Chris0516

Here in the DC-Metro region , the bike lanes are no wider than the width of the sidewalk. That is one reason I never use them.

Also, Here in the MD suburbs of DC. Instead of a road diet. The state has been 'pigging out', making two-lane roads, four lanes; Four-lane roads, six-lanes, and so on.

work4bike

This is one reason I ride on the roadways. Riding on MUPs just slows me down, because you either have to stop or at least yield at all road crossings. This is everywhere, at least where I've ridden, not just in Chicago.

rydabent

Here in Lincoln we have a protected bike lane that runs clear thru the down town business district. It is about a mile long with its own set of lights. I use it all the time, and as long as you follow and obey the street lights it is great.

Ninety5rpm

How well are those signals obeyed by cyclists in general?

rydabent

I do, and some others do. OTOH probably half dont on the east end where the traffic is lighter.

CB HI

For far too many here, yes.

mr_bill

Serge commented on the article. (Is it an exclusive invite to Five100chan?)

But you are right, discussing bike lanes isn’t VC.

But “discussing” is.

-mr. bill

Rollfast

Here is an article from the Idaho Statesman today, talking about some of the issues here and elsewhere in A&S Let's set the record straight on cyclists breaking the law | Idaho Statesman

B. Carfree

These threads remind me of how silly we all are. Instead of simply doing that which is easy and works (enforcing traffic laws, road diets, bike lanes of reasonable width clear of the door zones, removing on-street parking and traffic diversion) we attempt to kludge together some mish-mash of "protected" bike lanes that create more problems than they solve and then end up needing bike-specific signals and all sorts of "no turn on red" and other things that all require...traffic law enforcement.

Oh well, at least we get to argue endlessly and cite paltry data mostly generated by people with obvious agendas.

Rollfast

I just pedal and stay out of the way. Has worked well for all but three times in 43 years.

rossiny

I am originally from Chicago and after a long time moved to Wisconsin can tell u that the new bike lanes where the rider rides up against the curb is nothing short if MORONIC. I will just say no comment about Chicago politics and tax problems..and be careful now if your transponder for tolls is not registered to each individual car u have u get charged double and get charged extra if u go thru tolls..should be illegal. .. But back to bikes ..downtown EVANSTON had some bike lanes like that and am amazed parents don't get together and immediately have them removed from the Northwestern University before some young student gets his life ruined or killed from these DANGEROUS BIKE LANES. There is just to much traffic there to have such a terrible design. On the other hand the green bike lane on Church st.where on the street side with the plastic markers seemed like a dream to goid to be true.. Great visibility for both biker and driver..but the curb side is a disaster waiting to happen at every intersection and such a huge high traffic areas makes it all the more dangerous. I imagine a driver who already dislike cyclist is even irritated more by having to try and look over parked cars for cyclist at each and every intersection...geez😵

sabotenfighter

In my city we have several wide protected bike lanes. They are usually empty, but I rarely use them as I have to slow way way down in order to avoid stupid pedestrians on their phones who ignore the colored lanes and bike markers everywhere. Almost running down a school girl on an unlit bike lane as she weaved through it like a drunk on her phone was enough for me to swear off of them.
Generally I see them as a good thing for your average rider on a 30kg mamachari as it gets them off the sidewalk, but despite the existence of the lanes, these people still do not use them.

welshTerrier2

A bunch of points …

First, just to clarify what the author of the linked article said: “I use and mostly appreciate protected bike lanes. But the way Chicago lays out its protected lanes sets traps for cyclists. I'm talking specifically about lanes that cross side streets, where only traffic on the side street has to stop.” Note that the author did not say he opposed protected bike lanes.

Second, while it’s fine to offer analysis and personal experiences and preferences, it seems more important to support your arguments with data regardless of which side of the issue you stand on.

So, here’s some data that argues in favor of protected bike lanes: https://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/s...ane-statistics

Is there information you can cite that argues against protected bike lanes that we should consider? Post it here.

Here are some of the very strong arguments in favor of protected bike lanes made on the People for Bikes website:
1. After New York City installed a protected bike lane on Columbus Avenue, bicycling increased 56 percent on weekdays, crashes decreased 34 percent, speeding decreased, sidewalk riding decreased …
2. Because they shorten crossing distances, control turning conflicts and reduce traffic weaving, New York City's protected bike lanes reduced injury rates for people walking on their streets by 12 to 52 percent.
3. When protected bike lanes are installed in New York City, injury crashes for all road users (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists) typically drop by 40 percent and by more than 50 percent in some locations.
4. New York City's protected bike lane on 9th Avenue led to a 56 percent reduction in injuries to all street users, including a 57 percent reduction in injuries to people on bikes and a 29 percent reduction in injuries to people walking, as well as an 84 percent reduction in sidewalk riding.
5. When Chicago added a protected lane and bike-specific traffic signals to Dearborn Street, stoplight compliance on bicycles immediately rose from 31 percent to 81 percent.
6. Protected bike lanes reduce bike-related intersection injuries by about 75 percent compared to comparable crossings without infrastructure.

All of the above statistics were compiled from studies linked to in the article. Are the studies credible? Are they adequate to use to draw conclusions about the safety of protected bike lanes?

There is no question that protected bike lanes are seen by the general public as making bicycling (and walking and driving) safer. While it’s true that perception does not necessarily equate to fact, public perception that protected bike lanes are safer has clearly increased bicycle usage and this, in and of itself, enhances safety.

Protected bike lane design is still an evolving infrastructure. Some of the concerns raised in this thread and by the article’s author need to be addressed. In one sense, we road cyclists are guinea pigs in a huge experiment where many designs are being evaluated. In the end, let the data fall where they may. Our infrastructure policies should be guided by facts and not by opinions. At least that’s my opinion.

Mark Stone

This is difficult to do because of the nature of bike lanes and paths. If we want to speak generally it's fine, but every bike route has its own circumstances and variables. If bike paths are statistically deemed dangerous, there's still a lot of them that are not. As cyclists we need to make route choices based on the specifics of our respective area/destination.

welshTerrier2

It's certainly true that each bike lane and path may have unique characteristics that need to be assessed. It's also important to consider the opinions of road users and do all you can to evaluate them against credible safety studies.

Still, if the goal is to establish "best practices" guidelines for cycling infrastructure, the more data we can collect about each path the better off we'll be. For example, with regard to protected bike lanes, are barriers like a row of parked cars good or bad? Do they create real separation instead of the occasional flower pot or do they obstruct visibility and increase risk? Do we need separate intersection signals for cyclists or is that not really necessary? Which designs encourage more pedestrian activity in bike lanes and which discourage it? Are two-way separated bike lanes safe or should they be restricted to one-way lanes? How should side streets be handled for non-major intersections? How can cyclists safely make a left turn from a separated bike lane? Should right turn on red be allowed across a separated bike lane?

BF'ers, especially in this forum, rarely lack passion with the arguments they present but, ultimately, infrastructure decisions should be based, wherever possible, on reliable data and not just personal preferences. Personal preferences based on experience can be a starting point for analysis but they shouldn't determine the ultimate policy.

squirtdad

What seems to be that always get missed in these discussions, is that protected bike lanes, whether of good or bad design will always, except in extremely dense urban areas (i.e NYC) be a very small percentage of the travel route available to cyclists.

People will still need to be able to ride on streets without bike lanes, ride on streets with bike lanes, use urban protected infrastructure, use MUP etc. Each has benefits and problems.

IMHO the key is education and enforcement across all methods of transportation (pedestrians in dedicated bike lanes, ticket em, Any one not following signs and light, ticket em, drivers doing any of the stupid things they do around bikes, ticket em )

also IMHO, proper sized bike lanes give the best value for dollar. My experience with riding on streets that normally have bike lanes, but that are temporarily gone for repaving is that drivers come much closer to me than when there are bike lanes. Even better is road diets, that that simply will not happen to all roads

prathmann

I'd be curious to see the data behind these figures. With a 56% overall reduction this would imply that either there were 27 times as many injured cyclists as pedestrians (highly unlikely in NYC), or there was some other group (motorists?) who saw a much larger percentage reduction in injuries than average.

mr_bill

OK. Let's get very specific about readily available data. The North Milwaukee Ave protected bike lane is a trap for people on bikes according to the author who writes lots of stuff about beers, lots of stuff about music, and one article on a bike lane.

"Even an attentive driver can be taken by surprise when parked cars conceal nearly all of a cyclist's approach to the intersection."

I'm from Missouri. Show me the traps on North Milwaukee Ave where parked cars conceal a cyclist's approach to an intersection.

Sorry to let facts get in the way of a good rant, but CDOT uses "daylighted" parking lanes at intersections. On both sides of the intersection there are no parking zones.

Someone who has ridden a bicycle in Chicago on North Milwaukee should know that.


So, who's going to show the "trap?"

-mr. bill

Leisesturm

There are a few bike lanes like that in Portland too. They got the bright idea from cyclists like you that ******* endlessly about 'door zone' bike lanes. 95% of cars are single occupant (the driver). Guess which side of the car 95% of parked car occupants exit on. The left. So.... put the bike lane on the right. No more 'door zone' kvetching from the entitled cyclist community. That was the theory. That bike lane design you like. Guaranteed some vocal minority of cyclists hate it as much as you hate curbside bike lanes. Guaranteed. So cities like Portland try them all! Ride the ones you like, avoid the ones you don't.

welshTerrier2

Hadn't heard that term before. I always just called it "line of sight".

The short-sighted argument (pun intended) is that visibility is obscured therefore protected bike lanes aren't safe and should be removed.

A better discussion would be to focus on the "design speed" of the bike lane or the road itself and how much distance from the intersection without parked cars should be required to create a safe line of sight. Cyclists riding at say, 25 mph, are moving at about 37 feet per second. How many seconds are needed (i.e. without visibility obstruction by parked cars or trucks) for them to be seen by drivers approaching an intersection from various directions? You also have to consider the maximum speeds of drivers on the road.

It's important to note that "daylighting" is also a benefit to pedestrians using the crosswalks at intersections. Drivers and local merchants may want to have as much on-street parking as possible but that should never take precedence over the safety of all road users.

Dave Mayer

Separate bike lanes... I ride over 300 days per year, including in the drizzle yesterday. When I ride, it is to get places quickly.

The city next to me has installed a separated lane on on one of my (formerly) favorite north-south routes. The 'lane' wanders up and over sidewalks and is littered with dozens of dividers and other roadway 'furniture'. Because the road surface is no longer swept by vehicle traffic, it is now littered with broken glass a all forms of random debris. Yesterday I saw sheets of drywall, discarded clothing, and dropped car parts including a muffler.

As far as bike traffic, I haven't seen any, but the lane is used by skateboarders, pedestrians and dog-walkers running 10-foot long leashes.

So this separated lane is far too slow and dangerous to use. So I ride on the street, and predictably get abuse hurled at me to: "get on the f$#@"!!! bike path".

I assume this project was poorly implemented by a committee of do-gooder city planners and cycling advocates who actually do not ride. My city is planning something similar.. I am actively trying to nip this in the bud.. advice: ignore the planners and advocacy groups and target vulnerable politicians directly.

Leisesturm

On our flat-bar tandem, my wife and I can manage a level ground 25mph sprint, it is NOT a speed we can maintain for long. I cruise around 15mph on my own flatbar, 17mph or so on the dropbar. Cyclists love to imagine they mix well with 25mph and even 35mph arterial traffic, but the reality is that the main of cyclists are doing well to sustain 15mph for long. I have no evidence that visibility or lack of it are big issues in my overall safety on the road.

mr_bill

You aren’t getting with the “program” of topic after topic after topic.

You can CONTROL (and release, just don’t dare release) the lane at less than 12 mph. Riding a bike is SAFE.

But YOU WILL GET HURT, even DIE if you ride in a protected bike lane at ANY speed. They have a FATAL FLAW.

How do we know this? Because, that’s why.

ps. Trap pics or it doesn’t exist.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

The point stands, only say 15 mph, which is 22 feet per second. That's still way too fast to be riding near the edge (like in a bike lane), especially when there are buildings, parked cars, vegetation etc. blocking the view from a motorist pulling out of a driveway, side street, or intersecting street to the cyclist near the edge. This is also why a 15 mph cyclist out in the lane is much safer than a 45 mph motorcyclist out in the lane. Two seconds before the car pulls out the 15 mph cyclist is just 44 feet away, and easy to see, but the 45 mph motorcyclist is still 132 feet away... much easier to overlook.

The notion that cyclists have to match motorist speed to mix well with them is a fallacious myth which needs to die. If cyclists believe it and say it, can we blame the motorists? We have have found the enemy and they are us.

squirtdad

your over promotion and belief in savvy cycling is on verge of dangerous to people who read it and don't know better, and if anything will result in more restrictive rules around cycling. what your are doing in anti-advocacy.....scaring people that bike lanes have to be ridden slowly to be safe is ridiculous at best.

I am really beginning to question if you ever really ride a bike or if you do what the roads your ride are like

The roads i ride typically to commute are 2 lanes each way with a good if not always 100% optimal bike lane The posted speed on these roads is 35 to 45. typical speed for cars if 40 to 45. traffic during commute hours is fairly heavy. Lot's of turns for schools

there is no way that I am safer riding 18 to 20 mph (my current speed at current fitness level) in the lane than I am riding the the same speed in the bike lane. and I run about a million watts of lights day and night, someone in the lane with no lights can often be hard to see even in the daytime.