Advocacy & Safety - Why are bike lanes often put right next to parked cars?

This seems like the *least* safe place to ride, since you can get doored very easily. See this video for an example (and the advice that these bike lanes should be avoided): http://www.cyclistview.com/innertube/lanecontrolslo.htm

Because the guys that design roads don't ride bikes.

Really.

The document that is used as a guideline for street markings tells civil engineers where to put bike lanes. The laws in nearly every state tell motorists that they are responsible for what happens when they open car doors... so civil engineers figure that bike lanes can be placed close to parked cars as motorists are "responsible citizens."

The reality is that motorists don't look, door zone bike lanes are dangerous for cyclists, and experienced cyclists know this. But apparently civil engineers are not experienced cyclists.

Because the guys that design roads don't ride bikes.

Exactly. A cyclist would never design the paths we have around here, they have a stop sign every 100 feet. Some of the newer ones seem to have some cyclist input.

Although the situation the OP describes has never been done here. As a matter of fact, they have wiped out hundreds of parking spaces in the last year.

Putting a bike path in the door zone is way too common, and any idiot should be able to tell it's not going to work.

Warrington Cycle campaign cycling facility of the month

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

I agree. Around where I live there aren't a whole lot of them, but in the city there are. I try to avoid them when ever possible. But there are a few streets that I have to ride on with bike lanes. These streets are quite busy during the daytime with car doors constantly swinging open. It would be dangerous and downright stupid of me to be riding in the bike lane. I just move out further into the lane, sometimes pissing off motorists, but it's better than being dead.

It's unfortunate, especially for us, but it's pretty much the only option.

The bike lane has to go either on the far right or the far left of the flow of traffic. I don't think anyone would want it to be in between lanes. On the far left would actually be great in some ways, e.g. greater separation between cars moving opposite directions, theoretically less traffic next to you (assuming drivers follow the "stay to the right unless passing" rule), but would require repainting everything and would make it so that the faster traffic is right beside the cyclist. Also, oncoming cyclists would pass right beside you, and we all know that there are a lot of wobbly riders out there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like them being in the door zone, but it's probably the best place. Personally, I think that they should do away with parallel-style on-street parking in areas with a lot of bikes because of this problem. Slanted parking would work much better in terms of safety (though not in terms of efficient usage of space), with no door zone and a good indication of danger: reverse lights. As a bonus, the little triangles at the ends of slanted-parking zones are a good place for motorcycle and/or bicycle parking. This, of course, assumes that the roadway is wide enough to begin with.

I just whiteline it or take the lane.

Try asking car drivers with limited parking to give up their parking spaces for a bike lane, it won't happen very often. The politicians (planning, zoning, transportation board members and such) who have to approve such changes just will not accept upsetting large and frequently vocal portions of the voting public.
Joe "the shopkeeper" says that if he loses the only parking in front of his store then nobody will shop there. He will say that each space in front of his store is work $100K of business each year. He won't say that his car is always parked in front of the store.

It's unfortunate, especially for us, but it's pretty much the only option.

The bike lane has to go either on the far right or the far left of the flow of traffic. I don't think anyone would want it to be in between lanes. On the far left would actually be great in some ways, e.g. greater separation between cars moving opposite directions, theoretically less traffic next to you (assuming drivers follow the "stay to the right unless passing" rule), but would require repainting everything and would make it so that the faster traffic is right beside the cyclist. Also, oncoming cyclists would pass right beside you, and we all know that there are a lot of wobbly riders out there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like them being in the door zone, but it's probably the best place. Personally, I think that they should do away with parallel-style on-street parking in areas with a lot of bikes because of this problem. Slanted parking would work much better in terms of safety (though not in terms of efficient usage of space), with no door zone and a good indication of danger: reverse lights. As a bonus, the little triangles at the ends of slanted-parking zones are a good place for motorcycle and/or bicycle parking. This, of course, assumes that the roadway is wide enough to begin with.

I just whiteline it or take the lane.


As far as I'm concerned, door zone bike lanes are great as a buffer zone for motorists exiting their cars, but worthless when it comes to their original intention as a lane for bicyclists. I don't agree that it's the best place to be, I've white lined it, I've also taken the lane many a time to avoid possible and actual door openings, but while some motorists may understand my motive, many others do not. Unless it's an obvious obstruction of the bike lane, it seems that many motorists become enraged when I happen to ride on the edge or just outside of a bike lane. Crossing that white line seems almost like waving a red cape at a bullfight.

This seems like the *least* safe place to ride, since you can get doored very easily. See this video for an example (and the advice that these bike lanes should be avoided): http://www.cyclistview.com/innertube/lanecontrolslo.htm

Because bike facilities are an afterthought and the city just wants to advertise xx miles of bike lanes.

Why are bike lanes often put right next to parked cars?

Because a bike lane's purpose is to make motoring more convenient for motorists rather than cyclists.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like them being in the door zone, but it's probably the best place. Personally, I think that they should do away with parallel-style on-street parking in areas with a lot of bikes because of this problem. Slanted parking would work much better in terms of safety (though not in terms of efficient usage of space), with no door zone and a good indication of danger: reverse lights. As a bonus, the little triangles at the ends of slanted-parking zones are a good place for motorcycle and/or bicycle parking. This, of course, assumes that the roadway is wide enough to begin with.


I dunno... the angles parking seems to have it's own problems of the driver's totally being unable to see you around the other parked cars as they leave. And from that position the only way they can even see cars oncoming is to roll the car out by a foot or two; right into where the bike lane is.
Scary having to swerve out into traffic when one does this right in front of you and you were riding just in front of a car...

I dunno... the angles parking seems to have it's own problems of the driver's totally being unable to see you around the other parked cars as they leave. And from that position the only way they can even see cars oncoming is to roll the car out by a foot or two; right into where the bike lane is.
Scary having to swerve out into traffic when one does this right in front of you and you were riding just in front of a car...

True indeed, they do present that problem. I just personally prefer seeing back-up lights to having no warning from a door. In the end though, it's probably six to one, half-dozen to the other when you look at preferences of all cyclists.

Because bike facilities are an afterthought and the city just wants to advertise xx miles of bike lanes.

+1

To add bike lanes that aren't in the door zone, cities would have to either eliminate parking on one side of the street or widen the streets. No one wants to give up parking, and widening streets is expensive and time consuming at a minimum and impossible in many cases. Ironically, it's that very shortage of parking and narrow, congested streets that motivate people to bike instead. Novice cyclists often don't realize the door zone is so dangerous, and would rather ride 2 feet from a parked car than 2 feet from a moving vehicle. If the recent increase in bike commuters is more than just a passing fad and cities commit to more "afterthought" bike lanes to appease them, bike-lane associated accidents and deaths will sadly rise.

For my favorite perspective on Cambridge, Mass's mess of door zone lanes, see this article (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02379848.htm). An excerpt:
"Rather than the universal symbol for bicycle lanes (a mini bike in a circle stenciled to the pavement), the cyclist continues, "Maybe a skull-and-crossbones would be more appropriate."

Because bike facilities are an afterthought and the city just wants to advertise xx miles of bike lanes.

Because a bike lane's purpose is to make motoring more convenient for motorists rather than cyclists.Plus bike lane advocates refuse to fight against them. After all, even the worst bike lane shows that bikes belong.:bang:

There is a simple way to enhance the safety of every street with angled parking: restripe it for back-in or "reverse" angle parking. This is much better for everyone.

Narrow door-zone bike lanes are a fundamental misapplication of traffic engineering practice. I deal with the wider (1.5 m / 5 ft or more) ones by riding near the left margin. (Don't get me started on bike lanes to the right of right-turn-permitted or right-turn-only lanes!)

Plus bike lane advocates refuse to fight against them. After all, even the worst bike lane shows that bikes belong.:bang:

No, cycling advocates do fight against such bike lanes. Bad bike lanes are bad, period. However making a claim that "all bike lanes now and in the future are bad" is a bit Machiavellian too. (this indeed was a claim made many times here by a certain vehicular cycling advocate)

The biggest problem that cycling advocates fight is a combination of standards that allow such BL to be built, and politicians that refuse to actually accept cycling, while commanding photo ops for stupid designs.

I personally have fought (and won) against bad bike lanes and I happen to know John E has too.

The biggest problem that cycling advocates fight is a combination of standards that allow such BL to be built, and politicians that refuse to actually accept cycling, while commanding photo ops for stupid designs.


Don't forget having fellow cyclists who use bad bike lanes as justifications to fight against all bike lanes.

No, cycling advocates do fight against such bike lanes. Bad bike lanes are bad, period. However making a claim that "all bike lanes now and in the future are bad" is a bit Machiavellian too. (this indeed was a claim made many times here by a certain vehicular cycling advocate)

The biggest problem that cycling advocates fight is a combination of standards that allow such BL to be built, and politicians that refuse to actually accept cycling, while commanding photo ops for stupid designs.

I personally have fought (and won) against bad bike lanes and I happen to know John E has too.We are talking door zone bike lanes in this thread. Are you somehow trying to imply some door zone bike lanes are OK?

What bad bike lane will Bek fight against?

We are talking door zone bike lanes in this thread. Are you somehow trying to imply some door zone bike lanes are OK?

What bad bike lane will Bek fight against?

Never met a door zone bike lane I liked. My solution was to fight for no parking in the area... which had a precedent in that most of the route was already no parking.

I have no idea what bike lanes Bek objects to.

What bike lanes might YOU consider usable?

What bike lanes might YOU consider usable?


A narrow right lane IS a bike lane, and it is plenty usable!

Because they are designed by fools. Don't use them, and write to your county council to have them removed.

Never met a door zone bike lane I liked. My solution was to fight for no parking in the area... which had a precedent in that most of the route was already no parking.

I have no idea what bike lanes Bek objects to.

What bike lanes might YOU consider usable?Most of the VC group, including me, have repeated here on several occasions, including an entire thread that I am pretty sure you participated in; an acceptable bike lane (that we would not fight against):

6 foot wide, with few to no driveways, ends 100-200 yards before intersections (preferably with sharrows) and is swept on a regular basis

Back in the old days, we use to call these break down lanes. Then places like Boulder and Portland started painting funny little men in them and saying, see how bike friendly we are, we should get some type of award. And some fearful cyclist cheered and said, they really do love us.:love:

Most of the VC group, including me, have repeated here on several occasions, including an entire thread that I am pretty sure you participated in; an acceptable bike lane (that we would not fight against):

6 foot wide, with few to no driveways, ends 100-200 yards before intersections (preferably with sharrows) and is swept on a regular basis

Back in the old days, we use to call these break down lanes. Then places like Boulder and Portland started painting funny little men in them and saying, see how bike friendly we are, we should get some type of award. And some fearful cyclist cheered and said, they really do love us.:love:

Sounds good to me... hey if we get rid of the intersections then we are right on the verge of a limited access freeway. Hey, get rid of the cars and you have a bike freeway... just like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc&feature=related)

Sounds good to me... hey if we get rid of the intersections then we are right on the verge of a limited access freeway. Hey, get rid of the cars and you have a bike freeway... just like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc&feature=related)Yea, a bike freeway with pedestrians, dogs and talkers blocking the freeway. I think they call those MUPs. And they still have intersections. Sort of OK if you like limiting your speed to 10 mph.

Oops, I forgot that you have already advocated low speeds for cyclist.

Yea, a bike freeway with pedestrians, dogs and talkers blocking the freeway. I think they call those MUPs. And they still have intersections. Sort of OK if you like limiting your speed to 10 mph.

Oops, I forgot that you have already advocated low speeds for cyclist.

No, I've just said that achieving top speed all the time is just not practical.

And for what it's worth, I typically ride 20MPH average speed on my local bike highway/MUP. On the local streets I average about 14MPH, due to the stops and need to "trust, but verify" the intentions of motorists.

Why put cycle lanes next to parked cars? This shows how an enlightened council can help:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

I also have a general problem with BLs next to parked cars. Part of the issue may be that yes, as another poster noted, people like to have parking available in front of, or at least near wherever they're going.

Now, I'm sure we all agree that building BLs in the door zone is a bad thing. I remember reading about a relatively new innovation to deal with the problem where some L or T shaped dabs of paint are used to mark each parallel parking space's left edge, and the cars are supposed to be within the space's left edge before being considered "parked." An additional 2-3 feet of space then separates that edge from the BL's right edge (often unmarked though) and the BL itself is 5-6 ft wide. So we're dealing with a combined 12-14 ft of space.

While far from ideal, it is a compromise that complete streets people are pushing. I am thinking how parallel parking and BLs may paradoxically not need to exist together because (1) BLs are best when dealing with high-speed, high-traffic arterials, and (2) parallel parking is ill suited for such roads anyway. In the distant future, perhaps some reconfiguirng of the buildings lining the streets can occur where parking (parallel or otherwise) is shifted to the building sides and the less busy side streets, and BLs are built in no parking zones.

Why are bike lanes often put right next to parked cars?

So the general public can get rid of more cyclists, quicker.

-Kurt

Bike lanes are a solution to a roadway engineering problem. In order to determine if the solution is successful, one needs to define the engineering problem.

Is it "create a safe haven on the roadway for cyclists"?

Or is it "keep cyclists out of the way of motorists"?

A simple legal solution is to require cyclists to leave a 1 meter / 3 foot margin when passing parked cars and to publicize this to John Q. Motorist, so that everyone' expectations are calibrated appropriately. I always enjoy passing a parked car whose door is open, so that overtaking motorists see exactly why I refuse to cower against the parked cars when cycling.

I encounter conventional head-in diagonal parking frequently on Coast Highway 101 through my local central business district. My solution is to take the center of the too-narrow-to-share 30mph right lane. I get honked at occasionally, but most motorists seem to understand my situation. When Encinitas was designing its Highway 101 streetscape, which subsequently won all sorts of national awards, I argued vociferously against one alternative plan which would have replaced the diagonal parking with parallel parking and door zone bike lanes. We kept four lanes and head-in diagonal parking, and my only regret is that we didn't convert to back-in diagonal parking during the reconstruction and restriping, but there are too many prejudices against it, even among folks who should know better.

There's not much to add here. The damn things are a compromise at best.
Simple observations based on first-hand experience to add fuel to the fire:
1) The obvious threat of door prizes.
2) Door prize odds being increased when a carnosaur decides to "pinch" into the BL.
3) In a a parallel parking situation: As with door prizes; You, the lucky cyclist, now have an added chance of also winning a nose-of-car-pulling OUT prize!!
I have personal experience on this one: Damn carnosaurs may check...or not; then pull-out quickly to get into traffic. Thinking either that they can beat a bike before it reaches them; or they have the right of way (the assumption of superiority?); or they just don't check for a bike coming up the BL.
- I have had more than a handful of near-misses, and one light contact because of this BS.
4) (Probably pisses me off the most) Carnosaurs using the BL as a load/unload, or double-park lane. Completely blocking the BL for cyclists.
Up here they have also started painting white "stick cyclists" at about 100 foot intervals on selected busy streets (with no white line border) in the area that the type of BL markings we are talking about should be.
These are the biggest joke so far: I don't know about other cities, or observations; but at night, and in any case these lanes are just to poorly marked to be of any use. -They do little to remind carnosaurs that cyclists use that area as well...

Why are bike lanes often put right next to parked cars?

Because it's better than putting them in front of moving cars? :eek: :D

i think the best designs are buffered bikelanes or bike lanes without parking alongside.

and these are easy to implement but tough to find the political will to do so.

From the city cycling planner (a cyclist) defending door zone bike lanes:
"[previously the road w/no on street parking] was a 6 lane arterial, signed at 40-45 mph, with no dedicated bicycle facilities and missing pieces of sidewalks, and street crossing opportunities only every mile or half mile. Today it is a four lane arterial, signed at 35 mph, with [door zone] bicycle lanes, completed sidewalks with landscaping and several more signalized crossing opportunities. The street is clearly more balanced for all transportation modes. We have tracked accident data and there has not been a significant issue of “dooring”. What seems to happen is that because of all the activity on the street (bikes, pedestrians, bus traffic, parking cars etc..) all travelers have to pay closer attention. I certainly feel safer riding on [the new door zone design] today than I did several years ago when it felt more like [a road w/no on street parking and narrow outside lane] feels today."

From the city cycling planner (a cyclist) defending door zone bike lanes:
"[previously the road w/no on street parking] was a 6 lane arterial, signed at 40-45 mph, with no dedicated bicycle facilities and missing pieces of sidewalks, and street crossing opportunities only every mile or half mile. Today it is a four lane arterial, signed at 35 mph, with [door zone] bicycle lanes, completed sidewalks with landscaping and several more signalized crossing opportunities. The street is clearly more balanced for all transportation modes. We have tracked accident data and there has not been a significant issue of “dooring”. What seems to happen is that because of all the activity on the street (bikes, pedestrians, bus traffic, parking cars etc..) all travelers have to pay closer attention. I certainly feel safer riding on [the new door zone design] today than I did several years ago when it felt more like [a road w/no on street parking and narrow outside lane] feels today."

Interesting. It's useful to get a perspective from the other side. Considering how wide the street was, would it have been feasible to have a separated parking "lot" on only one side of the street, with no parking elsewhere and the BLs? Maybe there'd be less landscaping, but IMO that's OK. Since the speed limit was reduced to 35, sharrows can be considered an alternative too. I know that de facto car drivers pull into the adjacent lane and pass when traffic is light. With heavier traffic, they tend to want to squeeze by.

From the city cycling planner (a cyclist) defending door zone bike lanes:
"[previously the road w/no on street parking] was a 6 lane arterial, signed at 40-45 mph, with no dedicated bicycle facilities and missing pieces of sidewalks, and street crossing opportunities only every mile or half mile. Today it is a four lane arterial, signed at 35 mph, with [door zone] bicycle lanes, completed sidewalks with landscaping and several more signalized crossing opportunities. The street is clearly more balanced for all transportation modes. We have tracked accident data and there has not been a significant issue of “dooring”. What seems to happen is that because of all the activity on the street (bikes, pedestrians, bus traffic, parking cars etc..) all travelers have to pay closer attention. I certainly feel safer riding on [the new door zone design] today than I did several years ago when it felt more like [a road w/no on street parking and narrow outside lane] feels today."

So all in all did they also add bicycle parking?

They ensured that motorists would have plenty of parking and even potentially are willing to sacrifice cyclists to preserve that auto parking... but have they added any parking for cyclists... which in the long term would serve to encourage cycling and the use of those precious bike lanes.

From the city cycling planner (a cyclist) defending door zone bike lanes:
"[previously the road w/no on street parking] was a 6 lane arterial, signed at 40-45 mph, with no dedicated bicycle facilities and missing pieces of sidewalks, and street crossing opportunities only every mile or half mile. Today it is a four lane arterial, signed at 35 mph, with [door zone] bicycle lanes, (snip) I certainly feel safer riding on [the new door zone design] today than I did several years ago when it felt more like [a road w/no on street parking and a narrow outside lane] feels today."

AGGGGHHHH! They changed the road from one with a ten foot or more wide bike lane and replaced it with one that has a six (?) foot door zone bike lane? (Narrow right lanes are bike lanes that cars can use when a bicycle is not present.)

This city planner should be sued for producing an attractive public nuisance!

sounds like the 'door zone' issue is overblown, way overblown, in noisebeams' hysterics.


The street is clearly more balanced for all transportation modes. We have tracked accident data and there has not been a significant issue of “dooring”.

this issue is artifically inflated, overblown by bike infrastructure obstructionists like noisebeam and chipseal.

can you explain how posting a quote with no comment or opinion is 'hysterics'
and you are flat out wrong calling me a 'intrastructure obstructionist'

i suggest you correct both lies

you added 'door zone' which i will accurately call hysterically inflating a non-issue.


I read you as an obstructionist as your complaints about this streetscape you brought up in this thread and your oft repeated bikelane 'criteria' are so obsessive you want bikelanes to end 100-200 feet (yards?) from even a residential driveway :eek:

sorry charlie but my characterizations ring true.

sounds like the 'door zone' issue is overblown, way overblown, in noisebeams' hysterics.
this issue is artifically inflated, overblown by bike infrastructure obstructionists like noisebeam and chipseal.

The 'balanced' comment you quoted is just an opinion. An opinion of someone who is paid to increase the miles of bike lanes to help the city gain 'bicycle friendly' awards, not paid to reduce cyclist accident rate.

The data is limited, only over a few months collected at the time the comment was made. And what does 'significant' mean anyway? I interpret it to mean at least one dooring (otherwise why would they not say 'zero') At least one dooring on a few miles of bike lane in a few months is one too many.

you added 'door zone' which i call hysterically inflating a non-issue.

I added door zone to make it clear that 100% of the added lanes were in the door zone as that is the very subject of this thread.

AGGGGHHHH! They changed the road from one with ten foot more wide bike lane and replaced it with one that has a six (?) foot door zone bike lane? (Narrow right lanes are bike lanes that cars can use when a bicycle is not present.)

This city planner should be sued for producing an attractive public nuisance!

The bike lanes added adjacent to parked cars (Bek, is that better than 'door zone') are 4' wide.

sounds like a non issue from the city's tracking of the streetscape. "The street is clearly more balanced for all transportation modes. We have tracked accident data and there has not been a significant issue of “dooring”.

i think, al, that you've got some hysteric obsession against bike lanes. sounds like the street got calmed and more balanced for all transportation modes without an increase in 'doorings' from the bikelane. maybe the cyclists in your city all ride vehikular like and know how to ride outside of the doorzone when ajacent to parked cars regardless of the painted stripe.

I think you should be proud, al.

Besides, those bikelanes are decreasing sidewalk cycling as we chat!

I think all in all the biggest improvement to the road, in the quote that noisebeam supplied, is the fact that they lowered the darn speed limit.

Now some might see that as an impediment to driving...

I see it as a dedication to human scale.

I think all in all the biggest improvement to the road, in the quote that noisebeam supplied, is the fact that they lowered the darn speed limit.


Exactly and this was my comment at the time to the planners.

(fyi to Bek, sidewalk riding is illegal in this area and has always been strictly enforced being the main drag thru a college)

The original reason on street parking was added was at the request of business owners. It didn't start as a cycling focused project, the bike lanes were put in later in the design planning.

"Bike infrastructure obstructionist". I like the sound of that!

i suspect the fears of the door zone bike lane are hyped and inflated; without significant increases in doorings in communities with these 'dreaded door zone' bike lanes, I predict these types of bikelanes actually make cycling safer and actually reduce doorings, for the reason quoted by noisebeam... the city bike planner when he said "What seems to happen is that because of all the activity on the street (bikes, pedestrians, bus traffic, parking cars etc..) all travelers have to pay closer attention..

locally here in seattle, i'd suggest the statistics support dooring accidents per year stayed flat on streets that have had bikelanes installed - while ridership keeps increasing along these cooridors.

Do more doorings happen per rider miles on unaccommodated streets or on bikelaned streets? I'd bet good money on the former.

maybe noisebeams bikelanes could get better buffered, I don't know. probably. bike lanes could get improved over much f this country, a couple of feet wider, more thoughtful intersection dynamics, but the planers are working on it.

the time is now to reallocate streetscapes to humanscale and reduce the autocentricity seen choking this country everywhere you look. take a few feet more away from the cars. NYC has taken 40 FOOTBALL FIELDS of street away from cars for greenspace in the last year alone. that does not include the bikelanes popping up all over Manhattan.

40 football fields worth of street not for cars anymore. and the people are eating it up. you see how times square is changing?

but the Vehikular forestorites are lamenting this over at chainguard. something about the supramacy of the automovbile...

Just how was the rate of dooring achieved? From my own experience most people don't run to the cops every time they get doored, I know I didn't and did this also count near doorings? As I and many of us here on the forums have many tales of almost getting hit. I will oppose any bike lane in my city, I want the lane and I feel it's safer to slow traffic down instead of allowing a few inches of paint to separate me from speeding cars on one side and dooring on the other.

John Allen has a page on this. If you follow the link at the bottom of the page to the next in sequence, there is an informal discussion with a Austin, TX advocate on the topic.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/dooring.htm