Advocacy & Safety - "Cycle lanes don't work" report

I've no special axe to grind on this one but thought some people might be interested -



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6828100.ece

Cycle lanes can make roads more dangerous for cyclists because they encourage motorists to drive closer when overtaking bicycles, a study has found.

Drivers give cyclists a wider berth on roads where there is no lane because they assume that they should share the road and make more allowance for the risk of wobbles.

The study, conducted by Leeds and Bolton universities, challenges the approach taken by many local authorities, which is to promote cycling by painting cycle lanes and cycle symbols on their roads. It suggests that reducing the speed and volume of traffic would be more effective in improving cycle safety than narrow cycle lanes.



Etc

I knew it .. now it's official.

While the report may well be true, people may be losing sight of the actual objective.

Is the goal to
get more people to ride?
maximize traffic (both car and bike) throughput?
maximize safety?
or something else, or these things in some combination?

One further flaw that I see in said study is that it's not clear that cars passing with greater clearance is automatically safer. After all, if there was no collision, then there was no collision. A study of *crash rates* would be needed to assess real as opposed to perceived safety.

i am, actually, looking for a good critique of bike lanes.

anyone with some quality links that's willing to post them, i'd appreciate it.

Drivers give cyclists a wider berth on roads where there is no lane because they assume that they should share the road and make more allowance for the risk of wobbles.

This is not true in L.A. Cars pass me as close as they can get away with, regardless of lane position.. gutter, right tire track, even left tire track, it doesn't matter here... you get used to it though. I did anyway.

The commonly stated problem with bike lanes is that when they are present, car drivers tend to get the impression that they are a bike jail - bikes are not allowed outside that lane. Even if they need to turn left, the lane is full of hazards like glass, potholes, roadkill, whatever, or even if there is a real hazard of right hooks.

Also, as posted elsewhere here today, often they're horribly laid out and force cyclists to ride in door zones or something.

Most people who have studied the issue prefer wide lanes, possibly with sharrows.

Dump bike lanes. Just make the dang roads W I D E R for everyone.

Bike lanes are sometimes created specifically for "traffic calming". Why not just line the streets with tied up children and elderly people in that case? The whole concept is cracked.

Bike lanes are sometimes created specifically for "traffic calming". Why not just line the streets with tied up children and elderly people in that case? The whole concept is cracked.

Sounds like a scene from that '70s movie "Deathrace 2000."

Where I live cycle lanes often have manhole covers in and road debris. Other times the council thinks it is a good idea to have 1 slightly wider cycle lane and make it 2 way down one side of the road. Sometimes the cycle lane goes onto the pavement and then has bollards in the middle. Couple this with the lane then having to go across roads like pedestrians AND pedestrians walking in the cycle lane and I can fully see why having them is more dangerous, even if not for the reasons specified above.

I usually cycle right on the outside of the cycle lane, taking the lane whenever necessary. Cars don't really seem to mind this, although I do get occasional honks, they usually realise their mistake as I cruise past them while they are stuck in traffic!

Daven

i am, actually, looking for a good critique of bike lanes.

anyone with some quality links that's willing to post them, i'd appreciate it.

Be hard to find, as there are few good bike lanes.

It's all about optics. For the city, advocates and governments.

I do find vehicles would give me a large amt of space I am sharing the same road while passing me. But I am a sucker when it comes to counting how many painted bicycle icons I can roll over. :D

The commonly stated problem with bike lanes is that when they are present, car drivers tend to get the impression that they are a bike jail - bikes are not allowed outside that lane. Even if they need to turn left, the lane is full of hazards like glass, potholes, roadkill, whatever, or even if there is a real hazard of right hooks.

Also, as posted elsewhere here today, often they're horribly laid out and force cyclists to ride in door zones or something.

Most people who have studied the issue prefer wide lanes, possibly with sharrows.

Your's is a good critique. It seems the study was concerend only with average distance. I really don;lt care much about that number. What I care about is how many cars come too close. Why should I care if 99 out of 100 cars are 5 feet away from me instead of 4? what I care about is if car number 100 is 1 foot, 2 feet or 3 feet.

The commonly stated problem with bike lanes is that when they are present, car drivers tend to get the impression that they are a bike jail - bikes are not allowed outside that lane. Even if they need to turn left, the lane is full of hazards like glass, potholes, roadkill, whatever, or even if there is a real hazard of right hooks..

This was mentioned in the article. Allowing for the left-right switch in driving between the UK and US.

While the report may well be true, people may be losing sight of the actual objective.

Is the goal to
get more people to ride?
maximize traffic (both car and bike) throughput?
maximize safety?
or something else, or these things in some combination?

One further flaw that I see in said study is that it's not clear that cars passing with greater clearance is automatically safer. After all, if there was no collision, then there was no collision. A study of *crash rates* would be needed to assess real as opposed to perceived safety.

close calls count

and why would you want to entice novices to facilties that give them a false sense of security?

finally, maximizing traffic throughput and maximizing safety are diametric opposites.

Saw this in NYC this summer.

Saw this in NYC this summer.

Any chance of seeing a picture of the light in all of it's stages?

close calls count

and why would you want to entice novices to facilties that give them a false sense of security?

finally, maximizing traffic throughput and maximizing safety are diametric opposites.

Close calls count only if they lead to more actual real crashes. And yes, I agree that closeness past a certain point would lead to more crashes.

In terms of luring novices, well, I'll simply point out that we're all novices back at one point. So getting novices riding produces experienced riders later. Not to say that it increases the number of trips taken by bike with all the positives that entails. If the goal is to make transportation cycling on a large scale a reality, then building well-designed BLs on the arterials is needed, and works! (See Davis CA, Boulder CO, and Portland OR).

Finally, maximizing traffic throughput and maximizing safety are definitely tricky. The "safest" thing to do would be to simply abolish all traffic, car or bike. :D Realistically, compromises have to be struck between cost, number of users, and modes.

close calls count

and why would you want to entice novices to facilties that give them a false sense of security?

finally, maximizing traffic throughput and maximizing safety are diametric opposites.

+10

Tell that to all the traffic engineers out there... especially the ones that go by the 85% rule and jack up speeds on existing roads.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg

Yup, ^^^ fine example of a very poor design.

Can you imagine what would happen if interstate freeways were designed as poorly?

^^Then you'd be in Montreal which urban engineers from the world over to study how NOT to design a highway system^^
On ramps followed by exits within 150m of each other causing merging and exiting traffic speed to criss cross at 90KPH+, it's some kinda special to drive it I tell ya.

That's indicative of the vast majority of the road-based BL's in Toronto. Some are a whole two blocks long.... the shorter the path, the more of a "traffic calmer" it seems to be.

If the goal is to make transportation cycling on a large scale a reality, then building well-designed BLs on the arterials is needed, and works! (See Davis CA, Boulder CO, and Portland OR).BS claims. Show use direct proof that when a bike lane was installed, total cycling traffic increased for the area.

If I remember right, in Tom Vanderbuilts book, Traffic, he references 4 other studies that say that driver pass faster and more closely to cyclists in a bicyle lane than if the motorists pass them in the regular lane of traffic.

Something I always suspected (and had been my experience) but never seen confirmed.

I knew it .. now it's official.

Yep. All it does is confirm what was already known, though now one has that all-important "statistic with a signature" to shove under the nose of people who refuse to believe otherwise.

-Kurt

Well you know how well protected ppl are behind that Paint Stripe of Invincibility™, so why not right?

I told the traffic planner this when I was president of a bike club years ago. At the time, I didn't realize how bad bike lanes were at intersections, but I did realize how dirty they would get. The town built bike lanes on a road near here, and in the winter they are absolutely filled with debris. Same road shows that bike lanes don't slow traffic at all. They got rid of on the street parking, and now cars go 50 instead of 40. I do like the fact that they get rid of on-street parking. A bike lane in the door zone is worse than worthless.

Here they'll take two east bound lanes and two westbound, then you'll end up with curb side parking E & W, and bikelane on either side and one lane of traffic each way, all separated by a six inch paint stripe. All lanes fully in the door zone. You couldn't make it more dangerous if you tried. Oh and don't plow it in the winter because everyone at City Hall knows nobody rides in the winter so lets store snow in the BLs.

In terms of luring novices, well, I'll simply point out that we're all novices back at one point. So getting novices riding produces experienced riders later. Not to say that it increases the number of trips taken by bike with all the positives that entails. If the goal is to make transportation cycling on a large scale a reality, then building well-designed BLs on the arterials is needed, and works! (See Davis CA, Boulder CO, and Portland OR).

If you're over 20 or 30 years old, you most likely didn't have any bike lanes available to ride in when you were learning to ride. In any event, children learning to ride bikes shouldn't be out on arterials in bike lanes that simply aren't safe.

And, FWIW, most of the bike lanes in Portland are not well-designed. They are mostly substandard width, door-zone, right-hook type affairs, and cyclists are getting hurt or worse riding in them all the time. Portland is succeeding with bicycle transportation in spite of, not because of, the local bike lanes.

If you're over 20 or 30 years old, you most likely didn't have any bike lanes available to ride in when you were learning to ride. In any event, children learning to ride bikes shouldn't be out on arterials in bike lanes that simply aren't safe.

And, FWIW, most of the bike lanes in Portland are not well-designed. They are mostly substandard width, door-zone, right-hook type affairs, and cyclists are getting hurt or worse riding in them all the time. Portland is succeeding with bicycle transportation in spite of, not because of, the local bike lanes.

Seems like we should work on all 3 solutions rather than picking the one that really hasn't worked too well. so instead of working against bike lanes maybe we should try to make them safer and better. I mean whats the alternative?

I can see why there is so many right hooks at intersections. lot of the drivers never look to their right when making a right turn to check for peds/bikes.

1. more ads/signs promoting sharing the road.
2. bike lanes (5feet) or cycling lanes (10feet)
3. or totally seperated path or MUP

I can't see there ever being one perfect solution. I'm happy rolling down the divider in the middle of the street, but I know it terrifies many people. Way fewer left turns than right in core traffic. I think it would be an easier transformation getting drivers used to bikes on the left of them, right in the line of sight. No curb side issues, BUT being so much closer to the oncoming might be quite daunting for some, drivers AND riders. Full separation requires loads of room. There's a solution for everything, but what will the general population accept?

Seems like we should work on all 3 solutions rather than picking the one that really hasn't worked too well. so instead of working against bike lanes maybe we should try to make them safer and better. I mean whats the alternative? So, how many bike lanes have you opposed and prevented being painted because of poor/dangerous design.

We hear that reasoning all the time, but none of the pro-paint group ever opposes even the worst bike lanes.

1. more ads/signs promoting sharing the road.
2. bike lanes (5feet) or cycling lanes (10feet)
3. or totally seperated path or MUP

so you're afraid to ride in the street?

The only thing I find is, for different places, there are different solutions. No one concept works or is practicle in every situation. In some place, a bike lane is a start. Maybe with increased usage, it will lead to more inclusive infrastructure. Just the same, there are plenty of places were nothing is needing. Just ride.

Seems like we should work on all 3 solutions rather than picking the one that really hasn't worked too well. so instead of working against bike lanes maybe we should try to make them safer and better. I mean whats the alternative?

I can see why there is so many right hooks at intersections. lot of the drivers never look to their right when making a right turn to check for peds/bikes.

1. more ads/signs promoting sharing the road.
2. bike lanes (5feet) or cycling lanes (10feet)
3. or totally seperated path or MUP

Well designed sharrows. MUP= sidewalk

BS claims. Show use direct proof that when a bike lane was installed, total cycling traffic increased for the area.

A bike lane installation doesn't necessarily increase cycling traffic, if there is not sufficient destination pairs that said lane encompasses. When they are everywhere, then the effect becomes obvious. For proof, again I would like to point to Davis, Portland, and Boulder, where the percentage of trips taken by bike is like 10X that elsewhere.

Since people aren't that different from place to place, if it weren't for the infrastructure, what would account for the difference??

(Now before everybody gets excited, yes there are right and wrong ways to build BLs. Here's where a decent Bike Advisory Committee is very useful. And standards need to be toughened with regard to door zones - current standards are woefully inadequate.)

A

Since people aren't that different from place to place, if it weren't for the infrastructure, what would account for the difference??



When you compare city to city, it is very difficult to attribute causation to a single factor.

Walking cities, or parts of cities invite bicycle use because it makes so much more sense. Even with zero bike specific infrastructure, you will have more cycling when there's no room to park a car and a bicycle is a much faster and more convenient mode of transport.

When you compare city to city, it is very difficult to attribute causation to a single factor.

Walking cities, or parts of cities invite bicycle use because it makes so much more sense. Even with zero bike specific infrastructure, you will have more cycling when there's no room to park a car and a bicycle is a much faster and more convenient mode of transport.

I agree in that different types of cities will end up behaving differently. And yes, there is no perfect control. However, notice how both Davis and Boulder are not that heavily populated. I remember reading in Mapes's Pedaling Revolution how Davis did have rural->urban zoning, with suburbs banned. But Davis isn't skyscrapers everywhere the way NYC is. IIRC, Davis is a College-town type place. It might be instructive to compare Davis (population 66000, density 6185/sq mi) to a place like Iowa City (population 67831, density 2780/ sq mi). Iowa City is a college-town type of place too, with a similar population; however its population density is 40% that of Davis. (For comparison, NYC has a population density of 27440/ sq mi.) Something like 12% of trips in Davis are by bike. By contrast, Iowa City has nothing unusual in terms of bike usage, so I would venture it's around the nationwide 1%. I would submit that this difference is not accidental.

I agree in that different types of cities will end up behaving differently. And yes, there is no perfect control. However, notice how both Davis and Boulder are not that heavily populated. I remember reading in Mapes's Pedaling Revolution how Davis did have rural->urban zoning, with suburbs banned. But Davis isn't skyscrapers everywhere the way NYC is. IIRC, Davis is a College-town type place. It might be instructive to compare Davis (population 66000, density 6185/sq mi) to a place like Iowa City (population 67831, density 2780/ sq mi). Iowa City is a college-town type of place too, with a similar population; however its population density is 40% that of Davis. (For comparison, NYC has a population density of 27440/ sq mi.) Something like 12% of trips in Davis are by bike. By contrast, Iowa City has nothing unusual in terms of bike usage, so I would venture it's around the nationwide 1%. I would submit that this difference is not accidental.

No question, the differences are not accidental. The question is, what is (are) the cause(s)?

Many variables, as you note, besides bike infrastructure are in play. Weather for one, college population, bike ethic. Bicycling, for a variety of reasons can become the 'in' thing. History, tradition, charisma, leadership all have their effect. My guess, is that pure and simple bike infrastructure is usually an effect, not a cause of increased cycling. Infrastructure can of course be both a cause and an effect. Anyway, just my supposition.

So, how many bike lanes have you opposed and prevented being painted because of poor/dangerous design.

We hear that reasoning all the time, but none of the pro-paint group ever opposes even the worst bike lanes.

TWO!

As long as traffic engineers keep trying to make arterial roads look like interstate freeways however, I'll take the resulting bike lanes and continue to oppose the really poor ones.

Motorists respond to stripes... and around here, on the many 55 and 65MPH arterial roads, BL are better than the ambiguity of no bike lanes.

When you compare city to city, it is very difficult to attribute causation to a single factor.

Walking cities, or parts of cities invite bicycle use because it makes so much more sense. Even with zero bike specific infrastructure, you will have more cycling when there's no room to park a car and a bicycle is a much faster and more convenient mode of transport.

The whole key to what you just said is lower speed limits... lower speed limits tend to be the cornerstone of "walking cities."

the confluence of bike ride share and infrastructure is no coincidence.

communities that seek to facilitate bicycling have higher ridership and lower indexed accident rates than cities that fail to plan for bicycling as transportation on public rights of way.

this has been shown time and time again in cities around the world often enough the correlation is strong enough to be a given in any serious consideration of bicycle transportation.

to suggest otherwise is folly.

the question faced by the US and Canada is: how best to accommodate bicycles on public rights of way?

bike infrastructure that optimizes bike routes across communities is a key to increasing ridership. usually, in built in areas, this means on road bike facilities and bikeways planning.

how wide to make the bike lanes? make them wider, and improve major intersection dynamics.

'cycle lanes don't work' is a ridiculous statement and one worthy of scorn for its juvenile mischaracterization.

The whole key to what you just said is lower speed limits... lower speed limits tend to be the cornerstone of "walking cities."

I don't think so. Again, cause and effect are getting reversed. Walking cities are walking cities first, then appropriate speed limits are imposed, not the other way around.

With good engineering lower speed limits are placed on roads where they are appropriate. High traffic, residential, business intense, narrow streets with short blocks and many pedestrians get lower speed limits. Put a 25 mph limit on a freeway or on an arterial designed for 45 mph and it will be ignored by a majority of drivers.

My guess is this is one of the reasons those mini roundabouts have become all the rage with city street planners. They are more effective than speed limits on reducing speed. The motoring public is not going to want traffic slowed artificially by simply lowering speed limits. I agree that lowering speed limits is great for cyclists, but we are out numbered at least ten to one, so even if they were effective, they're not politically realistic.

most of the cities to the east of the mississippi as well as a predominant number of western cities, were founded before the advent of the motorcar- "walking cities" whatever that means.

most incorporated cities have speed limits of 30/mph within city limits unless otherwise posted ordinances, or similar restrictions placing relatively low speed limits on public streets.

Could an american (or british) city regulate TEMPO 30 (30 km/hr and ped&bike ROW) like road restrictions as seen in other cities in the developed world to increase walkability and bikeability of cityscapes? perhaps.

How best to facilitate bicycling along freeway like roadscapes?
to best serve bicycling along high speed traffic corridors, well designed and maintained separate infrastructure or wide bikelanes with emhasized intersection treatments and appropriate signage are the way to go.

low speed mixing cars and bikes is much more reasonable, but even in european cities with city-wide TEMPO 30 restrictions, pedestrian and bicycle pathways are emphasized separate from the main motorized 'lanes' and both have the 'right of way' over motorized vehicles in a crossing so.....

yes, america and britain can both very well better facilitate bicycling. glibly opining that 'bike lanes don't work' is a ludicrous oversimplification.

Returning to the original report,

"Cycle lanes can make roads more dangerous for cyclists because they encourage motorists to drive closer when overtaking bicycles, a study has found.

Drivers give cyclists a wider berth on roads where there is no lane because they assume that they should share the road and make more allowance for the risk of wobbles."

This is exactly what I experience in my riding. The more ambiguous the situation, the more room overtaking motorists give me. When I'm in a bike lane that is part of the road, they tend to drive much closer to me when they pass.

The San Francisco study on sharrows/chevrons indicating bikes belong shows the opposite: cars drive farther from the outside of the road even when no bikes are present.

The link for the SF study:

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf

"more allowance for 'wobbles'?" :roflmao:

If a bike lane was wider the pass would be wider.

Build bikelanes that avoid the door zone and riders will avoid the door zone.

Double stripe a bikelane and riders will do less weaving in and out of parked cars.

Stripe a pocket bikelane to the left of a right turn only lane and thru bicyclists will position themselves to the left of right turning traffic at intersections.

to suggest there's even a 'problem' with motorists passing closer seems to be easily solvable regardless. there's some bike lanes on boulevards here that are 12 or 14 feet wide ajacent to the main travel lane, there's little issue of 'close passing' there.

most of the cities to the east of the mississippi as well as a predominant number of western cities, were founded before the advent of the motorcar- "walking cities" whatever that means.

your point being?

ALL cities used to be 'walking cities,' so your citation to the era before the motorcar is irrelevant.

I thought the 'point' was obvious. Whatever a city's history, it's current situation, whether by design or de facto, is what determines whether it is more conducive to getting from place to place by car, mass transit, walking, bicycling or a combination of modes.

All I'm saying, is that you can't just impose your will on a city, or section of a city, by declaring it a 'walking city' and arbitrarily lowering speed limits or installing bike lanes. Let's take an absurd example to make the point. Go to the middle of the Sahara and build the greatest bike lane the world has ever seen. It won't increase bicycling by one chain link.

But if you already have a high density area or city with narrow streets, many businesses, schools, residences and the like with limited parking, rational people will bicycle there, whether or not you install bike lanes. The bike infrastructure (my suggestion for most places is sharrows) should facilitate what the people already want or what makes sense even without that infrastructure.

Seattle, to take a city at random :) has many such communities, plus a bicycling ethic of long standing. It is natural to accommodate that ethic and those characteristics by well thought out infrastructure.

A bike lane installation doesn't necessarily increase cycling traffic, if there is not sufficient destination pairs that said lane encompasses. When they are everywhere, then the effect becomes obvious. For proof, again I would like to point to Davis, Portland, and Boulder, where the percentage of trips taken by bike is like 10X that elsewhere.

Since people aren't that different from place to place, if it weren't for the infrastructure, what would account for the difference??

(Now before everybody gets excited, yes there are right and wrong ways to build BLs. Here's where a decent Bike Advisory Committee is very useful. And standards need to be toughened with regard to door zones - current standards are woefully inadequate.)Davis and Boulder are small college towns that always had high cycling before bike lanes were even invented. There is the proof bike lanes do not increase ridership. Most of the bike lanes in Boulder came about by painting a funny little man on what was previously called a shoulder (break down lane). On roads that did not already have a shoulder, the paint was put in wide lanes to make sure cyclist stayed out of the way of motorist who wanted to drive faster. Same with Davis.

Portland government likes to use bridge counts to claim increases in cycling from bike lanes; but the only bridge that they painted a bike lane on, had an initial reduction in cyclist and then the numbers stayed the same even though other bridge counts went up. Much of Portland's increase in cycling can be attributed to increases in population east of the river that has to travel over motoring choke points on the bridges, governments intentional reduction in downtown parking and narrow downtown hard to motor on streets. Of note, there was no increase in cycling from the western suburbs of Portland, even with the new bike lanes. Oregon has a mandatory use law, that with its bike lanes has allowed police harassment of cyclist and contributed to some cyclist deaths.

...
Stripe a pocket bikelane to the left of a right turn only lane and thru bicyclists will position themselves to the left of right turning traffic at intersections...And get close passing to the left and right of the cyclist all at the same time.

Bike lanes are sometimes created specifically for "traffic calming". Why not just line the streets with tied up children and elderly people in that case? The whole concept is cracked.

That's the funniest thing, I can't stop laughing.