I-Like-To-Bike

See
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post12587734

Is there something in the air affecting rational thought on BF? Maybe it is radioactivity from Japan causing a breakout of pipe dreams.

irwin7638

I don't doubt that adults own cars but the usage in places like Denmark has been tempered for several generations by the expense you mentioned. Since WWII our governmenthas bent the tax structure over backwards to makeautos artificially affordable. Generations of Americans look at autos as absolute necessities rather than luxuries or conveniences. That's what must change for bike usage to increase dramatically here.

Correct me ifI'm wrong, but I doubt that the family of four in Denmark has 4-6 cars in the driveway. I'm guessing that usage is much less than the 15K miles/24K km per year that is common in the US. Do the Danes trade their cars beforethey are paid for? It's common here and few people keep them more than 4 years because they want to upgrade their image.
No doubt there's a cultural difference but it's one that's been fostered by lobbying and government action. I say sure let's build more infrastructure, it's in my best interest, but if we even see a5% increase in ridership I will be shocked. People will still feel they have to be seen in their cars, whether it's a two block trip to the store or a three mile trip to the trailhead for a club ride.

https://simplecycle-marc.blogspot.com...kes-penis.html

Marc

closetbiker

Yeah, but watch what happens when police in Vancouver enforce the helmet law; ridership drops. Ridership has only risen with the drop in police enforcement of our law.

I'd like to see the cops to enforce our law like they did when it was first passed and get a good count. Then we'd see how many people get out on their bikes. As it is about half don't wear lids, maybe if the law was enforced most of those lidless will just stop riding (like they did before)

And that title, "‘Cycle tracks’ in cities could save bicyclists lives" ? I thought it was helmets that saved bicyclists lives.

btw, final numbers aren't in yet but the traffic on Vancouver's segregated lanes has shown an increase in riders using those streets that previously didn't have those segregated lanes but the more significant numbers of possible increased of trips by bicycle downtown are unknown. I'll try to get on that, so far it seems no one's asking that question.

and also, our proposed public bike share system is supposed to be up and running next spring but with our helmet law in place. We'll see if that increases trips by bike or if it'll be a failure like Melbourne, Brisbane and Auckland - the only 3 systems that have required helmet use

I think a successful PBS holds the most promise for getting more people on bikes - far more promise than the lanes do

B. Carfree

You're confusing cycletracks with something else. Cycletracks segregate bikes between intersections, often in spaces so narrow it is difficult to pass slower cyclists. At the intersections they have one of two lousy implementations:
1.) No specifice intersection control. Since the cyclists are outside of the normal scan-zone for vehicles, right-hooks and left-crosses are much more likely.
2.) Separate signal-controls for the cycletrack. This leads to a dramatic increase in travel time for cyclists. Since one excuse often put forward by car addicts for driving is the apparent lack of speed involved in using a bike, this is counterproductive.

The only places these things should be used is on travel corridors that have very few intersections/driveways. Lusk's notion that they will work well in a densified city center is ludicrous.

B. Carfree

I couldn't agree more. I watched as Davis, CA went from a place that had much higher modal bike use than Copenhagen to just another car-town. The infrastructure that was built in the '70s was still there in 1990, but the cyclists had disappeared from every corner of the city except the campus (where they were used primarily by people who drove to the campus and used them only on campus). During the '90s and 00's, Davis added even more infrastructure while experiencing a decline in ridership. (That decline in bike use is finally reversing, but that has more to do with fuel costs, recession and tuition rises than infrastructure.)

Interestingly, one of the changes that Davis implemented just prior to the decline of cycling there was the densification that folks like Lusk always advocate. By creating many areas in the city that had an anchor shopping center surrounded by small lot houses and multi-unit housing, cyclists now had too many car-dense zones to navigate around. Surprise, folks gave up on cycling and returned to their cars because it was perceived as unsafe and unpleasant to ride.

I-Like-To-Bike

1. IMO the significance of the "problem" of cyclists having difficulty passing slower riders is a mostly a figment of the imagination of Foresterites and others afflicted with a similar agenda.

2. Any evidence of the increased right-hooks and left-crosses that you claim are "much more likely?"

3. Any evidence for your claim of "a dramatic increase in travel time for cyclists?" It is ludicrous that you think that people who reject the use of a bicycle due to its lack of speed would be affected in any way by this alleged/imaginary "dramatic increase in travel time."

4 It is even more ludicrous that you think the use of terms like "car addicts" to describe motorists adds a positive spin to your rhetoric or is likely to get anyone to take your spiel seriously.

UptownJoe60640

I don't think I am. The increase of right/left hooks can be solved simply by not installing anything that would block the motorists view of the cyclist. Like, not having tall trees. If there is no reason other than the motorist not paying attention I see no reason why there would be an increase in those type of accidents. Seperate signal-controls for Cycle Tracks you say? I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Slow riders? Make them just wide enough for passing safely and pass when it is safe! You may increase peoples travel times but most trips are made within a 5 mile radius of where you live/work/play anyway (not all.... most)so what are your increases in travel time? Maybe a few minutes? I don't think that is a reason to shutdown the idea of Cycle Tracks (not saying that is what you are doing but it sounds like it) all together. I disagree 100% that they are "ludacrious" ideas for heavily urbanized communities.

You can disagree with the idea but I happen to like it and so does many other people. You disagree with the idea, right? What is your vision for cyclist in urban areas? I've heard/read a lot of pipe dreams before, they sound cool though, but not one would become a reality.

randya

this kind of propaganda will not get more people cycling. however, it might sell a few more bikes, which I predict will end up gathering dust and rust in a dark corner after a few rides, after all the untrained novices learn the hard way that cycle tracks aren't any safer than riding in the street.

Building new cyclist-specific infrastructure fraught with inherent safety problems is not a substitute for better training of both motorists and cyclists in North America.

UptownJoe60640

I disagree with them not being more safe. Are they suppose to be a replacement for riding the streets? I don't think so. I wouldn't consider using a Cycle Track to my destination over the street if the street made more sense. They have to be practical with location in mind. Now, safety. Say we moved the parked cars normally on the curb to the left some 8 feet (or so) to make room for the Cycle Track. Would you consider that just as dangerous as riding in the street? I most certainly wouldn't. Would I use the Cycle Track from point A to point B? Well, it depends on which is quicker and which route I would prefer. Do I want to be forced to use the Cycle Track as opposed to having a choice? Nope. I want a choice but more Cycle Tracks will equal safe routers everywhere.

Here in the City of Chicago we have the Lakefront Trail that goes North/South along Lake Michigan (East of Lake Shore Drive) and spans almost the entire length of the city. Most people who commute from the North/South to Downtown will use The Lakefront Trail because it is our Expressway with no stops. Some intersections with traffic (kinda) but no stopping and going like the streets. This is what I will continue to use if I work Downtown but Cycle Tracks through the city and neighborhoods would be appreciated.

randya

separation from cars only works if there aren't a lot of intersections or turning movements across the cycle track. Using the parking lane to separate cyclists from traffic creates visibility problems at intersections, where the most conflicts already occur.

They are appropriate if there are long stretches without driveways or intersections, such as along a rail or highway right of way, or along a waterway, bluff or other geographic feature that limits cross traffic and turning movements.

They are not appropriate along major city arterials with frequent intersections, driveways or freeway interchanges.

In the latter urban environment, they are doubly inappropriate if the local jurisdiction has a mandatory use law.

randya

If this comes to pass, it will all be a moot point in the US anyway.

genec

As long as we keep building roads that resemble freeways... no amount of training is going to do a thing.

UptownJoe60640

I don't see how, if say cyclist have their own traffic signals to direct bike traffic. How would that would cause more accidents? Cyclist have the right of way at the intersection, therefore, no cars should be going through the intersection unless of course they run the light... which cyclist do as well. Now, I don't have any problems with Cycle Tracks breaking off at intersection with alleys/driveways/lots to allow the flow of motor vehicle traffic. We already have to watch for them in the street anyway and they should be watching for us as well, which, is not always the case unfortunately. Now, cars already pull out of intersections and stop right in the lane (bike lane usually) so I don't see a solution for that necessarily unless cops start enforcing the damn law and ticketing them for that crap but I doubt they are going to deploy beat cops to patrol alleyways/driveways/lots and such to ensure motorist are not blocking the bicycle right of way.

I do think we could come up with some better ideas but I am not sure of them at the moment to be honest but I like getting the conversation going. Opens the door for all types of ideas. Better than nothing, right?

UptownJoe60640

Yeah, well, I also hope ideas like these go away and go away quickly! Ideas such as these should have no place in this country. They are just making us more and more dependant upon oil and reinforcing the thought of alternative transportation as a bad idea. Can you imagine, setting next to someone on the bus? That is scary! Don't cha think? lol

CB HI

After a time, new cyclist often learn about the problems with these cycle tracks and reasonably turn from supporters to opposing them (less bicycle salesman of course).

UptownJoe60640

I assume you have a better solution? I am not being sarcastic or rude... just asking. I am not new to riding through the city by the way. Not everyone is going to agree on things and just because one person changes their opinion doesn't mean others will. I will change my opinion if I see there is a better solution but I haven't seen/heard of any.

Bekologist

the critics have only unsubstantiated arguments.

Those wild claims about danger and ridership are unsupportable.

street proximate protected cycle tracks, both in NA and in Europe, have been widely found to both contribute to and allow greater ridership with no significant decrease in safety. Well designed cycletracks drastically reduce crossing movements and the built in environment encourages safer mixing when necessary between bikes and cars.

Vancouver BC's cycletracks have significantly reduced the intersection conflicts for bicyclists along the track'd corridors as well as exhibited amazing increases in numbers of bicyclists using those corridors.

yes cycletracks are not intended to go everywhere. Most communities, even the most heavily built in, bicyclist friendly communities of Europe use shared road space.

B. Carfree

Okay, the first cycletrack-like bike facility was installed in Davis in the '70s along hwy 128/Russel Blvd/5th St. In my decades in Davis, there were very few injury-wrecks that came to my attention, only about twenty. Of those twenty, over half were at intersections of this segregated cycletrack-like facility. The most common wreck was a right-hook with about half as many left-crosses. However, the difference may have more to do with the number of cars crossing it that are making the various turning movements. Bear in mind that there are unobstructed views of all traffic on this facility. The problem is that motorists only look for other motorists. Watch someone make a right turn on a red light; most won't look right at all before going (heck, most won't even stop before going). If the bikes are where no cars will be, motorists will not "see" them.

Predictably, the city and county responded to these wrecks by placing signage giving the right-of-way to motorists. So now cyclists have to yield to cars that are overtaking them and turning right across them or are turning left across them. It's just insane! I don't object to well thought out bike infrastructure that enhances cyclist safety, but I do object to these things as they are not well thought-out and diminish my safety.

As for your other statements: Stopping for a minute at every signalized block while waiting for a bike-specific traffic signal reduces the speed of cycling to about my walking speed. That may be fine with you, but I'm trying to get somewhere. Also, urban real estate is expensive. There is no way to put in cycletracks of sufficient width for safe passing (especially as more utility cyclists use trailers) without some combination of removing the on-street storage of cars, removing traffic lanes or narrowing sidewalks. All of these have costs and consequences. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it won't be done.

What would I prefer? Well, in the way of physical infrastructure there are lots of solutions that vary by the situation. As has been said, segregated is fine for routes that parallel high-speed roadways with few or no intersections/driveways such as those thoroughfares that connect suburbs. In urban environments, sharrows are fine (when marked properly), bike lanes of sufficient width/maintenance/drainage can also work well (but not dzbl's). But none of these do as much for cyclist safety as effective law enforcement. I'd much rather have aggressive traffic law enforcement (and stiffer fines/suspensions/revocations) than all the paint and grade separations that we think we can afford.

I have to agree with CB HI. As people get more experience, they will generally find that the downside of segregated facilities in urban areas outweighs the upside. Unfortunately, most cyclists today are relative newbies and don't have enough miles in the saddle to know what these proposals will do.

randya

On a cycle track with intersections every couple hundred feet, there will not be a cyclist-specific signal at each one, because signals are too expensive; but, if there is, I can almost assure you that the cycling experience will involve more stopping and waiting than riding, unless the traffic engineers time the signals for cyclists, and I figure there's a pretty slim chance of that.

with short intersection spacings and the cycle track behind parked cars, I see little chance of it 'breaking off' at every intersection; that sacrifices parking spaces and forces cyclists to ride in some absurd chicane-like path.

No, it's not 'better than nothing'.

CB HI

I do, get rid of all the bike lanes and urban bike paths/MUPs that are not along uninterrupted routes like the ones Randya mentioned AND teach cyclist how to ride VC.

Bekologist

...an unsubstantiated ideology without any grounding in the actual planning of safer roads and safer communities for cyclists.

closetbiker

well, some intersections along the routes have eliminated right turns, but that doesn't mean motor vehicles still don't make them. In a way, it might make things worse because some cyclists using these routes might not expect a MV to make a turn when they will. I've seen a couple of hits of cyclists by MVs precisely because of this. I know how many collisions there were in the downtown core before the lanes were put in. In some time, it'll be interesting to see if these collisions will be actually reduced, just as it'll be interesting to see if the increased traffic on these routes is a result of more people on bikes, rather than a simple redirect of the bike traffic that was already there.

ZCow

I agree with some of the posters and particularly the second comment in the actual article. The cultures are really too different to make a statement that cycle tracks would "fit" well here in the US. I think one of the major problems with people who come up with this research and report how "safe" other facilities are, aren't riders themselves. This goes from many city planners and mayors to police officers who claim they "ride themselves" and tell you to get on the sidewalk. Instead of implementing ways of educating our culture (both cyclists and motorists) we have people who simply look at the road, notice the amount of accidents or perceive a lack of "safety" and throw out bike lanes, cycle tracks, etc., to substitute for an actual education - which includes riding. I know more people who have been hit in bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and gutters than anyone who takes the lane and uses it in the safest manner for both themselves and the cars around them. My opinion is that our culture finds ways around educating motorists and cyclists about laws and how roads are MADE as a PUBLIC space for transportation.

I urge anyone wanting to ride safe to check out https://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/ The website has tons of video footage, articles, and animations that have been proven to increase safety when riding a bicycle.

I also highly recommend this video as it is again, a proven method of safe, legal riding https://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax?blend=6&ob=5

Bekologist

So you're telling the forum the design for the cycle track streets into Vancouver have, actually, reduced the numbers of intersections with right turns allowed, thereby reducing potential turning conflicts along the cycletracks, but some motorists will make illegal turns.

Is that an accurate read of what you're saying?

You also confirm that cycling along vancouvers cycle track routes has gone up, significantly. but you're unsure if it isn't just a shifting from other routes.

I'm unsure why cyclists wanting to ride a safer, more protected route to get into the downtown of one of the largest cities on the west coast is a problem. Or Montreal for that matter, the city the Harvard study was conducted in.

UptownJoe60640

I think there is room for improvement but removing bike lanes simply because they are not "uninterrupted" is a bad idea and do not like that at all.