spoiledrotten

I was in the LBS last week, talking about a newly widened road in the area. It's a very busy road that they've just gone from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, plus two bike lanes (one in both directions). The shop owner stated that the local bike group got together to get them to do the lanes rather than the trails up past the curbs.
I'm not really understanding all of the ones favoring a lane over a trail. My wife and I watched as probably 85% of the cars that rounded a curve close by, cut into the bike lane, using about 1/2 of the lane. Had there been bikes in the lane, there's a good chance they would have been hit or scared to death. At least, with a separate trail, the vehicle would have to jump the curb before striking the cyclist. I understand that it's convenient to make a left turn by simply moving over into the turn lane, but the safety factor seems to out weigh the inconvenience of a left turn. What say ye?

Keith99

Hard to tell knowing nothing about the road.

But in general I agree with the shop owner.

Remember the vast majority of collisions occur at intersections. Parallel bike paths are a nasty trap there. You are separated from the road just enough that drivers are totally unaware that you exist. If there is no special cycle for the lights when a driver has a green light he thinks a right turn is safe, and then you pop up 10 feet past the crosswalk.

If it is miles between cross streets a separate path can be ok, it a more normal number of crossings no.

jwarner

Man this is going to be good.

There seem to be a range of views here from "You should just put on a hi-viz vest and take the lane" to "all cars should be permanently banned and driversand their offspring made to clean up oil spills with their toothbrushes for eternity."

Personally, I think it depends on the situation, or in other words, there is no black and white. If a major road, or one with many accidents, well designed separated bike lanes with road crossings and controls that make traffic contact points much safer and rational with no user (bike, ped, car) having more priority than another.

On smaller side, and less traveled or lower speed roads, I range from bike lane to take the lane depending on traffic and design.

To really make this work in my utopian world. I would also strictly enforce reasonable traffic laws for cyclists and peds, and enact a vulnerable user law that very simply makes the auto driver who runs over a vulnerable user have to prove their innocence. Failure to do so would carry hefty penalties and social stigma (in the form of jail time).

welshTerrier2

It seems to me there are two fundamental issues in any of these infrastructure debates: safety and increasing the popularity of cycling.

If the evidence were clear, as some argue, that cycle tracks are more dangerous especially due to intersections, "luring" the public to ride on them would be irresponsible. It's not clear, however, that cycle tracks are more dangerous. Also, if they present certain problems, such as intersections and complicated left turns, can these problems be solved?

I don't suscribe to the paranoia that separate infrastructure will force road cyclists off the road. In Massachusetts, and in many other states, there's a huge push for "complete streets". It shouldn't be a black and white, one way or the other, my way or the highway argument. We can have cycle tracks AND bike lanes. Also, not every road has to be outfitted in the same way.

It bothers me that so many fail to accept the reality that many people will never ride on the road. Separate infrastructure, if can be implemented safely, can open up cycling to the masses and as advocates we should be committed to doing so.

All this whining about "them" taking away our rights is elitist.

kickstart

Cycle tracks have their place like freeways do, but the more roads there are with appropriate accommodations for cyclists in accordance with their nature, the better.

CrankyOne

Countries with segregated bicycle infrastructure have much higher rates of bicycling than those without and have lower fatality rates (per mile ridden) of bicycle riders. Countries with more of a vehicular cycling focus have many fewer people riding bicycles and higher fatality rates. The same seems to hold for cities such as Minneapolis.

walrus1

Ideally I'm for separate bik trails. However in 90% of NYC there is no room to put them. I believe in many enviroments this is the case. For this reason I'm for bike lanes. In an urban environment they make sense. Plus if they're protected they can be extremely safe if not as safe as a trail.

CrankyOne

Cities with much narrower ROW have fit them in. Also, they do not need to be on every street, only the major arterials and collectors. Then the minor streets are made safe for sharing by lowering the speeds (not just the limits) to 20 mph and in many cases blocking them so that they are local access only and not used as a 40 mph rat-run through route to avoid traffic on major arterials.

Also consider this, if there's not enough room for a cycletrack then there's not enough room for a bike lane and there's likely then not enough room for a car to safely pass you so the option is that you need to take the lane for your entire in-town journey.

prathmann

Seems far more likely that if there had been bikes using the bike lane the car drivers would have seen them and altered their course.

OTOH, if there had been cyclists on a separate path parallel to the main road then any turning cars would still have to cross their path and there could still be conflicts. And cyclists on a separate path would be much less visible to motorists which would increase the chance that the motorists would cut them off or possibly run into them. This is especially the case if the separate side path is only lightly used so that motorists turning onto or off the main road become accustomed to crossing the side path without seeing anyone on it. It then becomes easy for them to be paying attention only to traffic on the main road and ignoring the possibility of side path traffic when they drive across it.

I'd only favor the separate side path if 1) intersections with other roads and driveways onto the main road are spaced very far apart and 2) there's enough cyclist traffic on the side path so motorists will expect cyclists to be present when they cross the path.

walrus1

I think you missed the part about them being safe when I said protected i.e. when cars are prevented from entering the bike lane.

CrankyOne

I did miss it. I think because your first exception sentence said bike lanes not protected bike lanes. I'm with you 100% on protected bike lanes (cycletracks & side paths), not at all with you on bike lanes (stripes of paint that provide no protection from errant drivers, road debris, or opening doors but that many people are under the delusion are somehow magically safe). :-)

Rollfast

I'm in favor of getting there.

genec

Nicely stated... I am pretty much in agreement. It really does depend on the whole situation.

But certainly expecting cyclists to "mix and mingle" with heavy traffic on a fast road is something of a fools errand. Where such roads exist, there should be safe alternatives for cyclists and other slow mobile traffic.

When traffic is moving at a "human pace" of say around 25MPH, then "mixing and mingling" works just fine and dandy.

JBHoren

I'm out riding, exclusively, on South Florida roads -- the 4- and 6-lane, 50mph varieties -- 5- or 6-days/week, for an hour-and-a-half each time. I have noticed that nobody (OK, there's always a few who do) stops at the white stop line, when exiting from a shopping mall (strip, or larger). Instead, they roll right over it, across the spatial extension of the sidewalk, right up to what would be the right-hand boundary of the bike lane (if there is a bike lane, and if it had a painted-on right-hand boundary). Nobody. Don't misunderstand: none of them roll into the bike lane (OK, there's always a few who do), but ya never friggin' know, right? OTOH, I rarely have a ride in which at least one sidewalk rider has to stop short or dump onto the grass because of a cellphone-wielding driver who just can't stop at the stop line, before continuing. Nope, bike lane or none, it's on the road for me.

spare_wheel

it's not so simple.

mode share in denmark and the netherlands has been even higher than it is today with virtually no segregated infrastructure.
also, national cycling mode share in japanese is 14% with virtually no segregated infrastructure. (osaka has ~25% mode share.)
and germany is #3 in europe and has been ripping out separated lanes and replacing them bike lanes and bike streets.

that being said, i support a mix of infrastructure that includes in-road infrastructure (e.g. door-zone-free bike lanes and curb-separated cycle tracks) and segregated infrastructure (bike paths). i do not, however, support bidirectional cycle tracks or narrow car/planter-separated cycle tracks. crappy separated infrastructure is worse than a conventional bike lane.

vol

Then what's the use of bike lanes? If there were no bike lane, wouldn't this still be true?---drivers would alter their course to avoid hitting a cyclist if they see one?

In fact even when there are bikes on the bike lane, drivers still often invade the bike lane to pass another vehicle, cut a turn short, or even park a vehicle there.

CrankyOne

Mode share in DM & NL was higher when? Prior to the ascendancy of automobiles?

There are several similar issues with both Japan and China. Many people cannot afford to drive a car which has made bicycling a critical necessity for many people for decades, they simply don't have an option. Perhaps more important though is that bicycles outnumber cars (I believe in every city) which makes sharing when necessary much safer and feel much safer. Finally, I don't know where you got the idea that they don't have much in the way of facilities as I know both Tokyo & Osaka do (though the quality is overall well below NL, DM, and FI) and according to folks I know who've been there Nagoya blows away any city they've been to outside of NL.

Germany is sorta messed up. Munich has fairly good segregated facilities and is installing more but it seems the rest of the country is kind of a mish-mash of things and much of it poorly designed and in poor shape. What they do have going for them, like many countries outside of North America, is that bicycles have been considered a viable and normal form of transportation for as long as anyone has been alive. The ratio of bicycles to cars is also much more palatable than in the U.S. with most cities seeming to have a car to bicycle ratio of about 2:1 or 3:1 while the U.S. averages about 89:1 (Portland likely the best with 12:1). That makes a quite huge difference.

Some Tokyo facilities:

CrankyOne

I think I agree with you on all of this except for in-road infrastructure (I assume you're referring to painted bike lanes?). A curb separated cycletrack is not considered in-road.

jwarner

They also have some very clear-cut laws, and (IMHO) a much more professional police force when it comes to enforcing traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian laws. Cycling in and around Munich is mostly great (much better and more convenient than driving in my admittedly skewed opinion). I used to get around by cycle in Frankfurt in the '80s with no problem whatsoever (other than developing a serious dislike for cobblestones in a few older parts of town).

spare_wheel

we will have to disagree on this. i consider a raised cycletrack to be "in road".

Dave Cutter

If we're looking at safety... purely. Outlawing slower traffic like horses [like in NYC] bicycles, and foot traffic would be a quick and easy first step. Eliminating human driven cars would... and WILL... be a logical step in the near future. Getting from here to there won't be fun... but it will be safe.

If you want to increase the "popularity" of any activity... the way to do that has remained the same for decades (or longer). Get celebrities to participate [ride bikes]. Otherwise.... after 140-160 years I think we have a really good idea of bicycles popular saturation point. Any odds of successfully altering cycling popularity in the long term is optimistic imagination. The idea that public moneys/projects could somehow effect that change is not only unfounded... but likely corruption orientated. As I think the long history of cycling and infrastructure has proven otherwise.

Machka 

• Are you in favor of Bike Lanes or Separate Bike Trails (just off the main road)?

Neither!

I prefer either wide curb lanes ... wide enough for both motor vehicle and bicycle. And/or shoulders on all roads.

Wide curb lanes are probably better in cities and town on non-main roads. Shoulders are probably better in the country or on main roads through cities and towns.

Worknomore

This.

In my experience, I get plenty of room from cars on a wide lane. paint a bike lane on it and get passed much closer.

wphamilton

Trail vs lane: the lane is usually faster and less congested with pedestrians. Better maintained. Safer at intersections IMO.

Which is cheaper to build? It seems like a bike lane would be, so we'd get more of it, but is that true in practice?

JoeyBike

^^THIS for starters.

A bike lane between the curbs is a "roadway". A bike path beyond the curbs is a glorified "sidewalk". Ideally, problem roads should have both. Depending on my mood and motivation I may use the "sidewalk" which will always be slower due to awkward driveway crossings as JBH mentioned, or likely I will use the on-street lane and act like a motorcycle.

Obviously there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. But if you have a lane AND a path available, nobody can really complain. My city has implemented some of these and surprisingly on two of them I pick the separate path 95% of the time even though I may have to share with walkers, runners, and cars blocking the path at intersections because they ignore the white stop line.

All I really need is 18-24 inches of clean, smooth shoulder. This is cheapish and safer for motor vehicles as well. Anything else is gravy.