alanfleisig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo

Opinions?

Helmet Head

Where we are:
1) Bike lanes
2) Bike lanes are not "good enough" (duh, they're essentially good for nothing)

What this movie recommends:
3) Physically separated bike lanes (side paths)

The inevitable after that:
4) Cyclists integrated with motorists on the roads is prohibited.
5) Cycling is relegated to short trip/slow/ped-style cycling.

sggoodri

The cyclists complain about right-hooks on striped bike lanes, and they think barrier-separated lanes will be better? Sorry, the barriers will just make right hooks worse, by preventing cyclists from merging farther left in line with through traffic and preventing right turning drivers from merging right when approaching the turn.

In addition, the barriers will require cyclists to slow to a crawl at driveways and intersections and wait for the numerous drivers who will block them when preparing to pull out. If parking exists between the separated bikeway and the roadway, the cars will compromise sight lines between cyclists and traffic turning into side streets. Vehicles loading and unloading cargo from the parking area will extend ramps across the bikeway to the sidewalk. If the bikeway is two-way, expect much higher rates of car-bike collisions between right-turning drivers and the contra-flow cyclists compared to the crash rates for normal on-roadway cycling.

Barrier-separated bikeways are more hazardous than on-roadway cycling unless there are no intersections, such as on bridges or alongside freeways. Attempts to make them safer by signalizing all the junctions with a separate bicycle phase will delay all road users including cyclists by reducing everyone's green time. If a physically separate bikeway is desired, the bikeway should be in its own right of way (not a sidepath), with minimal junctions and/or with junctions treated like normal intersections with good sight lines and predictable traffic movements.

lima_bean

I could see them being useful in places where it is currently very difficult to cycle on the roads or illegal, such as freeways, or narrow high speed highways, or bridges.

Unfortunately, in reality, they would probably be implemented in urban areas, and on roads with relatively slow speeds and many intersections (like current bike lanes). Which would make them pretty much as Helmet Head describes.

o-dog

about 12 seconds in...
"...which forces the biker to have to swerve into the middle of the road..."

WHAT???

if the cyclist in question is indeed swerving (implying sudden lateral movement without signalling and/or checking first), then that cyclist needs to go to traffic school.

about 5:30 in...
"we wouldn't be interfering with the flow of traffic that often."
bad attitude, especially coming from a cyclist.

other than those little blurbs the movie makes a convincing case at least as far as a densely populated city is concerned(sidepaths are not very effective here in the suburbs). but what happens when the cyclist needs to turn left? are these separated paths maintained to the same standard as the roads? will they increase or decrease cyclists' overall traveling speed? what about the danger of right hooks that as some people have pointed out are still present?

galen_52657

Personally, I did not see anything the dangerous in the film for the existing conditions. The traffic is so slow and the impediments immobile for the most part that going around them did not seem to pose a hazard to any of the cyclists.

With side segregated side paths, you have to stop and wait for a light to take a left turn (like a pedestrian). If there was a sufficient network of side paths (every other street?) it might be an improvement.

noisebeam

It was a little to obvious footage was selected to make the point - for example did you see any of how the separated path intersected other streets that were in heavy use?

Al

Helmet Head

[


It's not only what about when the cyclists need to turn left, what if they need to go straight and the motorists need to turn right. See Stephen Goodridge's post.

Helmet Head

Yeah, segregated facility promotion is a great example of denial based on utopian thinking.

sbhikes

Like I've said before, what the world needs are more separated bike paths.

Those of you who will argue against it are failing to see that it is real people who want them. Not ideologues.

Real people want them, they use them, they want more of them. Those who use them span a wider demographic than those who ride like HH and don't think we need any facilities.

And in case you didn't notice, it was more about keeping the cars out of the way than it was about keeping bikes out of the way. In fact, the goal is more bikes and less cars, and a good bikeway system is one really good way to get more people to bike and less to drive.

Also, if you missed it, the idea was not to have a one-size-fits all solution but to have many solutions to choose from, with many options for dealing with intersections.

joejack951

That was painful. So many cyclists proceeding straight from the edge of the road (left and right) then complaing that motorists "don't know how bike lanes work." Lots of footage of very wide streets showing seperated bike path utopia but no focus on intersections, except for one short blurb about how there are many ways to treat intersections and make them safe (video shows more paint on the road). Such a well thought out plan

o-dog

true... from what I've seen sidepaths seem to work in Europe... very likely because motorists are more mindful of cyclists there than they are in the States.

City Of Cyclists (the movie about cycling in Copenhagen that was posted here a while back) shows many examples of motorists waiting for cyclists in sidepaths to cross an intersection before turning right.

patc

Hmm. Well, this is New York - I have never personally seen traffic that dense in Ottawa (save for one or two freeways), nor driving that bad and aggressive. Of course the clips, and interviews, have been picked for effect, I don't for a minute assume that this was meant to be a fair and impartial representation. (Reminded me a bit of downtown Montreal, though.)

A network of pathways is a great idea. Bike lanes can work well. Separated bike lanes strike me as having the potential to be the worse of both, and I agree with the comment above that the video shows few solutions for intersections. However, that being said, separated bile lanes could be an option for certain busy roads, when conditions make them particularly difficult for cyclists. One of the best messages from that video is to have a range or designs and potential solutions for a city to look at.

What struck me most about this video, however, is that nearly every problem identified was due not to bad road design, but due to irresponsible and illegal driving. If people can not be trusted to operate a vehicle responsibly, then they need to be educated, fined, and/or lose their driving privileges. What I heard on this video was, "well, gee, people break the laws, and we can't do anything but ignore and accept that". That's an attitude I see too often these days, governments seem willing to do anything except actually enforce laws.

Daily Commute

There was recently an exchange in the NYT letters between John Allen from the LAB and some dude from Transportation Alternatives. Allen argued that sidepaths were dangerous, but TA loves them.

Accoring to the article that sparked the exchange, back in the Koch era, NY had sidepaths, but cyclists frequently didn't use them. Koch put up signs saying "use them or lose them." I think NY cyclists made the right choice by choosing to "lose them."

Will TA continue to fight for the right of cyclists to use the road if segregated bike lanes are put in place? Don't hold your breath. You can bet that if these lanes are put in place, the NYPD will aggressively ticket cyclists who dare ride on the road and that TA won't care.

The silliness of TA's proposal is by one of the first speakers in the video. He says, "A true bicycle network is one that can be safely used by a child." So, he's going to make NY city streets safe for children by creating separated paths? What do the children do at intersections?

At the 6:30 point, a speaker says that it would make "a lot of sense" for cyclists to share the sidewalk with pedestrians. That's TA for you. TA is not a cyclist advocacy group, it is an anti-car group (it seeks "alternatives" to driving). Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting fewer people to drive, but that
s a different goal than making cycling safer and more efficient.

The video does a lot to attack the striped bike lane. Many of the criticisms are valid (like motorists don't know how to navigate around them at intersections). But didn't TA used to advocate for striped lanes? And if motorists have trouble dealing with striped lanes at intersections, the problem will only get worse for physically segregated lanes. If TA gets what it wants here, I'll bet in ten years we'll be seeing videos from them about the horrors of segregated lanes. Maybe then they will just propose the all-bikes-on-sidewalk rule that seems most consistent with their philosphy.

Finally, the poor speakers are also horrified at the prosepect of interacting with traffic. Oh, the humanity!

Then why were the previous physically segregated lanes removed because so many cyclists wouldn't use them? We have a similar thing happen in Columbus in the OSU area. They TA-style physically separated lanes. They were such a disaster (snow removal, trash/glass, etc.) that they were removed.

galen_52657

I really don't understand all the fuss. My grandmother could keep up with the motor traffic depicted in that video.

joejack951

Just about all of the footage of close calls was cyclists passing motor traffic, not the other way around. The rest of the time it was cyclists trying to squeeze in between lines of vehicles. The video makes a great case for why bikelanes don't work though.

invisiblehand

Hmmmm, I am still thinking about the issue ... but my first guess is that for high density areas a "separated" bike line is a positive change. I will try to address all of the points in the prior posts, but time is limited so I may miss some and I will try my best to keep the statements/thoughts organized.

The problem the separated bike lanes address--at least in the video--is not high speed impacts. It is more to do with keeping traffic flow, minimizing low-speed impacts and avoiding injury on heavily used streets. Given the high density traffic, the real worry is not the initial injury--probablistically speaking, one could still get a nasty head injury at low velocities--but getting run over subsequent to falling. Ignoring intersections for the moment, I think that separated bike lanes address these issues well.

I agree that cyclists will have to ride slower to ride safely since pedestrians, roller-bladers, and such will either use the lanes or cross during "jay-walking" and so on. I think that this is the price of congestion, living/working in a high density area and cooperating with our "neighbors" in a civilized fashion. A civil engineer is probably trying to optimize something that includes travel time/safety of all commuters/travellers. Generally, if less accidents occur and flow is improved, then I would expect the average commuting/travel time to decrease for the average driver/cyclist. Note that the italics emphasizes that it is an empirical question. The underline emphasizes that most people on this forum are not average cyclists.

But I don't agree that this necessarily leads to an absolute loss of rights to riding in the streets with bike lanes. I rather not get into a long argument about politicial science and public choice (since these assertions are difficult to prove and easy to rant), but in brief, if more people cycle then as a concentrated lobbying group cyclists become more powerful. Moreover, the removal of rights usually requires more evidence/effort than the enabling of rights. My caveats: These are not absolutes and are more anecdotal thoughts about the world than based on rigorous research. However, I would not be surprised if cyclists were not allowed on roads with separated bikes lanes during rush hour.

I think that it is easy to write/say that enforcement of traffic laws should be increased. However, in practice, strict(er) enforcement is more costly and difficult than it appears. Remember, not only does an officer have to take the time to stop and write the citation, but there are administrative and potential judicial costs as well. Mind you, I agree that agressive driving should be more strictly enforced. But I just want to point out that as the transgressions become more minor, roughly speaking, enforcement becomes more costly from an opportunity cost perspective. I will note that it could be the case that (A) strict enforcement of bike lane laws could be less expensive and/or more effective than (B) less enforcement with separated bike lanes. However, that is also an empirical question.

Intersections ...

The post that states that one cannot block part of the right lane when turning right makes a good point. And I don't know enough about civil engineering to intelligently propose a structural and cost-effective solution to the issue. Maybe some sort of speed bump? I don't know ... ... but I also think that for the intersections where right turns are a big problem--when you have multiple lanes turning right, that the solution to take the right lane doesn't help much either.

I recall that there are two methods for making left turns. One is to slide over into the left lane and make the left. The other is to cross the intersection, turn at the following corner, and then proceed forward when the light turns green. Remember that these separated bike lanes would probably be used on the busiest of streets. Think of 5th Avenue. My guess is that a large proportion of cyclists are not sliding across with the traffic to make that left turn. So perhaps some cyclists are slowed down with the installation of separated bike lanes; but in the aggregate, I doubt that the loss is significant.

I need to get some work done, but let me end with thoughts on prior research and cycling data. In my casual review of the research and available data--mind you, I have a real job to attend--I just can't see making many strong conclusions or "hard" statements about the empirical reality of cycling. In other words, the quality and detail of the data is unable to support the strong opinions I read on the forum and elsewhere. A good "for instance" is the following: there is a literature that states that cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous than on the road. I find that much of the research fails to adequately account for selection biases in the data. Suppose that sidewalk riders are less-skilled than road riders. Or that people use sidewalks in more dangerous areas compared to the areas where they ride roads. Using the metrics in these studies, one could easy conclude that sidewalks were the cause of the danger when the true underlying cause was something else. Please, let this not turn into a discussion about sidewalks ... there is another thread for that. I can make a similar argument about bike paths.

I don't want to "poo-poo" the body of research. There are carefully crafted and well-thought out studies. And I certainly have not done an exhaustive review of the literature. I just fail to see how strong, conclusive statements can be based on the underlying data since we are unable to model much of the relevant behavior.

noisebeam

Just about every cyclist in the NYC footage wants to go faster than traffic, not slower. They are all passing motor vehicles. The vast majority of the perceived and real hazards would go away if the cyclists rode with the flow of the traffic. But no NYC cylist wants to do that, so why would they want separated paths and cumbersome intersections that also slow them down as suggested they might - they'd still try and 'beat' the flow thru hazardous passing and turning, made even more so by separated paths.

Al

Wogster

Let's see, because cars can't keep in their own lanes, cyclists need to be further punished, by being stuck to the right of parked cars. There are two problems with this, first of all, it's easier to get doored by a passenger, passengers don't expect traffic on their side. There is nowhere for the cyclist to go, to prevent that collision either. Second is you make it much easier for cyclists to get right hooked, because drivers can't see the cycling lane.

The real solution, is to make all bike lanes tow-away zones, a car parks in the bike lane, they get towed. A $100 ticket, $75 towing fee, and a $100 impound fee, would work wonders.....

joejack951

I agree with the first paragraph but not with the second. Those parking in the bike lanes are probably just stopping there to drop someone off. If there is no where on the street to pull over to the curb, where do you expect a cabbie to drop someone off at? In the middle of the road? Cyclists are not forced to stay in bike lanes. If something is in your way in your lane (whether bike lane or traffic lane) you change lanes and go around it. Worst case, you stop. If the bike lanes are so bad that you can't make good progress in them, then don't use them. I didn't see any footage of cyclists being harassed for not using bike lanes, just a lot of boneheaded cycling trying to go faster than the conditions permit.

invisiblehand

I thought that the video addressed the issue of being doored by passengers--there was a cushion of space. Moreover, (1) I would say that a good proportion of drivers fail to look for cyclists when opening a door and (2) many cars do not have passengers but all have drivers. So it is entirely plausible that you rather deal with more ignorant passengers than drivers.

Conditioned on not being able to swing out and block the right-lane, I commented on this earlier, whether it is easier for cyclists to get right hooked depends on the visibility at the intersection. I don't see why it is necessarily the case that a driver cannot see the cyclist.

More generally, I don't see this as further punishment. It is about finding a solution to a (perceived) problem. Figuring out an effective way to share the "road"--in this case, congested roads--is in everyone's interest.

As for cyclists desire to ride faster than the flow of traffic, I agree we all want to go faster than the flow of traffic--so do drivers, by the way. But at some differential, it becomes dangerous. For instance, when in California, one could split lanes on the highway during congestion. However, one could only go 5 mph faster than the surrounding traffic. Intuitively, a similar law should apply to cyclists in congestion.

alanfleisig

Here is my two cents:

I believe that as you approach town centers, separated bike facilities like those advocated in the film make a great deal of sense, especially in providing safe cycling access to the heart of the town center. And since almost all of Manhattan below 125th Street has the traffic/pedestrian/cyclist density of a town center, these sorts of separated facilities make sense for that part of Manhttan, and probably significant portions of the other boroughs as well.

Anecdotally, there has been a really noticeable increase in bike use and commuting since the build of the separate "greenway" bike paths along the Hudson and East Rivers, and I agree with the poster above that broadly increased bike use improves conditions for all cyclists. And I also think it's important to note, as someone who trains to ride fast, I wouldn't be interested in using these facilities for that purpose, I don't think that's what they are intended for, and I don't think that's a reason to be against them.

Driving culture isn't going to change. If anything, it's only going to continue to get worse, from congestion, and ever larger numbers of cars, as cars, relatively, continue to get cheaper. To the mind of a driver, pulling over in a bike lane is always going to be a better choice than stopping in a travel lane, given that choice.

So, overall, as a way for providing the "average" cyclist access to and around the City, I think there is a lot to be said for these kinds of facilities.

sbhikes

The thing is, if you build facilties that draw more cyclists, at some point you will have enough cyclists that the intersection issue will take care of itself. Take a look at what happens in college towns. Motorists do learn to look out for bikes at intersections, when parking, when opening car doors etc. when cycling is at a critical mass.

Helmet Head

There is some truth to this, of course. Unfortunately, the ability of facilities to actually increase the level of cycling is very limited. This is because the lack of facilities is rarely the primary reason the people who don't bike don't bike.

Helmet Head

I think it's worth pointing out that 5 mph is, literally, infinitely faster than 0 mph.