Roody

They didn't break it down that way, at least not in the article.

Of cyclists actually using the bike lanes, 96% liked them. That's a lot! Maybe the studied lanes were nicer than the ones you've used?

Roody

I don't have much experience because we don't have much facility where I ride. But like I said before, one person's experience is basically meaningless for considering policies that will affect large numbers of people.

Machka 

IMO ... I'd rather have these situations addressed first.

Within cities, the curbside lane should be built wide enough for both cars and bicycles to co-exist peacefully. There don't need to be lines and markings etc., just a road width that is about 3 feet wider than "normal".

Outside cities, almost all roads should have a shoulder. Perhaps a narrow 1 foot shoulder for quieter C roads, maybe a 3 foot shoulder for somewhat busier B roads, and something 6 feet to "normal" lane width on main A roads/highways. This could, of course, depend a bit on traffic volume. If you've got a C road with a high traffic volume, then a 3 foot shoulder might be a better choice for that road. So perhaps a formula could be used which takes into account the designation of the road and the traffic volume. Nevertheless, ideally, there would be some sort of shoulder on all roads designated C, B, or A. Main arterial roads and bridges within cities should also have shoulders.

And then ... there could also be separated bicycle paths here and there as desired by the community. They would, preferably, not be placed next to a road, they would not run along side a road like a sidewalk/footpath does ... instead they would, for the most part, be hidden from view of the road. These separated bicycle paths could run along river/ocean/lake foreshores, through and around parks, to various attractions around the city, and out into the country, following old railway lines, running through various scenic spots, to neighbouring towns and other country attractions.

Machka 

Yes, but with experience you can ride many different kinds of cycling facilities and many kinds of roads and see for yourself how well they work and how well they are maintained ... rather than just reading about it.

Machka 

Maybe ... or maybe the "cyclists" only needed them to be a certain level of "niceness". The cycleway here in Hobart is really nice ... it is wide, relatively flat and well made. Most cyclists would probably say they like the cycleway ... and sure, I like it too. It's convenient and comfortable.

But it all falls over if we want to go to the south of the city ... the cycleway doesn't go there. Or if we wanted to ride out to New Norfolk ... we're out of luck. Or if we wanted to maintain a consistent speed over the whole 13 km of the cycleway ... not possible because of all the intersections. In fact, several of the intersections are rather frustrating and potentially dangerous.

Overall, it's one of the nicer city cycleways I've encountered, and if someone were doing a survey, I'd sincerely say I liked it.

But I like other roadways I've encountered in my travels better.

contango 

No, my comment on a "one size fits all" approach is based on the notion that we can say "a segregated lane is best" or "taking the lane is best" as if it were a universal truth. To me that makes no more sense than saying "the safest speed you can drive on an interstate is 75mph" - in torrential rain and ice 75mph is near-suicidal but on an empty road in good conditions a well-maintained car can go much faster and still be safe.

I suspect we don't disagree as much as might first appear.

We may also be coming at this with very different perspectives of "city" and with different levels of cycling in our home locations. I don't have a problem with bike lanes - in my city there are lots of bike lanes, most of which are little more than a strip painted at the side of the road. Some of them are useful, some are utterly useless (I've posted a few examples of when they are totally useless). A network of cycle-friendly routes makes a lot of sense, as it happens my house is on a road which is part of a signposted cycle route. Unfortunately that doesn't give my road any higher priority when it comes to getting potholes repaired - on more than one occasion I've complained to the local council that their signs encourage cyclists to turn into my road only to present them with a big pothole to avoid.

I looked through the article (the one you linked when you posted your bullet-points, right?) and I must admit for the most part I find it quite underwhelming.

I find it hard to understand how a lane is called "protected" when there is no protection worthy of the name. Just like there's nothing to physically stop a car from drifting into the bike lane when it's nothing more than a green strip of paint at the roadside, so a few flexible plastic strips will do nothing to protect me from a driver who is drunk/asleep/inattentive/murderous if they happen to be alongside me. It might feel safer but unless those plastic strips will stop an errant motorist they are nothing more than a false sense of security.

As one of the people who commented said, the sample size is very small. Before mobile phone use behind the wheel was banned it was routine for people (myself included) to talk and drive at the same time. Even now mobile phone use while driving is illegal it's rare to go very far before seeing someone driving with a phone clamped to their ear. Does that mean the dangers are overstated, or are people just getting lucky? I know a lady who used to drink and drive a lot, and the only thing that stopped her was when she got a DUI, and the only reason she got a DUI was because she nudged another car in the parking area and the owner noticed she was unsteady on her feet and called the police. I shudder to think how many times she drove when she was over the drink-drive limit but she aside from that walking-pace nudge she never had any trouble. Does that mean drink-driving is safe?

Looking at the people who felt "safe" when their lane was protected with a raised concrete curb, I can only assume the lane was new. If the lane is disintegrating (as all lanes do over time if they aren't adequately maintained) it's hard to see how people would feel safer if they've got potholes in the lane and the concrete curb that notionally protects them also forces them to go through the pothole because they can't go around it. This goes back to my earlier comment about balancing safety and the desire to get on with the journey - the safest thing is not to make the journey at all and we all have to make our own decisions when it comes to trading safety (real or perceived) with the desire to complete our journey.

Another thing I noticed was that the study refers to "users of the protected bike lane" - I didn't notice anything indicating how much cycling experience those users had. So you potentially get a situation like Machka already described that's little more than "I don't feel safe on the roads, I'd feel safe on the sidewalk, so cyclists should stay on the sidewalk". Even though I tend to take a fairly defensive outlook when cycling the basic truth is that the vast majority of motorists are quite capable of steering in a line sufficiently straight that they don't run into things, as evidenced by the fact millions of people drive regularly without driving into anything else. Likewise when we consider the number of cyclists killed or injured against the number of miles travelled on two wheels we can see that cycling isn't as dangerous as people might like to think. People feel more vulnerable, simply because they are more vulnerable when they aren't encased in a big metal box. But how many people decide not to drive because it doesn't feel safe, despite the number of people killed or injured in road traffic accidents?

contango 

What was the experience of the cyclists actually using the lanes? Was it a reasonable cross-section, or does the study just take a group of self-selected cyclists and draw conclusions from what they said? A postal survey showed that 98% of people enjoyed doing postal surveys. Draw from that what you will.

Roody

I really wish you would look at that article and see the photos/descriptions of the protected bike lanes. I'm fairly certain that we are talking about totally different things.

Machka 

Again ... +1



Or here in Australia where helmets are required ... if they cycled, they'd have helmet hair. Yep, a coworker gave me that excuse.


Yes, decent parking would be good.



Some powers that be figure just that. I've mentioned before that I worked in the infrastructure department of a local council. When they were building new bicycle trails, including their part of the longest one in Victoria, that was an attitude that did indeed come up. What did the surface matter? All cyclists ride around on bicycles with wide knobby tires so if the path surface is not so good, who cares? When I brought up the suggestion that some cyclists ride bicycles with thin tires, the reaction was ... well, buy a more appropriate bicycle. Ummm ... no.

Then there were the bridges on the trail. Bridges cost a lot of money. But hey, why do cyclists need bridges ... they can simply descend the bank, portage across the stream, if there's water in it, and scramble up the bank on the other side. And the trail was left like that for a long time.


Another example ... in Melbourne. Melbourne has quite an extensive trail system, and the randonneurs in the area hold a 100K event on Melbourne's trails, cycleways, lanes, etc. But right in the middle of that is a section where cyclists have to dismount and climb a double flight of stairs with their bicycles before continuing on.

Personally, as a long distance cyclist, I would love to take "the powers that be" for several rides on the facilities they've provided, or half provided, and on some really good roads as well ... to show them what works and what doesn't.

Roody

That's a valid objection, since presumably a lot of the people were in the cycle lane because they like cycle lanes. The ones who don't like them were possibly cycling elsewhere.

A lot more cyclists were riding on these roads after the bike lanes were put in. But it isn't clear how many were new riders and how many shifted their trips from another street because they preferred the bike lanes.

The article mentioned that cities that have seen a good increase in the modal share of bikes were cities that had a linked network of bike facilities--not scattered lanes that start and end almost randomly. (The example given was Chicago.)

I don't know whether the authors used good sampling methods, since I haven't read the entire report. Here's a link to the 179 page PDF of the full report:

https://ppms.otrec.us/media/project_f...nalReportb.pdf

Roody

What do you think of the bike lanes that are protected by parked cars? That is:The bike lane is supposed to be wide enough to keep cyclists out of the door zone. And the order would be reversed in countries with left side traffic.

Machka 

$$$$$$$$!!!


Aside from the cost, as soon as you put a car parking lane next to a bicycle lane, you've got a really wide car parking lane. In Europe, cars park on the sidewalk.

You've also got a great spot for people, grocery bags, shopping carts, baby carriages, etc. etc. to stop and park their stuff and chat and load their vehicles ...

Rowan

They could be disastrous. While the bike lane is wide enough to keep riders out of the door zone (and that is huge space), passengers aren't going to be aware of cyclists coming along the bike lane and likely walk right into riders going past. Then when the cyclist wants to turn into a T-junction or cross to a shop on the other side of the parked cars, s/he then has to find a way through the parked cars, and virtually becomes a pedestrian.

And if a pedestrian wants to cross the road, they have an extra lane to cope with.

All you're doing in this scenario is adding to the potential conflicts between users.

Machka 

I had a glance at it. We're talking about the same thing. I've seen and used all sorts of things like those here and elsewhere.

ro-monster

I read all 179 pages of the study. I wasn't impressed. The data collection wasn't even close to rigorous standards. And if you read the survey questions carefully you'll see they are all phrased to elicit people's feelings. So we can conclude that the idea of protected bike lanes is fairly popular. And we can conclude that they provide the illusion of safety. But the evidence presented for actual safety improvements is pretty flimsy.

Of course people do tend to base their decisions on the illusion of safety, not on fact. This is why they don't fear driving but do fear riding bikes.

The report featured some two-way cycle tracks, all of which were only a few blocks long. I thought it was very telling that there was no mention made of what happens when the cycle track ends and you're suddenly riding into oncoming traffic. If they have a way to avoid that, it wasn't evident.

I don't trust the study because it reads like something written by marketing weasels, when it needs a solid factual foundation instead.

contango 

This is the kind of unknown factor that could render the entire study worthless.

Were the people who used it new cyclists or were they changing their route to take in the new lane that they liked? If they were changing their route, what was the old route like? If they changed from a quiet urban road with no marked lane to a quiet urban road with a marked lane that's a far more significant observation than if they changed their route from a busy main road to a quiet road that was longer but offered a separated route.

Cycling provision is pointless unless it actually goes where cyclists want to go. And as we've already established, "cyclists" covers everybody from the children going to school to commuters going to work to the likes of Mark Cavendish doing training rides.

179 pages is an awful lot to read!

contango 

Useless. The pedestrians will stray into the bike lane, cars parking a little too far to the side will block the bike lane, people getting out of cars will block the bike lane, and if you want to cross the road for a junction you're in a worse place than if you're taking the lane. Maybe they're OK for slow riders who won't be turning across the traffic but it's not something I'd want to use.

ETA: If you've got a small raised section between the pedestrians and the cyclists it might keep errant children on scooters out of the bike lane but won't stop dogs or iZombies, and physical barriers also make it harder for cyclists who need to leave their lane for whatever reason, be it for a turning or to avoid a pothole or take evasive action.

Roody

What did you think of the 12,000 videotaped observations of cyclists in the protected lanes/intersections?

Roody

The riders will not be turning across the traffic if it is truly a protected bike lane. The intersection will be controlled to protect cars, bikes, and peds.

And traffic enforcement should be able to deal with the other problems you mention, which are basically people breaking the law.

contango 

If a rider wants to use a junction the other side of the road they'll still have to get across the road. So if you've got a US city with the bike lane to the right of parked vehicles, the cyclist wanting to turn left has a harder job from within such a lane than if they were riding in the road.

Traffic enforcement is all well and good, but using the same argument traffic enforcement should be able to deal with existing issues faced by cyclists on the road. Unless all the study has to say is that people who are actually perfectly safe don't feel safe, in which case money would be better spent on education than extra lanes. Besides which, do you really think a police officer is going to take much interest in the fact a four-year-old walked into the bike lane and forced a cyclist to brake hard?

Rowan

What intersection?

How many police do you see enforcing what happens now? And just what law is there going to be broken that they need to enforce?

Roody

We have written almost that much on just this thread!

I think the cyclists will not be using congested city streets for training rides. At least they do not at this time, and there's no reason to think they ever will. Protected bike lanes are built for people traveling about the city, just like current streets are. Those who use them will have to obey laws and customs, just as people do now. I think many of the objections are based on unrealistic "what if" projections. To date, I think most of the new infrastructure in cities have increased the number of riders without a jump in injuries. (London being a possible exception.)

And I think a lot of us *ahem* older cyclists really don't want to have to change our habits in order to accommodate those we see as less than the ideal cyclists. I'm not saying you feel that way, Contango, but I do get a whiff of it from some others I have communicated with.

Roody

I was talking about other objections Contango made, such as pedestrians clogging the protected bike lane or cars being parked too close to it. You can read his post, which I quoted, if you need more context.

And yes, I do see a lot of enforcement of parking rules and driving laws currently. You don't?

Machka 

This is a protected bike lane and pedestrian walkway in Hobart CBD. The part right in front of the camera is ... unclear. But it is protected from the road, I guess ... except for the turn off.

It's hard to see, but further on, the pedestrian part and the cycle part are separated by the row of trees ... but do you think the pedestrians pay any attention at all to the separation? Nope, of course not.





This is a Google image ... not my photo ... but it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Where the two pedestrians are in the cycling part of the area. The pedestrians are supposed to be closer to the water, on the other side of the row of trees. But pedestrians meander all over the place there, and then get upset when the cyclists want to ride where they are supposed to be riding.

Incidentally this is the same area as my photo above, just in the daylight and facing the opposite direction.

contango 

You're probably right, but I wouldn't expect anyone to read the entire thread at once!

I'm aware of a lot more cyclists in London than in the past, although whether that's because I'm a cyclist myself these days is hard to say.

I don't suppose for a minute any elite athletes are going to be taking to the city streets at rush hour to get some training in. The problems arise when people expect cyclists to use the cycle-specific facilities, meaning those who cycle to get and maintain fitness are pushed (by social pressure if not legal mandate) onto facilities that are not suitable for their cycling.

If (as appears to be the case) a lot of cycling infrastructure is at least partly geared towards getting bikes out of the way of cars, a logical consequence of having more comprehensive cycling facilities is a legal mandate to use them. I agree it is something of a "what if" projection but I think it's one that's worth addressing simply because I don't want cycling to be legally turned into a lowest-common-denominator mode of transport that's permanently relegated to second-class status. If we want to see more people cycling I'd want to see a combination of encouragement of new cyclists with more provision for cyclists of all levels of fitness, skill and experience.

There's probably a fair bit of that - most people don't want to be forced to change. In fairness if cycling does end up being something that's relegated to inadequate infrastructure it will go from being a desirable mode of transport to a less desirable mode of transport. Part of the reason I cycle places is because it's faster than the viable alternatives. If I want to get into central London (and don't need to carry heavy stuff or look professional when I arrive) I'll take the bike because it's quicker than the train and means I don't have to pay for a train ticket. If I'm prevented from riding on the roads and have to take winding cycle routes and accept being stuck behind slower riders then cycling will be less attractive. If getting to my friend's house sees me prevented from getting to any decent speed on the road because I'm stuck behind a succession of leisure riders on the narrow bike path, I'll leave the bike at home and take the car.

Anything that represents an improvement is a good thing, even if the improvement isn't immediately obvious. But what I see in these lanes would be roughly equivalent to breaking up all the interstates so that every mile or so you had to wait at a crossing to switch to the other side of the road, and dropping all the interstate speed limits to 35mph to make sure nobody overshot a junction. It might make the interstates feel less scary for new drivers but the overall net effect would be hugely negative. If you wanted to put a positive spin on it, it would be quite easy to look at reduced accident rates, people feeling safer in their cars, pedestrians able to cross the road where previously they couldn't, and so on. But the question of whether that's an acceptable benefit when the price is an inability to get anywhere very fast is another matter.

Which goes back to my comment earlier than an inexperienced cyclist would gladly trade some speed for more perceived safety while a more experienced cyclist would be more likely to place a lower value on perceived safety (or perceive the main road to be safe) and prefer to gain the extra speed associated with not using the cycle lane.

(With regard to the Dutch junctions shown where the cycle lane has priority and assorted waiting spots etc are available, this looks good in theory but it's hard to see how it could be retrofitted to an existing junction unless there was a lot of space around the junction. It might work in rural areas but in high density urban areas there just isn't the space to restructure junctions to that extent.)