Bekologist

why>becasue i don't share in your brownwashing of an issue with a problem that will persist regardless of how roads are striped?

randya

there is a considerable difference between what Robert describes as a Class 1 bikeway and an on-street cycle track, American style, primarily in terms of interactions with motorists and thus cyclist safety. You keep crowing about the NYC separated bike ways; well, as in Amsterdam, in NYC the blocks are a lot longer and the intersections are spaced a lot further apart than they are in Portland, and there is no right on red in NYC either. you can't just say that because it works in Amsterdam or NYC, it's going to work anywhere. I don't think the NYC facilities have been around long enough to have amassed sufficient safety statistics to prove anything yet, anyway.

danarnold

I'm actually quite sensitive to the good point you make about political backlash. We need to tread carefully. But as Randya says, we need something to compensate for the extreme vulnerability of cyclists compared to motorists. As I say, it's not so much the law, but the publicity about the law so motorists exercise due caution. I'm as tired as anyone of cars whizzing by, a few seemingly trying to get as close as possible to 'send a message' we don't belong on the road.

joejack951

You would think the potential of ending someone's life would be plenty to encourage someone to exercise due caution. However, for whatever reason (certainly not helped by the common perception that cyclists belong out of the way and will likely be out of the way), motorists don't always drive with due caution. No additional law is going to change that. Reinforcing the notion that cyclists should be and stay out of the way by striping bike lanes is another step in the wrong direction (though you seem to understand that). I also really dislike calling cyclists "vulnerable" road users. Everyone is in some way vulnerable depending on the circumstances (40,000+ motorists fatalities/year) and cyclists certainly aren't the only road users with a cage surrounding them. Again, I see language like that eventually eroding cyclists rights as the self-appointed safety nannies decide where cyclists are safe to use their toys.

BTW, I don't have any great answer for getting 100% conformance from motorists to exercise due caution. In my experience most do though there's enough that don't some days to be really irritating, or a big pain in the a$$ (search for pics of my Gunnar Crosshairs to see what I mean). There are laws on the books already for driving with due caution though they seem to rarely, if ever, be referenced in collisions. I don't know why that is.

danarnold

I'm not sure I disagree with any of this. What I'd like to find is some consensus that is politically realistic to the general public. As I've said, it isn't so much that we need some great change in the law, as we need a way to educate or reinforce existing law that bicycles have a right to the road, including those 50 mph roads that are so common and frequently have bike lane or fog line stripes that appear to say, bicycles must stay behind the line.

Bekologist

I agree, and I'm not saying cycletracks will work everywhere. i think they won't be needed most roads at all. Heck, i am consistently mentioning that cycletracks will be a minority of bikeway planning, and all bikeways will always be a minority of roadway miles used by bicyclists.

I'm stating that intersection and crossing conflicts occur anytime bikes and cars share public space unless the motorists are travelling at bicycling speeds.

I'm all in favor of more Springwater like cooridors around portland and other cities in the USA. I also recognize there's a LOT of arterial roads between beaverton and portland, for instance, that need a bit more integrated bikeways planning. Why NOT a separated class I cycletrack up into the SW hills?

most large cities have a few roadways that could be considered for 'cycletrack' like separation. any arterial road along a railroad track for instance would be a candidate under 'limited intersection conflicts'. there's a few arterial roads in the USA that run alongside railroads and waterways

Bekologist

One of the few ways to affect the dynamics of a 50 mile per hour road and make it SAFER for bicycle traffic is either placing a stripe separated, thoughtfully designed cycling facility or reduce the roadway speed to 20, 25 miles per hour. how to affect public perception of bicyclists rights to the travelled way? hmm..... perhaps laws that make it clear in every way that bicyclists have rights to the travelled way? ( trust me, if there's a safe turnout, a bicyclist will be using it on highway uphills!)


that's not clear at all. bikelanes have benefits by being on road facilities, and emphasized crossings can enhance safety. bikelanes can increase visible, vehicular bicyclist positioning thru intersections versus the curbugging unfacilitated intersection models.


the 50 mile per hour road dan arnold mentions is a good example. sure, lower speed roads do not benefit much from dedicated space for bikes, but higher speed differentials most assuredly call for some separation from general traffic! No matter how wide you make an outside lane on a 50 + mile per hour road, you're leaving it prone to low bicycling ridership unless you provide some a bikelane or other dedicated space somewhere for a bicyclist to travel.

If a major, high traffic arterial connects suburban pockets without a good alternate for more cautious bicyclists, and traffic planners leave these 50 mile per hour roads with either wide lanes or narrow and not a more dedicated bicyclist treatment, they leave that road corridor, against federal transportation guidelines, insufficiently accommodated for bicycle traffic.

there's no way to bring great ridership to high speed traffic corridors EXCEPT some dedicated space for bicyclists! there are ways to enhance bicyclists safety along arterials at and approaching intersections too! the latest designs are in the 2009 MUTCD!

RobertHurst

Yeah, that's fine, but the fact remains: 'cycletracks' and sidepaths which cross frequent intersections are fundamentally different sorts of facilities than fully-separated bike highways in their own rights-of-way which don't intersect with streets.

RobertHurst

No I don't think it is. Although if you can show a specific citation which states otherwise I would certainly stand corrected.

Here is AASHTO's version of 'Shared-use Paths,' the designation which one might assume corresponds to the old category called 'Class I Bikeways:'

"Shared Use Path. Generally, shared use paths should be used to serve
corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide utility or former
railroad right-of-way exists, permitting such facilities to be
constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Shared use paths
should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can
provide a recreational opportunity or, in some instances, can serve as direct
commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles and pedestrians is
minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean
fronts, canals, utility rights-of-way, former or active railroad
rights-of-way, within college campuses, or within and between parks.
There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as
part of planned developments. Another common application of shared
use paths is to close gaps in bicycle travel caused by construction of
cul-de-sacs, railroads and freeways or to circumvent natural barriers
(rivers, mountains, etc.). While shared use paths should be designed with
the bicyclist’s safety in mind, other users such as pedestrians, joggers,
dog walkers, people pushing baby carriages, persons in wheelchairs,
skate boarders, in-line skaters and others are also likely to use such
paths."



I agree.

The problem I have with 'cycletracks' is that a new generation of planners and advocates seems to have glommed onto the concept in a disturbingly simple-minded fashion. As 'cycletracks' are the most visible aspect of the European bike experience, new advocates are really focused on them, to the detriment of more pro-bicycle ideas like bike highways, bike boulevards, super sharrows and changes in laws. They don't show any understanding of the problems and trade-offs that will be associated with applying their favored facility type in US cities. They're just mandatory sidepaths folks. It disturbs me.

But yes, I think even this sidepath idea could be useful in places. It certainly shouldn't be the single-minded focus of advocates. And let's not confuse sidepaths with fully-separated bike highways, which are awesome.

randya

Personally I think it's because many LEOs are themselves often about as clueless as your average motorist when it comes to cyclists' rights and motorists' responsibilities w/r/t cyclists, plus most LEOs are primarily motorists themselves so they tend to identify with motorists rather than with cyclists.

Bekologist

There is definitely reason for concern over proposed widespread systems of poorly planned and executed cycletracks in the USA. Is a widespread push for cycletracks at the expense of any other accommodation the new vanguard of eager beaver traffic planners? lets' hope not! I don't know that they ARE the single minded focus of advocates and planners. Take a look at streetfilms ridealong with NYC's bike planners, they understand the nuance of bikeway.

Unless I've missed something, i don't see this as being a very valid concern. Even if Portland put in 2 miles of cycletrack on 6 streets, I doubt it would have a negative effect on either safety or public perceptions of bicyclists rights.

As long as cyclists rights to the roads are preserved (Gosh, I am sounding more and more like JF, he should be proud of me!) cycletracks in NYC and Portland of differing levels of separation between buffered Class II bikeways and fully separated right of way Class I MUP are probably going to work just fine.

Copenhagen made fits and starts with their infrastructure; likely americanized cycletracks will need further tweaking. It seems that even in dense urban areas like NYC there are places for bike 'highway' grade separated MUPS. There's, perhaps, two classes of cycletracks, 'good' cycletracks and 'bad' cycletracks.

i hope that in dense urban cores, any expansion of cyclist space will be more along the likes of a widened Class II bikeway with or no traffic buffering, rather than barrier and parked car separated path cycletracks. Chicago, Michigan Avenue, magnificent mile - bikelane or cycletrack? mamachari on the sidewalks? or nothing at all?

at the same time, there is a lot of that compels barrier separated cycletracks with preferential signals in places, and i'm not opposed to cities trying them and tweaking them and seing if they "work". Perhaps separated bike and transit corridors along the significant cross town arterials? bus and bike corridors work admirably well in my experience, even nicer if the buses are electric.

Urban bike highways make a lot of sense, Robert. they will just be like the spokes of a wheel, or main streets on a grid, and needing other types of bikeway in closer proximity to motor vehicle traffic. Effective bicycle transportation planning for effective cycling. so to speak

invisiblehand

Hmmmm, I don't think that the casual link is necessarily there. Certainly some jurisdictions might try, but apparently the underlying right to travel appears to be a pretty difficult hurdle to overcome. Moreover, the only way such a law would pass is if more people were cycling/walking/whatever.

genec

I tend to agree with you on this Robert, and have to also say that the difference between a typical MUP that many are familiar with, and a true "bike highway" that apparently few are familiar with, is night and day.

In my area we have both. MUPs often are little more than glorified sidewalks, usually made of asphalt and often only about 5-6 feet or so wide. They generally have tight radius turns and by their nature limit the speed of the users.

Bike highways are usually wide enough for a service vehicle to drive down them, and may be between 8-10 feet in width. Well designed bike highways have wide radius turns, may have merge areas, and on and off ramps.

The difference between MUPs and these bike highways are like the difference between residential streets and interstate freeways. That both are called class 1 bikeways is a terrible injustice to the differences between the two. But then the term "bikeways" is so general as to mean virtually nothing except to those that rant about them.

Some here fixate on "legal definitions" and "legal statements" as if it is those legal subtleties that control the daily use of the roads. Sigh... as if "rights" really matter when one is about to crushed by a 6000 lb SUV.
But I digress.

The type of separated class 1 bike infrastructure that Robert Hurst speaks of is what makes Oulo Finland a cyclists' paradise. Cyclists have access to the entire town and beyond on their own cycling infrastructure that is not part of the motorist traveled roadways. Intersections are often underpasses or overpasses, thus eliminating the danger of motorized cross traffic for cyclists. Granted, a few sidepaths do exist, as do some at grade intersections, but these are rare. The normal design is totally separated paths. This youtube video is of an Oulu style separated bike path that exist all over the area of Oulu Finland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc

This type of bike path is also similar to the bike highway that we have here in San Diego. This is NOT your typical MUP.
Below you can see images from a bike highway in San Diego.

Earlier in this discussion someone mentioned their fear of losing access to a roadway. Is it the roadway you fear losing access to, or the destinations?

In San Diego for instance, a heavily used roadway was changed and reconfigured into a freeway. In the reconfiguration (construction) process, a well designed bike path (bike highway) was added to parallel the old, narrow, heavily used road (now freeway). The end result is that previously only the bravest cyclists would use the road. Now with a new freeway AND a nice bike path, both motorists and cyclists can more safely get to their destinations... BUT cyclists are no longer permitted on the freeway. Is that a bad thing? No, not in light of the far safer bike path they now have to use. So in some cases the "fight for rights" is totally overblown and nonsensical. The right to use a roadway should not trump the common sense use of a safer and well designed bike highway. (bearing in mind that we are talking "well designed" and not just some "class 1" minimal standard "near sidewalk" appalling ghetto thing... there is a vast difference)

Again the lumped definitions of bikeway, and even the vast differences of what constitutes "class 1" can be night and day... and the use of such terms only tends to exacerbate the differences of opinions cyclists may have about such infrastructure.

Frankly, I have to agree with Robert Hurst regarding bike lanes and their general implementation. While some bike lanes are well designed and are wide and offer good sight lines, often this is not the case.

Again I reference San Diego, where a set of bike lanes were just added to a roadway that was put on a road diet. There was no request from the cycling community for these BL, and in conferring with the traffic engineer, he clearly admitted that these door zone BL were added as a buffer between the traveled way and parked cars. The entire design was implemented to contain motorists who were using poor driving habits and had increased the collision rate in this one area to over 5 times that of any similar area in the city. So once again, bike lanes are being used for the conveniences of motorists, and not to encourage or enhance the cycling experience. But does this stamp all Bike Lanes as bad. Not hardly.

We really need to get past the general "class 1" and "bikeway" and even "bike lane" and "MUP" designations. Some of these things do work quite well... others should make engineers cringe with shame... that we continue to lump all of them into broad categories doesn't help our discussions nor goals.

Below are pictures of the bike highway I mentioned several paragraphs above. These are wide, fast and well used.

I-Like-To-Bike

The right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty is far more underlying then some vague "right" to travel by bicycle without restriction, anywhere, anytime. JoeJack51 is right on target casting doubt on the benefits of half baked schemes dreamed up by cycling zealots to stick it to the Man, i.e. "cagers."

randya

Other than the very real safety concerns with American cycle tracks, I find it hard to believe that any city, including Portland, will be able to install much more than a minimum amount of these facilities for several reasons: (1) cost of installation and maintenance, (2) lack of adequate right of way widths and reluctance to remove on-street parking on most inner city arterials, and (3) motorist backlash at loss of right of way.

I think more widespread use of sharrows and widening and expanding substandard and minimum width bikelanes to a full lane where demand warrants it (like on lower SE Hawthorne Blvd.) are both more realistic options for on street facilities than cycle tracks.

danarnold

Good points, Gene. I also agree. Implementation is as important as what 'class' or general category of the path.

I also agree about the law often not being the decisive factor in how roads and paths are used. The engineering and other factors likely overcome the legal requirements.
Two examples, one for motorists, the other for SUPs or MUPs.

If a roadway is engineered for 50 mph, posting it with a '30mph' sign is not going to get many motorists to go that speed, unless it is backed up with a speed trap.

Even if a superbikeway is designated 'bikes only' it is going to be used as a SUP depending on how convenient or attractive it is to other users. We have some great SUPs in Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, but their usefulness depends on which stretches are likely to not have other users. There are places it's easy to go 35 mph (assuming your legs can accomplish it) There are other sections where the presence of pedestrians et al. make even 15 mph problematic.

danarnold

I agree. It is good to see so much consensus on these issues. Prob'ly the major area where there is disagreement is regarding bikelanes vs. the wide outside lane, and even there, the better the design of the bike lane the less reason to complain about them.

I'm interested in when, if ever, people think cyclists are better served by bike lane stripes, than sharrows.

randya

I think the answer to this question is intimately linked to better motorist training and recognition of cyclists as legitimate road users.

randya

so, keeping in mind that many sources of information exist to show that motorists are more often than not responsible for crashes involving cyclists, and also that LEOs and the judiciary have repeatedly demonstrated their bias against cyclists, in the absence of 'vulnerable user laws' how do we as a society get the law enforcement and judicial systems to apply the laws that already exist and hold motorists responsible when they kill or injure cyclists?

njkayaker

If the "Idaho Stop" law makes sense, it's because "it recognizes what most cyclists do anyway" and manage to do safely* (and in a way that does not impact the "rights" of drivers of other vehicles).

* I'm assuming that the law would not have been passed if there was any indication it wasn't safe.

That the "Idaho Stop" affords bicycles greater priveleges over other vehicles doesn't really matter unless it reduces the "rights" of other vehicles (which it doesn't appear to do).

I-Like-To-Bike

And plenty of "sources of information" exist to "show" that allegedly guilty people often beat the rap for all sorts of crime for one reason or another. Do you seriously suggest that everyone accused of an offense be considered and treated as guilty until proven otherwise?

genec

I tend to think bike lanes serve well on long stretches of high speed roadway that has few intersections. Good well designed wide bike lanes on such roadways give cyclists their own lane, which motorists understand and conform to as they are used to lane markings as part of their normal road usage.

If a 50MPH roadway (or higher speed) has to be part of the transportation picture, then treating that roadway as a minimal access road with good cycling provisions (wide well marked bike lane) is perhaps the only answer. Expecting motorists and cyclists to share lanes on such roadways is an invitation to problems.

njkayaker

I think the problem is due to motorists and LEO lack of experience with cyclists as participants in traffic. If there were more cyclists, then their presence would be perceived as "normal". (From my experience, LEOs largely ignore the presence and actions of cyclists.)

invisiblehand

JoeJack's point is that this will increase the likelihood of fewer rights to the road. His verbiage suggested something drastic.

You added the "without restriction, anywhere, anytime". The right to intrastate travel, while not explicitly stated, has quite a bit of case law behind it. But I am sure you are already familiar with it.

So if there is ever enough support to change the burden of proof -- just from some conversations with lawyers, there are a bunch of variations to this theme such that we can think of this as something continuous as opposed to an all or nothing proposal -- chances are that a cyclist's right to the road will not be negatively affected. Regarding the burden of proof, if I followed their discussion correctly -- not necessarily true -- it depends on whether the collision itself is prima facie evidence of negligence.

EDIT: Sorry for writing "... not be negatively ..." but I'll leave the text as is. I should also add that these were not cycling/traffic lawyers.

randya

that's not what I said in the post you just quoted; I said it would be nice if there was justice for cyclists, not that every motorist should be considered guilty until proven otherwise.

OTOH, the way the justice system works now, most cyclists who are injured or killed by motorists are treated as if 'they had it coming to them', and motorists are rarely ever held accountable when they are at fault, so the present system is completely biased towards 'cyclists are guilty even if proven otherwise'.