Advocacy & Safety - Spot the obvious hazard

:notamused:

Someone needs to actually make urban planners use the crap they "design".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuW9YCRntQ

That cyclist needs to also learn to give way to pedestrians.

I have always found that ironic... how cyclists want motorists to give them room, yet the same cyclist cannot seem to give room to pedestrians.

And as far as the facility... it rather sucked. Sort of a street within the street. If that is how the planners want to do it, there should be a separate light and controls for that street within a street.

Why on earth would you have a bike path in the middle of a big city? The traffic on that road is definately going at a bike friendly speed. I see it is one way going the way he doesn't want to go, he should just move one street over and ride on the street.
I was in Montreal in 1988, it was a GREAT biking city, I hope that the whole city hasn't degraded to thispoint over the entire city.

Why on earth would you have a bike path in the middle of a big city? The traffic on that road is definately going at a bike friendly speed. I see it is one way going the way he doesn't want to go, he should just move one street over and ride on the street.
I was in Montreal in 1988, it was a GREAT biking city, I hope that the whole city hasn't degraded to thispoint over the entire city.

Because it is controlled by the French, who love to do everything backwards. :lol:

One obvious hazard is the guy riding the bike..."Hey, hey look please!" :rolleyes:

Segregating cyclists into a ghetto like that is brutal. I'd find a real street without the internment camp and cycle there.

Okay look, they're trying to put in facilities to encourage the cyclists. It looked like there was some fair bit of accommodation there, and the issue ends up being the rather unfortunate lane positioning...

So where would YOU put the damned bikeway? Defend your decision please. It has to be within the constraint of a visible facility that is separated from traffic, as that's what is needed to get people to use it to begin with. (Bike facilities being the 'gateway drug' for more vehicular cycling) It has to accommodate some parking and suchlike.

So where would YOU put the damned bikeway? Defend your decision please. It has to be within the constraint of a visible facility that is separated from traffic, as that's what is needed to get people to use it to begin with. (Bike facilities being the 'gateway drug' for more vehicular cycling) It has to accommodate some parking and suchlike.

There is no need for a bikeway at all in that city.

Somehow I started riding without a visible facility separated from traffic. So can other people.

I loved the hysterical, typical American nerdy bike commentary. Counting the seconds on his wristwatch as he stops at a traffic light, condemning pedestrians and detours. Remarkable to get a sense of how entitled we can sometimes be. As for me, I'd probably find that bike path relatively satisfactory and a decent way to get around. And if I didn't like it I'd take to the streets.

My guess is the cyclist was predisposed to hate bikeways and rode it with the purpose of proving a point. It's fun to listen as he struggles to nitpick his way along, shouting at pedestrians who obviously could care less and that he could have just easily slowed down for and circumvented all the while the cyclist in front of him, who eventually takes his photo, rides along quite content to use the same path.

It's a busy city. I could take a walk on a sidewalk in a busy city and make a litany of complaints about it- but thankfully I have better things to do when I visit a city.:rolleyes:

The cyclist in the video should have waited for the pedestrians to cross his path.
Or just snaked around behind them.

Well that's nine and a half minutes I'll never get back.

The only obvious hazard I noticed was talking to his camera.

OK, now that we all agree that the dimwit with the camera was one hazard...I'll respond to the OP: Cars making left turns across the bikeway. The car lanes are one-way, while the bike lane is bi-directional, so when traveling on a bike against car traffic, one might see a left turner and avoid it, but if you're traveling in the same direction as the cars, you have a good chance of getting hit by left turning cars, if you are not looking for them...despite the fact that you allegedly have ROW with the green light. There was at least one good example of a near miss in the video.

There is no good reason to have a bikeway on that street...other than they are attempting to treat bikes as faster moving peds.

Chipcom, Maddyfish, Genec and the others that have taken the time to reply - thanks.

Yes, the cyclist could be both more considerate and patient.

No, there's no good reason for a 2 way bike lane there.

Made/makes me wonder what the heck they teach urban planners these days regarding non-motorised traffic.

OK, watched about a minute of that -- somebody's uncomfortable in a strange city, and is something of a d!ck about it.

Yeah, entitlement....

just an additional thought on this video.

I should record myself on a mountain bike ride with some of my MTB zealot friends. I'm so ingrained as a road rider I mumble to myself as I ride along jumping logs and rolling through streams with a similar kind of commentary. Like, "Who put that there?", "Why would anyone ride through this?" "Look out for that branch." "Why does the path go over that huge rock?" "This is effing dangerous- someone could get killed doing this!!".

All the while my friends gleefully and blissfully negotiate what I see as hazards and they see as fun.

Bottom line- bikes are adaptable machines, they serve a variety of environments very well. A flexible rider is comfortable almost anywhere. A lot of people love bike lanes and use them every day, safely and contentedly. If we are to promote cycling as a relatively safe activity it seems really odd to continually disparage bike lanes as loathsome dangerous places to ride when they can be ridden safely and effectively with awareness and intelligent adaptation to the existing conditions. Not that they can't be improved but give it a break this guy rode that bike lane like he was running a marathon on broken glass in bare feet. It really wasn't all that bad.

just an additional thought on this video.

I should record myself on a mountain bike ride with some of my MTB zealot friends. I'm so ingrained as a road rider I mumble to myself as I ride along jumping logs and rolling through streams with a similar kind of commentary. Like, "Who put that there?", "Why would anyone ride through this?" "Look out for that branch." "Why does the path go over that huge rock?" "This is effing dangerous- someone could get killed doing this!!".

Sorry Buzz...but you and I ain't never riding together...you yap too much!

Sorry Buzz...but you and I ain't never riding together...you yap too much!


:lol:

usually the guys I MTB with are either too far ahead of me to hear my complaints or I'm so out of breath I can barely speak above a whisper.

or you could ride with an Ipod :rolleyes:

don't rule me out, yet I might come rolling through Ohio looking to go for a ride.


:bike2:

Looks like a nice area of the city to me. I'd enjoy riding there.

OK, watched about a minute of that -- somebody's uncomfortable in a strange city, and is something of a d!ck about it.

Yeah, entitlement....

Nah there's more to it than that... the most interesting thing is the gaps in the street side "barrier" where motorists can cross the path... do the motorists really look both ways to ensure that cyclists are not arriving from either direction? I know that motorists here barely look one way to check for cyclists.

Then there is the issue of how you make a turn from the far right bike lane across how many auto lanes to access a similar path on the far side of a cross street... if you had watched the whole thing you would have seen that situation.

And then finally there is the fact that the path is quite narrow... probably suitable for the amount of bike traffic in the area, but don't go fast.

The odd thing is that the path only serves to "protect" cyclists when they are least in jeopardy... along areas with no cross traffic and no driveways/intersections... It is more of a psychological thing then a well working path. I wonder who benefits the most... motorists or cyclists?

You know, if that scenario wasn't obviously in Montreal, I'd be tempted to assume that the bike path was put in some US city. Not because it was necessary, but the local Member of the House managed to pull an 'entitlement' (I liked it better when we were honest and called it 'pork') to put it in . . . . . . . . . so he could burnish his green credentials at election time.

If we are to promote cycling as a relatively safe activity it seems really odd to continually disparage bike lanes as loathsome dangerous places to ride when they can be ridden safely and effectively with awareness and intelligent adaptation to the existing conditions.

That was a bike lane?! Where are the signs? Where are the stencils? Where are the design standards? Why are there pedestrians in it?

The only way that "bike lane" could be ridden safely is to keep the speed below 8 MPH and stop at all intersections to look 360 degrees before proceeding. If you want to ride that way, fine, use it, but I'd be on the street in about a block.

I couldn't watch more than about two minutes of it. He lost all cred to me when he yelled at the pedestrian to watch out for him. No difference between that and the motorist who thinks you need to stay out of his way because he's driving a car and you're not. :notamused:

The odd thing is that the path only serves to "protect" cyclists when they are least in jeopardy... along areas with no cross traffic and no driveways/intersections... It is more of a psychological thing then a well working path. I wonder who benefits the most... motorists or cyclists?

Isn't that true of even "well-designed" bike lanes, given that most bike/car collisions happen at intersections?

This guy must love to hear himself talk. If he is quiet for 10 seconds, he is contemplating the next thing to complain about.

But I do love the asian woman he was following. After minutes of hearing him rant to himself, she asked to take his picture at a red light :lol:.

Are you allowed to just ride the same streets as the cars?
Or are cyclists segregated onto this Gordian knot?

Big problem:

1.) Peds and cyclists don't mix too well. It seems as if the cyclists are given little choice at times but to use the crosswalks as a "bike lane". Of course, he/she should have gotten off the bike and walked it across those intersections.

Should. Most cyclists won't, so all he/she was doing is typical.

2.) What is it with using those New Jersey barriers...with posts on top? I can see why drivers--and even peds--can't see the cyclists too well: The "dividers" are tall enough to HIDE the riders! There is also no ready means of escape/bypass should one or more barriers suddenly get moved by a motor vehicle running into them or another hazard appear, snow plowing must be impossible to do well (making the route dangerously slippery in winter)...and the cyclists can't see oncoming traffic either.

There is a good reason for the "painted lines" to mark bike lanes.

3.) As has been pointed out before, the "curb-side hook" ("right hook" here in the States) is inevitable even when the rider is continuing straight on. Because the barriers come too close to the intersection there is virtually no room to escape the danger, even if it's an emergency turn (too little room to manouever).

4.) Very narrow lane, especially since taking the (main) lane is essentially impossible, even in the intersections (since the rider must re-enter the walled-in lane). No manouvering room there.

5.) And what is it with putting portable street signs IN the bike lane at at least one intersection "exit"?? Especially when the traffic they apply to is coming from the opposite direction!

6.) Where they finally removed the NJ barriers...yes...that two-way setup. As a split diamond lane.
I suspect buses do use it at times, since there are curb cuts at frequent intervals as are used at bus stops. Must be really fun for a cyclist trapped between a concrete traffic island (too high to 'bunny hop' onto for most people, and the sidewalk (also too high a curb for most to leap) when the bus shows up. Fun for the bus driver to evade cyclists, too, in such a narrow space (NOT!)

7.) And, of course...the drivers and clueless "peds"--when the cyclist does have the right-of-way--get in the way. And where are the traffic cops? Seems they are nowhere to be seen.

8.) Oh, and let's add skateboarders, rollerbladers and motorized wheelchair users to the "mix"...:rolleyes:

9.) And the piece de resistance? The wide left turn to continue in the opposite direction! Right across traffic. In the direction that rider was going, that was the way to do it. But, for those going the other way in the two-way sidepath? Illogical and very dangerous since drivers DO NOT EXPECT those who should be traveling at curbside (in the curb lane) to have to make a wide turn across traffic lanes at an intersection just to get onto a cross street while remaining in that relative lane position once they do get there.

That was a bike lane?! Where are the signs? Where are the stencils? Where are the design standards? Why are there pedestrians in it?

The only way that "bike lane" could be ridden safely is to keep the speed below 8 MPH and stop at all intersections to look 360 degrees before proceeding. If you want to ride that way, fine, use it, but I'd be on the street in about a block.

I couldn't watch more than about two minutes of it. He lost all cred to me when he yelled at the pedestrian to watch out for him. No difference between that and the motorist who thinks you need to stay out of his way because he's driving a car and you're not. :notamused:

If it's a city I'm visiting and want a look around via bike I'd probably be content to ride that route even if it were at a rip roaring 8mph. If I were commuting every day- probably not.

I ride so many different kinds of places and for such a variety of purposes I'm less concerned about standards. I do prefer routes with fewer interactions with automobiles, if possible. But, naturally, it's not. For example on Monday of this week I rode 200 miles across 3 states on a road bike on back roads when possible but then with a share of urban streets and some busy highways and bridges. On Thursday I took my folder on the Harlem Line into NYC and rode x town on 43rd from Grand Central and down the bike path on the West Side to downtown. On my short x town trek in NYC I dodged 100 x's more pedestrians, cars, buses, bikes, pedicabs on a street without a bike lane than the rider in this video did. I have no idea of my overall average speed but 8-10 mph with stops would probably be pretty close. But that just goes with the territory. I'd like it changed and NYC is doing it's best to make some changes with more bike lanes and the West side path.

Once I got to the West Side bike path I averaged good speed and though I dodged a pedestrian or two it was a quieter, calmer, more efficient way to get through the city than on the street.

I appreciate the efforts cities are making to accommodate bikes. Years of building urban infrastructure around the automobile will be difficult to undo but any attempt, even a flawed one, is better than nothing IMO.

It's been years since I biked in Montreal. If I recall I hated the ride into the city on a weird provincial highway with 3 lanes (the center for passing from both directions!:eek:) and little or no shoulders. Once into the city, however, it seemed relatively manageable without any bike lanes- but it was so long ago I have no idea how "necessary" (or not) this bike lane is. Video may not translate how good or bad that bike "lane" is but the rider's commentary seemed to force the perspective to the negative.

I'd have to ride on it to truly pass any judgement of my own.