The case for physically separated bike lanes

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416

Note that www.theoildrum.com has widespread readership, and this post made
it to the first couple of pages on Digg today.

Matt O.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt
O'Toole wrote:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

In article ,
(Dennis P. Harris) writes:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt
O'Toole wrote:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I think in certain places bike lanes can be useful.
Especially where steep upgrades slow a rider down
on an otherwise fast paced road.

Cars are often segregated from one another -- that's
what left turn bays etc are all about.

I'm certainly against just slap-dashing bike lanes
all over the place, but I'm not going to be idealogically
opposed to them. They're an option I'd like to keep
open, but used discriminately and intelligently.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole wrote:
I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole wrote:
I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. I'm fortunate to live
where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the
major roads, and they work. Period. Peter's unfortunate enough to
have suffered the consequence of not having such facilities at a
particular point in time.

To others though, it's become a virtual penis envy campaign where
their perceived minority status has become the bigger issue. I'm at a
loss as to how else anyone could look at the Maricopa County bike lane
facilities and pronounce them "not as good as sharing 45mph lanes with
cars".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole wrote:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.


I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit.

Maybe, maybe not. A bike lane does not guarantee not getting hit from
behind.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf

I wrote the report, having examined 3000 collisions.

Also, riding in a bike lane or shoulder makes other collision mechanisms
more likely.

Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing.

Not necessarily true.

I think that bike lanes are appropriate on roads where you want to
encourage faster and more motor traffic, and there are few/no cross
traffic junctions. In other words, controlled access freeways.

Bike lanes are little more than named shoulders. Shoulders are intended
to prevent run-off-road collisons and provide a buffer from roadside
elements. That are not intended for vehicular travel. They are placed on
roads intended to facilitate faster motoring and enable motorists to be
automatons.

A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane
does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights.
A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide
lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where
"accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a
bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and
this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are
not really operationally benefical to bicyclists.

Wayne

In article ,
Matt O'Toole wrote:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416

Too obviously staged and one-sided. It is a mindless drumbeat of safety
over everything else, yet the thing the video shows as unsafe are not
the existing paths themselves, but the *drivers*. Why force the
cyclists to change their behavior when they are not the source of the
problem? Why no call to first ticket and tow any vehicle blocking a
bike path? For a city seemingly eager to fine pedestrians for
jaywalking, it is strange that they don't go after the bigger revenue
streams that their traffic mismanagement enables.

Why no proper analysis of traffic flow? My guess is that it would show
how stupid it is to have people biking at 15+mph right next to people
standing on the sidewalk. I wouldn't be too surprised to see an
increase in bike-pedestrian crashes that results from parked car drivers
having to cross the bike path.

All in all, I'd say it's a pro-car movement rather than a pro-bike one.
Instead, the planning needs to be pro-people, because transit should be
about getting *us* from place to place, and not our vehicles.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

On Mar 31, 3:43 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416

Note thatwww.theoildrum.comhas widespread readership, and this post made
it to the first couple of pages on Digg today.

Matt O.

Hi there.

I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is
necessarily a good idea.

I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike
paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST*
bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that
path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road
where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west
bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not
pretty at all.

Many (not all) people who ride and advocate bike paths are not very
skilled riders. Therefore it is very important that when designing
bike paths or bike lanes people of low riding (i.e. children) skills
be kept in mind.

To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A
path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a
major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design.

Also in order to ride more than a few feet on some of the litter
strewn bike paths I have seen one would require armoured tyres in
order not to get a puncture. Recycling trucks that have picked up
glass bottles, jars etcetera often leave a nice trail of crushed glass
along the bike path as they pull out.

Cheers from Peter

"Sir Ridesalot" wrote in
ups.com:
I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is
necessarily a good idea.

I think physically separated lanes make sense if you are investing in a large
network of such lanes (as some European and Asian countries are doing). It
is much less useful if your road network still requires bicyclists to "share
the road" for most of their mileage.

On Apr 1, 1:55 pm, "Sir Ridesalot" wrote:
I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike
paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST*
bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that
path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road
where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west
bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not
pretty at all.

To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A
path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a
major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design.

I live in Toronto currently, and know of no two-way on-street bike
lanes like that. (I'm not saying we don't have any bad ones.) Where
was/is this?

As to the sudden ending ones (College Street comes to mind), they're
actually fairly well signed with warnings about the impending end of
the lane - though the signs tend to be much higher than a cyclist's
line of sight. The dashed line to the left of the lane is a backup
warning, however.