I don't think we'll get a lot of converts to cyclocommuting after reading this article.


Queasy Rider

I like how they call it a "demonstration".

The article wasn't looking down on bicycle commuting. It was just trying to make a point that the facilities aren't there to make the normal population feel safe on a bike. I honestly don't think I would feel safe riding in New York.

Check this post from another NYC rider. https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...2&postcount=44

How would protected lanes help cyclists at intersections?

Uh... cause they would make cyclists feel safer and the city council & taxpayers feel like they're doing something to make their city more "cycle-friendly?"

You've hit directly upon the head about what's wrong with bike lanes - not that they are necessarily less safe (I'm not interested in starting that debate) but that advocates and everyday folks believe that they necessarily make cyclists safer at all times. If you think about it, of course bike lanes don't make cyclists safer at intersections... but at this point, everyone has drunk the bike lane Kool-aid. If there are bike lanes, it must be safer, right?? Because they're bike lanes! Lanes for bikes! This is taken as being so self-evident that there's really not much critical thought about why it could be true... and why it actually isn't. So ask virtually anyone, cyclist or motorist, what could be done to enhance cycling safety and use in their municipality, and 90% of the time they will say "more bike lanes." No matter how many there already are. So how come there never seems to be a point where people say, "hey, I feel safe now, no need for more bike lanes?" Hmmmm.

Is there any good solution to making cyclists safer at intersections?

At least bike lanes encourage riders and mean that cars are more used to cyclists.

What would make me feel safer is if sharing the road w/ cyclists was taught in driver education so that drivers not only knew that bikes belonged on the road, but that they needed to share the road with them and be used to cyclists everywhere so they'd be on the look-out instead of seeing them and mentally dismissing them as being a danger to them as opposed to an SUV filling up their rearview mirror.

Here in Dublin we have a serious problem with off-road on-pavement cycle lanes set up. There's legislation in place that cyclists must use them if they're there, fortunately they're illegally marked so I know I can get out of a court case on the technicality.

These on pavement cycle lanes are shared with pedestrians who ignore them, cross front of crowded bus shelters (great when a bus is just about to arrive), and the best bit - cross side roads frequently (every 40-50 yards) where the cyclist must yield (sign posted) to traffic pulling out.

I ignore them, cycle lane == dangerous in my book.

I think driver ed does teach that... it just doesn't stick with people.

I'm comfortable enough riding around NYC, but there are some dead simple things that would make life a lot safer for cyclists around town. Sorry, it prolly sounds like a bloody TransAlt press relief, but, well, I agree... Here's just a few of my top ones...

1. Ticket and summons the hell out of double parked cars and trucks, *ESPECIALLY* on main arteries. Make their wallet bleed. Take away their license if they do it more than 3 times or something. There should be no excuse for something so routine and yet illegal. Take away street parking during loading times, I don't care.

2. Give bikes and peds a head start green light/walk light. It'd give us a *legal* head start after filtering up so we could take the lane and stuff... So it makes cars/trucks wait a bit longer, what's their rush?

3. Slow traffic down more.

Yes. There are good solutions. Most of them do not involve silly lines painted on the edge of the roadway.

The first part of your second sentence may be true. The second part is questionable at best. Have you noticed motorists driving more responsibly on average in places with bike paths? I haven't.

What are they? I'm not questioning that there are some, I'm just interested.

I can't say I've really compared them. I must admit, the only time I've been hit by a car, I was in a bike lane, but at the same time, I do feel safer having a lane of my own- especially if there aren't any cars parked next to the bike lane.

Solutions include taking the lane, and... well, mostly taking the lane. Filtering forward is a reasonably safe alternative, but only in a straight only lane. You should always observe destination positioning - even if you filter, keep to the right of the center lane, stay OUT of the right turn lane if you are going straight. The better bike lanes position you correctly (but also require cars to merge through them in order to turn right, which causes a lot of problems). The really bad ones put you in the right turn lane. That's worse, but like I said, there are serious problems with lanes that position you appropriately as well. Bike lanes bring up confusing right-of-way issues at and near intersections, no matter what. The other solutions (taking the lane or filtering up on the right side of the center lane) require the cyclist to merge into traffic. The right-of-way unambiguously belongs to the motor vehicles in this situation, and that's actually a good thing for cyclists.

I'm of the opinion that there's a time and place for most types of cycling facilities, but from what I remember of my visits to NYC, Manhattan is not the place for bike lanes. I can't imagine trucks and cars there actually respecting them. Do they?

That's kind of the way I ride anyway. Actually, a lot of bike lanes around here do position you correctly, with the left turn lane (we drive on the left down here remember), on your left, although as you said, it can be tricky getting across the lanes at this point.

I agree with #1. The worst thing about bike lanes is that motorists see them as convenient double parking lanes. when was the last time you saw a cop writing these awholes a ticket? In Jackson Heights we see double parked cars on the main commercial road (37th Ave.) getting ticketed on a daily basis. Heaven help you if you are one mm too close to a fire hydrant or get to your car 3 seconds after the time limit on alternate side mornings. I got ticketed for the wrong licenese plates 1 week after moving here (commercial plates - I had no idea I coiuldn't park on a residential block). Yet illegal bike lanes usage is apparently overlooked.

#2 could be good, but I think #2 and 3 would only piss drivers off more. The more you slow them down the worse a mood they'll be in. Don't underestimate the importance of the mood of someone powering a 2000 weapon!

I advocate ALL vehicles having sliding doors.

Also I think all cyclists should have some training/exposure in driving rules and skills - if you've never or rarely driven on NYC streets you are not going to understand the driver's pov.

having said all that, any progress is good progress imo so I'll take the added bike lanes.

Nope. There was a video of the 6th Ave. bike lane posted somewhere on BF showing all the double parked cars, trucks and cabs in it as well as clueless peds, left hookers, and taxis swerving into the lane to for pick ups and drop offs. The lane was basically useless for riding.

I totally understand driver frustration, been there myself. Used to do a daily reverse commute from Astoria off to Long Island and have driven plenty around town over the years. As a cager myself sometimes, I'd get ticked off at other drivers far more than I'd get angry at peds (well, sometimes those tourists around Times Square would really tick me off) or cyclists. I'm just not too worried about pissing drivers off by enforcing the speed limit to slow traffic down or to give peds and bicycles car-free head starts.

They already do it for peds at some intersections. For example, I use one on the corner of 1st and 60th as I come off the 59th Street Bridge on my daily commute. The bike lane coming off the bridge onto 60th heading toward 1st is cordoned off from traffic. The gate is often closed, so you're forced down on the far right side to the corner of 60th and 1st. The head start ped light gives me a chance to cross over and head north up 1st. If it's just the green light and cars are coming too it becomes a bit more hairy. Just my 2 cents on something that actually works in favor of cyclists and peds...

Agreed. Cyclists really should be aware of the rules of the road, we're supposed to follow them just like cagers. Granted, most of us make some exceptions, and the way people drive in NYC is not a prime example of textbook law-abiding drivers, but good traffic skills are good traffic skills, they apply to both cyclists and drivers.

What the hell is everyone smoking? Bike lanes are great almost everywhere. If you don't like 'em, feel free not to use 'em. In the above scenario, if the bike lane was to the left of a right turn / delivery lane, everything would be cool. Maybe the implementation of bike lanes in your area is done stupidly, but that doesn't mean bikes lanes aren't great.

I'm constantly mystified as to why this isn't done. There's one place near where I live where parking is suspended at a loading area during loading hours. There's too much free, on-street parking in NYC, IMO anyway.

This is good stuff for peds, it works, IMO. How that would be implemented for bikes I don't know.

YES!!! I totally agree. I don't see why a 30mph speed limit makes sense in NYC. 25mph is more than fast enough as a limit, especially seeing as how most drivers routinely go 5-10mph over whatever is the limit.

Edit: oh and that article was decent but made too big a deal out of the guy sweating!

Gee - this sounds completely unlike anywhere else on the street

The biggest problem in the bike lanes for me has been delivery people ON BIKES going the wrong way up or down avenues. Some of the lanes are big enough that even if a car/truck double parks there's still a buffer. But I actually have almost gotten into more accidents with other bikers who don't care than cars/cabs/trucks. I've taken someone else's advice on BF (forgot where) but now I just stop and let them figure out what to do (making sure no one's in back of me). I don't want to be the one who has to swerve into traffic - let them take the hit.

Cars don't usually use that as a lane, though they don't pay attention when making a turn.

Totally agree with ticketing the hell out of trucks/cars double parked.

Bottom line is that you have to be just as vigilant in the bike lane than outside of one. You have less to worry about in terms of a car riding your ass but you still have to watch and be aware of what's going on.

I've actually wondered why bike lanes aren't next to the curb, with a 'parking' lane next to them (putting parked cars between them and traffic). The only thought against that so far would be at intersections they wouldn't be as visible.

I think that is the heart of the matter. The most difficult place for cyclists is intersections, and if bike lanes are done intelligently there, they might help. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of traffic engineers don't know how, or don't bother, to do that. We could probably debate all day whether having bike lanes that give up at intersections are better or worse than nothing, but let's not. My point is that if a particular bike lane doesn't help you at intersections, I don't see much return on investment from only having it on the straightaway. Even if it encourages more cyclists, which is a standard bike lane justification, I hope they don't get hurt at the intersection!

I've only been bike commuting (and bike riding at all as an adult, aside from very infrequent casual neighborhood rides) for 4 years. I still remember from before I started, noticing bike lanes while driving my car. Most of them ended before the intersection, and I remember seriously wondering what bikes were supposed to do at intersections if they wanted to go straight or turn left. I really didn't know. I don't think I was even sure when I started bike commuting. Most of what I know (which currently roughly equates to what is taught in the LAB Road I course, which I took last June) I learned from these forums, and the resources they pointed me to. I guess it is welcoming to new cyclists to see bike lanes, but my own initial cluelessness about intersections leads me to believe that unless bike lanes alone can reliably lead cyclists through intersections safely, which IMO is doubtful, there has also got to be some cyclist education somewhere.

Motorist education and punishment can't be the entire solution, IMHO. What is a motorist supposed to do when a cyclist turns left in from of him from the bike lane because the cyclist thinks he has to stay in the bike lane at all times and hasn't looked back properly?

Way too invisible, I would say. They would have to provide some safe way of getting the cyclist back into the traffic flow for intersections, and the motorists would have no warning they were about to emerge (short of providing some kind of well-marked "bike merging zone"). Also, the lane would have to wide enough to allow the cyclist to ride out of the passenger-side door zone, the parked car would have to respect the line (right!), and the cyclist would then be open to pedestrian conflicts as passengers leave and enter the vehicle or just jay-walk between cars. (And a jay-walking ped coming from the street probably wouldn't see the cyclist coming.)

Besides the visibility part that could be accomplished by having a raised bike lane (similar to what I understand Chicago is proposing).

...His four-mile commute had taken 32 minutes, about as long as it would have taken him on the R train. ...

Four miles in 32 minutes? How many red lights are on that route?