Vehicular Cycling (VC) - what is a nice shareable road speed?

the topic of "nice shareable road speeds" was brought up in a recent thread.

what is a nice shareable road speed? of course cyclists should be allowed to ride on roads of most any speed, but what would be considered a nice, shareable road speed?

There are different standards for 'nice shareable road speeds'; American roadway design standards are that sharrows, shared lane markings not be placed on roads with speeds greater than 35mph. the FHWA feels that there are more effective ways to manage greater than this level of speed differential between bike and motor vehicle traffic.

In Europe, widespread use of TEMPO30 zones, roads where the speed limit is set at less than 19 miles an hour (30 km/hr) are considered safe shareable road speeds for cyclists and motor vehicles without any separation by class. in some european countries, the use of much more speed restrictive woonerven keep motor vehicle speeds at very low limits. along woonefs, pedestrian and bike traffic establish the nice shareable road speed as they have traffic priority along woonerven.

Londons' cycling design standards favor nice shared road space at lower speeds and separation at higher speeds or traffic volumes "Cycle lanes or tracks should be provided to assist cyclists where motor vehicle flows and/or speeds are medium or high"

what should a 'nice shareable road speed' be? TEMPO 30 zones, america's 35mph standard, or somewhere either side? keep in mind the european approach of tempo 30 zones is concurrent with much higher ridership and lower accident rates for cyclists, and more riders of all ages both men and women.

this suggests the lower the speed -among other interventions- the greater the comfortability of roads that meet nice sharable standards by members of the public. I believe Jennifer Dill has tracked cyclists in portland and shown cyclists will travel to get to a prefered route with more shareable road speeds or facilities.

in contemplation of this design speed, consider all members of the public as these are public roads. consider the senior citizen, the school children as well as your own mettle when coming up with a safe shareable road speed most members of the public would feel comfortable on.

what should be considered a nice shareable road speed for all members of the public wishing to bicycle?

????? Sorry , I haven't a clue about any of this.
Share what? Take the lane guys ? Narrow 2 lane streets or country lanes ? You want cars to go 15mph because the street
is half full of bikes ? Sounds like China and Vietnam. They go as fast as they feel like.
I ride to the right or inbetween merge lanes on the dotted line. I see no need to be a road hog on a snow free road.
The only reason that bicycles are banned from freeways is they can't cross busy 60 mph merge lanes to exit.
Put sholders on busy roads. problem solved.

if you are riding on the line you may be of the opinion you actually can't share the road road safely at any speed.

How does a shoulder aid in crossing an offramp?

it sounds like you feel 100km/hr highway speed roads are NOT shareable, not without shoulders, which is distinctly NOT 'road sharing' in the context of this discussion.

i don't want cars to go 15mph because of all the bikes, but extensive use of TEMPO30 zones are seen across cities in a number of countries in europe that value public safety and want safe communities wih nice, shareable road speeds. European traffic engineers and urban planners have widely established this as a nice shareable road speed that does not hinder ridership.

here's a wiki link to an article on tempo 30 zones.... i had it translated, hold on, let me see if i can link to the english version...

tempo 30 in english (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo-30-Zone&ei=jINjTMDdIYX0swPAopjyBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtempo30%2Bzones%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26prmd%3Dv)

tempo30 zones (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo-30-Zone)

the austrian city of vienna mentions this in their citys transportation plan about tempo30 zones " TEMPO30 zones also offers the lower speed level favorable conditions for safe cycling in mixed traffic."

i will offer that the european 'standard' of 30 km/hr is a nice, shareable road speed for all members of the public.

Nice pic of a sign somewhere by a farm. That sure explains things. pfft Where is the road ???
Any granny on a one speed bike can go faster than 30 km.
The story explains NOTHING about sharing any road.
Sharing means using as little of the street as possible so that OTHERS can do the same.
So what , if the cars are going by in the same lane at 30 mph ?
I have used the ride to the right philosophy with zero problems. How the hell does that denigrate my equal rights to use the roads ???? NOBODY tells me to get off the road or doesn't let me go left around buses or whatever.
Of course we need 3 or 4 feet from car doors.
I use side streets, sidewalks, any streets, whatever. Our bike lanes are now mostly on 1 way streets for some reason. I don't need to slow anybody down , anywhere, to feel safe. These Tempo30 laws seem fn ******** , anywhere in North America.

I have ridden in plenty of cities from here to Houston.
I had to ride the freeway to get into Ft.Worth from Arlington. A trooper called me over at the entrance, and asked what i was doing. Then said ok. It wasn't that busy anyway.
Car and truck drivers aren't stupid, they slow down behind me in tight lanes, city or highway.

I have no problems using the freeway, most places. Maybe I double cross the merge lane or maybe not.
I let the cars pass right/ left whatever. I have zero need to take the lane there.
I was going 31 mph part of the time on a 42 lb hybrid bike.
I have been on the full 4 lane freeway out of Salt Lake and needed to go 79 mph to get away from trucks. Sure couldn't ride a bike on those freeways.

Go to Vietnam and you will learn to SHARE the road in a BIG hurry. Bicycles and motorcycles going straight/diagonal/wrong way in the right gutter. Your knees /handlebars are bumping anybody/anything, especially
in traffic circles where you need to elbow cars. And it is FUN. Lanes? haha what lanes? Whole families clinging on those Honda125s. I never saw 1 baby crying either.
Does anybody stop for any pedestrians there? NO You take a step and they go
in front/ in behind and you merge like a school of fish.

Why not set up an poll where the speed options are independent from judgement of others?

oh, i thought the poll options accurately reflected the points of view of the forum. the last option is kind of a throwaway, knowing full well it was an option for the idealogue.

surely in consideration of shareable roads for bicycling, insistences that roads greater than 50 mph is a nice, shareable road speed for bicyclists approaches the ludicrous. i felt 50mph roads represented the upper range of realistic options for forum members to choose from.

the other choices are judgement free, only the last was for idealogues and yes, skew attached. i'm not trying for a 'scientific' sample, there are plenty of bonifide parameters for this.

the london cycling program actually has a great graphic showing the applicability of differing road designs in conjunction with speeds and traffic volumes; above 80 km/hr there are very few instances London transportation engineers would consider a road as safely shareable without class specificity along that travel corridor.

'any speed is shareable' is not a realistic, humanistic poll choice, therefore it is slightly mocked in the poll. my apologies for recognizing human nature and the limitations established by professional traffic engineers in developing standards for road design.

Well unfortunately none of the poll choices fits for me. Not even close.

i guess that is unfortunate?

This wasn't a poll for what you felt was a safe shareable road speed for YOU and you alone. I've taken the lane on interstate highways and even in limited visibility conditions, but don't think that is for the rest of the bicycling public out there or that freeway speeds would be considered 'safely sharable' for the human element in any realistic discussion of bicycle transportation.

highway transportation engineers in various countries have come up with some standards and limits; those options are fairly reflected in the poll.


Consider grandmothers taking their grandkids to school by bicycle.

Posted speed limit is only a small factor in what makes a road shareable.

that's a good point but i would consider it more than a small factor.

with no motor vehicle traffic whatsoever, they likely would not even NEED to be a speed limit.

what do you think about the 'human priority' speed limits of the woonerven in Europe?
these can be considered intrinsically more 'shareable' than a 120 km/hr freeway.

Which is why the option that any speed could be considered shareable is the only logical one, but the snide additional comment associated with that choice about what people are who don't think this prevents it from getting my vote and is in my opinion only intended to be argumentative and is not constructive toward reasonable discussion.

..... 'any speed should be considered shareable'

is simply not a reasonable, realistic option as per international road and traffic safety engineers standards for transportation networks, noisebeam.

it's off the table of reasonable discussion.

so, as to the reasonable discussion of shareable road speeds......

What about factors like grade, sightlines, roadway width?

absolutely those factors have to be considered when planning shared road networks that facilitate bicycling as transportation.

i forget if the roads of mackinac island have posted speed limits.

Which is why the option that any speed could be considered shareable is the only logical one, but the snide additional comment associated with that choice about what people are who don't think this prevents it from getting my vote and is in my opinion only intended to be argumentative and is not constructive toward reasonable discussion.
Because if you believe "any speed should be considered shareable", Bek will force these words into your mouth: "people that don't think this are incompetent".

Note that many people who use "polls" use this "tactic" but not so crudely!

Stupid poll.

that's actually someone else's dogma, not mine. i felt it would be fair to offer such a choice for the ideologically addled.

for realistic consideration of bikes and cars and nice shareable road speeds between them, the other four are within the realm of reasonable consideration.

the dogmatism attached to the last poll choice is frequently bandied about here in the VC subforum, I felt it would only be FAIR AND BALANCED to present this option.

best have equal choices for all points of view, eh?

the dogmatism attached to the last poll choice is frequently bandied about here in the VC subforum, I felt it would only be FAIR AND BALANCED to present this option.
Emulating Fox News, eh?

People should boycott this defective "poll".

Thankfully traffic laws in just about every US state support choice 5.

yes, indeed. legally allowed in most states.

However, not recommended design guidelines from transportation engineers in ANY state as to what constitutes the upper speed limits of what one poster described as a 'nice, shareable road speed'.

Someone had suggested 50 miles an hour was a nice shareable road speed. i felt this was a topic worth a little REASONABLE discussion.

from my original post:


the topic of "nice shareable road speeds" was brought up in a recent thread.

what is a nice shareable road speed? of course cyclists should be allowed to ride on roads of most any speed, but what would be considered a nice, shareable road speed?


People should boycott this defective "poll".

does that mean people should boycott the defective dogma that raises such ire? seems the dogma is the offense, not the poll.

that point of view is voiced in this forum quite frequently, you know?

"any speed should be considered shareable" is the only defensible option for anyone who who is opposed to the idea of banning cyclists from roadways that don't meet certain standards.

yes, but in a consideration of how to design and plan road networks for safe road sharing between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic, there are upper limits established by many countries as to what constitutes that upper limit to 'nice shareable road speeds' and what speeds and volumes dictate a different approach.

see the original post for some background from several countries as to what have been established as these engineering limits.

Someone had suggested 50 miles an hour was a nice shareable road speed. i felt this was a topic worth a little REASONABLE discussion.
But this stupid, dishonest poll isn't meant to be the basis of a reasonable discussion.


does that mean people should boycott the defective dogma that raises such ire? seems the dogma is the offense, not the poll.
The poll is offensive too!

An honest poll should assess people's opinions. Not what opinions you require them to hold!

yeah, polls cannot be weighted. :rolleyes:

but, you may be onto something, njkayaker~! the dogma expressed in option 5 IS offensive. YOU find it offensive, I find it offensive, but it is expressed in many threads in this forum.

since this is an opinion expressed in many of these threads, it was only fair to include it in the poll despite its offensive nature. this does not make the poll 'dishonest' or 'offensive', that's someone elses opinion i felt i would respectfully include in the poll, offensive as it is. i didn't realize it would become such an distracting part of my post as it is a pretty widely voiced opinion heard around this forum.

maybe the moderators could remove the offensive part of the poll choice #5 if its such a stumbling block and a barrier to the reasonable discussion.

it is an opinion expressed in this forum, offensive as it sounds. its not my personal opinion, obviously.



if you cannot have a reasonable discussion with an awareness that some people hold the opinion expressed in option 5, no need to contribute anything further.

seriously, the only reasonable options are the first 4, in accordance with traffic engineering standards held in many countries.

yes, the fifth option is outside the bounds of reasonable discussion. absolutely.

yeah, polls cannot be weighted. :rolleyes:

Says the heir to the Helmet Head polling empire. :lol:

Think carefully about what this means: "any speed should be considered shareable,"

specifically the 'should' and 'considered' part, for example it does not 'is'

I don't pay that much attention to the speed. I worry more about lane width/condition and traffic volume to decide if the road is shareable.

so, if the lanes are narrow, requiring cyclists to operate 'taking the lane' so to speak, NOT off to the side of a wide lane,

and traffic speeds and volumes increase, at what speed do you think traffic planners should consider the upper limit of when cyclists would have nice shareable road speeds?

do you feel like you, grandmothers, and their charges should feel like 80km/hr is a road speed they should feel safe in the middle of the travel lanes? 100km/hr? or is 30 km/hr or 50 km/hr perhaps more realistic cutoffs for a nice, shareable road speed?

your position partially mirrors the london cycling plan, steve.

"I am an American, I speak one language and sharing is something other people should do for me as I pay for the roads and others better get out of my way."


Till we get aptitudes like this fix "sharable" is just a nice fictitious concept.

Posted speed limit is only a small factor in what makes a road shareable.

+1000

I personally feel that 35 MPH speed limit and below is a shareable road speed for ME. but I know that other people have different comfort levels.

Think carefully about what this means: "any speed should be considered shareable,"

specifically the 'should' and 'considered' part, for example it does not 'is'

True this... the "should be" aspect while true, is not exemplified by many motorists.

To address the specifics of the OP... personally up to about 35 MPH seems quite comfortable... but then I can maintain 18-19MPH on flat roads...

Forester has a statement in his book that amounts to cyclists having difficulty negotiating with motorists when there is a 15MPH or higher speed difference. So if one is sharing the road, as long as the speed differential is less than 15MPH, most likely there is a suitable comfort factor for a reasonably skilled cyclist.

Highly skilled cyclists can be comfortable on any road.

I didn't take the poll because:

1. Obviously, the smaller the speed differential, the easier it is to negotiate with and react to other traffic. But this is a continuous phenomenon, not a discreet one with choices like the ones listed in your poll.

2. As noisebeam said, defining an upper posted speed limit as the threshhold for shareability would lead to cyclists being prohibited from roads that exceed that threshhold. Not a smart move for those seeking cyclist equality. We are already banned from certain roads where there is a minimum speed limit. Let's not add to that list on the basis of maximum speed limit.

All that having been said, I favor reducing urban speed limits, not just for cyclists' sake but to improve safety for all roadway users - motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.

The feds say sharrows on roads with speeds of 35 mph or less.

A US city establishing a top design speed for shared lane bikeway networks, where kids and seniors and differently abled people could feel safe sharing/claiming in the middle of the lane with faster traffic, and more elaborate plans for bike traffic along faster speed roads would not lead to 'prohibitions', it would lead to MORE BICYCLISTS.

Better planning for roadway bicycling would lead to better road cycling conditions and more bicyclists in a community.

This question I posed was to to get people thinking what is a safe shareable road speed for all members of the public?

Other countries have a different approach. MANY European communities plan for bikes full in the lane along TEMPO30 (<19mph) zones, and more extensive planning of road or highway facilities for bicycle traffic mixing on higher speed roads.

Unfounded fear of bans is no excuse to fail to plan for bikes on roads and highways as part of the transportation mix. Claims that all roads are equally shareable by all bicyclists, and therefore nothing needs to be done falls flat at recognizing human nature and abilities. A lack of a plan is no plan at all. VC claims that nothing need be done, heck - better NOT plan for road or highway bike traffic is a humorous non sequitur.

Fearmongering & paralysis is NOT a plan to better facilitate competent roadway bicycling behavior.

I'll dumb it down a bit: How fast should the speed limit be on roads cities plan to have small children, senior citizens and moms on bicycles riding in the middle of the travel lanes on streets established as siginificant for bicycle traffic, and at what traffic speeds should communities consider better street configurations for bicyclists along identified bikeways?


Highrollers' pledge to reduce urban speed limits embraces the topic of the discussion: establish more sane, shareable road speeds.

Slow urban speeds down to what? Most cities I'm familiar establish 30mph as the unsigned speed limit. HOW much slower than 30mph, high roller?


School zones are 20mph; Tempo30 zones in Europe are under 19mph, European communities also utilize ped and bike priority traffic zones, the US thinks sharrows are acceptable on roads no greater than 35mph.

What should be considered a nice shareable road speed that does not present a barrier to populist participation in urban roadway bicycling?

How slow, high roller? obviously, you think reducing urban speed limits would help for cyclists sake as well as all roadway users.

in contemplation of this design speed, consider all members of the public as these are public roads. consider the senior citizen, the school children as well as your own mettle when coming up with a safe shareable road speed most members of the public would feel comfortable on.

what should be considered a nice shareable road speed for all members of the public wishing to bicycle?

Considering Bek included the above in the opening post along with a poll asking "what is a nice shareable road speed", (not a required speed before ANY cycists are allowed, like some are trying to make it out to be) the answer is clear. 35 MPH or less for sure. The vast majority of the public doesn't want to or won't share a lane with higher speed traffic.

Continuing from Post # 32:

3. Why must cyclist A, comfortable with a maximum speed differential of x, judge that cyclist B is "incompetent", because the latter is comfortable with a maximum speed differential of x - y?

I suspect the only answer you will be satisfied with is 0 Km/Hr, i.e., we shouldn't ride on any road where there is any moving motorized traffic at all, thereby confining us to bike ghettos that don't go anywhere we need to go. The only purpose I can see behind this poll, other than to prove that it is possible to construct a foolish poll on Cycling Forums, is to build your misguided anti-cycling case to further erode our right to travel on the public roadways.

Use of disparaging terminology about incompetent cyclists and bike ghettos in a discussion about roadway bicycling is counter to rational discussion. Vacuous & angry complaints about prohibitions, ghettos and incompetence have no place in any reasoned discussion.


A discussion about conditions amenable to more public road bicycling misconstrued into an erosion of cyclists' rights. misguided indeed. :rolleyes:.... Discussion is about road conditions that favor MORE COMPETENT & VEHICULAR ROADWAY BICYCLING by more of the public.

I'm simply asking how slow should those urban traffic speeds be on streets grandpa and the kids should feel comfortable riding vehicularly? Expectations of all cyclists taking the lane all the time on roads of all speeds lest a prohibition on road cycling occur is horribly unfounded. Even high roller admits there should be slower urban traffic speeds to benefit cyclists and improve overall road safety.

how slow, high roller? Europe makes extensive use of TEMPO30 zones.


I favor reducing urban speed limits, not just for cyclists' sake but to improve safety for all roadway users - motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

In the software engineering world, in which I find myself immersed 40+ hours per week, we are well advised to perform regression testing, to make sure existing functionality has not been destroyed in conjunction with adding new functionality.

For those of us committed to preserving cyclist freedom, to be able to use our bicycles as an efficient and effective means of transportation and not just as toys, sacrificing existing rights to achieve some mythical addition to our ranks is simply not acceptable. If we disagree on this fundamental principle, it’s unlikely we will ever see eye-to-eye on the course cycling advocacy should take.

The principles are not as highroller describes when discussing competent roadway bicycling and road sharing, and how to facilitate and increase this type of road use by bicyclists more safely.

effective transportation? check. cyclist freedom to ride all road and traffic corridors in a community without barriers to populist cycling? check.

i think we are in agreement with road ridership and ensuring this activity not be fettered.

earlier, you suggested urban speeds be lowered to enhance safety of all road users, high roller. What types of speeds are you talking here?

you are familiar with the effectiveness of TEMPO30 zones and fair road sharing in many countries in Europe I hope.

give us some examples from Boise of what types of urban speeds you think need lowering, and to what, high roller. Arguing semantics and vacuous platitudes doesn't do you any justice, it merely degrades the quality of your position.

Continuing from Post # 32:
I suspect the only answer you will be satisfied with is 0 Km/Hr, i.e., we shouldn't ride on any road where there is any moving motorized traffic at all, thereby confining us to bike ghettos that don't go anywhere we need to go. The only purpose I can see behind this poll, other than to prove that it is possible to construct a foolish poll on Cycling Forums, is to build your misguided anti-cycling case to further erode our right to travel on the public roadways.

:roflmao:

Given the choice of two routes, one with a speed limit of 35 mph, and the other with a speed limit of 55 mph, all other factors being equal, of course I would choose the former. Who but someone with a blank EEG reading wouldn't? But all other factors - outside lane width, density of intersections, directness of the route from point A to point B - are seldom equal. And I don't want to relinquish the option to choose the 55 mph route if it meets my needs better than the 35 mph route, just so you so-called cycling advocates can continue to build a case for your naive and restrictive version of cycling utopia.

What about factors like grade, sightlines, roadway width?

Grade would be the biggest issue; set the speed limits low enough to not get run over climbing a 6% grade, and you'll be speeding coming down the other side. In rolling hill areas, you'd be changing the limit every block to meet cyclists' abilities, and opposite directions would have different limits.

......... I don't want to relinquish the option to choose the 55 mph route if it meets my needs better than the 35 mph route, just so you so-called cycling advocates can continue to build a case for your naive and restrictive version of cycling utopia.

R I G H T. fair enough. MY expectations mirror that of the FHWA and AASHTO,

that
......All highways, except those where cyclists are legally
prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used
by cyclists” (AASHTO, 1999). With any roadway facility a potential bicycle facility, it is
important to understand and accommodate bicyclists.

Your unfounded fears can be laid to rest!

If you can look past those unfounded fears, please describe your vision and what you mean, high roller, when you state a desire for lower urban speeds. Please, cite some specific examples of urban roads in Boise where you think high roller, other bicyclists and all road users would benefit from lower speeds.


...I favor reducing urban speed limits...

You ARE suggesting slower urban speeds - where, by how much, and to what?

Highroller. You can't tell us YOU want lower urban speeds TOO, and then go on to wildly disparage those of us that recognize there's a better plan for roadway bicycling than bluster.

I've answered your questions as well as I can. Recapping:

1. The smaller the speed differential, the better.

2. Cyclists should not be denied the right to ride on any roadways of their choosing, regardless of the posted speed limit.

Rando, thanks for your erudite contribution to this thread. Now if I could just rid myself of the image of a person pointing to a picture on the menu and grunting when the server at Dennie's comes to take their order.

Always a pleasure.

okay. so that's a vote for TEMPO30 zones then.

i've answered your questions as well as i can. Recapping:

1. The smaller the speed differential, the better.

2. Cyclists should not be denied the right to ride on any roadways of their choosing, regardless of the posted speed limit.

Rando, thanks for your erudite contribution to this thread. Now if i could just rid myself of the image of a person pointing to a picture on the menu and grunting when the server at dennie's comes to take their order.

Always a pleasure.

oops. I guess you weren't trying to be funny.

:d

I go 20 miles an hour. Everyone else's speed is their own responsibility.