Making "protected" bike lanes safe

For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the "protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of "protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one: https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere! https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

On 4/10/2019 12:49 AM, Chalo wrote:
It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

Protected bike lanes are about increasing safety, but that's not the
only reason for them.

In my city, we had a high school student killed who would still be here
today if there had been a protected bike lane so the truck that the
cyclist and the truck would have been physically separated.

The other big issue that cities face is cars, and other vehicles using
unprotected bike lanes for various other purposes. Passing on the right.
Drifting into the bike lane. Deliveries. Pick-up and drop-off. Pulling
over a driver to give them a traffic ticket. Turn on your emergency
flashers and the whole world's a parking space. Stick a cone behind a
delivery or service vehicle and you're good to park there for a long time.

If we want to increase the percentages of cyclists we have to increase
both actual safety and the perception of safety. Just putting protected
bike lanes in areas where there are the most conflicts is probably
sufficient. The other issue is at intersections you need to bring the
bicycles and pedestrians closer together to avoid right hooks (or left
hooks in left-drive countries).

There are other issues to consider as well, how do you do street
cleaning? How do you pick up garbage in areas where the trash cans need
to be by the curb?

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2019 12:49 AM, Chalo wrote:
It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

Protected bike lanes are about increasing safety, but that's not the
only reason for them.

In my city, we had a high school student killed who would still be here
today if there had been a protected bike lane so the truck that the
cyclist and the truck would have been physically separated.

The other big issue that cities face is cars, and other vehicles using
unprotected bike lanes for various other purposes. Passing on the right.
Drifting into the bike lane. Deliveries. Pick-up and drop-off. Pulling
over a driver to give them a traffic ticket. Turn on your emergency
flashers and the whole world's a parking space. Stick a cone behind a
delivery or service vehicle and you're good to park there for a long time..

If we want to increase the percentages of cyclists we have to increase
both actual safety and the perception of safety. Just putting protected
bike lanes in areas where there are the most conflicts is probably
sufficient. The other issue is at intersections you need to bring the
bicycles and pedestrians closer together to avoid right hooks (or left
hooks in left-drive countries).

There are other issues to consider as well, how do you do street
cleaning? How do you pick up garbage in areas where the trash cans need
to be by the curb?

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2019 12:49 AM, Chalo wrote:
It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

Protected bike lanes are about increasing safety, but that's not the
only reason for them.

In my city, we had a high school student killed who would still be here
today if there had been a protected bike lane so the truck that the
cyclist and the truck would have been physically separated.

The other big issue that cities face is cars, and other vehicles using
unprotected bike lanes for various other purposes. Passing on the right..
Drifting into the bike lane. Deliveries. Pick-up and drop-off. Pulling
over a driver to give them a traffic ticket. Turn on your emergency
flashers and the whole world's a parking space. Stick a cone behind a
delivery or service vehicle and you're good to park there for a long time.

If we want to increase the percentages of cyclists we have to increase
both actual safety and the perception of safety. Just putting protected
bike lanes in areas where there are the most conflicts is probably
sufficient. The other issue is at intersections you need to bring the
bicycles and pedestrians closer together to avoid right hooks (or left
hooks in left-drive countries).

There are other issues to consider as well, how do you do street
cleaning? How do you pick up garbage in areas where the trash cans need
to be by the curb?

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

Was that a bridge across a Freeway? Of course there are problems with roads everywhere. Along the beach in Alameda they tried putting the bike lane two way along the beach side. This puts the parking lane outside.

So people park and throw their doors open into traffic. And passengers throw their doors open into the bike lane. And the two way traffic on the bike lane puts Joe Pretend Racer one the same path that a 3 year old on a balance bike is riding. Can you see any practical way of improving it?

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:37:32 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2019 12:49 AM, Chalo wrote:
It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

Protected bike lanes are about increasing safety, but that's not the
only reason for them.

In my city, we had a high school student killed who would still be here
today if there had been a protected bike lane so the truck that the
cyclist and the truck would have been physically separated.

The other big issue that cities face is cars, and other vehicles using
unprotected bike lanes for various other purposes. Passing on the right.
Drifting into the bike lane. Deliveries. Pick-up and drop-off. Pulling
over a driver to give them a traffic ticket. Turn on your emergency
flashers and the whole world's a parking space. Stick a cone behind a
delivery or service vehicle and you're good to park there for a long time.

If we want to increase the percentages of cyclists we have to increase
both actual safety and the perception of safety. Just putting protected
bike lanes in areas where there are the most conflicts is probably
sufficient. The other issue is at intersections you need to bring the
bicycles and pedestrians closer together to avoid right hooks (or left
hooks in left-drive countries).

There are other issues to consider as well, how do you do street
cleaning? How do you pick up garbage in areas where the trash cans need
to be by the curb?

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

Was that a bridge across a Freeway? Of course there are problems with roads everywhere. Along the beach in Alameda they tried putting the bike lane two way along the beach side. This puts the parking lane outside.

So people park and throw their doors open into traffic. And passengers throw their doors open into the bike lane. And the two way traffic on the bike lane puts Joe Pretend Racer one the same path that a 3 year old on a balance bike is riding. Can you see any practical way of improving it?

Not really -- except with education and vigorous enforcement of traffic laws requiring motorists to treat the bike lanes like traffic lanes. Even with my magic flasher, some absolute dolt right hooked me into an athletic field on the way home last night -- at the Under Armor headquarters. http://tinyurl.com/y73ckzzy This is the very noticeable bike facility out front. http://tinyurl.com/yy7haffg The place is choked with witless runners looking for parking spots.

Meanwhile, riding in the super-duper bicycle facility this morning, my son put it well: "I'm going to have an aneurysm." It's a nightmare of on-street and separated two-way bike and pedestrian facilities -- kooks on bikes, buses, trains, etc., etc. Looks good on paper but sucks in reality. https://bikeportland.org/2015/08/14/...et-bike-155284 This intersection is a little death trap: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s...y-bend-559.png


And while I'm complaining, who thought up the f****** dimpled plastic curb cut transitions: https://adatile.com/wp-content/uploa...l-1030x773.jpg They're everywhere and slippery as sh** in the rain, which means they're slippery much of the year. If you hit one even slightly leaned into a turn, you're slipping, and if you have poor reflexes, you're going down. I'm amazed I haven't seen more crashes on those things.

The real solution is moving to some place with adequately wide roads and fewer cars -- yet progressive enough that the guys-with-banjos aren't trying to kill you. I'm not sure where that is. Maybe Frank's magical village.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/11/2019 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

Was that a bridge across a Freeway?

If you're referring to the photo Jay linked, I believe it's a conceptual
drawing for a really, really safe bike facility. It's an elevated tube
with weather protection, only for bicyclists. It would be really,
really, really safe.

But Jay is negligent in promoting that version! Anyone can see that the
eastbound cyclists can crash into the westbound ones. When, oh when,
will we realize we need two parallel tubes everywhere - for safety???

Of course there are problems with roads everywhere. Along the beach in Alameda they tried putting the bike lane two way along the beach side. This puts the parking lane outside.

So people park and throw their doors open into traffic. And passengers throw their doors open into the bike lane. And the two way traffic on the bike lane puts Joe Pretend Racer one the same path that a 3 year old on a balance bike is riding. Can you see any practical way of improving it?

Jay's tubular bike path - or actually, the much better twin-tube version
- will go a long way toward _finally_ making biking safe...

Until we can build an entire parallel universe for bike riders. Take
heart, safety fans! Elon Musk is working on it!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/10/2019 9:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

The expense is not that great in the scheme of things. But I think that
What has led to increased commuting more than anything is the network of
off-road multi-use paths that go from housing-rich areas to jobs-rich
areas, and the ability to use a bicycle for the first-mile/last-mile
when using mass transit.

Building some separated bike lanes isn't cheap nor is it outrageously
expensive, and sometimes major corporations will chip in, see
https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/03/apple-cupertino-transportation-funding/.
Hey, I got quoted! I don't really agree with my vice-mayor on this, I
feel that Apple can decide which projects, if any, that they want to
fund and that it's better to work with Apple than to be in adversarial
relationship. If there's a region wide business tax to fund
transportation, housing, etc., then that would be a better solution than
each city going it alone. However in Mountain View, in 2018, voters
passed a business tax that will disproportionately affect Google, but
Google didn't oppose it since the reality is that the amount they will
pay is lost in the noise.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:47:33 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 9:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

The expense is not that great in the scheme of things. But I think that
What has led to increased commuting more than anything is the network of
off-road multi-use paths that go from housing-rich areas to jobs-rich
areas, and the ability to use a bicycle for the first-mile/last-mile
when using mass transit.


Building some separated bike lanes isn't cheap nor is it outrageously
expensive, and sometimes major corporations will chip in, see
https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/03/apple-cupertino-transportation-funding/.
Hey, I got quoted! I don't really agree with my vice-mayor on this, I
feel that Apple can decide which projects, if any, that they want to
fund and that it's better to work with Apple than to be in adversarial
relationship. If there's a region wide business tax to fund
transportation, housing, etc., then that would be a better solution than
each city going it alone. However in Mountain View, in 2018, voters
passed a business tax that will disproportionately affect Google, but
Google didn't oppose it since the reality is that the amount they will
pay is lost in the noise.


But has all this money spent and work done significantly increased the
number of bicyclists? The U.S. population grew 0.7% in 2017, does the
growth in the use of bicycles grow at the same rate?

The U.S. Census Bureau says not, that Nationally, the percentage of
people who say they use a bike to get to work fell by 3.2 percent from
2016 to 2017.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:37:26 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 12:49 AM, Chalo wrote:
It's all folly until we ban cars from areas where there are cyclists and peds present.

Protected bike lanes are about increasing safety, but that's not the
only reason for them.

In my city, we had a high school student killed who would still be here
today if there had been a protected bike lane so the truck that the
cyclist and the truck would have been physically separated.

I find it strange that you would say such a thing as I ride in Bangkok
with such chaotic traffic that most foreigners visiting the country
are quite literally afraid to drive here and we have no such thing as
a protected bike lane. And yet in the 20 or so years that I've ridden
a bicycle here I have yet to have what one might call a "close call".
Perhaps because I am careful to obey traffic regulations and watch
what is happening around me.

The other big issue that cities face is cars, and other vehicles using
unprotected bike lanes for various other purposes. Passing on the right.
Drifting into the bike lane. Deliveries. Pick-up and drop-off. Pulling
over a driver to give them a traffic ticket. Turn on your emergency
flashers and the whole world's a parking space. Stick a cone behind a
delivery or service vehicle and you're good to park there for a long time.

If we want to increase the percentages of cyclists we have to increase
both actual safety and the perception of safety. Just putting protected
bike lanes in areas where there are the most conflicts is probably
sufficient. The other issue is at intersections you need to bring the
bicycles and pedestrians closer together to avoid right hooks (or left
hooks in left-drive countries).

There are other issues to consider as well, how do you do street
cleaning? How do you pick up garbage in areas where the trash cans need
to be by the curb?
--
cheers,

John B.