Vehicular Cycling (VC) - I grew up riding in bike lanes and paths in the Netherlands

I lived most of my teenage years in Limburg, the southern "tip" of the Netherlands, riding in bicycle lanes and paths. I was convinced that one needed a separate lane - that was just how it was done! The only streets without separate paths were neighborhood side streets.

I am now in Chattanooga, TN (home of the Pro Walk/Pro Bike Conference in 2010!) and was walking to work for a number of months (2 mile commute, by foot "only" ~40 minutes). I had been thinking about getting the old bicycle out and riding it to work - but, once again, I kept thinking "...if only there were bike lanes..." Well, one day I had an "epiphany", and realized that I could simply ride in the travel lanes!

So, since then, I've discovered "vehicular cycling", and wonder why this isn't more common throughout the United States? In the Netherlands "vehicular cycling" just isn't necessary, due to their VERY extensive bike lanes and paths, but the most important difference is fact that the motorists are simply bicycle riders behind the wheel of a motorcar.

As a transportation planning professional, I am shocked (SHOCKED!) that "vehicular cycling" is unknown, but the advocacy for bike lanes and paths is overwhelming. In reality, what better "bike lanes" do we have than our own city streets?

Indeed.

Basically, if you simply make the right lane just a little wider, there is plenty of room for bicycles on the roads, even if you don't mark them as bike lanes. I think as little as 3-5 feet extra is all that is needed.

Marking off a bicycle lane such that cars are prohibited from using it has a negative effect on cyclists in that without motor traffic in that area, debris tends to build up. When cars drive through debris it's scattered and the area is cleared. If there isn't a clear bike lane marked, cars will drive through the edge of the lane enough to clear the debris.

As a transporation planner, are you familiar with "sharrows"? They are basically shared-lane designators to alert cars that bikes can be expected to share that lane. They are starting to use them here and I think they are better than bike paths in many cases.

Also, if you haven't gone there yet, I suggest checking out cyburbia.org (http://www.cyburbia.org), the urban planning forum. I'm not an urban planner, but I kind of like lurking there from time to time.

As a transporation planner, are you familiar with "sharrows"?


Yes, I am now. Like I said, it is all rather shocking that I knew so little of bicycle transportation planning, other than "build bike lanes and paths". This was all I have been taught, that is, until I took it upon myself to contemplate riding my own bicycle in a city that is more or less "bicycle friendly" (i.e., a lot of places to park your bicycle, and racks on all of the buses), but with no real system of separate bicycle lanes.

I plan to make larger sharrows a part of the "toolbox" for planning for bicycle commuters. Currently, the few that I can think of here in the City are all rather small, on the "official" bicycle routes. The sharrows should be reminders to the motoring public that bicycles are on the street, in the travel lanes, and belong there.

Basically, if you simply make the right lane just a little wider, there is plenty of room for bicycles on the roads, even if you don't mark them as bike lanes. I think as little as 3-5 feet extra is all that is needed.
Oh, is that all it takes?:rolleyes: Any idea where that extra 3-5 feet is simply going to come from in dense urban areas?

Oh, is that all it takes?:rolleyes: Any idea where that extra 3-5 feet is simply going to come from in dense urban areas?

There is no need to make the lane wider. Any lane that can accommodate one motorcar can accommodate at least one or two bicycles.

In my years as a transportation planner, I have never even HEARD of a cyclist being run over by a motorcar driver directly from behind. Time and time again, I've read about right hooks and truck operators saying such things as "he came out of nowhere!" As a vulnerable cyclist, it makes NO SENSE to be off to the side, out of direct sight of a motorist. I want them to see me. These are basic traffic engineering concepts that I had learned at an early age in regards to motorized vehicles, and why they are seemingly NOT applied to non-motorized vehicles is a bit strange, to say the least.

When I say make the lane wider, I'm thinking in terms of making it wide enough to allow most motor vehicles to safetly pass a cyclist. Almost all lanes are already wide enough (i.e., if a car was stopped in the middle of the lane, would a cyclist have have enough room to get around him without going into the next lane? Of course.... look at lane splitters at red lights). It's just a matter of leaving enough room for cars to pass without scaring the bejeebus out of a cyclist.

Yes, in urban areas, space is at a premium. To get extra space out of existing lanes on a multilane road, one might make the other (non-shared) lanes a foot or two narrower. Also, in a dense downtown grid area, shared lanes might be routed every third or fourth block, preferably on streets that already see less car traffic. This is what they are doing in Fort Worth.

As for being off to the side versus taking the lane, I disagree that a cyclist should always take the lane. Why should one cyclist doing 15 mph slow up a whole lane of cars in a 45 mph zone? Just give me a little extra room and there are no problems with cars passing.

Why should one cyclist doing 15 mph slow up a whole lane of cars in a 45 mph zone?


Because 45 MPH is a MAXIMUM, not a minimum, nor even an "ideal" speed.

Should a cyclist hold up a line of cars? Of course not.

What should be his reaction?

My opinion: COMPLETELY yield the road (i.e., go to the sidewalk/shoulder and dismount the bicycle) to clear traffic.

...As a transportation planning professional, I am shocked (SHOCKED!) that "vehicular cycling" is unknown, but the advocacy for bike lanes and paths is overwhelming. In reality, what better "bike lanes" do we have than our own city streets?


As a cyclist who has been around bike advocacy since the early 70's I am shocked (SHOCKED!) that a transportation planning professional thinks that "vehicular cycling" is unknown. What rock did you just climb out from under? Had you been involved at all in transportation planning over the past 4 decades I don't see how you missed the fact that it has been dominated by vehicular cyclists like John Allen and John Forester- "bike experts" often to the detriment and in direct opposition to bicycle infrastructure in this country.

The United States, unlike the Netherlands, covers a vast and diverse topography and one size fits all solutions don't necessarily work every where. What is working in American cities like Portland and NYC is an introduction of infrastructure- it may not be for every town or city in the US but it's working there. And BTW I ride vehicularly with great regularity and think it has tremendous merit but the simplistic thinking expressed in phrases like "what better 'bike lanes' do we have than our own city streets?" just doesn't match up with any reality I've seen that makes such a blanket statement the least bit plausible.


In my years as a transportation planner, I have never even HEARD of a cyclist being run over by a motorcar driver directly from behind.

You might want to do a little research on that little misconception you seem to harboring there.

Buzzman, I had a detailed response but it got lost in outer space somewhere, so I'll boil it down to this:

A vehicular cyclist has 4 conflict points at an intersection and cyclist in a bicycle path has 5.

Four is safer than five.

I think a fair amount of american cycling actually IS 'vehicular cycling, Patrick.

US communities that seek to accommodate cyclists thru infrastructure enhancements do not conflict with vehicular cycling.

every community with a bike master plan officially recognizes on-street cycling.

riding on public streets is the foundation and will remain a backbone of american bicycling transportation policy.

you're in transportation planning, eh? you haven't been fired for gross incompetence yet?

Buzzman, I had a detailed response but it got lost in outer space somewhere, so I'll boil it down to this:

A vehicular cyclist has 4 conflict points at an intersection and cyclist in a bicycle path has 5.

Four is safer than five.


And I'll boil my response down to this:

I ride 8 miles of my 10.2 mile commute to work in downtown Boston on a bike path. In the 8 miles of bike path I cross 6 intersections. When I take the streets route I cross 88 intersections in the slightly under 9 mile trip.

Do the math: Street's Route- 352 "conflict points."

Bike Path Route- 30 "conflict points."

According to your "theory" 30 is more than 10 x's "safer" than 352. :rolleyes:


you're in transportation planning, eh? you haven't been fired for gross incompetence yet?


+1

you're in transportation planning, eh? you haven't been fired for gross incompetence yet?


No. Everywhere I have worked, there has been no real "planning" for bicycles, other than painting bicycle lanes, building MUPs, off-road trails, and installing bike racks. The consideration of bicycles actually being on the city streets has always been "taboo" - bicycles should be in/on their separate facilities has been the mantra. Granted, I haven't lived in the most "progressive" of places, but the most "progressive" of places never tout their excellent vehicular cycling planning, i.e. Portland, the Netherlands, etc.

And I'll boil my response down to this:

I ride 8 miles of my 10.2 mile commute to work in downtown Boston on a bike path. In the 8 miles of bike path I cross 6 intersections. When I take the streets route I cross 88 intersections in the slightly under 9 mile trip.

Do the math: Street's Route- 352 "conflict points."

Bike Path Route- 30 "conflict points."

According to your "theory" 30 is more than 10 x's "safer" than 352. :rolleyes:


Yes, that separate facility is safer than the street. However, not every route has it's own separate facility. This is my point.

However, not every route has it's own separate facility. This is my point.
Really? Well, I'll be danged. Thanks for the "point." Who wudda thunk it?

Really? Well, I'll be danged. Thanks for the "point." Who wudda thunk it?

Yes, in the beginning I noted that I grew up riding on separate facilities, but shied away from cycling in America because there were not separate facilities, until I realized that one could bicycle safely on city streets by using your bicycle as a vehicular.

Bike lanes and paths will remain marginal - not because they are unsafe (they may or not be, it all depends on how much thought and design has been put into them) - but because the vast, vast majority of the United States will not build them [safely].

Not everywhere is Portland, and not everywhere will BE Portland. Portland did not shape it's residents as much as its residents shaped it.

Because 45 MPH is a MAXIMUM, not a minimum, nor even an "ideal" speed.

Should a cyclist hold up a line of cars? Of course not.

What should be his reaction?

My opinion: COMPLETELY yield the road (i.e., go to the sidewalk/shoulder and dismount the bicycle) to clear traffic.

My opinion- provide a slightly wider right lane that gives plenty of room for cars to pass. Taking the lane doing 15 mph and stacking cars up behind you, simply because you can, is a terrible idea because it adds to congestion and pollution. Giving some ground and actually being courteous to drivers seems to work much better for me.

A friend I sometimes ride with is big on taking the lane. It seems to me all he does is piss off drivers. I don't want drivers pissed at me, I want them to think I'm being as accommodating as possible to them. Good manners can be infectious.

My opinion- provide a slightly wider right lane that gives plenty of room for cars to pass. Taking the lane doing 15 mph and stacking cars up behind you, simply because you can, is a terrible idea because it adds to congestion and pollution. Giving some ground and actually being courteous to drivers seems to work much better for me.

A friend I sometimes ride with is big on taking the lane. It seems to me all he does is piss off drivers. I don't want drivers pissed at me, I want them to think I'm being as accommodating as possible to them. Good manners can be infectious.

Yes, this is why yielding the lane is the best thing to do. Of course, if the lane or shoulder is wide enough to continue cycling safely, there may be no need to dismount. However, these wide lanes and shoulders are more rare than they are common. Just as a courteous motorcar operator will "pull over" to let the faster drivers by, so should the bicyclist. Without a separate facility, the bicycle shares the road and follows the same rules as any other vehicle. When there is a separate facility, the rules change - and in those ruled changes is where the danger lies, especially among a public that has only ever driven motorcars.

Not everywhere is Portland, and not everywhere will BE Portland. Portland did not shape it's residents as much as its residents shaped it.

I'd guess that 99% of the cyclists who do not live in or visit Portland are not all that concerned about the shape of Portland or its cycling environment. Believe it or not, Portlandis not the center of the cycling universe and neither is California or any other specific location despite what some strident experts may claim.

a cyclist that thinks they should yield to traffic overtaking from behind by completely leaving the roadway has a few more things to figure out about 'vehicular' cycling.

troll.

a cyclist that thinks they should yield to traffic overtaking from behind by completely leaving the roadway has a few more things to figure out about 'vehicular' cycling.

troll.

Hey, that's what I do in a motorcar, why does it not apply to a bicycle?

Or, is a bicycle not a vehicle? Are there a separate set of "rules" for bicycles?

Do you get off the streets during rush hour, patrick? how long have you been riding 'american style'?

if you rode a bike like that in traffic you'd never be able to get anywhere. that traffic system fails miserably as an accomodation model for bicyclists.

so does plugging or attempting to plug a significant number of bicyclists onto american road infrastructure.

10 percent bike rider share along a narrow laned, high ADT, high speed road with curbs and those motorists will be frustrated to say the least- if a community could actually induce that much ridership along that type of high-demand corridor.

that traffic system fails miserably as well.

further accomodations are desired when considering bikes in the transportation mix along american road networks.



care to discuss the difference in participation rates between cyclists in the netherlands versus the US?

what cause the differences between senior citizen rider participation between Germany or the netherlands versus the USA, transportation planner?

Do you get off the streets during rush hour, patrick? how long have you been riding 'american style'?

No, I don't get off the street. I also do not make the mistake of riding outside of downtown. If you ride on arterial highways designed for high speeds and high AADT, that is your own mistake. An even bigger mistake would be to ride to the right, "out of the way" on such streets. Too many people are hit from the side; riding to the right of such traffic is flat out dangerous. Most American streets outside of the low volume, low speed city streets are too dangerous, not only for bicyclists but for motorists as well. I am not about to say otherwise.


care to discuss the difference in participation rates between cyclists in the netherlands versus the US?

what cause the differences between senior citizen rider participation between Germany or the netherlands versus the USA, transportation planner?

Land use causes the difference. In the Netherlands and Germany, cities are built for people. They continue with thousands of years of Tradition. In America, Tradition has been thrown off to the side - here it is a Brave New World of the motorcar and suburbia.

This: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/1779043.jpg

Versus this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1099/1362054886_4d763f4fc4.jpg?v=0

My opinion- provide a slightly wider right lane that gives plenty of room for cars to pass. Taking the lane doing 15 mph and stacking cars up behind you, simply because you can, is a terrible idea because it adds to congestion and pollution. Giving some ground and actually being courteous to drivers seems to work much better for me.

A friend I sometimes ride with is big on taking the lane. It seems to me all he does is piss off drivers. I don't want drivers pissed at me, I want them to think I'm being as accommodating as possible to them. Good manners can be infectious.

Think they will ever rip up Camp Bowie Boulevard to "provide a slightly wider right lane?"

I also do not make the mistake of riding outside of downtown.


Huh? I guess I make that mistake quite often, as I don't live "downtown."

Most American streets outside of the low volume, low speed city streets are too dangerous, not only for bicyclists but for motorists as well. I am not about to say otherwise.

Patrick,
Are you actually paid for being a "traffic planner" or you just studying/dabbling in the field? I find it hard to believe anyone pays real money for the plans from someone so wrapped up in dogma.

Huh? I guess I make that mistake quite often, as I don't live "downtown."

Yes, that is a mistake.

Patrick,
Are you actually paid for being a "traffic planner" or you just studying/dabbling in the field? I find it hard to believe anyone pays real money for the plans from someone so wrapped up in dogma.

Yes, I am paid, not very well (like every other government "transportation planner").

What is my "dogma"? That roads designed for high speeds and volume are inherently dangerous (for both motorists and cyclists)?

Don't let the b@st@rds get ya down, Patrick. The world outside cycling doesn't appreciate what cyclists' needs are. The hardcore cyclists see all cars as the enemy. In your line of work, you can't win.

I'm kind of fortunate, I guess, because the busy roads I ride on mostly do have a little extra room in the right lane. I think Fort Worth is actually one of the more quietly bike friendly cities going, although I know many people that would differ with my opinion.

Yes, I am paid, not very well (like every other government "transportation planner").

What is my "dogma"? That roads designed for high speeds and volume are inherently dangerous (for both motorists and cyclists)?

You will find all forms of transportation (and movement) that are not at rest are inherently "dangerous," if "dangerous" means to you any possibility of mishap exists. Are airplanes and trains, ships inherently dangerous too? How about slow moving wheelchairs?

If you are looking for inherent safety (i.e. 100% protection from mishap) with moving objects you are not likely to find it except maybe sitting on a park bench watching the birds fly about. Just be sure to wear a hat.

You will find all forms of transportation (and movement) that are not at rest are inherently "dangerous," if "dangerous" means to you any possibility of mishap exists. Are airplanes and trains, ships inherently dangerous too? How about slow moving wheelchairs?

If you are looking for inherent safety (i.e. 100% protection from mishap) with moving objects you are not likely to find it except maybe sitting on a park bench watching the birds fly about. Just be sure to wear a hat.

"Inherently dangerous" meaning more dangerous than walking. Bicycling (even on a separate right-of-way) is inherently dangerous. Trains, aeroplanes, etc. are inherently dangerous. Not a slow moving wheelchair.

The most dangerous form of (common) transportation is, without a doubt, the motorcar. Rocketing down the road in a cage of glass and steel at 60 MPH is dangerous, no matter what the design of either the vehicle or road may be.

The point of this thread was that I grew up riding in an on bicycle lanes and paths, and did so regularly (several miles per day, every single day). When I went to a place without separate facilities, I stopped bicycling because I was under the impression it was more dangerous. From my recent experience, bicycling in an urban environment without facilities (i.e., bicycle lanes) is no more dangerous or frightening than in an urban environment with facilities, as long as I drive my bicycle like an automobile.

The most dangerous form of (common) transportation is, without a doubt, the motorcar. Rocketing down the road in a cage of glass and steel at 60 MPH is dangerous, no matter what the design of either the vehicle or road may be.

I don't really feel like digging up the statistics right now, but I believe the the motorcycle is the most dangerous, with only the school bus being less dangerous than cycling. Being a pedestrian shows to be more dangerous than cycling. (edit: For on-road transportation.)


The point of this thread was that I grew up riding in an on bicycle lanes and paths, and did so regularly (several miles per day, every single day). When I went to a place without separate facilities, I stopped bicycling because I was under the impression it was more dangerous. From my recent experience, bicycling in an urban environment without facilities (i.e., bicycle lanes) is no more dangerous or frightening than in an urban environment with facilities, as long as I drive my bicycle like an automobile.

:beer:

I think the best bicycle facilities are roads with narrow, multiple same direction lanes, with sharrows giving the cyclist the entire right lane. This design makes plain that the right lane is as far right as practicable while giving the cyclist plenty of room to avoid hazards and bad situations, the lane is too narrow to share, and gives motorists at least one other same direction lane in which to pass.

"Inherently dangerous" meaning more dangerous than walking. Bicycling (even on a separate right-of-way) is inherently dangerous. Trains, aeroplanes, etc. are inherently dangerous. Not a slow moving wheelchair.

Would it be safe to say that is your own definition of dangerous, not a definition accepted/used by any recognized safety, traffic engineering or traffic planning organization?

Would it be safe to say that is your own definition of dangerous, not a definition accepted/used by any recognized safety, traffic engineering or traffic planning organization?

I'm not so sure there is an "official" definition of "dangerous".

I'm not so sure there is an "official" definition of "dangerous".
Try a dictionary.
It doesn't normally mean anything with any possibility of mishap is "dangerous". Especially when any alternative action (or inaction) also entails some degree of risk.

Perhaps you should look up the term "acceptable risk" before bringing up the issue of the "inherently dangerous" use of various transportation modes.

I would guess that walking across the country or very long distances to avoid the "inherently dangerous" modes of faster transportation would expose the walker to even greater potential dangers. Especially if they actually have a reason to be concerned with time.

Yes, that is a mistake.

And yet I live within 3 minutes of my place of work and my grocery store(s) and 10-15 minutes of my place of education (all by bike of course). Hmmm....

*edit: this may be unfair of me, if your definition of "downtown" and mine differ greatly.

am I the only one that would like multiple lane streets to have a smaller right lane with sharrows painted in the middle?
that would give the idea to cars that bicycles have to ride in the middle of the lane instead of shy away hugging the curb, and the faster and rather wide left lane would invite cars to pass slower vehicles like cyclists...

I don't think so, see my earlier post.

The only difference is I wouldn't make the right lane narrower so that motor vehicles could use it in the absence of bikes. I think 10' lanes would work well for this. No wider than 12'.

"Inherently dangerous" meaning more dangerous than walking. Bicycling (even on a separate right-of-way) is inherently dangerous. Trains, aeroplanes, etc. are inherently dangerous. Not a slow moving wheelchair.

The most dangerous form of (common) transportation is, without a doubt, the motorcar. Rocketing down the road in a cage of glass and steel at 60 MPH is dangerous, no matter what the design of either the vehicle or road may be.

How do you know this? That is what metrics are you using and what data are those measurements based on?

I would guess that walking across the country or very long distances to avoid the "inherently dangerous" modes of faster transportation would expose the walker to even greater potential dangers.


At the point that walking some distance further than "X" (e.g., 1/2 mile) or some product "Y" (e.g., food) incurs more danger than benefits, we can say that it is "inherently dangerous". The benefit of the bicycle is that is stretches "X" for the same product "Y".

The motorcar simply stretches "X" for certain products "Y". For example, local bread is no "better" than bread trucked in. However, local emergency medical procedures are not NEARLY as valuable as those that can be obtained at long distances. Therefore, it makes more sense to buy bread locally and your heart surgeries "non-local".

And yet I live within 3 minutes of my place of work and my grocery store(s) and 10-15 minutes of my place of education (all by bike of course). Hmmm....

*edit: this may be unfair of me, if your definition of "downtown" and mine differ greatly.

Living close to your suburban job is commendable; it is responsible. However, from a design standpoint, it is not optimal. Efficient bicycle travel is found in compact cities, not less dense suburbs - this is just a fact of nature.

The fact that YOU live within 3 minutes of your place of work doesn't mean anyone else you work with does. Efficient cycling take a community, not just "you".

am I the only one that would like multiple lane streets to have a smaller right lane with sharrows painted in the middle?
that would give the idea to cars that bicycles have to ride in the middle of the lane instead of shy away hugging the curb, and the faster and rather wide left lane would invite cars to pass slower vehicles like cyclists...

I am with you all the way.

The WOL just causes more problems than it solves, in my opinion. Give the right lane to vehicles turning right, etc., but with the understanding that it is also the lane predominantly used by bicyclists.

Every day, twice a day, I cross the Market Street Bridge, lane width 9'. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=market+st+chattanooga+tn&sll=35.050466,-85.282238&sspn=0.041316,0.090981&ie=UTF8&ll=35.058733,-85.309224&spn=0.002582,0.007725&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.058643,-85.309243&panoid=Fe3K7FAcH6mw7qbD2SxR4A&cbp=12,188.19265600481114,,0,4.0000000000000115

There are no problems crossing the Bridge. Motorists pass in the left hand lane - there's no way to get around me in the right hand lane (after all, it's only 9' wide, and I'm right in the middle).

Living close to your suburban job is commendable; it is responsible. However, from a design standpoint, it is not optimal. Efficient bicycle travel is found in compact cities, not less dense suburbs - this is just a fact of nature.

The fact that YOU live within 3 minutes of your place of work doesn't mean anyone else you work with does. Efficient cycling take a community, not just "you".

Ottawa's a pretty small city, what I call "downtown" is less than 10km away although the edge of the city is closer. I certainly don't live in the suburbs.

But I wouldn't hesitate to live farther away and cycle into town. All I'm saying is that I don't see how it's a "mistake" to do so.

In my years as a transportation planner, I have never even HEARD of a cyclist being run over by a motorcar driver directly from behind. ...

I watched it happen twice to other bicyclists. And my wife was hit in that fashion on her way to work, broke her back. So now you've heard.

It's true that motorists are least likely to overlook the bicyclist who is directly in their line of sight for the longest period of time, but they overlook even those bicyclists occasionally. A bicyclist struck from behind by a car traveling over 30 mph is likely to be gravely injured or killed. It's good to consider this while American-style biking.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

The OP grew up in the Netherlands, where a lot of people biked, and they didn't do much planning for bike travel except build bikelanes, paths, bike parking, human scaled streetscapes and what not. people still rode bikes on plain jane city streets like seen in photos posted by the OP.

Then, he's moved to the USA, where the car is king and cyclists need to live downtown, cities shouldn't plan for bicyclists and they should just take the lane or get off the roadway when there's traffic.

and in his assessment as a 'transportation planner',

he thinks that despite vehicular, on street cycling being the core component of american cycling policy -even in cities with bike lanes- this key component doesn't matter, because bicycles can travel like motorcars (but only when there's not much traffic)?

I might be a little confused about all this.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

The OP grew up in the Netherlands, where a lot of people biked, and they didn't do much planning for bike travel except build bikelanes, paths, bike parking, human scaled streetscapes and what not. people still rode bikes on plain jane city streets like seen in photos posted by the OP.

Then, he's moved to the USA, where the car is king and cyclists need to live downtown, cities shouldn't plan for bicyclists and they should just take the lane or get off the roadway when there's traffic.

and in his assessment as a 'transportation planner',

he thinks that despite vehicular, on street cycling being the core component of american cycling policy -even in cities with bike lanes- this key component doesn't matter, because bicycles can travel like motorcars (but only when there's not much traffic)?

I might be a little confused about all this.

Riding a bicycle was easy in The Netherlands because the city streets were built for people and bicycles. Moving out of the right bicycle lane to the left bicycle turn lane was easy - traffic looked out for you, almost all of the drivers were also bicyclists.

In the USA, the suburbs are a wasteland, designed and built for the motorcar, not people. Riding a bicycle in those areas is dangerous. Most downtown areas are smaller, thus were designed before the motorcar came to rule the road. It is relatively easy to bicycle in these areas, even without the separate facilities that I grew up riding on in The Netherlands.

Bicycle lanes, paths, etc. are all necessary in the suburbs, where otherwise bicyclists would be subjected to riding on roads designed for high speeds and high traffic volumes. Expecting a cyclist to ride on a road that carries 30,000 vehicles per day at 50 miles per hour is crazy.

Here's the catch: the suburban cities, towns, and (especially) state DOTs are not going to be too keen on building separate bicycling facilities outside of the dense urban core, where most people tend to bicycle. SO, bicycle lanes and paths are generally built where they are not as needed: dense urban areas with slower traffic speeds and lower volume.

Here's the catch: the suburban cities, towns, and (especially) state DOTs are not going to be too keen on building separate bicycling facilities outside of the dense urban core, where most people tend to bicycle. SO, bicycle lanes and paths are generally built where they are not as needed: dense urban areas with slower traffic speeds and lower volume.

Building separate bicycling facilities, i.e. "paths", in dense urban areas in the U.S. Really? Where?

Building separate bicycling facilities, i.e. "paths", in dense urban areas in the U.S. Really? Where?

http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/manhattan-bike-map/

My question is: why are there bike lanes in Manhattan, NYC?

http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/manhattan-bike-map/

My question is: why are there bike lanes in Manhattan, NYC?

Bike lanes are one thing; paths being built anywhere in dense urban areas but in parks are a completely different breed of facility. Don't confuse the two, it clouds your credibilty on the subject of bicycling facilities.

Bike lanes are one thing; paths being built anywhere in dense urban areas but in parks are a completely different breed of facility. Don't confuse the two, it clouds your credibilty on the subject of bicycling facilities.

My apologies on conflating bicycle lanes and paths.

The point was that bicycle lanes (not necessarily paths) are built in urban areas where they are not as needed, when compared to the less densely populated suburbs (where separated bicycle paths would probably make more sense, since bicycling on busy, fast arterial streets is rather dangerous).

Peachtree City, Georgia has a wonderful system of separate paths (warning, large PDF document: http://www.peachtree-city.org/documents/Information%20Technology/GIS/fall_2006_map_web.pdf)- used mostly by "golf cart" type vehicles, but also bicyclists. It is a good example of what a suburban path system could be, but a bad example if tried to be applied to a dense "downtown" urban area.

Once again, the point was: riding in traffic here in Downtown Chattanooga does not feel unsafe, but as safe as in bicycle lanes and on paths that I grew up riding in The Netherlands. Separate facilities do not make bicycling "safer" in congested areas, the "congestion" itself does; i.e., lower vehicle speeds and volumes.

but when a bike would hold up traffic in these urban areas patrick thinks don't need bike infrastructure, the cyclist should leave the road entirely for the conveinence of motorists.

bikes also should also not be riding on higher speed roads.

and communities shouldn't plan for bikes by adding bike lanes in urban areas, just paths.

got it. :rolleyes:

here's the catch, patrick:

cities that have bike master plans and are building bike lanes in urban areas embrace on-street 'vehicular cycling' as fundament in their bicycle transportation planning.