pedways - for or against

[Redbird]

Part of my job is to design roadways. Pedways are basically wider sidewalks that are meant to encourage riders to use them instead of being on the road. I don't like them for the same reason that I don't like riding on sidewalks - drivers don't look for traffic on sidewalks, cars block the ramp areas when waiting at lights. Am I the only one? I'd like to get a feel for this. It's the big trend around here. What would you, the bike rider, like for a travel way? Stripped lanes? Wider shoulders? Your opinion is valuable in my design work. Thanks.

[royalflash]

Have you seen the numerous studies concerning cycle path safety that have been carried out. There is a list here:

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html

The general concensus seems to be that cycle paths on pavements (sidewalks) significantly increase cycle accidents. The famous Danish study reports between 3x and 12x more chance of being involved in an accident.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution.

[lala]

Wider shoulders are nice, but aren't always practical because all the glass and trash that get pushed into the shoulder. Wider actual lanes are good because bikes can be on the road where they belong while giving enough room to stay off the shoulder and enabling autos to pass. The pedways sound bad for the higher risk of accidents with peds and autos.


Part of my job is to design roadways. Pedways are basically wider sidewalks that are meant to encourage riders to use them instead of being on the road. I don't like them for the same reason that I don't like riding on sidewalks - drivers don't look for traffic on sidewalks, cars block the ramp areas when waiting at lights. Am I the only one? I'd like to get a feel for this. It's the big trend around here. What would you, the bike rider, like for a travel way? Stripped lanes? Wider shoulders? Your opinion is valuable in my design work. Thanks.

[madpogue]

Where is "around here", if it's okay to say?

I see a place for paths, but not as a "surrogate" for safe, proper road conditions for all vehicles, including bicycles. Most of the paths here are not "parallel" paths associated with roads. The ones that are have the very problems you describe.

The other problem, of course, is the "shift the burden" problem. By building separate paths, they're saying, in effect, that the problems associated with bikes and cars sharing the road are the bicyclists' problems, and that if those pesky cyclists would just get off "our" roads, everything would be okay.

Paths as an adjunct to favorable road conditions are fine. As an analogy, car drivers have thoroughfares for motor vehicles only (Interstate highways / motorways) and "shared use" thoroughfares (surface streets/roads). Likewise bicyclists have thoroughfares with no motor vehicles (paths/trails) and "shared use" thoroughfares (surface streets/roads). Having the former should not preclude using the latter, and should most definitely not set up the expectation of using the former "because they're there".

I say this because I've experienced it firsthand, in the field, so to speak. When riding on a street where there's a path nearby, I've had car drivers point in the direction of the path and say "Bike path's right over there." I reply by pointing toward the Interstate and say "Interstate's right over there."

Isn't it interesting, BTW, that they're called "pedways" yet they're meant to encourage use by bicycles, which are, after all, vehicles, and most distinctly not "ped"estrians? Shouldn't that be an indicator of something amiss with the priorities/mentalities of those promoting them?

[catatonic]

pedways are ok for the riders who can't move at a reasonably safe speed, like the occaisional 6mph guy...

but, for a commuter or anyone who can move in the two digit speeds easily, a pedway will actually make things worse.

[khuon]

Signs on the bike paths around here try to point fast cyclists back onto the roads...

http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/albums/20040619-poker_ride/PICT0021.jpg