Originally Posted by CrankyOne

The Dutch system has proven much safer, per mile ridden and per capita, than riding on the roads in the U.S., and that is with a good percentage of people riding quite fast on the Dutch system.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

risk for pedestrians in major urban areas is just as terrible even though most major usanian cities have excellent facilities for pedestrians. Maybe it's not the presence or absence of infrastructure but rather a car-centric legal/political system that enables consequence-free vehicular homicide.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

almost half of adults in the netherlands are obese or overweight. even more troubling, obesity among dutch children is epidemic.

Originally Posted by CrankyOne

What speed is 'roadway attainable speed'? How many average people can ride that fast?

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

Risk for pedestrians in major urban areas is just as terrible even though most major USAnian cities have excellent facilities for pedestrians. Maybe it's not the presence or absence of infrastructure but rather a car-centric legal/political system that enables consequence-free vehicular homicide.

Originally Posted by jyl

This design and similar ones have been discussed quite a bit in Portland. The pros and cons I see:

Pros:
Don't get doored by drivers or cut off by cars pulling in/out of parking spot.
Less likely to be right hooked (much less likely where signals are adjusted, and somewhat less likely where intersection is not signalized).

Cons:
Get doored by passengers and blocked by people walking to parked cars. Mom unloading her baby buggy or helping grandma and her walker could block the bike lane for minutes at a time.
Hard to pass slower cyclists. Impossible to pass bike trailers, two abreast riders, weaving newbies.
Trash, leaves, snow, even rain flooding pile up in the lane. Needs special equipment to sweep.
Ride right next to pedestrians, children, dogs, etc. Worrisome at 10 mph, outright dangerous at 25 mph.
Left turns become a two-signal phase wait.
Implicitly tells drivers that cyclists don't belong on their streets.

Admittedly I've never seen one of these in action, but at this point I'm skeptical leaning to negative.

So many people who want "separated cycle infrastructure" seem to have the idea that urban cyclists shouldn't need to watch for cars or pedestrians or other hazards, but should be able to sail along as if they were on a MUP. They also seem to think all cyclists ride slowly.

I think that, in dense commercial areas where there are also a lot of pedestrians, car traffic should be calmed to 20-25 mph using posted limits, speed cameras/signs, roadway narrowing (bumpouts, center medians, etc), speed humps, signal timing, etc, and cyclists should simply ride in the same lanes as cars. On commercial, residential, or arterial streets where car speeds are >30 mph, there should be painted bike lanes alongside the parking zone, ideally nice a wide with a painted buffer to the adjacent traffic lane, and these should be on every such street instead of just a few. In quiet residential areas where car speeds are naturally 20-25 mph, I don't see the need for any special treatment.

Originally Posted by jputnam

AASHTO says the average, non-enthusiast adult riding an upright bike goes 15 mph on level ground; they recommend an 18 mph design speed to accommodate typical adults on upright bikes. That doesn't mean all adults always ride 18 mph, of course. Remember, if you're designing for the average speed, you're designing a facility that's intentionally unsafe for half its users.

Originally Posted by CrankyOne

Where did you get this?

Originally Posted by Rollfast

This is purely subjective. All parties engaged in traffic must interact. No one segment is favored. I cannot honor the bingo card.

Originally Posted by work4bike

I have seen cycling first hand in Holland and it's just not for me; I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks Sharing the road is just part of me. I've been commuting for over 25 years and my longest commute was a 50-mile roundtrip and when you do long trips it turns you into a sort of speeddemon. I can't ride around at 11-16 mph pace, even if I have the time; my body is just conditioned to riding faster, it just feels natural.

BTW, you all notice that there is no such thing as a bike path in the U.S. They all become MUPs. Wouldn't separated cycling tracks be the same?

Originally Posted by JoeyBike

"Bike" Lanes have an additional challenge: Pedestrians. Invariably, bike paths and lanes are going to attract pedestrians, joggers, skateboarders, baby strollers, and other users well under the "13mph" average for cyclists. Unregulated, there will be users spread out across the paths/lanes walking at 2mph and some cyclists hammering at 20+mph along with the ones going "13". That is a speed differential of 6x to 10x. No traffic engineer wants to see those numbers, which is why they post MINIMUM speed limits on some roadways. If the max speed is 70mph and the minimum speed is 50mph, the speed differential is still less than 2X even though the MPH difference is 20 mph. Other roads without minimum speed limits are engineered and posted for the slowest, top-heavy-est vehicle on the road. Basically the posted speed limit on those roadways ARE the minimum speed safe for all users. School zones and other areas with dense pedestrian crossings drop the limits even lower. My city is full of streets marked 35mph that look like 50mph would be OK. Those are marked for the least common denominator.

^^These are often the people engineering bike lanes and paths in the USofA. They are applying the wrong formulas to bike paths and lanes.

Originally Posted by Rollfast

Most bicyclists are going to set a pace that is accommodating for their intent. Not everyone wants to go fast, that is not a realistic goal for the average rider. Many are recreational or speed is not in the interest of their perception of safety. Pinning them to an average or maximum speed is an issue of VEHICULAR CYCLING.

Originally Posted by jputnam

Right, that's why I intentionally didn't quote any numbers for fast cyclists.

Couch potatoes on cruisers go 15 mph on the flats.

Fast cyclists regularly top 30 mph, but AASHTO notes they'll usually avoid any segregated cycling facilities and ride on the street where those speeds are safe.

Originally Posted by jputnam

Fast cyclists regularly top 30 mph, but AASHTO notes they'll usually avoid any segregated cycling facilities and ride on the street where those speeds are safe.

Originally Posted by jputnam

Right, that's why I intentionally didn't quote any numbers for fast cyclists.

Couch potatoes on cruisers go 15 mph on the flats.

Fast cyclists regularly top 30 mph, but AASHTO notes they'll usually avoid any segregated cycling facilities and ride on the street where those speeds are safe.

Originally Posted by jputnam

AASHTO says the average, non-enthusiast adult riding an upright bike goes 15 mph on level ground; they recommend an 18 mph design speed to accommodate typical adults on upright bikes. That doesn't mean all adults always ride 18 mph, of course. Remember, if you're designing for the average speed, you're designing a facility that's intentionally unsafe for half its users.

Originally Posted by daihard

Seriously? I ride on the road a lot, and I hardly run into any cyclist who does 30 MPH. Do you know of any Seattle area roads where I can witness those fast cyclists? No sarcasm - I'm genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by kickstart

You can say that about streets too, most of todays cars and many drivers can go faster than what most roads will accomidate, but going the maximum possible speed isn't what public roads are for.
If the goal of bicycling infrastructure is to make cycling a more attractive and practical transportation option for non enthusiasts, does all infrastructure really need to be built to accommodate those who ride faster than average as long as there isn't any mandatory use laws?

Originally Posted by jputnam

Fast cyclists regularly top 30 mph, but AASHTO notes they'll usually avoid any segregated cycling facilities and ride on the street where those speeds are safe.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

Originally Posted by genec

Exactly... but on the other hand it wouldn't hurt to design a few "bicycle freeways" to allow fast bike transit across town... in which case the infrastructure should be designed to handle cyclists at speeds of 30MPH.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Where are those streets, especially in cities, where "fast cyclists" regularly ride at 30 mph for any length of time or distance? Maybe on downhill slopes but not likely anywhere else. What percentage of current riders on city streets (i.e. not on club or training rides) fit into your so-called "fast cyclists" designation?

Originally Posted by kickstart

You can say that about streets too, most of todays cars and many drivers can go faster than what most roads will accomidate, but going the maximum possible speed isn't what public roads are for.
If the goal of bicycling infrastructure is to make cycling a more attractive and practical transportation option for non enthusiasts, does all infrastructure really need to be built to accommodate those who ride faster than average as long as there isn't any mandatory use laws?

Originally Posted by daihard

Seriously? I ride on the road a lot, and I hardly run into any cyclist who does 30 MPH. Do you know of any Seattle area roads where I can witness those fast cyclists? No sarcasm - I'm genuinely curious.