlation' is yet another tired talking point, often used in forensics and debate, but turns a blind eye to the positive effects infrastructure has on bike riding.

Bike riding share was declining in Denmark after WWII, the addition of bike infrastructure has nearly tripled modal share in Copenhagen in the lasty thirty years. what reversed the decline? bike infrastructure. Repeated turns in declining bike share seen in Germany, also, many american cities.

Simply taking a look at american accomodated cities versus poorly unaccomodated ones, the cities with vigorous bike infrastucture programs CONSISTENTLY show higher modal share- to claim bike riders 'just increased', magically somehow, to 12 times the nation average in some cities is an ignorant and arrogant denial of reality. I'd link to a recent Oregon study showing the positive effects bike infrastrucure has there, but suspect it wouldn't sink in past the vigorous anti-infrastructuralist stance of some of the posters.

Despite worthless attempts to deny portlands bike infrastructure has anything to do with the numbers, portlands bike infrastructre has increased numbers of bicyclists there. It's on the ground reality, seen in dozens, hundreds of cities around the world: bike infrastructure increases bike modal share.

ALL off topic, however. why did i have to dredge up statistics and quotes from federal and cross agency reports to rebutt internet talking heads with an axe to grind against the accomodationalist model?


what is this thread about? OP complaining about bike lanes just 5 feet wide on higher speed arterial roads? Bike lanes aren't limited to five feet, AASHTO repeatedly instructs traffic engineers to consider wider lanes for bikes if bike use and/or road speeds are high. LOBBY the community to improve road conditions for bicyclists- and that doesn't mean 'rip out the bike lane' :roflmao:

I think that the census information shared in this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=421027 pretty much also shows that cities with bike infrastructure tend to have more riders... as for the actual "causation" it could be debatable, but "something" certainly encourages cycling in those cities.

Evidence is overwhelming that building bike infrastructure increases modal share of bikes.


Then it should be easy for you to provide some of that evidence instead of just waving your arms and repeating it is so.

kinda off topic there DCcommuter, dontchyathink? When does reality set in anyway?

the stats are readily available. you can look them up yourself. I think its off topic and disruptive to the forum (!!!) to continue to discuss bike lane effects on rider share in a thread about improvements to bikelanes the OP considers subpar.

I also find 'debating' the roundness of the earth with a member of the flat earth society is pointless as well.


There are ways he can work within his community to improve roadway accomodations and that doesn't mean 'rip out the five foot bike lane on the arterial route' the OP is describing.

AASHTO repeatedly instructs traffic engineers to place wider bike lanes if either bike use and/or motorist speeds are high.

got any good advice for the OP, DCcommuter??? ;)