helmet cam urban bike videos, Nashville TN

I'm a bike guy. I commute by bike and I have a cargo bike I haul my kids, groceries, etc. on and I almost never drive a car. Nashville TN is a dangerous place for this.

I have read up on guidelines and precedents in other cities. Nashville is doing a shameful job on bike facilities. I have some serious documentation of all of these issues I will share with some city council members this fall.. One other thing I am doing is making some videos to depict the problem to folks who do not ride bikes. Here are two of them:

KVB Nashville Complete Street Bike Lane
https://vimeo.com/133250895


Virtual Complete Streets Bike Tour: 11th Ave & 28/31 Connector
https://vimeo.com/135276690


I also do some fun bike videos, here is my son biking on an old airplane runway that is now part of a park greenway...
https://vimeo.com/133310731

Regarding your first video: In 1967 Davis California built an on-street bike
lane "protected" from traffic by a lane of parked cars. But they soon found
that the design didn't work. They abandoned that design because the crash rate
was far higher than other designs.

In the 1970s (IIRC) the same thing happened in Columbus, Ohio. The city put in
a "protected" bike lane adjacent to the OSU campus, with the "protection"
provided by a row of posts or bollards. They ripped that out within a couple
years because the crashes and other problems were too great.

Now we have bicycle advocates pretending that the concept is the only safe way
to use a bicycle on the road. That's despite this prior experience, and despite
the fairly obvious potential for conflicts.

The red concrete sidepaths you seem to like have the same sorts of problems.
Cyclists are relegated to - what? - 18" of pavement squeezed between walkers
and landscape shrubs? With sharp dropoffs into the landscape to take down
cyclists who don't ride perfectly straight lines, or who may have to dodge a
dozing pedestrian or dog on a leash?

Both designs put straight-through bicycles to the right of right turning cars.
Both designs keep the cyclist out of the attention of a motorist crossing the
cyclist's path at a driveway or intersecting street. Both encourage a fast
cyclist to pop out in front of a car with no warning.

And even the conventional bike lanes obviously tempted you to pass on the right
_and_ in the door zone when motorists might turn across your path without
warning. You need to lose the idea that any bike facility is a good bike
facility. You need to read up a bit to learn the dangers inherent in some
of these "innovative" bike facilities. And it would also be a good idea to
learn common causes of car-bike crashes, and techniques for avoiding them.

Education should be the first step in advocacy. It helps reduce the calls for
weird facilities like door-zone bike lanes. In fact, with enough education,
most cyclists don't need "innovative" facilities. They do very well - better,
in fact - with the facilities that already exist: the roads we have.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Effecti...oadsWeHave.htm

- Frank Krygowski

Thanks Frank.
I agree with everything you said. I have not explained my perspective.

The conventional wisdom in Nashville is to go for "low hanging fruit" and I'm just about the only one here saying that such fruit is rotten.

I agree that there are problems with using parked cars. I was aware of that part of the story in Davis but conveniently ignored it. My point is that Nashville is far behind other cities. Nashville has spent millions on these strange bike sidewalks that are not properly distinguished from pedestrian facilities.

For example, many cities paint solid green stripes at least at intersections, that would be a big help. I've never gotten doored but have been hit twice by turning cars and had other close calls.

What I want most is some cheap (even low profile) protection for existing painted bike lanes. I firmly believe that any physical object, no matter how small, protects bike lane users better than paint.

On 8/7/2015 1:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Regarding your first video: In 1967 Davis California built an on-street bike
lane "protected" from traffic by a lane of parked cars. But they soon found
that the design didn't work. They abandoned that design because the crash rate
was far higher than other designs.

In the 1970s (IIRC) the same thing happened in Columbus, Ohio. The city put in
a "protected" bike lane adjacent to the OSU campus, with the "protection"
provided by a row of posts or bollards. They ripped that out within a couple
years because the crashes and other problems were too great.

Now we have bicycle advocates pretending that the concept is the only safe way
to use a bicycle on the road. That's despite this prior experience, and despite
the fairly obvious potential for conflicts.

The red concrete sidepaths you seem to like have the same sorts of problems.
Cyclists are relegated to - what? - 18" of pavement squeezed between walkers
and landscape shrubs? With sharp dropoffs into the landscape to take down
cyclists who don't ride perfectly straight lines, or who may have to dodge a
dozing pedestrian or dog on a leash?

Both designs put straight-through bicycles to the right of right turning cars.
Both designs keep the cyclist out of the attention of a motorist crossing the
cyclist's path at a driveway or intersecting street. Both encourage a fast
cyclist to pop out in front of a car with no warning.

And even the conventional bike lanes obviously tempted you to pass on the right
_and_ in the door zone when motorists might turn across your path without
warning. You need to lose the idea that any bike facility is a good bike
facility. You need to read up a bit to learn the dangers inherent in some
of these "innovative" bike facilities. And it would also be a good idea to
learn common causes of car-bike crashes, and techniques for avoiding them.

Education should be the first step in advocacy. It helps reduce the calls for
weird facilities like door-zone bike lanes. In fact, with enough education,
most cyclists don't need "innovative" facilities. They do very well - better,
in fact - with the facilities that already exist: the roads we have.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Effecti...oadsWeHave.htm

- Frank Krygowski


Indeed. I ride out of my way to avoid former cycling routes
which have been 'enhanced' with that sort of crap. Expensive
and ugly and counterproductive and deadly; the legacy of
Andrew Clarke and his ilk.

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

On 08/08/15 04:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Regarding your first video: In 1967 Davis California built an on-street bike
lane "protected" from traffic by a lane of parked cars. But they soon found
that the design didn't work. They abandoned that design because the crash rate
was far higher than other designs.

In the 1970s (IIRC) the same thing happened in Columbus, Ohio. The city put in
a "protected" bike lane adjacent to the OSU campus, with the "protection"
provided by a row of posts or bollards. They ripped that out within a couple
years because the crashes and other problems were too great.

Now we have bicycle advocates pretending that the concept is the only safe way
to use a bicycle on the road. That's despite this prior experience, and despite
the fairly obvious potential for conflicts.

The red concrete sidepaths you seem to like have the same sorts of problems.
Cyclists are relegated to - what? - 18" of pavement squeezed between walkers
and landscape shrubs? With sharp dropoffs into the landscape to take down
cyclists who don't ride perfectly straight lines, or who may have to dodge a
dozing pedestrian or dog on a leash?

Both designs put straight-through bicycles to the right of right turning cars.
Both designs keep the cyclist out of the attention of a motorist crossing the
cyclist's path at a driveway or intersecting street. Both encourage a fast
cyclist to pop out in front of a car with no warning.

And even the conventional bike lanes obviously tempted you to pass on the right
_and_ in the door zone when motorists might turn across your path without
warning. You need to lose the idea that any bike facility is a good bike
facility. You need to read up a bit to learn the dangers inherent in some
of these "innovative" bike facilities. And it would also be a good idea to
learn common causes of car-bike crashes, and techniques for avoiding them.


I often wonder if the engineers, architects, designers, or who ever the
people are who come up with the innovative solutions to segregated
infrastructure, have a vested interest in doing a really bad job such
that more people crash and the idea goes away.

--
JS

Nashvile cats...dowahdowahdowah.....

how's the Xanax market ?

yawl make a good case that most bicyclists are stupid, unlearned and uncoordinated

THE Feds did a I 95 highway rebuild outside Cocoa FL killing one a month or more.
There's one above Tampa now but I doahn follow it.

and what you would experience driving that ...in daylight...is that a modicum of skill was necessary to negotiate the disaster.

so lets bear down shall we....

4Per AMuzi:

Indeed. I ride out of my way to avoid former cycling routes
which have been 'enhanced' with that sort of crap. Expensive
and ugly and counterproductive and deadly; the legacy of
Andrew Clarke and his ilk.

The best "Bike Lane" (quotes because it is not...) I have seen so far is
Haven Avenue in Ocean City, New Jersey.

Basically, it is a regular old street that parallels main thoroughfares
and it's functionality is in 15 and 20 mph speed limits the entire
length. Anybody that's actually going somewhere and/or is in a hurry
takes one of the parallel streets leaving Haven Avenue to bikes and
slow-moving super-local motor vehicles who are free to mix it up any way
they want. The only improvement I can think of would be removing all
the stop signs so that cross traffic stops and Haven Avenue traffic does
not.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:47:44 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
4Per AMuzi:

Indeed. I ride out of my way to avoid former cycling routes
which have been 'enhanced' with that sort of crap. Expensive
and ugly and counterproductive and deadly; the legacy of
Andrew Clarke and his ilk.

The best "Bike Lane" (quotes because it is not...) I have seen so far is
Haven Avenue in Ocean City, New Jersey.

Basically, it is a regular old street that parallels main thoroughfares
and it's functionality is in 15 and 20 mph speed limits the entire
length. Anybody that's actually going somewhere and/or is in a hurry
takes one of the parallel streets leaving Haven Avenue to bikes and
slow-moving super-local motor vehicles who are free to mix it up any way
they want. The only improvement I can think of would be removing all
the stop signs so that cross traffic stops and Haven Avenue traffic does
not.
--
Pete Cresswell

perpetual cruise ?

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Thanks Frank.
I agree with everything you said. I have not explained my perspective.

The conventional wisdom in Nashville is to go for "low hanging fruit" and I'm just about the only one here saying that such fruit is rotten.

I agree that there are problems with using parked cars. I was aware of that part of the story in Davis but conveniently ignored it. My point is that Nashville is far behind other cities. Nashville has spent millions on these strange bike sidewalks that are not properly distinguished from pedestrian facilities.

For example, many cities paint solid green stripes at least at intersections, that would be a big help. I've never gotten doored but have been hit twice by turning cars and had other close calls.

What I want most is some cheap (even low profile) protection for existing painted bike lanes. I firmly believe that any physical object, no matter how small, protects bike lane users better than paint.

Those physical objects create a trap. A right turning car will box you in. You can't go around the back, and turning with the car may be impossible due to road width. Imagine a low cement chute blocked by a car. It also makes road cleaning impossible -- crap builds up and stays there forever. A cycle track formed by parked cars is even worse because you are hidden from right-turning traffic and pedestrians are constantly stepping in to the track to get to their cars or simply because they think it is a giant pedestrian mall.

We have cycle tracks in PDX. They're awful -- they even have adjacent bus stops, so the bus stops in the road, opens its doors, and all the pedestrians step into the cycle track without even looking because they're watching the bus door. At least with an ordinary bike lane, you can go around the bus.

We had curb-separated bike lanes. Those were awful, too, and they were eventually removed. Cycle tracks are now making a comeback for some reason. Maybe five years ago, we got the giant SW Moody Cycletrack which is truly a rate maze. I take it when I'm feeling too happy and need to **** myself off. All of these separated facilities put you behind slow moving bicyclists, often with little or no room to pass.

IMO, successful infrastructure has been bicycle boulevards (traffic calmed streets), painted bike lanes on roadways -- although those can be hazardous, but they are becoming less so because motorists are finally starting to learn the rules and treat them like separate lanes. There are some MUPs that are pretty successful -- depending on the amount of pedestrian traffic.

Fully separate bicycle facilities might work ala Amsterdam, but these chutes and mazes where you are mixed in with cars and pedestrians suck.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/7/2015 7:47 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
4Per AMuzi:

Indeed. I ride out of my way to avoid former cycling routes
which have been 'enhanced' with that sort of crap. Expensive
and ugly and counterproductive and deadly; the legacy of
Andrew Clarke and his ilk.

The best "Bike Lane" (quotes because it is not...) I have seen so far is
Haven Avenue in Ocean City, New Jersey.

Basically, it is a regular old street that parallels main thoroughfares
and it's functionality is in 15 and 20 mph speed limits the entire
length. Anybody that's actually going somewhere and/or is in a hurry
takes one of the parallel streets leaving Haven Avenue to bikes and
slow-moving super-local motor vehicles who are free to mix it up any way
they want. The only improvement I can think of would be removing all
the stop signs so that cross traffic stops and Haven Avenue traffic does
not.

+1 to all that. I've really liked the bike boulevards I've tried. And
absent "official" bike boulevards, I like less-traveled streets parallel
to busy arterials. I can and do ride the arterials when I need to, but
quiet parallel streets are aesthetically nicer. And it's great when
they have no stop signs.


--
- Frank Krygowski