Arthur Peabody

The 'NY Times's Jane Brody asks. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/w...ally-safe.html
You can right-click on this URI, save the file, read the local copy.

Cyclist0108

If ridership is up more than 31%, it might be an improvement.

flangehead

Her conclusion: "In the meantime, for the foreseeable future, until most drivers become more respectful of cyclists and the lanes dedicated to them, I plan to avoid riding on so-called protected bike lanes where turning vehicles can’t see me and I can’t see them until perhaps it’s too late."

That is consistent with my experience. I find "urban" (frequent crossings) bike lanes are much more stressful than lanes where there are long stretches (more than 1/4 miles) between crossings. The situation changes much more quickly and there are many more threats and "blind corners".

I am fortunate in that most of the bike lanes in my area are suburban. However, when I am in "urban" areas I take the lane as she does.

I hope to be riding as she is when I'm 79 years old.

JW Fas

In a vacuum the idea of bike lanes is nice. Practically speaking, I dislike them. They create this "us from them" mentality regarding motorists and cyclists. They can be very confusing to the typical motorist because most people don't realize bike lanes are completely separate traffic lanes, so when you're making a right turn (or left in the UK) you have to yield to anyone in that separate lane. Most bike lanes in the US are an afterthought and get painted in the same spots where all the debris and manhole covers are. If not that, they are often placed within the door zones of parked vehicles. Motorists often park in bike lanes themselves and rationalize it by saying they're doing a pick-up/drop-off. It would be a huge money and time saver to simply have the laws say, "Bicycles may use the full lane. Deal with it." Then it would become an expected aspect of driving culture.

Leisesturm

Some ... perhaps the majority of cyclists would so abuse legislation like that that regular motor traffic would essentially be held to the moving average of the average cyclist. Civil disobedience would soon ensue. Lives would be lost ... more lives than presently. It would not be pretty at all. I would go as far as to suggest that non-essential motor traffic should never have been allowed in city centers. Of course, legislation like you suggest might get more out on bicycles. For a taste of what that could be like ... well, what are the roads like right now in your locale? I'm personally enjoying being on the half empty streets quite a bit. May things never get back to normal ...

Daniel4

The question isn't or shouldn't be about bike lanes. The question should be what to do about all the bad driving? If, in one form or another, the answer is "nothing", then the subject of separated bike lanes inevitably appears.

Chistophe516

No, no, did I forget to say no.

I refuse to use them.

EviLDORK

Even if there are a lot of cyclists eager to risk their lives to act in bad faith for the purpose of slowing down motorized traffic, the actual impact on travel times would be disproportionately small compared to the amount of whining they would hear about it. There would be a little more room in the passing lane and stoplights often don't let motorists go all that much faster than bicyclists as it is.

In the parts of the US where the law does support full lane use and minimum passing distances, it's rarely enforced and even more rarely abused.

jon c. 

There are many places where bicycles may use the full lane. The law effectively provides for that in a lot of urban settings here. But I don't see the problem you suggest actually happening. Is there anywhere you can cite where this actually happens?

Leisesturm

Bad faith? I didn't say anything about bad faith. See, that's the myth, that any of it, re: cyclist behavior or driver behavior in the aggregate, is motivated by negative emotions. No, I actually believe that a majority of cyclists really think they NEED 3' passing distances to be safe. Their ability to hold a line is at such an elementary level that they would veer into a car passing any closer than that. Given full license to claim the full lane, they would, of course, do just that. No malice aforethought. That is the definition of a sharrow. There is a reason why only some roads are made into sharrows.

Actually, motor traffic is MUCH faster than cyclist traffic, with, or without traffic lights. The average driver can accelerate past the average cyclist in less than one full crank revolution. From then it only gets worse. Even if the lights are unsynchronized there would be maybe one light coming up where the cyclist might actually catch up with the same car. It would not happen again. It is no contest. Bicycles and motor traffic must not be forced to share the same lanes. It isn't fair to bikes, it isn't fair to cars.

In the parts of the US where the law does support full lane use and minimum passing distances, it's rarely enforced and even more rarely abused.
I get passed on sharrows all the time. Partly it is my own fault. I generally ride lane right. Seeing a clear path past me is a temptation that few mouth breathing cagers are going to be able to resist for long. But if I need the full lane, mainly because I intend to turn left up ahead, I will 'take the lane' and in a sharrow there isn't much a driver can do about it. This leads to a problem on other roads that are not sharrows. On those roads, a bicycle that is lane center becomes very triggering to a susceptible population of cager. They will harrass you out of your position in the lane. Especially if there is a striped off bicycle lane to the right. This makes left turns difficult and often impossible to accomplish 'normally'. In my city the clear expectation is that a bicycle will turn left by first proceeding on the right to the head of the cross street they intend to turn left into and then proceed left on the next light cycle. Sometimes that is what I have to do. Fine, but don't expect me to feel like a full and valued road using citizen. IOW don't expect any 'road use' tax revenue out of me because I don't have full use of the roads.

Leisesturm

There is nowhere where bicycles have blanket protection to use the full lane. It is always under some kind of proviso: 1. a sharrow, which allows complete access to the full lane only on roads designated as sharrows. Motor traffic can avoid those roads and if they can't, the inconvenience is temporary. OR 2. only for the specific purpose of object avoidance in a bike lane then a bicycle must let motor traffic pass unobstructed. Legislation like proposed would make every urban road a defacto sharrow. There would be no way for motorists to blow off steam. I don't see that working. I don't see it not having unintended consequences.

Miele Man

I have enough experience riding in traffic to spot a dangerously designed bicycle lane. Door-zone bicycle lanes are one such type. Bicycle lanes that are on the right of a through-traffic lane are another type of dangerous bicycle lane. Bicycle lanes that go partway around an on-ramp to a highway are a third dangerously designed bicycle lane. I refuse to ride in any of those bicycle lanes.

There are many dangerous bicycle lanes in the region of Ontario, Canada I do most of my riding in. I really do wonder just who designs these bicycle lanes and why the dangers they present are not seen on the drawing board.

Cheers

Chistophe516

I agree, and disagree, with this.

I agree that the average driver can accelerate past a cyclist.

I disagree, in that, the average driver doesn't need to bully a cyclist. In order to pass them safely. Especially on a four/six-lane road. On a two-lane road, the driver just needs to, cross the double-yellow. When it is safe to do so.

Worknomore

Riding a bike, anywhere is not safe. So what?

Chistophe516

I am laughing. Because of what you said. With the # of bikes you have.

flangehead

For the United States, you have posed the $200-billion-a-year question. More importantly, it is the 30,000 lives/year question.

Our road culture values speed and convenience over life and limb and accepts that "accidents will happen."

How do we achieve safe driving? We believe the prime objective is "no one gets hurt on my trip" and act accordingly.

I've worked in the petroleum industry since 1980. In that time, I've been part of a cultural shift from "it is a dangerous business" to "everyone goes home safely" in a significant portion of the industry. Many organizations now recognize that safety adds value. Change in culture can happen.

What I learned from that experience is:

First, each individual has to undergo a conversion, which is an emotional, not rational, process. I’ve found personal stories, one-on-one, to be an effective way to effect conversion.

Then, each individual needs to take concrete actions to improve their road strategy and skills, then embark on a lifetime journey to continue improving.

I’ll give you some examples.

A good series of motorcycle safety videos is at MCrider: Online Motorcycle Safety Course, which deals with strategy and skills. I think about half his content applies to all road users, not just motorcyclists. A great example video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR8C...s#action=share.

For me, the Smith System is very helpful in improving my driving. https://www.drivedifferent.com/

As a cyclist, I’ve taken the “Smart Cycling” class twice. And I’ll take it again in a few years because I’ll need a refresher. It keeps me thinking about how to be a safer cyclist.

There are a lot more resources out there.

What we have to do is first accept that we have a problem and then we need to take solid, concrete actions to improve our safe driving skills.

How do we get to a road culture of "no one gets hurt on my trip"? Our political leaders aren’t going to get us there…

…but suppose you convert two people, and those two convert two more, and …

We’re seeing the power of exponential growth systems right now. Why can’t we have a Ponzi scheme that finally fizzles out when we have a safe road culture? No one left to be converted. Herd immunity to “I’m in a hurry and accidents will happen.”

That’s what we can do about unsafe road users.

Digger Goreman

Bicycles are defined as vehicles. Two vehicles may not occupy the lane, side by side (Georgia exception: two bicycles). Vehicles are required to safely pass in the left hand lane, obeying all lane markings and traffic signs (Georgia exception: vehicle may cross double yellow, to pass bicycle when safe to do so) ​​​​​​.

Imo, unprotected bike lanes and 3ft rules are red herrings.... Just enforce the above rules! Vehicle operators tend to act one way around larger slow vehicles, and differently around bicycles...

CrankyOne

The U.S. has been trying to change driver behavior for 70 years. Yet the U.S. today has the most dangerous road system and highest crash, serious injury and fatality rates of all developed countries. And by a wide margin. A bicycle rider in the U.S. is, per mile ridden, 11 times as likely to be killed as a rider in The Netherlands.

The former head of NACTO said "If only every driver would obey every law and rule at all times then we would have safer roads and fewer fatalities." The U.S. depends on drivers to make roads safe.

Dutch (and most EU) engineers say that driver behavior is too difficult to control so roads must be designed to enforce safer driver behavior. More: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...inable-safety/. Dutch and EU depend on good engineering to make roads safe.

Guess who has the safest roads?

alo

As a cyclist, I ride to be safe. In some places, I ride on the sidewalk. Instead of saying, it is the driver's responsibility, do what you need to do to be safe. There are so many different situations, you need to consider the situation, and do what is sensible in that situation.

CrankyOne

This: https://streets.mn/2013/10/04/do-we-...-bike-lanes-2/

There are a lot of reasons why you don't see bike lanes in Europe like you do in the U.S. They are simply a not good idea.

Digger Goreman

Freakin' A!!! Thanks for one of the best biking pieces I've read in over 5 years.

Daniel4

Yes, that's why there are separated bike lanes.

Leisesturm

The alarm just went off. While you were dreaming pleasant fantasies about separated bikepaths and friendly (and numerous) bikeshops that don't sell helmets, or gloves ... well... I'm sorry to tell you this but something called Covid-19 has been raging while you were sleeping. It has decimated America's economy in a way that makes 2008 look like ... like nothing at all. Even the terrible Great Depression has nothing on what is coming. 30% unemployment will be the least of it. FORGET about seeing separated bikepaths in your lifetime. The news isn't all bad though. Even though gasoline is now cheaper than drinking water there won't be much need for it. Traffic as we knew it is a thing of the past. If a cyclist can't safely manage riding among the ~50% fewer cars that will be on our roads going forward, the fault will not lie with the DOT.

Digger Goreman

...annnnnnd, someone left the FOX channel on again...

Daniel4

Regardless if it's the 1930s Great Depression or the 2008 Financial Crisis or any other recession in between, you can be sure there will be government infrastructure spending to kick-start the economy. Whether or not that's been proven effective is a matter of debate, but such suggestions surely make for good political election campaign platforms.