Comments on: New Facilities Catching On

By: John Allen

John Allen — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:22:10 +0000

The statistic you cite has taken on a life of its own. I think it is only for 9th Avenue. Oother “cycle track” facilities in New York do not have the safety features that one has (in particular, special bicycle signals preventing conflicts at every intersection) which this one does. The one on Grand Street is in my opinion mediocre and the one on Broadway is nearly unrideable due to pedestrian encorachment. But I agree, can anyone provide a cite?

By: fred_dot_u

fred_dot_u — Sun, 02 May 2010 00:32:02 +0000

I too like to go fast, why else would I be commuting in a velomobile that looks like a torpedo, bullet, you name it. It does not prevent me from being considerate to pedestrians. Just today (or maybe it was yesterday), I was approaching a crosswalk with two pedestrians about to enter. They shied back, but I slowed, stopped and waved them on, pointing to the big flashy yellow sign stick (Stop for ped xing). Maybe because I look fast and maybe because I look dangerous, I take extra effort to give pedestrians the right of way.

Now, step out in front of me on a major roadway, mid-block, and you’re a target! just kitten.

By: Columbusite

Columbusite — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:50:17 +0000

The psychological effects of the “segregated” facilities that you mention are almost always left out of the conversation between catering to vehicular cyclist infrastructure and improperly-riding cyclist infrastructure. There’s a very simple fact being overlooked and that is the fact that segregated facilities, whether you’re in favor or not, results in motorists not having to change their behavior one bit. This is why even cities like Portland which have had segregated facilities for a long time still has plenty of cyclist-motorist conflicts. The motorists there have been able to drive the same way they always have and that means that the mentality that says, “cyclists belong out of my way” goes on unchanged and unchallenged. Bike lanes will never end with better motorists who learn to accept bikes as traffic.

By: Keri

Keri — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:01:49 +0000

“Must pass the pedestrian” is the cyclist version of “must pass the cyclist.” We’re all wired by the Culture of Speed (and the Culture of Me), no matter what we drive.

By: Jayeson

Jayeson — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:20:08 +0000

I meant to add a note about trails. While I like riding them, I’m sure non-cyclist users would prefer I was elsewhere. When the weather is great my section of Wekiva Trail is near capacity for safe cycling at speed. It is not unusual lately to have to wait to pass and I have witnessed a couple of reckless “must pass pedestrian” incidents. Mixed use would probably stop working for that trail if cycling made a dent in commuting mode share.

By: Keri

Keri — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:07:06 +0000

Jayeson, Thank you for this observation!

By: Jayeson

Jayeson — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:43:28 +0000

I’ve been thinking about my list of preferences for a few days and I’m feeling that a wide 2 lane collector road without bike markings is quite preferable over one with a bike lane/shoulder striped. Riding such a road with bike lanes is an OK experience but involves a lot of in and out to handle defects, debris, door zones and intersections. This is all far easier IMO if there are no markings. I don’t think I even want sharrows on the edge of the road. That just implies required lane position but any cyclist or motorist already knows/expects the courtesy of riding to the right when possible. I have never personally been concerned about riding wide, moderately travelled roads. A bike lane would not have further help get me on a roadway. I had tended to interpret a bike lane as meaning a road needs it because it is dangerous to cycle on. I only have one shareable width collector on my route and it is one of the most enjoyable stretches. It is such a non-issue to ride it didn’t even occur to me when thinking about ride quality. Facilities for such a road? Maybe the 3′ passing sign and a bike route sign. Shade trees would be good. Hazard markings in the door zones as others have suggested. Slightly reduced sight lines work for me too which the one I mentioned above has.

Tollgate trail (a road) up where I am has recently been redone and I think it was widened in the process. It is gently winding with light traffic. There were as many cyclists on it as cars so I guess that is why a shoulder was striped on it. Too bad that the shoulder was full of debris. I got about 30′ before almost being dismounted and rode the rest of the way on the spotless, silky smooth portion left of the stripe. Even if bike lanes did improve safety or ridership on busy roads I can’t see the point for a lazy neighborhood road. Widening, thanks very much. Deadly debris? I’ll pass. I’d be very happy to see the shoulder striping removed so I can actually ride nearer the edge.

By: Serge Issakov

Serge Issakov — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:19:41 +0000

I just think the safety issue of bikelanes gets too much imphasis when statistically, according to Mighk’s data, it’s does not rank that high compared to other issues, like wrong-way riding.

Andrew, it’s subtle because bike lanes mask the really significant safety issue, which is cyclist behavior. It’s obvious to me that the single biggest factor, by far, that determines my safety is… my behavior. The problem starts with the fact that most cyclists don’t realize that, and extends from there by resulting in majority cyclist behavior that is contrary to their safety (in particular, by riding much too close to the edge of the road far too often). Bike lanes mask this by encouraging and reinforcing this relatively unsafe behavior.

It is true that bike lanes have little measurable effect on safety because the vast majority of bicyclists ride in the same “childish” manner regardless of their presence, but I think it’s a big mistake to discount their effect on reducing safety. Bike lanes at least inhibit enormous potential increases in safety from occurring by continuing to encourage and reinforce the behavior that causes crashes and inhibits cyclists from engaging in the behavior that allows them to greatly improve their chances.

By: andrewp

andrewp — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:40:20 +0000

Serge: Good point, and I’ll think on that. Could be a little bit of what you said and what Christopher said.

Keri: No one has said this directly. I felt, perhaps incorrectly it was being inferred.

I just think the safety issue of bikelanes gets too much imphasis when statistically, according to Mighk’s data, it’s does not rank that high compared to other issues, like wrong-way riding.

I get tired of the pro/con facilites arguements when it seems to me we have bigger issues to tackle …..

By: Serge Issakov

Serge Issakov — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:40:59 +0000

Ultimately the culture has to change, and no bike-specific facilities will do that alone.

Not only will bike-specific facilities not do that alone, they are likely to prevent it from happening at all.

As others have noted, how can a motorist or bicyclist learn that often bicyclists belong in the traffic lane when official markings indicate the exact opposite?

And yes, bike lanes often exist in situations where bicyclists should not be in them.

Also, ALL bike lanes exist in situations where bicyclists should not ride in them, at least some of the time (many most of the time), not just the particularly bad ones, since there is no bike lane on which it is never appropriate for a bicyclist to be riding outside of it.

Separation is the problem, so separation cannot be the solution.