that skewed report? bosh.

THIS University of British Columbia 2009 report, The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature suggests there is mounting evidence bicycle infrastructure is safer for bicyclists.


bicyclists not able to operate 22 miles per hour in the first ave protected class I bikeway don't invalidate the value of protected class I bikeways, that specific class I bikeway for riders riding slower or the efficacy of bikeways in bringing bicyclists back to the streets of New York City.

A most important facet of this discussion that must not be overlooked: People are bicycling like never seen before in living memory in New York City. Bluff postulations that cyclists would be better served and safer in New York City by demanding they simply 'take the lane- always!' are ludicrous and unrealistic. So sorry but that advocacy position is unsupportable.

Yeah, but the difference is, when you're part of the traffic pattern, the lights help you to stay integrated through the intersection and beyond - cyclists can just keep going. When you put in a two-way bike lane you take cyclists out of the traffic system so that they have to act as a pedestrian before getting back into the stream of traffic. Not only that, but wrong way cyclists have to cross an extra road to do that at each end. This inserts a large element of risk which wasn't present before. So some risk is reduced while some risk is added. The thing is, people seem to be very concerned about non-intersection collisions, which are rare - especially so in the city, but they seem too willing to ignore the risk of crosswalk collisions, which are quite high - especially in the city. I just worry that bike lanes like this add more risk than they remove, because the risk they add, though significant, is merely less fear-inducing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against the bike lane per se. It seems to calm traffic, which is, as I've said, a valid reason for it to exist even if it did nothing for cyclists. What I'm saying is that (as is often the case) the planners seem to have failed to properly integrate it into the traffic system at each end. Also, this type of solution works okay beside a large park, but I don't see it working on a regular street with traffic intersections on both sides.

Ian.

Overall your message is that you are ideologically against New York City's plan that is increasing cycling concurrent with a decline in the accident rate. You are ideologically opposed to a dedicated and developing network of bikeways that include on road bike routes, buffered class II bikelanes, a lot of streets remaining as is in the city, and a small select network of protected class I bikeways.

or are you truly more moderate, and understand, for instance, the bona fide safety enhancements and core concepts supporting bikeways consisting of left hand class II buffered bikelanes down one way streets. Buffered bikelanes like that videographer in the original post felt comfortable enough in that she was filming herself riding in one and chattering away to the camera...

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/ea/4a/e6d35dfcd...1bd_grande.jpg

here's an actual pic of what you are saying. the green bike path will be coming in from the right of the picture. as you can see there is a huge buffer zone (that was mentioned iManda is used for a farmers market on Saturday and other fairs ect.). traffic is actually closed to cars all the time (save for official park vehicles). what is needed is a simple sign informing where to go if you want to head north. if you see the lane with two lines on the left side of the entrance it actually leads right to a bike lane (which has walk/stop signals) which will lead to the plaza streets and eventually vanderbuilt avenue (all bike routes/shared lanes). all bike/running traffic goes into the right entrance and moves clockwise.

the area with cars is actually totally clear when its red light. to avoid confusion and for safety's sake they just made the traffic lights very very far away from each other so the whole entrance from the arch at grand army plaza to the entrance of prospect park clear during red lights.

After studying Google maps some more, I think I see what you're saying. The cyclists turn right into that big buffer zone, cross Grand Army Plaza on the crosswalk, and get into another bike lane on West Dr. Then they can enter the roundabout in the bike lane and go onto Plaza St. East. I guess that works.

Still, I don't see it as any kind of truly smooth transition - you have a couple of sharp 90 degree turns there as far as I can see. I don't see it winning any awards for innovative bike lane design. What's the south end like? The north end has the virtue of being on the side of the road you need to be on so you don't have to cross the traffic lanes. On the south side that doesn't seem to be the case.

What don't you like about it? They -- including some Copenhagen transportation engineers -- are quite clear on their technique and, if you take the time to actually read and understand all three papers of the report, emphasize that design is very important.

Regarding the literature review, I think that the key is "Although the effect of infrastructure design on cyclist safety was first studied more than three decades ago, the literature on the topic remains remarkably sparse." In other words, you still have to use your noggin' when reading these papers.

Doesn't she conclude that harrassment has gotten worse on 1st Ave such that she might ride on 3rd instead?

Yes, that's it. As Doc says, once you learn that stopped traffic headed into the circle is your cue to cross, you have a clear shot to Plaza Street East and its route to Vanderbilt Avenue. That said, staring down three merging walls of traffic is not for sissies. What is missing is a bike signal.

Now you actually have me curious to ride the south end of the bike path and look at the markings! I've only done it once but don't recall any problems transitioning to Prospect Park Southwest.

**********

I seem to recall that they discuss different designs that appear to have different risks.

There are three papers and a summary.

I may have read only one paper... can you provide a link?

Let's see ... I'm behind a secure firewall run by the lowest bidder ...

... I recall that if you go to the paper and look at the web address, you will see a subdirectory .../pubs/...
I believe that the papers are listed there. Essentially look for the English titles. If you see a bunch that are chronologically lumped, that is likely the entire translation of the report. Alternatively, if you go to the lowest directory of the web address, there you will see a label that reads "Pubs" or something similar. That will give you a list too.

I don't recall explicit recommendation on how to increase ridership. Instead what I recall is a straightforward discussion on what is correlated with greater probabilities of collisions. Off the top of my head, one such blip is on whether lanes are stripped to the intersection; although their language is a bit different from what you will typically read in North American papers. Long story short, my take is that if we believe that the most practical way for getting people to broadly try cycling is via engineering that design can produce meaningful differences in collision rates. Consequently, we should think hard about what is acceptable for a particular environment.

How about JUST DO IT.

Broadly speaking, cities that plan for bikes in the transportation mix have more cyclists riding and a declining indexed accident rate for bicyclists.

as to planning for bikes in New York City,

Here's another NYC cyclist talking about bikelanes. Below is a streefilm showing an average Joe's 11 mile commute from Queens to lower Manhattan. a bike network appears to be working for NYC. tweaks and modifications to North American downtown Class 1 bike facilities is sure to come from cities like New York City, Vancouver or other cities that actually implement these facilities.


streetfilms : mapping-your-nyc-bike-commute/

think long and hard about the issue of planning transportation networks with bicyclists in mind? NYDOT is doing that. are class 1 bike facilities different than traffic jamming and might require a slight modification in rider method? Likely. In New York City there's always going to be a predominance of unmodified streets for those cyclists like the grouse in the first video in this thread to ride unhindered by the bike infrastructure.

Traffic jammers can always traffic jam. except when they need to film themselves while riding, then a buffered bikeway makes sense :D

One cannot lose sight of the fact that more people are cycling than ever before in living memory in New York City.

How about we stick to good design principles instead? Indexed accident rates increase with poorly designed facilities. We should not lose sight that needless injuries and fatalities occur when we mindlessly slap things together.

Vagaries don't get traction on the drawing board. What do you mean by that statement, epistemologist? Bikes fare best.... cars first and foremost, let the bicyclists fight it out for doorzones on busy, narrow streets dedicated primarily to motor vehicle traffic?

Dude, you're mindlessly fearmongering. New York City has implemented over 200 miles of thoughtfully implemented bikeway in the last several years and seen decreasing indexed accident rates for bicyclists. less injuries per bicycling mile travelled. mindfully decreasing accident rates while increasing the ridership in New York City.

NYDOT has established a significant set of quality design principles for the development of bikeways for New York City. Class 1 bikeways have 'limited' application in the design guidelines for New York City streets. most of these cycletracks happen to be a great success and a boon for New York City riders.


Show me a study from a city in the US that has seen increasing indexed accident rates after their bikeway plan was built in and implemented. A danish study that includes moped accidents and never studied any intersection that received design improvements - in a city with already high ridership - is a pretty lousy study.


I predict New York City's class 1 bike facility along 1st ave will show increased ridership and a decrease in the indexed accident rate once New York City releases statistics.

And what of the other class 1 bikeways in the videos I posted of other cyclists and New Yorkers talking about bikelanes in New York City? can't be all bad, eh? looks like there's well implemented Class 1 bike facilities in New York City too, eh, epistemologist?

your grouse, invisiblehand, simply hasn't realized yet she can't ride 22 miles per hour in some protected class 1 bikeways. experienced, traffic tolerant cyclists can always traffic jam New York City. Oh, that's right, i forgot.... she used to be scared to ride in NYC, but the bikeway network got her riding again in the first place!

No, no, no. Mindless repetition of marketing slogans from sports equipment manufacturers coupled with a dogmatic, ideological insistence that separating bicycles from cars is the only solution will do. Stop trying to be rational. Bikes == Good ∴ Bikelanes == Good.

Meanwhile, where are the traffic-lights favoring bicycles a la Copenhagen and the laws assuming fault on motorists?

why all the strawmen, razrskutr?

Before we start mimicking Copenhagen, I think we need to take a good long look at the city's accident rates. Besides, we already have perfectly good traffic lights - they don't need to favour any one type of road user in order to be effective.

Bikes are good, but bike lanes? In my experience not so much. I'd rather stick to a simple and safe roadway. When government starts messing around putting colourful paint on it and demanding I drive my bike in narrow corridors without paying any mind to what's the best lane position, that's when things start to get dangerous.

All I need is a bike and a road, and to be left with the same freedom any other road user has to decide what's the safest lane position.

the extremely small minority of experienced, traffic tolerant american cyclists can simply choose to ride streets without bikelanes for that unadulterated traffic jammin experience. I wonder how Ian would really ride in New York City, if he would avail himself of any of the facilities.

Bikeways and bikelanes are a boon to cycling in the big apple. Trips by bike are way up, accident rates per mile travelled are down, and let's not forget, People are bicycling like never seen before in living memory in New York City.

i'm sorry... are you implying that the recent increase in the popularity of cycling is directly due to the government painting some lines on the road?

While trivially true this ignores the hostility that such cyclists often experience if motorists believe that the cyclist should go ride in the bikelanes. You keep minimizing and ignoring this problem. It's real. It's huge. It's the main reason I oppose bikelanes and paths: I, my wife and friends frequently experience motorists that believe we are obligated not merely to use a bikelane on a street equipped with one, but that we should actually change our routes so that we ride only on streets with bikelanes.

Thanks to the shrill blather spouted by bikepathologists like yourself he might experience significant problems if he chose not to. That's what you keep ignoring, and by ignoring it you completely weaken any credibility your case might have (that and the simple minded inversion of the causal relationship between bikelane existence and cyclist numbers).


Hari hari hari rama. Rama rama rama krishna.

there is only one strawman in this thread, and it is this, mindlessly repeated yet again:

:roflmao:

please. its persuasive that this woman began bicycling again because of the bikeways.

it's no coincidence this young woman 'built up the courage' to ride her bike in New York City during the same time period the city added 200 miles of bikeway and vastly improved the streetscape for bicyclists. Leading new yorkers to return to their bikes like never before seen in living memory in New York City.

what do you think of those other class 1 bike facilities along that fellas commute from Queens to Manhattan, randya?