Making "protected" bike lanes safe

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles. Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes." And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights and stop signs next?

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:49:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2019 11:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 8:52:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've bicycled hundreds of miles on interstates out west. I'm sure others
posting here have done so as well.

Looks like about 20 states allow bikes in interstates, at least under
certain conditions. Not all those states are out west.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-mo...ss_on_freeways


Oregon does, except in the Portland metro area. I've ridden down to Salem on the highway a few times. Fast, but not very pleasant.

I was sort of amazed when riding out west with my wife and daughter. I'd
have thought they'd object to the traffic noise of the interstates, and
opt for the quieter parallel routes when they existed.

Nope, they wanted to get places faster. We rode the interstates.

I used to ride I-84 a lot between Cascade Locks and Warrendale along the Columbia River. It was the only way to do that segment. https://ontourwithsteadyjeffdotcom.f...2423.jpg?w=756

Now, however, there is an insane amount of infrastructure through the woods.. https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...k-jon-ares.jpg And they're building more along the highway all the way out to the Dalles. The expense must be staggering. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc.../283-581148771

I pass this on the way home from skiing when I go through Hood River, and its truly amazing. It makes the Taj Mahal look like a kitchen remodel.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/11/2019 4:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:49:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2019 11:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 8:52:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've bicycled hundreds of miles on interstates out west. I'm sure others
posting here have done so as well.

Looks like about 20 states allow bikes in interstates, at least under
certain conditions. Not all those states are out west.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-mo...ss_on_freeways


Oregon does, except in the Portland metro area. I've ridden down to Salem on the highway a few times. Fast, but not very pleasant.

I was sort of amazed when riding out west with my wife and daughter. I'd
have thought they'd object to the traffic noise of the interstates, and
opt for the quieter parallel routes when they existed.

Nope, they wanted to get places faster. We rode the interstates.

I used to ride I-84 a lot between Cascade Locks and Warrendale along the Columbia River. It was the only way to do that segment. https://ontourwithsteadyjeffdotcom.f...2423.jpg?w=756

Now, however, there is an insane amount of infrastructure through the woods. https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...k-jon-ares.jpg And they're building more along the highway all the way out to the Dalles. The expense must be staggering. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc.../283-581148771

I pass this on the way home from skiing when I go through Hood River, and its truly amazing. It makes the Taj Mahal look like a kitchen remodel.

I remember riding that interstate. Unlike most of the ones further east,
that was pretty horrible. (The raging headwinds didn't help.) I'd have
been very happy to see the separated paths noted in that article.

But I'm glad I don't have to pay for them - except, I suppose, for my
share of whatever federal funding they got.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/11/2019 11:54 AM, jbeattie wrote:
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.

Do you ever watch Rick Steves travel videos? In a couple of them, he's
remarked that certain European cities are so charming and beautiful
precisely because they lost their prosperity - for example, when the
port that caused the city to grow became silted up and commerce moved
elsewhere.

Jay and Tom live in areas where there's booming business and growing
population. That brings more and more vehicles packing onto the same
roads.

I live in a metro area that suddenly lost its major industry, which
was making steel. After that we lost a major electrical component
manufacturer (Delphi) when GM decided to make wiring harnesses in
Mexico. And we just lost a huge GM assembly plant in Lordstown,
despite the Trumpster saying "Don't sell your houses. Steel is coming
back, manufacturing is coming back..."

Yeah, Tom's got lovely weather, Jay's got views of Mt. Hood. Your home
values (and your taxes) are soaring to the stratosphere. But I've got
nice empty roads!

That works if you're retired. You can hang out and play the banjo all day.

But if you're really serious about a nice commute, move to Nyapidaw:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...-highways-wifi

--

On 4/11/2019 8:54 AM, jbeattie wrote:
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.

50 miles south of you is pretty tolerable. Some of the roads (I'm
thinking most of 99W, 22, and even 221) have decent to giant shoulders,
but the traffic is definitely far less. Most of the secondary/tertiary
roads are shoulderless but it's not a problem (for me at least) as the
traffic is so light.

PS - yep, I spend more than a few miles cycling on the Oregon interstate
a many years back, legally as you noted earlier. Usually wide shoulder
(except where it turns into a truck climbing lane in the southern hilly
bits!), so you just get a big dose of excitement every few miles
crossing the on/off ramps.

One of my prouder accomplishments is mapping a Salem-Ashland route that
completely avoids the [legal-to-use] interstate (but one leg is a bit
dodgy around Wolf Creek).

A few years ago I met a cyclotourist in Willamina (West of Salem) a few
years back and suggested a cycling route toward Eugene, as he only had a
gas station map. Checked his blog later to see that he'd slagged me for
suggesting shoulderless roads; he preferred the big shoulder on the
interstate. Go figure.

Mark J.

On 4/11/2019 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles. Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes." And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights and stop signs next?


Mr Slocumb, retired USAF, probably intended that as humor.

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

AMuzi writes:

On 4/11/2019 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA
you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles.
Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or
have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the
solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes."
And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA
has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you
suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would
suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American
already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as
suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel
Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates
have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that
is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights
and stop signs next?


Mr Slocumb, retired USAF, probably intended that as humor.

He's also considerably older than interstates.

AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2019 11:58 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 11.04.2019 um 15:33 schrieb AMuzi:
Perhaps he noticed that Viktor Orban just won his 4th election.
[erroneous insertion removed]

But just one wife.

Which is not difficult after changing the electoral rules to his benefit.

What exactly is your problem with Hungary's 2018 electoral rules? "Your"
ethnic party having only won one seat?


The insertion above is not mine. I wrote about Trudeau.

My apologies, that wasn't intentional. I somehow read some other line when
sloppily looking up to see what "he" referred to.

On 4/11/2019 4:31 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 4/11/2019 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA
you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles.
Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or
have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the
solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes."
And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA
has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you
suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would
suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American
already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as
suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel
Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates
have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that
is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights
and stop signs next?


Mr Slocumb, retired USAF, probably intended that as humor.

He's also considerably older than interstates.

meh, that's a low bar. Even I clear it.

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

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:33:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:25:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the street. In many places you have broken glass in the lane and you have to pull out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy gusting winds and on the downhills I had to use the entire lane to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60 mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or just let the bicycles share the lane with the motor vehicles?

It's legal here. It's what I do. It works. Remember, I'm the guy who
doesn't have cars cut across my path, despite the lack of magic DRLs.

Well, I had supposed that building bike lanes was actually beneficial
to the cyclist. Otherwise why would your duly elected leaders build
them? Rather like the great Wall of America that your leader is intent
on building will make the U.S. safe from those poor misbegotten people
in South America.

Strangely we don't have those things here and I don't find it
difficult to ride here :-) In fact, as I have written, the only time I
have felt in real danger was when I ran a stop sign and someone was
coming the other way. It was a three way cross and I didn't see anyone
so just kept going.... I hadn't noticed a pickup which came over the
brow of a little rise. I went off the road (very quickly) and crashed
in a bed of nettles :-)

Don't be obtuse. Nearly everyone here likes immigrants, who
are not the same as illegal entries. Even loopy-left Trudeau
understand that problem:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47874012

An interesting statement as I read at
www.christianpost.com that:

Average Americans believe that immigrants have had more of a negative
than beneficial impact on the crime rate, the economy, social and
moral values, and job opportunities, according to the recent Gallup
poll.

The survey, conducted June 4-24 and released Friday, showed that 58
percent of Americans believe the crime situation is worst because of
immigrants, while 46 percent say this people group has negatively
impacted the economy in general.
--
cheers,

John B.