mr_bill

Sheesh. If I choose not to ride on the sidewalk it makes some motorists upset.

HTFU.

-mr. bill

daihard 

What's HTFU? Acronym recognition isn't one of my strengths.

mr_bill

Harden the [expletive deleted] up.

There are a *small* number of motorists who don't want us on the road - period. They are not long for this world.

Ride your ride. Watch for them, but ride your ride.


-mr. bill

daihard 

I sure hope it is a small number of motorists, but when I'm out and about, I often feel as though it's not the case. Maybe I should just "harden up."

mr_bill

You live in a state where you *may* use a bikelane, you do not *have* to use any bikelane.
(So do I.)

It's liberating.

Biking around downtown Seattle I enjoyed. Even more so because the bike rental was free. (Thank you timbuk2.)

-mr. bill

kickstart

Agreed,
Considering its less than a mile long, it seems that the 2nd ave path is best utilized for passing through the downtown core, and use the lesser avenues for getting about locally.

mr_bill

This is important! They are *NOT* motor traffic lanes - they are traffic lanes. This is what 2nd ave looks like:

You are in no danger of being banned to the "kiddie pool" in Washington State. You can ride your bike in any traffic lane. Just like Boston. Just like Vancouver BC. It's part of our culture.

This is UNLIKE San Francisco, Los Angeles, Montréal and New York City.


So vote with your pedals. If you like the 2nd ave two-way bikelanes - use them!
If you don't like them, *don't* use them.

This is a demonstration project, you locals will decide its fate.


(FWIW, I like the Burrard Street two-way bikelane in Vancouver. I *LOVE* the Hudson River Greenway, and *HATE* *HATE* *HATE* the 1st Avenue bikelane in New York City. My favorite bikelane in Boston is probably the shared Washington Street Silver Line/bikelane.)

-mr. bill

kickstart

If you're not cycling with the intent to "take", "catch", or "control", but simply riding your own ride in a safe, lawful, and courteous manner, then you shouldn't let those few get under your skin as they are the problem, not you.

CliffordK

The majority of cars I see are quite courteous to bicyclists. Sometimes to excess, passing me by a whole lane. And, I try to wave them through if they are waiting unnecessarily. But I understand they also have to consider their own vehicle safety. It is usually things like buses and trucks that do close drive-bys that bother me, and that is only a few of the drivers.

I usually don't understand what a person is saying when they yell out the window when driving by.... I just have to assume it was something positive

spare_wheel

You are framing the choice as black and white. There are other choices:

1. Two unidirectional protected bike lanes* with intersection mitigation.
2. Two unidirectional curb- or grade- separated cycle tracks* with intersection mitigation.
3. Two unidrectional buffered or painted bike lanes.

IMO, even option 3 -- mere paint on the road -- would be superior to the cheap kludge that is the 2nd Ave bidirectional protected bike lane.


*on different streets

kickstart

You have made an emphatically incorrect misinterpretation of my comments.

In reality I'm in favor of using the best possible infrastructure for when and where its used, but I also understand there are limitations to what will and can be done, and see it as counter productive to nit-pick the conscientious efforts that do in fact improve the cycling experience for the majority of actual users.
I don't see it in "black or white", "all or nothing", or "with me or against me".

When will you understand we all have the same goals and desires? The ability to safely and harmoniously use the road with all other users in keeping with each modes strengths and weaknesses, while at the same time making alternative modes a safer and more desirable option for the average person.
That won't be accomplished through judgmental righteous indignation, coercion, and disruptive behavior. Change takes time, and needs to be done in a positive, productive manner lest it become an insurmountable point of contention.

The biggest failure would be that loosing the support that brings progress because of the vanity and consternation of a few who demand the impossible.....to make cycling foolproof and/or free of limitations.


BTW, Have you personally ridden the 2nd ave bike path in its current configuration?

spare_wheel

Yes. And just like the crappy SW Broadway parking-protected bike lane in Portland I will likely never ride it again.

I think acceptance of sub-par facilities is one of the things that really holds back cycling advocacy. We need to advocate for facilities that are a step forward, not a half step backwards (e.g. marginally better for the timid and much worse for the confident).

kickstart

Going by the broad spectrum of cyclists I've observed using the various cycling infrastructure around Seattle, your opinions don't reflect reality.
Perhaps it all looks inferior to those few who are looking down from Olympus, but that doesn't prevent it from being useful and benifical to everyone else.

spare_wheel

I should clarify that I was writing about perception and not actual safety. The 2nd Ave bike lane is actually more dangerous than a conventional protected/enhanced bike lane because car-protected lanes (even ones with an inferior left-hook turn lane) impair sight lines and cause people driving potentially-lethal heavy machinery to exclaim: "that cyclist came out of no where!".

kickstart

Ok, no argument there, but that's like criticizing every road that isn't built to the standards of a limited access freeway, or every pedestrian crossing that isn't an overpass foot bridge, ergo in the real world, not every bike facility can be foolproof for the most inexperienced cyclist and/or free of limitations to the most able cyclists, nor is it a reason to not provide them for the majority they will reasonably serve.

daihard 

Kind of revisiting this definition. I stumbled on the City of Seattle website where they call this new cycle track "2nd Avenue protected bike lane."

Seattle Department of Transportation:Second Avenue Protected Bike Lane Project

Do they just not understand the legal distinction you explained?

daihard 

Not necessarily the Broadway or 2nd Ave bike paths, but the painted bike lane on 4th Ave is nothing but a joke. Not only is it too narrow to be able to ride safely, it also abruptly disappear around Spring St, forcing you to merge into the leftmost traffic lane where cars usually go crazy fast, especially during the evening commute.

I am going to ride on 2nd Ave and Broadway myself tomorrow to experience them myself.

jputnam

"Protected Bike Lane" is an advocacy term that's been poll-tested to get positive reactions from non-cyclists. But if you look at their signage, at their definitions of who is supposed to do what, and at the public commentary of their actual engineers and managers, they're treating the PBL as a path, not a lane of the street.

kickstart

Now that you mention it, I either don't recall ever riding 4th ave where there's a bike lane, or it didn't leave a memorable impression.

daihard 

You didn't miss much. I rode in it a couple of times when I started bike-commuting. I quickly grew tired of the narrow lane, debris and the tricky merge into the sharrowed traffic lane. Switched to using 3rd Ave instead. No regret.

daihard 

Ah, I see. Thanks for the information again.

P.S. If you ask me, "cycle track" sounds the best.

jputnam

Advocacy groups find "cycle track" generates negative reactions among non-cyclists and casual cyclists, the "track" part seems to have an athletic connotation.

"Protected bike lane" gets better reactions, but is technically inaccurate and generates resistance from traffic engineers, as well as from cyclists in mandatory-bike-lane states who fear they will be required to use sidepaths on streets that have them.

"Protected bikeway" is a newer term that seems to be gaining ground, it avoids the inaccurate "bike lane" terminology and fits into the existing categorization of "bikeways" as various classes of bicycle facility, from a signed on-street route to a fully-separated path.

California legislation recently adopted "separated bikeway" to describe them, since engineers object to "protected" which has a specific engineering meaning that many sidepaths don't meet. But advocacy groups don't like "separated" because it's too close to "segregated" and raises fears of being forced to use hazardous sidepaths.

jputnam

It's easy to miss the 4th Ave bike lane if you're used to riding on city streets -- it's another substandard-width, wrong-side bike lane, like the old 2nd Ave Bike Lane of Death, with the same constant conflicts with left-turning drivers who aren't used to having a bike lane to the left of turning traffic. (4th is marginally safer since it's going up hill and bikes overtaking on the left aren't going as fast as those coasting downhill on 2nd. But it's still substandard-width, to the left of left-turning traffic; drivers still use it for load/unload where there's no on-street parking, and it's entirely in the door zone where there is on-street parking.)

I don't know of any official counts, but as a frequent downtown rider, my impression is that the majority of cyclists who choose 4th don't use the bike lane. I certainly don't, it's just too high-stress. It's much calmer to just plod along in a travel lane and let cars pass when it's safe.

Rollfast

Boise tried this a couple years back and the whole thing was scrapped quickly over the acrimony.

daihard 

Did the acrimony come from the cyclist community, or from others?