Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

Segregated Bike Lanes Study

Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

Segregated Bike Lanes Study

Old 10-24-12, 02:54 AM
  #1  
Trifusion
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Segregated Bike Lanes Study

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commu...ies-half/3654/

Interesting article ... local bike groups here have actually opposed Segregated lanes proposing bike driver licensing instead.

Greg
Trifusion is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 05:54 AM
  #2  
shepherdsflock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Bike driver license? Keep your bike groups wherever it is you live, I don't want them coming here! I ride my bike to save money, not to be taxed for the privilege of riding it. They just started marking out bike lanes in a few places in my city a few years ago, and I like them. We only have a few, but if your commute happens to include an area where they exist, they are nice.
shepherdsflock is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 07:35 AM
  #3  
Andy_K 
Senior Member
 
Andy_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 12,031

Bikes: Yes

Mentioned: 282 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1729 Post(s)
Liked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by shepherdsflock View Post
Bike driver license? Keep your bike groups wherever it is you live, I don't want them coming here!
+1 Sounds like you've got some double agents infiltrating the advocacy group. Around here it's usually the anti-cycling drivers who suggest licensing.

The chart in the link looks fishy. Why would a bike-only path be less safe than a cycle track, and why would a local street that's a designated bike route with traffic calming be less safe than a local street that's a designated bike route without traffic calming? Sounds like a small sample being influenced by other factors to me. That's not to say that I doubt the safety benefits of a cycle track.
__________________
My Bikes
Andy_K is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 09:01 AM
  #4  
gerv 
In the right lane
 
gerv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 9,569

Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trifusion View Post
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commu...ies-half/3654/

Interesting article ... local bike groups here have actually opposed Segregated lanes proposing bike driver licensing instead.

Greg
Cyclists often do not support segregated bike lanes because of the way they are often implemented. Where's there adjacent parked cars, the lane can become an area where you are just waiting for a door to open.

Still, I've seen very successful implementations, some with a buffer zone between lane and parked car.

I can also believe that segregated lanes (particularly where there's a solid curb or other device) would be safer.

Many cyclists still believe they should be out in the lane. This probably worked ok in some traffic situations, particularly when there weren't that many cyclists. But if we want to scale up cycling traffic, lane sharing isn't likely to support all those new cyclists.
gerv is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 12:37 PM
  #5  
jrickards
Senior Member
 
jrickards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sudbury, ON, CA
Posts: 2,639

Bikes: 2002 Norco Bigfoot, 2012 KHS Tempe, 1988 Bianchi Strada, 2012 Kona Sutra, 2002 Look AL 384

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Although my home town may not be as bike friendly as some others, it has improved, including the "installation" of bike paths (painted lines to the right of the road against the curb/sidewalk). My commuting tends not to take me on any of those but I do know that when I want to make a left turn, I will (safely) move into the left turning lane (or to the left of the single lane) and make the turn from there. A physically separated bike lane would force me to get off my bike and walk like a pedestrian to make the left turn, not convenient as far as I am concerned.

For young or learning bikers/commuters or on paths following major roads, I can see a dedicated and physically separated bike lane but for accomplished riders/commuters like most of us, I would rather ride like a vehicle than a pedestrian.
jrickards is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 01:05 PM
  #6  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,884
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1187 Post(s)
Liked 10 Times in 9 Posts
As a car free cyclist I have to be able to ride everywhere, not just where bike lanes have been created. Its one thing to stripe off 32" of the righmost area of a road and call it a bike lane, its completely another to build barricades to segregate traffic and yet another order of magnitude more complex to construct a dedicated greenway for cyclists, runners, etc. Those kinds of projects are worthy but they are not practical solutions to a majority of bicycle commuters problems. They think they want segregated roadways, what they really want... er... need, is more driver awareness of bicycles and increased and enforced accountability when and if a driver hurts a cyclist through ignorance.

In Europe, road tests are not taken on closed courses. You drive out there in traffic which will include cyclists. You FAIL immediately if you do not yield to a cyclist no matter what the cyclist was doing was the right thing or the wrong thing. You can also expect to lose your license for a long time, maybe for good if you kill a cyclist and you were found at fault. It is nearly impossible to even find a motorist at fault for killing a cyclist here since not yielding, speeding, and what or where the cyclist was doing are not significant to the charges.

A cyclist above has it exactly right. I ride to SAVE money. Expensive infrastructure just for the use of cyclists? BAD IDEA. An answer to a question no one should ask. We can use the roads as they are, possibly with minor enhancements, i.e. left turn arrows that will operate even when 'only' a cyclist is present at the sensing loop.

H
Leisesturm is online now  
Old 10-24-12, 02:36 PM
  #7  
Trifusion
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cycle Track in the study is a fully segragated lane, not what most us think of. The cycle groups here were quoting the Palo Alto studies which this new study proves were flawed and wrong. This new study is huge relative to all others and shows a segragated lane is 10 times safer than with traffic. It's based on patients in hospitals which I found to be the most objective data.

I was shocked when cyclists here would quote the Palo Alto studies and I'm glad common sense has been proven now not someone's pet project to licience bike drivers.

greg
Trifusion is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 07:45 PM
  #8  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,270

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This new study is huge relative to all others and shows a segragated lane is 10 times safer than with traffic.
an n of 10 is not huge. the study also did not clarify how they normalized for length or number of intersections. they also failed to test whether the cycle track odds ratio was significantly different from the others (the confidence intervals suggest not). this study failed to even use basic statistics to validate their results (chi square test).
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 10-24-12, 09:28 PM
  #9  
JPprivate
Very, very Senior Member
 
JPprivate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,223

Bikes: 2012 Surly Troll, 1999 Hardtail MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I am not sure if I understand all these comments. The study is one of those studies that state the obvious. If you're removed from vehicles with a mass of thousands of pounds you are safer than if you ride in the middle of them. Right? Even if they are poorly design (gerv) I am rather hit by a door, fall off the bike than getting hit by a door, fall of the bike and get run over by a semi.
JPprivate is offline  
Old 10-25-12, 12:00 AM
  #10  
neil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
an n of 10 is not huge. the study also did not clarify how they normalized for length or number of intersections. they also failed to test whether the cycle track odds ratio was significantly different from the others (the confidence intervals suggest not). this study failed to even use basic statistics to validate their results (chi square test).
I'll confess to not being a statistician, but there was definitely some math involved, and I feel like you're just writing off something that you disagree with without much thought.

Also, where do you get n=10? There were 690 participants.

For those interested, more detailed information is available from the UBC team http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/i...he-bice-study/.

Last edited by neil; 10-25-12 at 12:10 AM.
neil is offline  
Old 10-27-12, 05:23 PM
  #11  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,270

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
the n of 10 was for cycle tracks. the authors also never directly state whether the small number of cycle tracks studied were *SIGNIFICANTLY* safer than the other significant categories. imo, the research coming from jensen et al. in denmark is far less biased and suggests that unsignaled cycles tracks (virtually all the cycle tracks in this study were unsignaled) are less safe than bike lanes. unless there is sufficient funding to build safe cycle tracks and acommodate their growth/maintenance other forms of infrastucture are IMO a better choice (e.g. buffered bike lanes).
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 10-27-12, 05:28 PM
  #12  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,270

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
there is a substantial body of research suggesting that unsignaled cycles tracks increase risk. in the netherlands cycle paths are mandated to have separate crossing infrastructure for bikes. in denmark there is now a huge push to signalize cycle tracks due to safety issues.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 10-27-12, 05:58 PM
  #13  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 18,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 26 Times in 24 Posts
Originally Posted by JPprivate View Post
If you're removed from vehicles with a mass of thousands of pounds you are safer than if you ride in the middle of them. Right?
if you aren't exposed to those behemoths at every intersection, I would say you are right. If you have to cross other traffic, they have just removed overtaking accidents. Granted, those tend to be the most severe, but they are also somewhat rare.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 10-27-12, 06:56 PM
  #14  
Tim199
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 73

Bikes: 1995? Giant Iguana

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by neil View Post
I'll confess to not being a statistician, but there was definitely some math involved, and I feel like you're just writing off something that you disagree with without much thought.
It's easy to be lied to with statistics if you don't know what to look out for to avoid it. I didn't go read the study to see if he is correct, but spare_wheel made logical arguments that are statistically sound and reasonable. He certainly isn't writing it off without thought. If you don't know enough statistics to evaluate his arguments however, you are in danger of doing that.

Statistics is probably the most important math for most people to learn.
Tim199 is offline  
Old 10-27-12, 08:11 PM
  #15  
Dahon.Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 254 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy_K View Post
+1 Sounds like you've got some double agents infiltrating the advocacy group. Around here it's usually the anti-cycling drivers who suggest licensing.
Folks, I somehow think that study was funded by some very wealthy pro-motoring anti-cycling group!
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Nicholas_Landy
General Cycling Discussion
3
08-14-16 10:26 PM
dannyb1982
Electric Bikes
4
11-23-15 06:38 PM
cinegabe
Road Cycling
56
04-23-09 01:00 PM
cannondale
Road Cycling
9
08-02-02 05:32 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.