Advocacy & Safety - Safer Riding with Cycle Tracks

Video from Mayor Sam Adam's Office, PDX Oregon, center of the USA cycling universe

On the Right Track (http://vimeo.com/10559007)

also at:
http://www.sfbike.org/main/video-safer-riding-with-cycle-tracks/

I like Catherine!

:thumb:

buffered bikelanes =bikelanes 2.0

yep, looks good. how are they riding btw, Randya? I should come down with the bike for a couple of days.

Video from Mayor Sam Adam's Office, PDX Oregon, center of the USA cycling universe

On the Right Track (http://vimeo.com/10559007)

also at:
http://www.sfbike.org/main/video-safer-riding-with-cycle-tracks/

I like Catherine!

:thumb:

What about the perpetual blind spot created by the line of parked cars? How many drivers are going to see a bike on the cycle-track due to the parked cars? And how many are going to know what the green box is for?

Also will cyclists be required by law to use the cycle-track or if their skill and comfort level is up to riding with traffic are they still free to do so?

From the comments section I like the idea of reducing the overall speed of all motor vehicles and more fully integrating bicycles into the flow of traffic where they belong.

I liked the buffered area between the bike lane and traffic better then the cycle-track idea.

I'm with you, Cowboy. Those bike tracks are losers. There is no way a car-critter can see a cyclist when they make a right turn. I'm just imagining what happens when a cyclist is traveling at 25 mph and a slower moving car decides to turn across that blind zone; been there done that but I'm getting too old to land those flips with a one and a half twist anymore. I also hate the left-turn scenario. If you survive to the turn box. you are marked out as second-class, get to come to a complete stop for no good reason and then get to be passed by a bevy of fume-spewing cars accelerating from the intersection. This is a major fail.

Their animation conveniently shows all of the parked cars fitting well into the spaces and the cars being driven staying outside of the buffer zone in the buffered bike lanes. Here in Eugene, anywhere there is a bike lane in a curve, the line is worn away by the car tires. Also, approximately 50% of the motor vehicles here are SUV's and pick-ups that do not fit into the spaces lined out on the roadside. Those small buffers simply would not work here without rigid enforcement, which we are not getting anytime soon. Parked cars to the right of a bike lane create a bike lane that is worse than useless, it is dangerous and potentially lethal. If they want to allow the car-bound to store their cars on the public right-of-way, there is a need to put a buffer that is at least as wide as the longest door between the bike lane and the parking spaces.

I'm with you, Cowboy. Those bike tracks are losers. There is no way a car-critter can see a cyclist when they make a right turn. I'm just imagining what happens when a cyclist is traveling at 25 mph and a slower moving car decides to turn across that blind zone; been there done that but I'm getting too old to land those flips with a one and a half twist anymore. I also hate the left-turn scenario. If you survive to the turn box. you are marked out as second-class, get to come to a complete stop for no good reason and then get to be passed by a bevy of fume-spewing cars accelerating from the intersection. This is a major fail.

Not to mention that for those of us who use clippless pedals we'd have to unclip one foot while turning from the cycle-track. Now granted we all know that one should first practice in a nice soft grassy area before taking to the road with our bike equipped with clipless pedals. But it is still possible that even after getting used to using them for one to take a spill. And for someone who is still pretty much learning how to use their clipless pedals that's a spill waiting to happen.


Their animation conveniently shows all of the parked cars fitting well into the spaces and the cars being driven staying outside of the buffer zone in the buffered bike lanes. Here in Eugene, anywhere there is a bike lane in a curve, the line is worn away by the car tires. Also, approximately 50% of the motor vehicles here are SUV's and pick-ups that do not fit into the spaces lined out on the roadside. Those small buffers simply would not work here without rigid enforcement, which we are not getting anytime soon. Parked cars to the right of a bike lane create a bike lane that is worse than useless, it is dangerous and potentially lethal. If they want to allow the car-bound to store their cars on the public right-of-way, there is a need to put a buffer that is at least as wide as the longest door between the bike lane and the parking spaces.

Not to mention all of those nice friendly and polite cagers. Granted we all know that most of them don't want to hit us, but sadly a large percentage of them don't want us on "their" roads either. Even though at least some of them recognize that we our choice of transportation is legit they'd still rather that we'd ride elsewhere. And as you said realistically when was the last time any of us saw someone in a car check traffic before opening their door to get out?

When I pass any car that is parked on the side of the street I ALWAYS treat it as if there is someone inside of it who is going to open their door without any kind of warning and give it as wide of a berth as I can. Even if it's a car that I've seen in the same spot "forever" I still treat it as if there is someone in it. And instead of the city/county/state "giving" home owners, and renters free on street parking why not require that all homes, condos, apartment complexes provide ample parking for themselves, their tenants, and their guests? And if they want on street parking they have to fill out paperwork and be approved for it and pay a monthly or yearly fee?

:roflmao:

the naysaying is a bit premature dontchyathink?

innovate on road planning for bicycle traffic is used in scads of other countries as part and parcel of the series of interventions in public space design that facilitate double digit rider share.


Portland needs to begin looking at restricting on-street car parking and make those cycle tracks as large as Euro cycle tracks.

Not to mention that for those of us who use clippless pedals we'd have to unclip one foot while turning from the cycle-track. Now granted we all know that one should first practice in a nice soft grassy area before taking to the road with our bike equipped with clipless pedals. But it is still possible that even after getting used to using them for one to take a spill. And for someone who is still pretty much learning how to use their clipless pedals that's a spill waiting to happen.

Dig deep for a negative! If people can't use their equipment in this particular context, they can't use it in any context.


innovate on road planning for bicycle traffic
It will be interesting to see how well these work. I think there's some value in trying reasonable things.

I like the effort. I think its great to see innovative designs like this in the U.S.

Now just to get Denver going on some better bike lane designs... some of the lanes we have... well, suck.

Horrible. That cyclist in the orange shirt sure was lucky the pedestrian was crossing the other way otherwise that right turning car would have most likely turned right in front of the hidden cyclist. That delay because of the ped allowed to cyclist to get into view while the motorist was stopped.

I like the effort. I think its great to see innovative designs like this in the U.S.

Now just to get Denver going on some better bike lane designs... some of the lanes we have... well, suck.

.....or just disappear into thin air w/no signage.

there are no right turns along this segment of cycle track, the entire cycle track is bordered on the right by the campus of Portland State University.

(well, except for at the very beginning of the cycle track, where there is a 'normal' bike lane to the right of a RTOL at the entry point (the RTOL becomes the parking lane to the left of the cycle track at that point))

If those "Launch Pads" for left turning are as small as they look, I can see people having problems with them. Most people would need to slow down quite a bit and would hold up or cross paths with bikes coming from behind.

It's great that they are looking for ideas, but I still can't see anything being better than just riding in the road.

If those "Launch Pads" for left turning are as small as they look, I can see people having problems with them. Most people would need to slow down quite a bit and would hold up or cross paths with bikes coming from behind.

It's great that they are looking for ideas, but I still can't see anything being better than just riding in the road.

the cycle track is not for racer boys or Lance wannabes

It's great that they are looking for ideas, but I still can't see anything being better than just riding in the road.
You mean, apart from cycle tracks encouraging more bicyclists to ride, right?

"We think they'll help cyclists at every skill level feel safer on the road."

Yep, that seems like what will happen according to the studies I've seen. Cyclists feel safer, but they really aren't. They are actually in more harm than before the tracks. But who cares about reality, it's all about what we feel, instead of teaching people safe riding.

there are no right turns along this segment of cycle track, the entire cycle track is bordered on the right by the campus of Portland State University.



This is about the only kind of situation I can think of where a "cycle track" would be my idea of a best option. no right turns and no close by alternate thruway that you could designate as a "bike boulevard" uninviting to motor traffic, due to the university campus. I don't think this type of infrastructure would be appropriate for a roadway with real intersections though.

EDIT: I also wanted to mention that the "CG" portion of the video showed the cycletrack being used on a street with cross traffic. thats what the little green boxes were for. Its all well and fine that this particular cycletrack doesn't actually need this, but the idea was put forward in the video that "cars allready have to look out for pedestrians when making right turns". this does not guarantee the same level of safety for cyclists. you don't have to be some kind of "spandex racerboy" to travel at 20kph or so. Cars are not used to checking for that sort of higer speed traffic on their right side when making a right turn, let alone with that traffic lane on the other side of a line of parked cars. Maybe in practice this isn't as big an issue as some of us are imagining it to be, but still. It's an issue.

"We think they'll help cyclists at every skill level feel safer on the road."

Yep, that seems like what will happen according to the studies I've seen. Cyclists feel safer, but they really aren't. They are actually in more harm than before the tracks. But who cares about reality, it's all about what we feel, instead of teaching people safe riding.
Care to share with us one of these studies?

...no close by alternate thruway that you could designate as a "bike boulevard" uninviting to motor traffic, due to the university campus.

Actually, the 'South Park Blocks' are only one block west of Broadway. As is - or even better, if cars were removed from the Park Blocks - there would be an ideal bike boulevard just one block west. The Park blocks continue right up through campus.

However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be facilities on Broadway, too. Cycling will only be mainstream when every public street is safe to cycle on.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=park+blocks+portland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Care to share with us one of these studies?
Sure, the Copenhagen Study (http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf). That study shows that accidents between cars and bikes are reduced between intersections, where there was already a low amount of accidents. But accidents at intersections increased a lot. But the bicyclists believe they are safer because of the tracks.

There is a Swedish report (http://www.tft.lth.se/fileadmin/tft/dok/utbildning/146vetartikel.pdf) that shows that raising and coloring intersections had no long term effect on accident rates, they remained higher than riding on the roads.

Sure, the Copenhagen Study (http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf). That study shows that accidents between cars and bikes are reduced between intersections, where there was already a low amount of accidents. But accidents at intersections increased a lot. But the bicyclists believe they are safer because of the tracks.

There is a Swedish report (http://www.tft.lth.se/fileadmin/tft/dok/utbildning/146vetartikel.pdf) that shows that raising and coloring intersections had no long term effect on accident rates, they remained higher than riding on the roads.

Now the interesting thing about that report is this:


The increase in injuries to women was 18%, whereas there was only a small rise in injuries to men, just 1%. The increase in injuries is especially large among females under 20 years of age on foot and bicycle, as well as female pedestrians over the age of 64. On the other hand there was a considerable fall in injuries among older cyclists and children in cars of both sex.

Later in the report this statement is also made:


The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a an 18-20% increase in cycle/moped traffic and a decrease of 9-10% in car traffic on those roads where cycle tracks have been constructed.

Nowhere in the report does it compare the RATES of increased cycle/moped use to the increase of collisions. Is there any correlation between more users and more injuries?

And one has to ask, why are men less effected by these cycle track collisions than women?

Gene, that Copenhagen study is a thinly veiled pro-parking study that actually shows a reduction in the indexed accident rate in copenhagen and suggests greater signalization at the intersections would likely increase cyclist safety.

Wait a sec, sweet lou -

you mean the swedish study that concluded


The final conclusion is that the total safety seems to be unchanged
at both construction types. However, the components of safety differ as there seem to exist
more self-confident cyclists and more defensive drivers at the reconstructed junctions.

safety unchanged, more defensive motorists and more confident cyclists engaging in public right of way bicycling? is that what you were talking about?

Increasing ridershare while keeping accident rates flat ? A win-win. that study does suggest improved signalization of the intersections could lead to even greater intersection safety but the safety dynamic has changed for the better, as traffic speeds were reduced thru the intersections and greater yielding behaviors towards bicyclists.]

both studies suggest improving signage and intersection signalization has the potential to increase intersection safety for cyclists.

i suspect this type of analysis will lead to better design of americanized cycletracks. i like the bikelanes 2.0 myself but every indication is that separated lanes on major routes and traffic calmed streets otherwise are what works to truly increase active transportation and public mobility by bicycle.

We have a subforum for VC, why not one for the bike lane nannies?

-Kurt

maybe they need a subforum for pissants too!

What's YOUR vision of public right of ways that can support double digit ridershares, Cudak?

what's your vision of building road networks that could support much higher numbers of riders, say seniors on trikes heading off to the neighborhood early bird special - the status quo in florida is good enough :rolleyes: ?

We have a subforum for VC, why not one for the lane nannies?

-Kurt

The reality of US roads is summed here:

Although many U.S. roads are safe and comfortable to bicycle on as they are, others are unpleasant even for the most experienced cyclists. This is particularly true for urban arterials, which can be both the least pleasant for riding and also the most necessary for transportation purposes. As discussed above, widening the outside lane of such roads to create enough room for side-by-side lane sharing between bicyclists and motorists will make such roads much more hospitable for cyclists. Adding a bicycle lane stripe could worsen the situation if it increases the number of improper merges at intersections. A bike stencil on a wide outside lane could provide the encouragement and legitimacy sought by bike lane advocates without the complications of bike lanes (Zehnpfennig et al. 1993).

http://bicycledriving.org/about/the-dilemmas-of-bicycle-planning

i don't think simply 'widening the arterials' is going to cut it, gene.

this is a promotion of buffered bikelanes and cycletracks at appropriate locations in Portland, and design features being incorporated into streetscape design to facilitate larger segments of the population feeling empowered and facilitated to bicycle for transportation - versus autocentric barriers to roadway bicycling.

WOLs are significantly different from cycletracks and both may well have their place in well thought out roadway infrastructure that facilitates bicycling in communities.

[...]

What's YOUR vision of public right of ways that can support double digit ridershares...?
[...]

Bike boulevards, extremely large sharrows and bike-highway-like fully-separated paths in their own rights-of-way.

Those will provide cycling environments that are safer, more efficient and just plain better than cycle tracks.

maybe they need a subforum for pissants too!

Oh yes, I'm sure the moderators will create a subforum for you too. :p

-Kurt

SO, I take it that's a vote for the status quo in Florida. can somebody make sure i spelled everybody's name right, used vocabulary correctly, and feign insult if i misspelled anything? :)



Bike boulevards, extremely large sharrows and bike-highway-like fully-separated paths in their own rights-of-way.

Those will provide cycling environments that are safer, more efficient and just plain better than cycle tracks.

oh, all those absolutely should have a part in planning for roadway bicycle traffic, as well as buffered bikelanes and cycletracks.

i don't think traffic flow or rider share would be optimized by predicating cyclists ride on bike boulevards, in supersharrowed lanes or on bike highways. There has to be an innovative, middleground way to accommodate bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic at a moderate speed differential without having to build fully seperated right of ways bike highways.

new types of roadway infrastructure that is built with the knowledge cyclists, the vast majority of cyclists, have some trepidation operating in higher speed 'mixed traffic' conditions.


it should be possible to provide some traffic separation, particularly along streets with limited intersection conflicts. AND, If an arterial is signed 35mph or higher, sharrows are not going to cut it.

I'm all for significant traffic calming akin to TEMPO30 zones seen in Europe, but there's a lot of higher speed transportation going on in the USA that will lead to a experiential restriction on rider share if cyclists are expected to take the lane on supersharrowed, 40mph + arterials.

And many are sooo well designed. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

yes, quite!


http://www.streetfilms.org/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/

Someone say "cycle tracks?"

http://www.railbike.com/images/2railbikes.jpg

-Kurt

-reaffirming there should be an entire subforum for the less than fully inflated.

seriously, cudak. there's a lot to be said for planning for bikes in the transportation mix. maybe you like the cycling dystopia presented to you and your fellow Floridians, but cities around the country and globe are working to build in ridershare and all the benefits that accompany bicycling for the citizenry.

Ubu Roi goes bicycling. You with us populist nannys, or just mocking the efforts to make cities more bikeable by more of the public?


Floridians on trikes unite!

maybe they need a subforum for pissants too!

As usual you do your best to raise the tone of the debate. Well done.



what's your vision of building road networks that could support much higher numbers of riders, say seniors on trikes heading off to the neighborhood early bird special ?

You keep on mentioning this user type. Is that the sole thing you're interested in? Coupled with your repeated disdainful comments about "racer boys" (who appear to be anyone faster than a senior heading to an early-bird special) it seems that you're not interested in accommodating able cyclists. Do you have any figures on the numbers of trike-mounted, early-bird-bound seniors in Copenhagen? Do you have a mean speed for cyclists in Copenhagen? How does that information square with the proposed design?

Finally should bike facilities be built for imaginary flocks of trike-mounted seniors or for the people actually riding NOW?

what was the question?

who should cities plan for when they consider bikes as part of the transportation mix?

the population.

do i have a mean speed for the cyclists in copenhagen? what does that matter? and derision of 'racer boys', you have me confused with someone else, i'm a populist promoter of bicycling and think teams riding fast, cyclists choosing a more assertive road position, should be allowed and even encouraged to do so.

one thing is clear: communities in the USA can design their road networks to better support bicycling as a viable transportation mode.

design for the current crop of traffic-weary, assertive bicyclists will do nothing to encourage rider share among the vast majority of the american public.

you understand 'seniors on trikes' is a very viable potential user group of the roads in florida?

Bike boulevards, extremely large sharrows and bike-highway-like fully-separated paths in their own rights-of-way.

Those will provide cycling environments that are safer, more efficient and just plain better than cycle tracks.

+1000.

As usual you do your best to raise the tone of the debate. Well done.



You keep on mentioning this user type. Is that the sole thing you're interested in? Coupled with your repeated disdainful comments about "racer boys" (who appear to be anyone faster than a senior heading to an early-bird special) it seems that you're not interested in accommodating able cyclists. Do you have any figures on the numbers of trike-mounted, early-bird-bound seniors in Copenhagen? Do you have a mean speed for cyclists in Copenhagen? How does that information square with the proposed design?

Finally should bike facilities be built for imaginary flocks of trike-mounted seniors or for the people actually riding NOW?

People actually riding now don't need a thing... they are ACTUALLY RIDING NOW.

But there are loads of folks that ride occasionally, that would prefer something more than just lines of paint, or an "alpha dog attitude" so that they feel comfortable taking to the bicycle. These folks are NOT actually riding now, but could be encouraged to ride if they felt they didn't have to compete with cell phone using SUV driving distracted motorists.

Take the simple example of the transportation secretary... who rides on weekends on rails to trails paths... how can you encourage folks like that to ride more? Do you think educating him and suggesting he "share the road" with 45MPH distracted motorists is going to do it? Probably not.

But build an environment that is as comfortable to cyclists as many roads are to motor vehicle users, and yes, folks will ride bikes... and maybe in lieu of driving... especially if the price of gas is high (as it has been only within the past year or so.)

Robert Hurst just mentioned some basic ideas that will help these "reluctant" cyclists... "Bike boulevards, extremely large sharrows and bike-highway-like fully-separated paths in their own rights-of-way."

Give "ownership" of the roads to cyclists as much as now is given to motorists, and cyclists will ride.

Those of us who are criticizing cycletracks are doing so because we see their design, as shown in the video, as inherently unsafe. No one can seriously think that the average American driver is going to yield while making a right turn to a bike s/he may not even see coming from behind the SUV-based barrier. Davis, CA has an intersection where a bike path has been built parallel to the main road.Where the main road has an option to turn right to enter a freeway onramp these cars will cross the bike path. The view here is fairly open (a few tree trunks), but there were so many wrecks caused by motorists who would not yield that the city finally forced the bike path to yield. So, bikes now have to yield to cars that are overtaking them to turn right across them.

As for these planning disasters getting more people to ride, I rather think not. They are object lessons in the relative importance we place on car storage relative to bicycles. No one wants to be a part of the group that is clearly second class; it is just not American to aspire to last place. The only things that I have ever heard non-riders say would get them out of their cars are bike freeways and zero-tolerance traffic enforcement. The latter of these has the advantage of not requiring a large, nonrefundable, up-front investment.

-reaffirming there should be an entire subforum for the less than fully inflated.

Better half-inflated than full of hot air :D

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4580637340_3848764db2_o.jpg

-Kurt

:roflmao:

you think planning for bikes using public rights of way is a problem? that corner is going to be improved for bicycle traffic, isn't it, fearmonger?

tell you what, cudak - when 10 percent of american seniors bicycle in florida bicycle like their counterparts in germany, you can come back and tell the forum "I told you so" with your worthless photographic commentary.




Until then, your mockery of efforts in this country to better plan for bicycles as part of the transportation solution, to increase the numbers and safety of americans using bicycles for transportation using interventions proven in other countries, illustrates nothing but your utter lack of maturity.

Those of us who are criticizing cycletracks are doing so because we see their design, as shown in the video, as inherently unsafe. No one can seriously think that the average American driver is going to yield while making a right turn to a bike s/he may not even see coming from behind the SUV-based barrier. Davis, CA has an intersection where a bike path has been built parallel to the main road.Where the main road has an option to turn right to enter a freeway onramp these cars will cross the bike path. The view here is fairly open (a few tree trunks), but there were so many wrecks caused by motorists who would not yield that the city finally forced the bike path to yield. So, bikes now have to yield to cars that are overtaking them to turn right across them.

As for these planning disasters getting more people to ride, I rather think not. They are object lessons in the relative importance we place on car storage relative to bicycles. No one wants to be a part of the group that is clearly second class; it is just not American to aspire to last place. The only things that I have ever heard non-riders say would get them out of their cars are bike freeways and zero-tolerance traffic enforcement. The latter of these has the advantage of not requiring a large, nonrefundable, up-front investment.

How do you explain the increased numbers of cyclists crossing the various bridges in Portland... After the bridges were improved to better facilitate cyclists? http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/case_studies/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=106

in the process of Portland and New York City developing these new (to the USA) road infrastructure there will be evaluation of the buffered bikelanes and cycletracks for ridership and efficacy at improving intersection safety.



Just as improved signalization at intersections improves safety of cycletrack architecture in other countries, presumably signalization would enhance safety in the USA as well.

Have any of you have ever ridden a buffered bikelane? I have- they provide a very comfortable bicycling environment. maybe the complaint is they don't scare the public off their bikes?

in the process of Portland and New York City developing these new (to the USA) road infrastructure there will be evaluation of the buffered bikelanes and cycletracks for ridership and efficacy at improving intersection safety.



Just as improved signalization at intersections improves safety of cycletrack architecture in other countries, presumably signalization would enhance safety in the USA as well.

Have any of you have ever ridden a buffered bikelane? I have- they provide a very comfortable bicycling environment.

I have to fully agree with you, specialized signals are common in places like Paris and Barcelona, where such protected "cycle tracks" exist.

Of course in America, the car is given priority over everything... even when there may be more people on foot... the car is treated as king, by road designs, and by law. When the transportation needs of all PEOPLE are equalized, then people will freely chose the transit mode that best addresses their needs.

How do you explain the increased numbers of cyclists crossing the various bridges in Portland... After the bridges were improved to better facilitate cyclists? http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/case_studies/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=106

One possibility is that cyclists are being pressured off of the other bridges. The phenomenon where motorist hostility to cyclists on the normal road surface increases when the motorists "know" that bicyclists need special facilities is surely not news to you? That's one of the biggest problems of your proposals to build facilities to attract a (possibly imaginary) nascent cycling population.

in the process of Portland and New York City developing these new (to the USA) road infrastructure there will be evaluation of the buffered bikelanes and cycletracks for ridership and efficacy at improving intersection safety.

Just as improved signalization at intersections improves safety of cycletrack architecture in other countries, presumably signalization would enhance safety in the USA as well.


It's the only thing that could make separate cycletracks workable, and then only if there is a clear advantage such as the several seconds headstart that bicyclists get in Danish models. It's ludicrous that you think that cycletracks could ever work without them.


Have any of you have ever ridden a buffered bikelane? I have
- they provide a very comfortable bicycling environment
As with most of your posts you lack precision and clarity and bandy about vague terms and even vaguer aspirations (it's probably easier for you to get worked up about something that way). But yes, I've ridden in Montreal's horrible bi-directional buffered (by rubber poles sticking out of the ground) buffered bikelanes. They lack the only thing which would make such lanes acceptable: the very signals which you admit do NOT exist for the schemes which you now laud as comfortable.


. maybe the complaint is they don't scare the public off their bikes?

Maybe you're such an hysteric that you're incapable of making a civil argument for fear that you may be wrong. Much easier to spurt out a big cloud of distracting emotional ink (have you finished eating your early-bird BBQ Baby Breakfast Special yet?)

biggest problems that occur when motorists "Know" bicyclists need special facilities is a hilarious fabrication to disparage planning for bikes in the transportation mix. cycletrack architecture and buffered bikelanes will be used in conjunction with other types of road enhancements like bike boulevards, sharrows, traffic calming, and a vast majority of otherwise completely unmodified streets so that cyclists are EVERYWHERE in a community.

Motorists become accustomed to regular bicycle traffic omnipresent from the normalization of bicycling as a transportation mode, not the handwringing razrskutr frets over

biggest problems that occur when motorists "Know" bicyclists need special facilities is a hilarious reason to disparage planning for bikes in the transportation mix. cycletrack architecture and buffered bikelanes will be used in conjunction with other types of road enhancements like bike boulevards, sharrows, traffic calming, and a vast majority of otherwise completely unmodified streets so that cyclists are EVERYWHERE on every street.

Motorists become accustomed to regular bicycle traffic omnipresent from the normalization of bicycling as a transportation mode, not the hyperbole razrskutr frets over.

Look, here's an example of what happens when you start putting in facilities (as ludicrous as the one pictured in the post by Cudak888) such as those which you apparently have no problem with:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?642634-FL-Legislature-passes-mandatory-bike-lane-use-law-doesn-t-consult-cyclists
Yeah, that's some "normalization of bicycling as a transportation mode" right there buddy.

And don't tell me it's an anomaly, I've had plenty of people use the excuse "you should be in a bike lane" to me when I've been completely safe, legal and courteous.

That's the reality of what you and GeneC are pushing: you look at Holland and Denmark and ask weekend road-warrior LaHood for it in the USA and what we get are your crap facilities. No thanks. Clear up your messes before you start pushing more rubbish onto us.

what messes? whose messes? you mean america's autocentric roads?

I oppose mandatory bikelane laws but can endorse plans to enhance road infrastructure in ways that support bicycling. there is no contradiction in my position.

Cycletracks and buffered bikelanes are parts of the solution to the transportation disincentives towards bicycling public roadways in america. keep in mind, the overwhelming majority of streets in a bicycle-friendly community remain unmodified, only select transportation corridors need be remediated to better support bicycling as a transportation mode.

if you're for strict enforcement and the end to subsidized parking on roads, i'm all for it. those alone are not sufficient remediation. some communities will build in cycletracks and buffered bikelanes where appropriate, study the effects, modify the designs and continue to plan better for bike traffic.

Bek, if HB 971 passes as-is, I hope and wish you'll move down to Florida.

-Kurt

One possibility is that cyclists are being pressured off of the other bridges. The phenomenon where motorist hostility to cyclists on the normal road surface increases when the motorists "know" that bicyclists need special facilities is surely not news to you? That's one of the biggest problems of your proposals to build facilities to attract a (possibly imaginary) nascent cycling population.

So you think motorists are going to be friendly to cyclists taking the lane on their 45-50MPH bridges without cyclist facilities? You think such conditions will encourage cyclists to ride? Do you think steel grid bridges are safe for cyclists... they work fine for motor vehicles with four wide tires.

Or do you think that low speed paved lanes geared for all traffic might be be better? Do you think motorists will share the road with you if all roads are low speed? How do you plan on enforcing such speeds? Cops at every corner?

Yes, there will always be a few brave and bold cyclists that will take the lane on high speed roads... but that limits the cycling population to those brave and few... that seems to be what some advocate.

Bek, if HB 971 passes as-is, I hope and wish you'll move down to Florida.

-Kurt

The problem is not the law, but poor designs... if motorists only had poor designs available, they too would find them outrageous. The real solution is to make cycling part of the transportation picture, and design for all road users... not just motor vehicle users, and then "patch-in" some second class band-aid.