Originally Posted by
RCMoeur
A couple observations:
Being conspicuous by using lights and high-contrast materials can help, but only if the cyclist is riding in a manner where they are likely to be seen by other drivers; in the direction of traffic flow and in clear view of the traffic stream. I've seen intentional wrong-way riders wearing ASTM Class II vests have close calls as drivers literally do not look in the direction from which they are approaching at intersections due to learned and ingrained behavior.
Bicycle infrastructure can be anything from a shared lane marking to an independent pathway with grade separations at street crossings (I rode both of these just this morning). But one thing to remember is that for more than a decade in the US there has been a conscious decision to rate and evaluate bicyclist accommodation based on perceived safety (how "comfortable" a rider feels using the facility) vs. actual safety (reported crashes and observed conflicts).
I think a "100" rating means that the area is designed with bike accommodation in mind, probably even more accommodations than for automotive traffic. For example, a "100" area, would have:
- Adequate bike parking for rush hour everywhere with modern locking loops.
- Bike lanes separate from both automotive lanes AND sidewalks.
- Separate traffic signals or routing bike lanes such that they don't have to cross busy automotive streets. (i.e. with bike tunnels or bridges)
- Mass transit accommodating bikes
- Paved bike lanes that are maintained. (pavement and cleanliness)
- Bike lanes are contiguous, so that one can actually get around on them, rather than having to try to connect them with bike-hostile routes.
A place with a "100" for bike infrastructure is likely to be a place you cannot or would not WANT to drive a car, because automotive traffic is a distant 2nd or 3rd priority.
In my city, we have "sharrows", just paint on a part of the lane that makes it clear bikes are entitled to ride there. But of course, they are in The Door Zone of parallel parked lanes and they get ground down from snow plows and not refreshed often enough.
We have some bike trails here that are built and paved once, then never again touched, so they have deep cracks, broken glass, etc. After that, people will walk on them, but cyclists look for better accommodation. Then the politicians say: "We have these nice multi-use trails, but cyclists don't use them, so they're a waste of money." (not bothering to find out why we don't use them.)
Take a look at this Google Map view of my city with the bike lanes in medium green and multi-use paths (MUPs) in darker green. You can see my house and work (blue dots) toward the south end of the map. Even for this 2 mile commute, I cannot go the whole way on a bike-friendly route. What if a fellow wants to go from the MUP leaving the south side of the map north to that nice MUP heading NE on the north side of town? I either take a bike-hostile route through the city to its south end or go over to the lake and ride an extra few miles and take another 15 minutes in doing so. It takes guts to do it in rush hour, lemme tell you.
Disconnected bike infrastructure
Note all the nice trails in Petrifying Springs Park at the NW part of the map; they're recreational; 97.3% useless. There are some nice MTB trails in there, which our local MTB club helps maintain.