Tons. And it's not flat either. Still, most of us could do the same 4 miles in 20 mins. or less, but red lights would be treated like yield signs.

10 lights per mile, minus the bridge which is about a mile or so with no lights. Could conceivably hit between 20-30 lights. Granted many are green but with traffic....

From the article: The city’s plan to add 200 miles of bike lanes would undoubtedly create much more room for cyclists like Mr. Ford. .... Responding to safety concerns, the city is also installing five miles of protected lanes, in which riders are shielded from car traffic by barriers like concrete curbs."
That's what I was wondering after I heard about the 200 miles of "routes, lanes, and paths" they're adding. What's the break down. So out of 200 miles, only 5 will be paths which really significantly add to cyclist safety.
But, I like bike lanes and will use them when they're there, and feel that any improvement in facilities is a plus.

The best city I've ever ridden in is Berlin. The bike lanes/paths are sometimes separated, or paved with a different material to make their more distinct (instead of just a new stripe of paint). They've got separate little bicycle stoplights next to the auto ones, that often allow for the head start someone suggested above.
[and OT, people would just lock a couple bikes together in a park (not attached to anything) and go run errands or whatever. Coming from NYC, that kind of blew my mind]

I think stories like this illustrate the "those that do" vs. "those that don't" mentality. The subject has a reason that compells him to ride. The writer (I'm guessing) does not ride and more over does not seem to be able to recitfy why someone would, in light of the "danger". In my experience this is the biggest hurdle to over come in trying to get someone to give commuting by bike a chance. They need to do it for themselves, like most on this forum. You/ Me /We as commuting advocates cannot provide the desire to do something that is "harder". Cycling will always be "harder" to the majority because it requires a mindset that is not entirely centered around comfort/ease/satus. My extended family's (wife's side and mine) see me as a nut who takes his life in his hands each time I commute to work via bike. I see it differently and know all of the positive things that cycling provides me. I am as safe as I can be, but also understand as with all aspects of life, there are risks. I do not believe most people even view the bicycle as a transportation option. Philadelphia (where I commute) has added a slew of new bike lanes over the last few years. They make great parking spots for people or an even better a way to pass other motorists on the right when your really in a hurry!

Or better yet, mandatory driving tests every 5 years for everyone. Anyone who thinks this would be a nuisance and a waste of their time, is exactly the type of person this is targeted towards.

What do they do in countries where biking is more prevalent?

Edit: Are these the sort of bike lanes they're referring to?
holland.JPG
To me, dedicated lanes in the city sound like more of a problem. In the city, taking the lane works best since traffic can't move too fast anyway. In the suburban part of my commute, bike lanes or wider shoulders would be great.

Ok, care to explain this one?

I don't know what it's like in Amherst, but here in NYC, it's a lot easier to see and be seen entering an intersection in a bike lane, especially from a stop. The additional offset between the car and the cyclist on its right means (1) higher visibility and (2) greater driver reaction time. C'mon down here and try riding Flatbush Ave in Brooklyn (no lane) vs. Fifth Ave (bike lane). Big difference.

- Jeff

You mean you don't like getting buzzed by SUVs and dollar vans on Flatbush?

Exactly. Escalades scare the sh*t out of me.

I keep thinking about the last death on Houston, the kid who was caught under a truck in a right-hook accident. Had there been a bike lane at that intersection, that accident almost assuredly wouldn't have happened.

- Jeff

"Yossarian, did the bombs hit the target?"
"What bombs?" answered Yossarian, whose only concern had been the flak.
"Oh well," McWatt would sing, "what the hell."

YES YES YES!!!! thank you

not only to remind drivers of what they are supposed to do - but to mix up the written test questions so there is a better chance they LEARN as many rules as possible.

I can't tell you how many times I've observed drivers chainging lanes in an intersection, crossing over a double solid line, etc and when I gripe, friends (who are licensed drivers) reveal they didn't know such acts were illegal. I'll bet many drivers break laws thru ignorance.

But many also bend the rules - just as we cyclists do. That's why I say better a cyclist understand what motorists do in certain situations. NOt to placate or kowtow to them, but to understand and anticipate likely behavior (most obvious one would be yellow light = speed up thru interssection, NOT slow down as is intended. I personally do this with the bike, not with the car.)

I found it a disapointing article because it downplays the positive effects of riding to work and over plays the dangers.

It even contradicts itself when it first says

and then says,

It also says,

and then says,

and then there is the quote on numbers of killed and injured in the streets, like there aren't far more pedestrians and motorists. 109 over 6 years? Isn't that about 18 a year? for 120,000 regular and 40,000 commuter cyclists? How many dead were not one of those rare 2 types?

This is a scare article. Heck, even the LA Times ran a story this year about the health benefits of cycle commuting, and other papers ran the point about the more cyclists on the road, there are less of car/bicycle collisions.

Why not?

For all our concern of being involved in an accident that will harm us, the odds are really much greater to having poor health that could have been improved by riding a bicycle every day.

Numerous academic studies show that there is a large gap between the average person's guess about the magnitude of a given risk and its true threat...the fact is that even with respect to routine risks that we all run there is generally a huge discrepancy between the true magnitude of a risk and the layperson's perception of it. We're more afraid of shark attacks than heart attacks and statistically that's wrong.

The more awful the manner of death, the more likely we are to be afraid of it, but it leads us to make statistically riskier choices -- to drive instead of fly, to buy guns for personal protection, to take powerful antibiotics when we don't really need them. The flip side of the phenomenon is the whole range of potentially fatal hazards we should be worried about but downplay, like the flu, medical errors, skin cancer and traffic accidents.

I do this on a daily basis.

Flatbush Avenue from the Marine Parkway Bridge all the way to Avenue I. If you yell at Dollar vans they'll let you go. If they don't, I don't let them go.

Flatbush Avenue, I'd love to take someone from the midwest and their beautiful roads and put them on Flatbush for a day, I'd love to see their faces. A guy I work with from Vegas who rides saw part of my commute and said I should get a medal!!!

For the reasons I mentioned above, namely the fact that the driver of the truck likely would have seen him and would have had a greater reaction time to stop if he saw the bicycle late -- the truck wouldn't have started essentially on top of the bicycle.

The problem with lack of bicycle lanes at intersections is largely the absence of spacing between the vehicle and the bicycle. There will always be the problem of turning cars crossing bikes' lane of travel (whether in literal or virtual bike lanes). Same is true of pedestrians and turning cars. The big difference between crosswalks/turning cars and bikes/turning cars is the lack of a defined, distinct bike lane.

Beyond the real advantages I mentioned above, if bike lanes were common, drivers could be taught (and habit would eventually dictate) to "check the bike lane" before turning, just as drivers do for cross walks.

- Jeff

I couldn't find this one in the NYS driving manual. Where does it say "thou shalt not change lanes in an intersection"?

These quotes could confirm the fears of potential commuters and further incense drivers: “like a video game, except you can get killed.” “Everyone is your enemy,” he said. “You don’t want to get killed, and you don’t want to kill anyone.”

I'm glad the Times did they article & brought up some of the potential hazards. I just wish there was more of a positive bent. Bike commuters can't be anything but a plus for the city. It's quieter, takes up less space, doesn't pollute and makes for a healthier population.

I suspect the fact that cars bring in revenue for the city (parking, tickets, meters, tolls, etc.). Bikes don't bring in that kind of money. That will always be a factor in city planning.

That's what I thought when I read it. I mean, I don't want to censure this guy, but it's an unfortunate quote. Drivers reading may think "Ah ha! I knew those cyclists hated me. They think they're so special. I don't feel special, ergo, I hate them."

Consider that people riding bikes means that:

Less people in cabs
Less people on subways & buses (I've used $4 in public transportation over the last few months vs between $10 and $20 per week)
Less cars for tolls, meters, taxes money from car services (garages/gas), TOWING, and tickets.

Technically a car free city would bankrupt them!

Yes, slightly tongue in cheek but certainly a consideration. Trans Alt is pushing for a London type high traffic toll where if you ride in the city during peak times you'd be charged something like $10 a day to encourage less traffic and more revenue, no peak free street parking with higher meters to encourage less people parking (so quicker wait times to find a spot).

City also kicks around the idea of a bicycle registration you'd have to pay every year like a car.

I'm not sure I would like a more positive bent as much as I would have liked a more realistic balance of potential hazards commuters face (and I mean all commuters).

18 deaths per year with 120,000 regular cyclists. Is that any worse than walking or driving? Aren't there something like, 400 or so deaths to motorists each year? I live in a city on the south tip of Vancouver that has a population of 180,000 people and we have about 1 dozen people killed in cars in a year. Transfer those 120,000 regular NYC cyclists for our citizens that drive and is there really much of a difference?

Along with people who drove, walked and took transit, I was featured in a commuting series in our paper and guess what the article led off with? The 1 collision I had with a car. As if motorists or pedestrians aren't hit by cars either.

There are hazards in everything in life. We have to keep them in perspective and make an educated guess as to the best way to reduce them. Cycling not only does not have any more risks than driving or walking, cycling inherently reduces risk for not only the cyclist, but for the other transportation users as well.

This is a bad article because it over plays the negatives by using fear of the unknown and discourages new people to ride becuase of that installed fear.

I stand corrected, in NYS. Still a bad idea tho, and yet for defensive safe driving one must expect it from other drivers.
https://www.roadtripamerica.com/Defen...ing/Rule55.htm

https://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/key...orrectly7.html

https://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual...r04-manual.htm

I could have sworn I saw this as illegal in NYS many years ago......
so I too need an update test on my license! thanks for the heads up.

IMHO and experience, bike lanes are a good tool for you to use when appropriate. I like them because most of the time it gives you some breathing room for cars to pass and you to get out of the way of obstacles without riding in the gutter. On the other hand, I tend to ride just on the right side of the white line (so the bike lane is as much of an escape route as a lane), and take the lane whenever I deem it safer, *especially* at intersections. I think bike lanes make a road safer for cyclists, but only when cyclists use them as a tool, and not as a tunnel of safety that releases them from the need to ride vehicularly/invisibly.

Bike lane use is mandatory in New York.

yeah, I was looking for that too but couldn't find it.

Anyone know where it is?

I thought that it was a good example of what happens to bike lanes when traffic is heavy.

I ride in a couple of bike lanes on my way to work, and if there are back ups in that section of roadway, a bike lane is a very dangerous place to be because cars jump into them without warning (or looking) at any time.

That's not exactly true. A bike lane must be used, except "[w]hen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane." That's from the NYC traffic regulations. NYS VAT statutes have similar language regarding "usable bike lanes", etc.

- Jeff