Making "protected" bike lanes safe

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-7, 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 :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

Maybe I should fly over to Thailand and have a little discussion with you about living in a foreign country and criticizing the elected leaders here. Bare knuckles. ****ant

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

I don't know how you could stop delivery vans from stopping in the bike lane or why you would want to. What is more important is that when that delivery truck is there it is plain to cars approaching and if they do NOT yield right of way to a bicycle that is there first they should be snatched out of their cars and taken down to the city jail. Cars DO NOT own the roads and one of the negative aspects of bike lanes is that cars believe that bikes therefore do not belong in a car lane. But a cooling off period in a jail and taking the license away from a person for a second violation would change matters a great deal.

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:16:40 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:48:01 PM UTC-5, 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.

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.

Interestingly the "toll roads" all parallel main multi-lane highways
and simply allow a somewhat less crowded, and usually faster, path.

--
cheers,

John B.

I really want to run into you here and have a very heated discussion with you about your f-ing comments about OUR government. I promise you that you will decide not to talk politics about something you are not involved with.

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?

" writes:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:48:01 PM UTC-5, 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.

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.

That's actually up to the individual states. Bicycles are allowed on
quite a few western interstates, and, according to Wikipedia, all of them in
Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-...ss_on_freeways

AK writes:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 10:37:32 PM UTC-5, 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?

Good point about the street cleaning. Bike lanes accumulate trash and
glass quickly.

Andy

I keep hoping I will see some bills in it sometimes. :-)

Keep looking. I found two dollar bills last year, along with a number of
sockets, screwdrivers, allen wrenches, and rolls of electrical tape.

--

writes:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:16:40 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:48:01 PM UTC-5, 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.

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.

Interestingly the "toll roads" all parallel main multi-lane highways
and simply allow a somewhat less crowded, and usually faster, path.

--
cheers,

John B.

I really want to run into you here and have a very heated discussion
with you about your f-ing comments about OUR government. I promise you
that you will decide not to talk politics about something you are not
involved with.

John is a US citizen, as much as you are. He's entitled to vote, and
he's liable for US taxes, even, potentially, on money earned in
Thailand.

Given the influence the US government has on affairs all over the world
that anyone, anywhere, has the right to an opinion it.

On 4/10/2019 11:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:48:01 PM UTC-5, John B. 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.
--
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.

There was one instance, maybe six or seven years ago, when I was on a
solo ride on a nice quiet country road. A motorist passed and yelled
"Get on the bike trail."

I yelled "Get on the freeway!"

He didn't hear, but it gave me a feeling of satisfaction.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2019 11:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:


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.

That's actually up to the individual states. Bicycles are allowed on
quite a few western interstates, and, according to Wikipedia, all of them in
Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-...ss_on_freeways

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




--
- Frank Krygowski

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.