Ninety5rpm

Some of this stuff seems obvious, but I guess some people have to experience it to realize the dangers.

Many cyclists are unaware of the additional hazards, especially at intersections with side streets and even driveways.


EXCERPT:


The dangers of protected bike lanes

The tiny spaces we carve out for cyclists in a city built for cars can be traps as well as havens.
By Philip Montoro @pmontoro



... I'm talking specifically about lanes that cross side streets, where only traffic on the side street has to stop. (Milwaukee Avenue is a good example.) Cyclists traveling at cruising speed thus ride directly across the path of drivers turning onto the side street—and when traffic is light, drivers often make these turns with little to no warning. This wouldn't be worse than biking on any other two-way road, except that the protected bike lane is usually separated from the street by parking spaces—and when they're full, drivers and cyclists can barely see each other until it's too late. Even an attentive driver can be taken by surprise when parked cars conceal nearly all of a cyclist's approach to the intersection.

This arrangement also sucks for cyclists because of the constraints it places on drivers trying to turn from the side street onto the larger road: the protected bike lane is so close to the curb that drivers can't see oncoming cyclists till they're practically in the intersection, and the parking lane is so far out into the street that drivers are motivated to nose out into cyclists' path in order to get a clear look at car traffic. I don't have to imagine a driver as hostile to cyclists to perceive this as dangerous. I'd almost rather ride on the other side of the parking lane, out in the street, where I'd at least be more visible.

This is part of a ubiquitous pattern, not only in Chicago but across the country...


LINK:

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...t?oid=37062104

mr_bill

Another copyright issue (hint, it’s not the blue that’s the problem).

And another VC thread.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

What's the copyright issue (I linked to the original article), and what does this have to do with VC? It's a cycling safety article by a facilities proponent.

FBinNY 

Why would you start the same thread twice?

I know you altered the title slightly, but it's still the same thing.

I know you have a very important agenda, and want to educate the heathens, but please show some respect and courtesy by not posting duplicate threads.

BTW - I'm not a mod, not do I control the forum in any way. This is simply a personal request which you're free to disregard. However, I like to give and get respect in roughly equal amounts, so having said my piece will ignore both the threads.

squirtdad

the problem is not cyclists, it is cyclists having to work with a bad design that is based on the lowest common denominator of skill. The bigger problem is drivers.

This type of design which "seems" safe because it has car's as a barrier creates a lot of issues with visibility and lanes being blocked by non cycling users.

protected infrastructure (of which I am not a fan) requires, separate signals to avoid these issues

There is no one size fits all in infrastructure, but what has been pretty successful multiple situations in my area has been road diets....ie changing a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) to 2 lanes, with a center turning lane, and 2 large bike lanes. Motorists scream, but in general this has resulted in better bikeablity and even walkability where it was done, but again that may not fly in downtown chicago

squirtdad

If you cut and paste the entire article,etc it is an issue, vs a few sentences and a link

Ninety5rpm

Same thread? Same thing? Separate threads about totally different articles. Each thread is intended to discuss the cycling safety article referenced in the OP of each thread.

The first was an article about the danger of bike lanes. This one focuses on a problem peculiar to "protected bike lanes". Did you read either article? They're very different.

Ninety5rpm

Done. Thanks.

CB HI

Funny watching some get triggered with discussion on bike lanes and then claiming it is a VC discussion in hopes of getting it moved.

CB HI

Different article.

Ninety5rpm

So any discussion about any article opposing bike lanes is a VC subject?

FBinNY 

So noted.

I-Like-To-Bike

Same subject; same agenda.

Ninety5rpm

Did you read the articles?

prathmann

Not really. One article was written by a consultant for the fossil-fuel industry who has also written articles entitled "Ban the Bike" and others extolling the virtues of burning coal and labeling renewable energy sources as scams. The other was written by a cyclist criticizing one particular type of protected bike lane.

Hardly the same agenda.

fixedweasel

I just read the part that is posted here. Did not read the article in the other thread. The article above is referring to the "New" Bike Lanes/Design here in Chicago and it is absolutely horrendous. It's a crap* design that puts everyone's safety at risk. It's a real shame that they are putting those in. Terrible. Yes, the old Chicago Bike Lanes gave a lane on the right side of traffic but you were one with traffic and not only could you see everything but also be seen by all cars and pedestrians. You also always had an out if there was a chance of an accident. The new design throws the rider against the curb on the right and parked cars on the left. Between opening passenger car doors and/or pedestrians walking between the parked cars to get to the other side, and/or texting folks walking off the curb with their heads down/generally not paying attention, all just accidents waiting to happen.** Also, that hidden lane shrouds riders from cars making right hand turns (and left hand turns from oncoming traffic). By the time they are halfway through their turn, they will be on top/T-bone the rider(s) going through the intersection. So if you're fortunate to be biking in our new lanes, you now have to dodge......................

opening car doors much closer than before
folks stepping off the curb into the bike lane
folks going between cars after crossing the street right into the bike lane
all the winter debris/garbage dumped into the bike lane because of the curve/gutter..........puncture anyone?
no snow plowed bike lanes
cars making right/left hand turns without seeing you

................and all of this joy with no way out if something/one of these things happens.

This is a textbook example of people designing things who have never used the product or never had to critically think through/troubleshoot an issue with the design.

fail




*total/real/absolute/tons
**and they've already happened

mr_bill

The “proponent”

What do you think we are?

-mr. bill

Daniel4

Just another article defending bad driving as an acceptable norm.

Ninety5rpm

Yes, this is the point of the article. Traditional bike lanes are usually innocuous and even helpful when motor traffic is congested, but these "protected" ones do anything but protect.

mr_bill

When was the last time you rode a bicycle in Chicago?

Rhetorical question, continue ripping out “innocuous and even helfpul” bike lanes.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

Are you confusing me with the author of an article I shared here?

mr_bill

A rhetorical question is confusing?
(Rhetorical question.)

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

I was referring to the statement after your self-identified rhetorical question that appeared to reveal you confusing me with the article author.

badger1

Yep again.

After all, when one VC Trojan Horse is put out to pasture, doesn't take long to construct another one and try again.

SquidPuppet

The veil of faux polite has become quite grotesque. And nauseating.