Before & after bike lanes

On Sep 27, 1:27*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
On 9/27/2010 12:38 PM, wrote:





On Sep 27, 9:40 am, Peter *wrote:
Decades of "vehicular cycling" orthodoxy with its reflexive opposition
to any and all facilities have neither reduced the accident rate
relative to other countries (with different outlooks), nor has it
convinced many people to take up cycling.

I wouldn't know about "the numbers" in any of those assertions but
it's long been obvious to me that the vehicular thing is good, but
only up to a point, and so too are bike "facilities" good, but only
when done well. I mean, let's be pragmatic about this. That bike lane
in NYC sucks, big time. They should go back to the way it was, when
(by user testimony) the street layout worked a whole lot better, as I
would think it would for all users, including the guys trying to get
their trucks unloaded.
Bike paths for beginners, recreational riders and so forth need to be
put somewhere else.

Vehicular cycling, the activity, not the philosophy, is not only good,
but necessary, given that facilities don't go everywhere and the
principles apply to riding in facilities as well.

I can't comment on the NYC lane, but I can on the Boston (Cambridge,
actually) one Frank linked to. Sometimes designs are so heavily
compromised that they are worse than nothing, the Cambridge bike lanes
are a good example. For much of their length they are striped virtually
entirely in the door zone. I trained both my kids on how to not use
them. I trained them both during weekday evening rush hour. For those
who claim that motorists will bully us into using bad bike lanes, I
disagree, and felt I needed to prove exactly that point to my kids, lest
they feel pressured to ride in them.

I view bike lanes as no-driving zones. Categorically, I'd prefer no
lanes to mandatory lanes. I also find that many of the failings of lanes
(e.g. double parking) are also failings of wide curb lanes. I think the
most effective improvement to urban cycling is traffic calming. I'd
rather see bike boulevards than lanes or side paths. Lanes are very much
a compromise, and not all bike lanes are good bike lanes, not by a long
shot.

No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.
--D-y

On Sep 30, 8:04 pm, " wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:27 pm, Peter Cole wrote:



On 9/27/2010 12:38 PM, wrote:

On Sep 27, 9:40 am, Peter wrote:
Decades of "vehicular cycling" orthodoxy with its reflexive opposition
to any and all facilities have neither reduced the accident rate
relative to other countries (with different outlooks), nor has it
convinced many people to take up cycling.

I wouldn't know about "the numbers" in any of those assertions but
it's long been obvious to me that the vehicular thing is good, but
only up to a point, and so too are bike "facilities" good, but only
when done well. I mean, let's be pragmatic about this. That bike lane
in NYC sucks, big time. They should go back to the way it was, when
(by user testimony) the street layout worked a whole lot better, as I
would think it would for all users, including the guys trying to get
their trucks unloaded.
Bike paths for beginners, recreational riders and so forth need to be
put somewhere else.

Vehicular cycling, the activity, not the philosophy, is not only good,
but necessary, given that facilities don't go everywhere and the
principles apply to riding in facilities as well.

I can't comment on the NYC lane, but I can on the Boston (Cambridge,
actually) one Frank linked to. Sometimes designs are so heavily
compromised that they are worse than nothing, the Cambridge bike lanes
are a good example. For much of their length they are striped virtually
entirely in the door zone. I trained both my kids on how to not use
them. I trained them both during weekday evening rush hour. For those
who claim that motorists will bully us into using bad bike lanes, I
disagree, and felt I needed to prove exactly that point to my kids, lest
they feel pressured to ride in them.

I view bike lanes as no-driving zones. Categorically, I'd prefer no
lanes to mandatory lanes. I also find that many of the failings of lanes
(e.g. double parking) are also failings of wide curb lanes. I think the
most effective improvement to urban cycling is traffic calming. I'd
rather see bike boulevards than lanes or side paths. Lanes are very much
a compromise, and not all bike lanes are good bike lanes, not by a long
shot.

No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.

Twice today (at least), I flew off one of those little curb ramps at
either end of a sidewalk ramp, crossed it up a bit in the air so as to
get pointed the right direction, landing in the bike lane.

I love 'em.

On 9/30/2010 11:04 PM, wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:27 pm, Peter wrote:

I view bike lanes as no-driving zones. Categorically, I'd prefer no
lanes to mandatory lanes. I also find that many of the failings of lanes
(e.g. double parking) are also failings of wide curb lanes. I think the
most effective improvement to urban cycling is traffic calming. I'd
rather see bike boulevards than lanes or side paths. Lanes are very much
a compromise, and not all bike lanes are good bike lanes, not by a long
shot.

No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.

I tend to couch my comments on facilities, sometimes implicitly,
unfortunately, in an urban context. I'm just not as familiar with
suburban/rural cycling lanes. Several experienced riders have commented
how they find lanes useful in those areas, I have no difficulty
accepting that.

On Oct 1, 7:55*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 9/30/2010 11:04 PM, wrote:





On Sep 27, 1:27 pm, Peter *wrote:
I view bike lanes as no-driving zones. Categorically, I'd prefer no
lanes to mandatory lanes. I also find that many of the failings of lanes
(e.g. double parking) are also failings of wide curb lanes. I think the
most effective improvement to urban cycling is traffic calming. I'd
rather see bike boulevards than lanes or side paths. Lanes are very much
a compromise, and not all bike lanes are good bike lanes, not by a long
shot.

No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.

I tend to couch my comments on facilities, sometimes implicitly,
unfortunately, in an urban context. I'm just not as familiar with
suburban/rural cycling lanes. Several experienced riders have commented
how they find lanes useful in those areas, I have no difficulty
accepting that.

I heard the comments from riders IRT the NYC bike lane-- "It was
better without the bike lane"-- the first time through.

Some problems ("delivery men") don't have an easy solution. Time to
back up and try again-- maybe sharrows, and some signage?
And separate "recreational" facilities elsewhere?
The hike and bike trails I rode in Houston had shortcomings but it
wasn't all bad by any means, and at least there was someplace to ride.
I used what was there and did well. PITA sometimes but for all the
close calls, I never did have a collision or accident while riding on
the path. Vastly preferable to The Death Ride (as constituted in the
late '90's/early 2000's when I lived there).
--D-y

On 10/1/2010 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:55 am, Peter wrote:

I tend to couch my comments on facilities, sometimes implicitly,
unfortunately, in an urban context. I'm just not as familiar with
suburban/rural cycling lanes. Several experienced riders have commented
how they find lanes useful in those areas, I have no difficulty
accepting that.

I heard the comments from riders IRT the NYC bike lane-- "It was
better without the bike lane"-- the first time through.

That was the First Avenue bike lane. Apparently, some aspects of the
design (left hand side) were driven to accommodate the express bus lane
and the large hospital on one part of the route.

No doubt cyclists can/could make better time in the traffic lanes, but
that always involves a lot of wending through stopped/slowed cars and
around double parked vehicles. You can go much faster than motor
vehicles in "courier" mode, at the expense of a fair amount of
additional risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12439875

Some problems ("delivery men") don't have an easy solution. Time to
back up and try again-- maybe sharrows, and some signage?
And separate "recreational" facilities elsewhere?

I don't know how many are riding First Ave. for recreation. The delivery
problem remains with the "buffered" lanes. In some places deliveries are
restricted by time of day, that's one potential way to reduce conflict.

The hike and bike trails I rode in Houston had shortcomings but it
wasn't all bad by any means, and at least there was someplace to ride.
I used what was there and did well. PITA sometimes but for all the
close calls, I never did have a collision or accident while riding on
the path. Vastly preferable to The Death Ride (as constituted in the
late '90's/early 2000's when I lived there).

Off road facilities always seem to have the challenge of mixed use and
people treating them like sidewalks. Again, I think they're safe enough
if you don't push it. I don't use them when I'm in a hurry. I see
cyclists hammering on them all the time, though. My wife was knocked
flat last year by some tool when she braked for a maintenance truck
blocking the trail. I've never had a collision (or any serious close
calls) in perhaps 1k round trips of the 20 mile loop over the last 30
years.

On Sep 30, 11:04*pm, "
wrote:

No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.

The question, as always: Do they really work better than the same
width of pavement with the stripe removed, treated as a wide shared
lane?

If so, how?

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 1, 9:27 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "
wrote:



No, agreed. My examples of lanes and stripes working do not resemble
the NYC lane, in that they are not heavily travelled roads in
residential/commercial districts-- so, no delivery trucks--definitely
service trucks, sometimes lots of them but they don't tend to unload
pallets of commercial goods used to stock store shelves or supply
restaurants, and so forth.

I'm not generalizing that all striped bike lanes are good, by any
means. But I do know of a few at least on my regular routes that work
very well.

The question, as always: Do they really work better than the same
width of pavement with the stripe removed, treated as a wide shared
lane?


For people who Ride Bike, yes.

If so, how?


They give the guy on a bike someplace to go where no cars are supposed
to be (except for a very few exceptions). Amongst the many route
elements in town, they totally rock when you need one - especially
right there where they usually are between the road and sidewalk
options. I treat bike lanes as optional route elements, because of
that loophole we have about debris.

Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/1/2010 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:55 am, Peter wrote:

I tend to couch my comments on facilities, sometimes implicitly,
unfortunately, in an urban context. I'm just not as familiar with
suburban/rural cycling lanes. Several experienced riders have commented
how they find lanes useful in those areas, I have no difficulty
accepting that.

I heard the comments from riders IRT the NYC bike lane-- "It was
better without the bike lane"-- the first time through.

That was the First Avenue bike lane. Apparently, some aspects of the
design (left hand side) were driven to accommodate the express bus lane
and the large hospital on one part of the route.

No doubt cyclists can/could make better time in the traffic lanes, but
that always involves a lot of wending through stopped/slowed cars and
around double parked vehicles. You can go much faster than motor
vehicles in "courier" mode, at the expense of a fair amount of
additional risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12439875

Some problems ("delivery men") don't have an easy solution. Time to
back up and try again-- maybe sharrows, and some signage?
And separate "recreational" facilities elsewhere?

I don't know how many are riding First Ave. for recreation. The delivery
problem remains with the "buffered" lanes. In some places deliveries are
restricted by time of day, that's one potential way to reduce conflict.

The hike and bike trails I rode in Houston had shortcomings but it
wasn't all bad by any means, and at least there was someplace to ride.
I used what was there and did well. PITA sometimes but for all the
close calls, I never did have a collision or accident while riding on
the path. Vastly preferable to The Death Ride (as constituted in the
late '90's/early 2000's when I lived there).

Off road facilities always seem to have the challenge of mixed use and
people treating them like sidewalks. Again, I think they're safe enough
if you don't push it. I don't use them when I'm in a hurry. I see
cyclists hammering on them all the time, though. My wife was knocked
flat last year by some tool when she braked for a maintenance truck
blocking the trail. I've never had a collision (or any serious close
calls) in perhaps 1k round trips of the 20 mile loop over the last 30
years.


You probably missed quite a few openings in traffic then.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/1/2010 2:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

Off road facilities always seem to have the challenge of mixed use and
people treating them like sidewalks. Again, I think they're safe
enough if you don't push it. I don't use them when I'm in a hurry. I
see cyclists hammering on them all the time, though. My wife was
knocked flat last year by some tool when she braked for a maintenance
truck blocking the trail. I've never had a collision (or any serious
close calls) in perhaps 1k round trips of the 20 mile loop over the
last 30 years.


You probably missed quite a few openings in traffic then.

Off-road trail.

On Oct 1, 11:00*am, AMuzi wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/1/2010 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:55 am, Peter *wrote:

I tend to couch my comments on facilities, sometimes implicitly,
unfortunately, in an urban context. I'm just not as familiar with
suburban/rural cycling lanes. Several experienced riders have commented
how they find lanes useful in those areas, I have no difficulty
accepting that.

I heard the comments from riders IRT the NYC bike lane-- "It was
better without the bike lane"-- the first time through.

That was the First Avenue bike lane. Apparently, some aspects of the
design (left hand side) were driven to accommodate the express bus lane
and the large hospital on one part of the route.

No doubt cyclists can/could make better time in the traffic lanes, but
that always involves a lot of wending through stopped/slowed cars and
around double parked vehicles. You can go much faster than motor
vehicles in "courier" mode, at the expense of a fair amount of
additional risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12439875

Some problems ("delivery men") don't have an easy solution. Time to
back up and try again-- maybe sharrows, and some signage?
And separate "recreational" facilities elsewhere?

I don't know how many are riding First Ave. for recreation. The delivery
problem remains with the "buffered" lanes. In some places deliveries are
restricted by time of day, that's one potential way to reduce conflict.

The hike and bike trails I rode in Houston had shortcomings but it
wasn't all bad by any means, and at least there was someplace to ride.
I used what was there and did well. PITA sometimes but for all the
close calls, I never did have a collision or accident while riding on
the path. Vastly preferable to The Death Ride (as constituted in the
late '90's/early 2000's when I lived there).

Off road facilities always seem to have the challenge of mixed use and
people treating them like sidewalks. Again, I think they're safe enough
if you don't push it. I don't use them when I'm in a hurry. I see
cyclists hammering on them all the time, though. My wife was knocked
flat last year by some tool when she braked for a maintenance truck
blocking the trail. I've never had a collision (or any serious close
calls) in perhaps 1k round trips of the 20 mile loop over the last 30
years.

You probably missed quite a few openings in traffic then.

Sort of OT, but I was rolling down the ramp in to my work garage
yesterday and sqeaking by all the cars to get to the gate, and I
passed this guy on a bike waiting in this long line, and he gets all
****y with me. Like I'm supposed to wait behind everyone when I'm not
even metered in to the garage? With all the time it takes for the cars
to get in to the garage, you would think that swiping a pass or taking
a ticket was brain surgery. You can wait forever to get down that
hill. Some bicyclists are compliant to an unnecessary degree.

Even if the driveway were a road and subject to the Oregon UVC, I can
pass on the right so long as I am being safe -- so I was not being
"non-compliant." I do comply at the bottom and wait for the first in
line car to get through so I don't trip the "B loop" on the gate
sensor and drop the arm on the car. -- Jay Beattie.