squirtdad

and again the OP has moved what was a good thread on issues with protected/segragated infratructure into a lane control/VC discussion. time to move it to VC, sadly

welshTerrier2

Has anyone here actually suggested that "cyclists have to match motorist speed to mix well with them?"

"We have have [sic] found the enemy and they are us." Well, perhaps at least some of us.

Do you have any hard evidence that bike lanes and/or protected bike lanes make cyclists less safe? The concerns you raise about curb cuts, plantings, side streets etc. are all valid concerns but the information I've seen (and posted) suggests that, at least for the specific lanes I cited, cyclists are safer. There are lots of very legitimate issues that need to be addressed but that does not mean these lanes should be permanently deleted from our infrastructure toolkit.

Ninety5rpm

Yeah, let's not get hung up on that in this thread, but in my defense the whole point of the article linked in the OP is that the protected bike lanes put the cyclist into this vulnerable position: "drivers and cyclists can barely see each other until it's too late".

Ninety5rpm

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what I understood this to imply is that cyclists have to come close to matching motorist speeds to "mix well" with them:

Ninety5rpm

I'm not calling for deletion of anything. Just awareness of risks. And being careful about what we wish for...

The data on cyclist safety is sparse and fraught with problems. For example, whether a given road has bike lanes, most cyclists will ride near the edge anyway, so the difference in safety is going to be negligible. Even if you put up BMUFL signs and sharrows, most will still hug the curb when possible. But I do have hope this is changing.

Rollfast

Your real problem is that you don't do enough to distinguish that you are quoting a source and the link is last.


All bicycles are vehicles. They weren't made with elfin magic, which is good because shortbread and chocolate does not make a good bicycle.

Ninety5rpm

Really? I added headings. Better?

welshTerrier2

So, your answer to the question "Do you have any hard evidence that bike lanes and/or protected bike lanes make cyclists less safe?" apparently is "NO, I have no hard evidence."

Instead, you suggest that "most cyclists will ride near the edge anyway, so the difference in safety is going to be negligible." Is that based solely on your own observations? The studies I cited suggest that cyclists using the protected bike lanes covered by the studies were much safer but, somehow, you're able to conclude that "the difference in safety is negligible."

mr_bill

PICS of the TRAPS on the North Milwaukee Ave protected bike lane or....

-mr. bill

rydabent

On protected bike lanes, or anywhere else, if cyclist and drivers obey traffic laws, why should there be any danger.

Mark Stone

True -- but that's a big "if"

gregf83 

Because cyclists and drivers often ignore traffic laws. That’s why you shouldn’t ride in the door lane, for example. If everyone was behaving properly you could ride 6” from a row of parked cars. Clearly not a good idea.

rossiny

Politicians

jon c. 

If no one violated the law, think of what we'd save on criminal justice costs.

Gallo

That is the point you wish to make and yet I read something entirely different. The point was that that "particular bike lane was unsafe" Having not ridden it personally I cannot say one way or another

To draw a conclusion all protected bike lanes are unsafe from that article is disingenuous.

I have ridden many bike lanes. I have felt the need to take the lane. I have felt the need to ride close to the curb and the white line. Bicycling is fluid and one size does not fit all. One must be situational aware and ride in the safest manner based on the conditions you are in

rydabent

Granted you cant fix stupid. If you run red lights, and dont stop, then just look at it as improving the gene pool, and having good organ donors.

On a positive note however, protected bike ways will get some people that might not ride certain places to ride.

mr_bill

Because drivers often ignore traffic laws such as turn only lanes. That's why you shouldn't ride in the thru lane. If everyone was behaving properly you could ride in a thru lane and not worry about right hooks. Clearly not a good idea.

-mr. bill

rydabent

Protected lanes or not, ride like every single car is driven by a lunatic that is out to get you. A couple hundred pounds never come out of an accident as well as a 4000 pound car.

prathmann

If I really rode like that I'd never ride anywhere without an impassable barrier between me and motor vehicle traffic - i.e. only on separate trails without any road intersections. No thanks, I'll continue to use my bike as my primary transportation. And the statistics are pretty clear that doing so will add to rather than subtract from my life expectancy. Obviously no guarantees, but I'll take my chances with what's likely to happen rather than live in fear of what might possibly happen.

Ninety5rpm

Rollfast

Everybody will tell you the refs weren't any good this year...

mr_bill

A common way to get hurt (or worse) is to have a motor vehicle turn right from the far left lane.

So, really?

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

If it's "common", how about finding three examples of news reports about these "common" ways to get hurt (or worse) when "a motor vehicle turn[s] right from the far left lane."

mr_bill

You'll get two - or worse. A tale of two cities.

Turned left from the RIGHT curb. In this case, the driver was charged.

Turned right from the LEFT lane. In this case, the accident is still under investigation.

-mr. bill

Ninety5rpm

Oh, please. Trucks in both cases. Trucks! They have to make wide turns. You get that, right? These are not examples of people not "behaving properly". These are proper turns, given the vehicles involved.

What Cyclists Need To Know About Trucks