Bekologist

the topic of "nice shareable road speeds" was brought up in a recent thread.

what is a nice shareable road speed? of course cyclists should be allowed to ride on roads of most any speed, but what would be considered a nice, shareable road speed?

There are different standards for 'nice shareable road speeds'; American roadway design standards are that sharrows, shared lane markings not be placed on roads with speeds greater than 35mph. the FHWA feels that there are more effective ways to manage greater than this level of speed differential between bike and motor vehicle traffic.

In Europe, widespread use of TEMPO30 zones, roads where the speed limit is set at less than 19 miles an hour (30 km/hr) are considered safe shareable road speeds for cyclists and motor vehicles without any separation by class. in some european countries, the use of much more speed restrictive woonerven keep motor vehicle speeds at very low limits. along woonefs, pedestrian and bike traffic establish the nice shareable road speed as they have traffic priority along woonerven.

Londons' cycling design standards favor nice shared road space at lower speeds and separation at higher speeds or traffic volumes "Cycle lanes or tracks should be provided to assist cyclists where motor vehicle flows and/or speeds are medium or high"

what should a 'nice shareable road speed' be? TEMPO 30 zones, america's 35mph standard, or somewhere either side? keep in mind the european approach of tempo 30 zones is concurrent with much higher ridership and lower accident rates for cyclists, and more riders of all ages both men and women.

this suggests the lower the speed -among other interventions- the greater the comfortability of roads that meet nice sharable standards by members of the public. I believe Jennifer Dill has tracked cyclists in portland and shown cyclists will travel to get to a prefered route with more shareable road speeds or facilities.

in contemplation of this design speed, consider all members of the public as these are public roads. consider the senior citizen, the school children as well as your own mettle when coming up with a safe shareable road speed most members of the public would feel comfortable on.

what should be considered a nice shareable road speed for all members of the public wishing to bicycle?

GamblerGORD53

********** Sorry , I haven't a clue about any of this.
Share what? Take the lane guys ? Narrow 2 lane streets or country lanes ? You want cars to go 15mph because the street
is half full of bikes ? Sounds like China and Vietnam. They go as fast as they feel like.
I ride to the right or inbetween merge lanes on the dotted line. I see no need to be a road hog on a snow free road.
The only reason that bicycles are banned from freeways is they can't cross busy 60 mph merge lanes to exit.
Put sholders on busy roads. problem solved.

Bekologist

if you are riding on the line you may be of the opinion you actually can't share the road road safely at any speed.

How does a shoulder aid in crossing an offramp?

it sounds like you feel 100km/hr highway speed roads are NOT shareable, not without shoulders, which is distinctly NOT 'road sharing' in the context of this discussion.

i don't want cars to go 15mph because of all the bikes, but extensive use of TEMPO30 zones are seen across cities in a number of countries in europe that value public safety and want safe communities wih nice, shareable road speeds. European traffic engineers and urban planners have widely established this as a nice shareable road speed that does not hinder ridership.

here's a wiki link to an article on tempo 30 zones.... i had it translated, hold on, let me see if i can link to the english version...

tempo 30 in english

tempo30 zones

the austrian city of vienna mentions this in their citys transportation plan about tempo30 zones " TEMPO30 zones also offers the lower speed level favorable conditions for safe cycling in mixed traffic."

i will offer that the european 'standard' of 30 km/hr is a nice, shareable road speed for all members of the public.

GamblerGORD53

Nice pic of a sign somewhere by a farm. That sure explains things. pfft Where is the road ???
Any granny on a one speed bike can go faster than 30 km.
The story explains NOTHING about sharing any road.
Sharing means using as little of the street as possible so that OTHERS can do the same.
So what , if the cars are going by in the same lane at 30 mph ?
I have used the ride to the right philosophy with zero problems. How the hell does that denigrate my equal rights to use the roads ???? NOBODY tells me to get off the road or doesn't let me go left around buses or whatever.
Of course we need 3 or 4 feet from car doors.
I use side streets, sidewalks, any streets, whatever. Our bike lanes are now mostly on 1 way streets for some reason. I don't need to slow anybody down , anywhere, to feel safe. These Tempo30 laws seem fn ******** , anywhere in North America.

I have ridden in plenty of cities from here to Houston.
I had to ride the freeway to get into Ft.Worth from Arlington. A trooper called me over at the entrance, and asked what i was doing. Then said ok. It wasn't that busy anyway.
Car and truck drivers aren't stupid, they slow down behind me in tight lanes, city or highway.

I have no problems using the freeway, most places. Maybe I double cross the merge lane or maybe not.
I let the cars pass right/ left whatever. I have zero need to take the lane there.
I was going 31 mph part of the time on a 42 lb hybrid bike.
I have been on the full 4 lane freeway out of Salt Lake and needed to go 79 mph to get away from trucks. Sure couldn't ride a bike on those freeways.

Go to Vietnam and you will learn to SHARE the road in a BIG hurry. Bicycles and motorcycles going straight/diagonal/wrong way in the right gutter. Your knees /handlebars are bumping anybody/anything, especially
in traffic circles where you need to elbow cars. And it is FUN. Lanes? haha what lanes? Whole families clinging on those Honda125s. I never saw 1 baby crying either.
Does anybody stop for any pedestrians there? NO You take a step and they go
in front/ in behind and you merge like a school of fish.

noisebeam

Why not set up an poll where the speed options are independent from judgement of others?

Bekologist

oh, i thought the poll options accurately reflected the points of view of the forum. the last option is kind of a throwaway, knowing full well it was an option for the idealogue.

surely in consideration of shareable roads for bicycling, insistences that roads greater than 50 mph is a nice, shareable road speed for bicyclists approaches the ludicrous. i felt 50mph roads represented the upper range of realistic options for forum members to choose from.

the other choices are judgement free, only the last was for idealogues and yes, skew attached. i'm not trying for a 'scientific' sample, there are plenty of bonifide parameters for this.

the london cycling program actually has a great graphic showing the applicability of differing road designs in conjunction with speeds and traffic volumes; above 80 km/hr there are very few instances London transportation engineers would consider a road as safely shareable without class specificity along that travel corridor.

'any speed is shareable' is not a realistic, humanistic poll choice, therefore it is slightly mocked in the poll. my apologies for recognizing human nature and the limitations established by professional traffic engineers in developing standards for road design.

noisebeam

Well unfortunately none of the poll choices fits for me. Not even close.

Bekologist

i guess that is unfortunate?

This wasn't a poll for what you felt was a safe shareable road speed for YOU and you alone. I've taken the lane on interstate highways and even in limited visibility conditions, but don't think that is for the rest of the bicycling public out there or that freeway speeds would be considered 'safely sharable' for the human element in any realistic discussion of bicycle transportation.

highway transportation engineers in various countries have come up with some standards and limits; those options are fairly reflected in the poll.


Consider grandmothers taking their grandkids to school by bicycle.

noisebeam

Posted speed limit is only a small factor in what makes a road shareable.

Bekologist

that's a good point but i would consider it more than a small factor.

with no motor vehicle traffic whatsoever, they likely would not even NEED to be a speed limit.

what do you think about the 'human priority' speed limits of the woonerven in Europe?
these can be considered intrinsically more 'shareable' than a 120 km/hr freeway.

noisebeam

Which is why the option that any speed could be considered shareable is the only logical one, but the snide additional comment associated with that choice about what people are who don't think this prevents it from getting my vote and is in my opinion only intended to be argumentative and is not constructive toward reasonable discussion.

Bekologist

..... 'any speed should be considered shareable'

is simply not a reasonable, realistic option as per international road and traffic safety engineers standards for transportation networks, noisebeam.

it's off the table of reasonable discussion.

so, as to the reasonable discussion of shareable road speeds......

noisebeam

What about factors like grade, sightlines, roadway width?

Bekologist

absolutely those factors have to be considered when planning shared road networks that facilitate bicycling as transportation.

i forget if the roads of mackinac island have posted speed limits.

njkayaker

Because if you believe "any speed should be considered shareable", Bek will force these words into your mouth: "people that don't think this are incompetent".

Note that many people who use "polls" use this "tactic" but not so crudely!

Stupid poll.

Bekologist

that's actually someone else's dogma, not mine. i felt it would be fair to offer such a choice for the ideologically addled.

for realistic consideration of bikes and cars and nice shareable road speeds between them, the other four are within the realm of reasonable consideration.

the dogmatism attached to the last poll choice is frequently bandied about here in the VC subforum, I felt it would only be FAIR AND BALANCED to present this option.

best have equal choices for all points of view, eh?

njkayaker

Emulating Fox News, eh?

People should boycott this defective "poll".

noisebeam

Thankfully traffic laws in just about every US state support choice 5.

Bekologist

yes, indeed. legally allowed in most states.

However, not recommended design guidelines from transportation engineers in ANY state as to what constitutes the upper speed limits of what one poster described as a 'nice, shareable road speed'.

Someone had suggested 50 miles an hour was a nice shareable road speed. i felt this was a topic worth a little REASONABLE discussion.

from my original post:

does that mean people should boycott the defective dogma that raises such ire? seems the dogma is the offense, not the poll.

that point of view is voiced in this forum quite frequently, you know?

noisebeam

"any speed should be considered shareable" is the only defensible option for anyone who who is opposed to the idea of banning cyclists from roadways that don't meet certain standards.

Bekologist

yes, but in a consideration of how to design and plan road networks for safe road sharing between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic, there are upper limits established by many countries as to what constitutes that upper limit to 'nice shareable road speeds' and what speeds and volumes dictate a different approach.

see the original post for some background from several countries as to what have been established as these engineering limits.

njkayaker

But this stupid, dishonest poll isn't meant to be the basis of a reasonable discussion.

The poll is offensive too!

An honest poll should assess people's opinions. Not what opinions you require them to hold!

Bekologist

yeah, polls cannot be weighted.

but, you may be onto something, njkayaker~! the dogma expressed in option 5 IS offensive. YOU find it offensive, I find it offensive, but it is expressed in many threads in this forum.

since this is an opinion expressed in many of these threads, it was only fair to include it in the poll despite its offensive nature. this does not make the poll 'dishonest' or 'offensive', that's someone elses opinion i felt i would respectfully include in the poll, offensive as it is. i didn't realize it would become such an distracting part of my post as it is a pretty widely voiced opinion heard around this forum.

maybe the moderators could remove the offensive part of the poll choice #5 if its such a stumbling block and a barrier to the reasonable discussion.

it is an opinion expressed in this forum, offensive as it sounds. its not my personal opinion, obviously.



if you cannot have a reasonable discussion with an awareness that some people hold the opinion expressed in option 5, no need to contribute anything further.

seriously, the only reasonable options are the first 4, in accordance with traffic engineering standards held in many countries.

yes, the fifth option is outside the bounds of reasonable discussion. absolutely.

chipcom 

Says the heir to the Helmet Head polling empire.

noisebeam

Think carefully about what this means: "any speed should be considered shareable,"

specifically the 'should' and 'considered' part, for example it does not 'is'