Ekdog

People feel so much safer with good infrastructure. The results from the study I linked to echo what I've seen where I live:

This study provides definitive evidence that people feel safe riding in protected lanes and that people traveling by car or foot also support building more protected lanes to separate bicycles and automobiles. It also provides insight on the safety, use and economic effect of protected lanes.
Key Findings:
* In its first year alone, a protected bike lane increases bike traffic on a street by an average of 72%
* 96% of people riding in protected bike lanes felt safer on the street because of the lanes
* 76% of people living near protected bike lanes support the facilities in additional locations, whether they use them or not
* In 168 hours of video analyzed for safety, studying more than 16,000 people on bikes and nearly 20,000 turning and merging vehicles mostly at intersections, no collisions or near collisions were observed.
* Drivers thought traffic became more predictable after protected lanes were installed. Most drivers said congestion and drive time didn’t change.

no1mad 

For whatever reason, I was under the impression that segregated/protected bike lanes were a recent development there.

I still stand by my opinion that even though it is working for you, the odds of it working for me here in Sprawlandia are remote- we just don't have the population density to make that investment palatable.

Ekdog

It is a recent development.

The investment is a drop in the bucket compared to car centric infrastructure. I think you're right about the odds of it working in Oklahoma are few and far between, by the way, but not because of the population density. I think it's the conservative mentality of the people that will keep you reliant on cars until it becomes impossible to keep it up.

My father was born in Shamrock, Oklahoma. Ever been there?

no1mad 

Shamrock is just over 30 miles from me, but I've never been there. I've been to and through Drumright and Cushing a number of times, though.

Ekdog

I think we can learn a lot about the future of petoleum-based economies and transport systems by looking at towns like Shamrock.

Ekdog

Some are, some aren't.

contango 

Which is all well and good if you want to turn right at one of the traffic lights. Just to take one random example, if you want to turn right at the approaching junction from here: https://goo.gl/maps/JrlLM you have to get out into the traffic. Which is fine, if you're a confident cyclist and the traffic isn't too heavy. If the traffic is heavy, good luck with that. Making the cycle lane a protected bike lane wouldn't seem to make the turn any easier, if anything it would make it harder because even a more confident cyclist in light traffic would have little opportunity to get across to the centre of the lane ready to make their turn.

(just as a side note, we don't put the a in pedestrian in the UK)

contango 

Here's a classic in the UK.

https://goo.gl/maps/ffHVt

That triangle and double-dashed line means Give Way. So technically speaking as a cyclist you need to be sure there's no motor traffic approaching from behind before proceeding. But the only way to find out (short of stopping to check) is to look right behind you, which for a less experienced cyclist would cause them to drift into the road.

I've seen a few of those, where a road is closed with bollards but a cyclist or pedestrian can go between the bollards. Something like this https://goo.gl/maps/sLcQx works very well - motor traffic can take the nearby road which is much faster. The bike lane continuing so that cyclists don't have to stop at the red light if they are going straight ahead works well, if the junction is the far side (i.e. if you drive on the left, a road joining from the right would present a junction where cyclists could go straight through in safety)

I suspect a large part of the problem is that it's only fairly recently that cycling has really taken off as a form of transportation rather than purely a form of leisure. Couple that with a tendency to try and group types of people together as if they are all identical because they share a common attribute and the end result is unlikely to work well for anyone. Concepts like "cyclists need...." is meaningless, because old Mrs Jones who takes half an hour to cycle the three miles to the shop, does her shopping and then takes half an hour to cycle the three miles home again, has very different needs to the commuter who has a 15 mile commute and would really like to be able to do it within an hour. Of course the couple who take their small children out for a ride and need to use the road for a short distance to get to the park have totally different needs again - the slow winding path around the lake works just fine for them.

Here's a classic example of a notionally protected bike lane - https://goo.gl/maps/rB0gC

The white areas between the main lane and the cycle lane are slightly raised. Approaching the roundabout is fine if you want to turn left, mostly OK if you want to go straight ahead, but if you want to turn right you either have to swing out into the lane at the short section where the raised bit is broken, or ride all the way around the outside and hope you don't get taken out by someone who assumes you're taking the next exit because you're on the far outside of the roundabout.

There's a video somewhere (probably on youtube) of Chris Boardman looking at cycling infrastructure and asking who it's supposed to benefit. He shows examples of cycle lanes weaving all over the place, having badly broken surfaces, disappearing at the times they are most needed and taking tortuous routes to avoid roundabouts. IIRC he concluded that their primary purpose is to get cyclists out of the way of motorists, rather than provide anything useful to cyclists.

daihard 

Not wanting to ride too close to the curb, I ended up riding on the far left edge of the bike lane. Of course, it would have gotten me dangerously close to the motor vehicles if they were moving. Luckily, the traffic was horrible on that morning and I was able to get past that section of the road while the cars were all stuck or moving very slowly to my left.

There was no parking on that road. If there was, it would still be a problem as you probably want to avoid being doored.

Ekdog

It's absolutely no problem, I can assure you. It's just like walking. If you want to turn left, there are zebra crossings just for cyclists with stop lights just for us.

(Thanks for pointing out my spelling error. I was thinking of words like p(a)edophile and p(a)ediatrician. I find the differences between British and American English interesting.)

Roody

I have no doubt that this is true. I do see signs that the street planning process is becoming more bike-centric, even here in the US.

Also, I think bike facility advocates can use this as a selling point to motorists: "Put in good bike features and your car travel will be faster, easier, and safer."

BTW, thanks for finding the Google street scenes to illustrate your comments--very useful even if it takes a second to translate the British left hand traffic scene.

contango 

Do you have a crossing at every single junction? That would seem to be the sort of thing that means everybody has to be constantly stopping to let one person across. Seems like a good way to create gridlock to me, unless I misunderstood.

No problem, sometimes the differences are as simple as a slight change in spelling, like colo(u)r, other times they can create all sorts of confusion. I remember telling a lady I was chatting to online (in a platonic sense) that I'd bought myself a new jumper and her response wasn't quite what I expected. It turned out that what I call a jumper is what she called a sweater; I never figured out exactly what she called a jumper but it certainly wasn't the sort of garment I'd have been telling her about had I bought one for myself.

contango 

I agree entirely that bike-friendly roads means cyclists can get around easily and safely while at the same time not holding up motorists who, for whatever reason, have chosen to use vehicles capable of faster speeds. Instead of an endless "us and them" scenario where battle lines are drawn, look for ways that help all forms of road user get around while causing minimum inconvenience to everyone else.

ro-monster

To an American, a jumper is a sleeveless dress intended to be worn over a shirt. Sometimes the style is abbreviated to something more like a skirt with suspenders. They aren't very popular anymore. Here's an example.

Rowan

I think sometimes the inconvenience for motorists is overblown, and that they target cyclists because they are, well, easy targets, but don't get all riled up when caught behind a truck or bus or big bit of machinery doing 10mph.

Otherwise, the notion of harmony is something that everyone could take on board... motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I see it happen in Europe when we visit, whether it's the town centre that has been made into a no-vehicle precinct, or urban environs where cars and cyclists and pedestrian mingle together without conflict.

HOWEVER, the difference in Europe, and I have mentioned this several times before in other threads, is that a number of countries put the onus or responsibility on the vehicle driver if they are involved in an collision with a cyclist.

That single fundamental difference, in my opinion, is what differentiates countries such as the US, Canada and Australia, from those European countries. It's the one area that cycling advocates simply don't promote. And it has to go hand-in-hand with the concept that every road is a bike lane/path... as evidenced by those cities that close down roads to motor vehicles on weekends and provide free access to bikes, pedestrians, roller-bladers and skateboarders.

It's why I still have doubts that bike lanes are a panacea for cycling.

We talked of compromises before in this thread. One of them is the shared bus/bike lane. My most extensive experience is in Paris. The issue is that the lane is only so wide, and buses tend to take up a lot of that width. And those buses stop frequently. So the cyclist can often play leapfrog with buses, with the risks associated with that.

gerv 

Too true this! There is definitely a pecking ordering among cars too. Bigger cars get riled at smaller cars, but won't dare speak up when trapped behind Ford F250s.

Roody

I think you're right. First about the pecking order of traffic, which even extends to trains. One time I stood in the middle of a small line of traffic waiting 10 minutes for a freight train to cross our road. When the crossing gate finally went up, I rode forward in the middle of the right lane. The motorist who was "stuck" behind me started blaring on his horn and cussing at me. He had waited patiently for 10 minutes for the big train to pass, but had to menace a little cyclist who delayed him at most an additional 10 seconds!!

I also agree about the need to make the "bigger guy" accountable for bad behavior. In my state, they just passed a "Vulnerable Road User" bill. This imposes additional fines and jail time on motorists who hit cyclists and pedestrians, as well as police and road workers. I think it's a step in the right direction, although it still doesn't go as far as laws in the Netherlands, Germany, and other countries.

And hopefully there are fewer people who believe that bike lanes are a panacea--or the opposite, that bike lanes are never suitable. One size never fits all situations.

contango 

That would certainly explain why she seemed puzzled that I'd bought one and so freely shared the fact with her. Although I have to say it was quite amusing when we both realised the cause of the misunderstanding...

contango 

True, although I suspect at least a part of that is due to a perception that if only the cyclist weren't so selfish they could move over, or get off the road, or whatever else. The monstrous great truck with the honking great concrete pipe on the back doesn't have any of those options however annoying it might be.

I figure that "share the road" works both ways so try to avoid being in the way unnecessarily. If I can safely keep over a little to make it easier for cars to pass I will, rather than rigidly insisting on an absolute right to ride in the middle of the lane.

I think that, much like bike lanes, there's no one system that works perfectly across the board. I find it truly remarkable how many people I see around my area riding at night without lights. Usually with urban street lighting and urban speed limits they can still be seen but not until you're much closer than if they had lights. Some months ago (in the winter) I only narrowly missed a cyclist who was riding on an unlit street, on a black bike, with no lights, wearing dark clothing, in the dark, on the wrong side of the road. I remember seeing a flash of orange that didn't correlate to anything that "should" have been there and slowing instinctively because it was so unexpected, only to realise that although he'd taken the white reflector off his bike he still had reflectors on his pedals. Another time I saw a cyclist run a red light and turn right across the oncoming traffic despite the big "No Right Turn" sign, nearly going under the wheels of a car coming the other way. Truth be told I see enough truly boneheaded riding by cyclists in London I'd resist a rule that placed assumed liability on either party involved in an accident.

We have that arrangement with bus lanes here in London as well. If you're playing leapfrog with a bus it gets to be a bit of a drag. If you're not then you get a nice wide lane to yourself, but still have the same issues we've already discussed if you need to turn across the traffic. The bus lane is to the left of the traffic, so if there's a left turn the bus lane is temporarily suspended to allow motor traffic to turn left into the side road, which potentially creates issues if the drivers are looking for buses (very big) and not cyclists (small).

Ekdog

This study shows that the number of accidents per trip was cut nearly in half when protected bike lanes were introduced in our city. I'm afraid I don't buy these claims that such lanes make cycling more dangerous.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2S...it?usp=sharing

Machka 

Yeah, here in Australia, jumper = sweater
But in Canada, jumper = sleeveless dress designed to be worn over a shirt

It still throws me off for a moment when a man here says something along the lines of "I bought a jumper" or "I'm just going to put my jumper on". "You're going to do what? Oh right."

Rowan

That link doesn't work for me.

contango 

Reading the post above it does sound like, from this lady's perspective, she was having a chat with some guy in an internet chat room and then he suddenly said "I like cross dressing". Which makes her response more understandable...

Ekdog

Sorry. I've put up another link. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2S...it?usp=sharing

The study is written in Spanish, by the way. Those who don't understand that language can use Google Translate, I suppose.

Ekdog

"Fanny pack" can cause misunderstanding, too.