The case for physically separated bike lanes

On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary
wrote:
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?

Maybe because it is easier and more effective to build a physical
facility than it would be to achieve the utopian ideal of eliminating
negligent, inconsiderate, inattentive, and just plain dumb human
actions?

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.

Of course, ticket and tow but according to NYCMap there are
approximately 6200 miles of paved roads in NYC. How many parking
enforcement people and tow truck drivers would it take to eliminate
the problem through enforcement?

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.

If you think that is stupid how stupid do you think I and all the
other road riders are for biking at 15-20 mph "right next to" traffic
going 40-50 mph?

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an offsetting drop in bike vs car
door and bike vs motor vehicle crashes. There are no universally
applicable solutions just as there are no perfect solutions.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Apr 1, 10:06 am, Wayne Pein wrote:
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

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything- MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you.

It was her fault, no?

What happened to her?

Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging
effect on motorists running down cyclists?

If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any
road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in
motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there,
motorists do not...

On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything- MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor
Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really
follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either
repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic
lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the
U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and
basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at
the current repainting cycle for that roadway.

Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs
and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges
of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I
can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would
have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly
(basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of
concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still
left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of
disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists,
but it never happened.

In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could
narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then
whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of
adding asphalt.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.

From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and
planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to
bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who
want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange
bedfellows.

If you love, something let it be free.

Wayne

Wayne Pein wrote:
Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.

From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and
planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to
bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who
want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange
bedfellows.

If you love, something let it be free.

Wayne

That is probably true for most of the country. Here they have made a
token effort by paving some old railroad rights of way, the tops of
levees, and a few odd spots that nobody even go to.
Planning? Maybe, but not good planning.
Haphazard is the best I can rate it.
Bill Baka

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything- MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor
Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really
follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either
repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic
lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the
U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and
basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at
the current repainting cycle for that roadway.

Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs
and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges
of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I
can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would
have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly
(basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of
concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still
left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of
disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists,
but it never happened.

In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could
narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then
whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of
adding asphalt.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains
a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are
bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road.
In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is
a 'door zone' so caution is always in order.
Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners
are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health.
That's real world.
Bill Baka

yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is
more balanced that way.

nash wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains
a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are
bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road.
In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is
a 'door zone' so caution is always in order.
Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners
are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health.
That's real world.
Bill Baka

yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is
more balanced that way.


Why not? Get rid of some of the too old to think hanger on types.
Damn politicians never want to retire.
Picture this.....
Bicycle day for the Senate and Congress.
Would Teddy Kennedy make it in or crash in a creek?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Bill Baka

On Apr 2, 6:08 am, _ wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you.

she was asleep

It was her fault, no?

see above

What happened to her?

Careless driving resulting in an injury.

Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging
effect on motorists running down cyclists?

of course not...she could have only been punished more if she had
killed me.

If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any
road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in
motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there,
motorists do not...

see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people
somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over,
some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between
the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:58:10 -0700, Bob wrote:

On Apr 1, 12:18 pm, Doc O'Leary
wrote:

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.

Accident rates for separate bike paths are actually worse than for bikes
on roads. Bike-ped collisions are common and often serious, but usually
not reported as traffic accidents when they occur on separate bike paths.

If you think that is stupid how stupid do you think I and all the other
road riders are for biking at 15-20 mph "right next to" traffic going
40-50 mph?

According to car-bike collision statistics, this isn't a major
issue. "Hit from behind" accidents, which cyclists worry most about,
are quite rare.

The most common accidents are at intersections or driveways, especially
where people are riding on sidewalks, and especially against the flow of
traffic. This is the major problem with separated bike lanes as shown in
this video. They'd be fine if they didn't cross driveways or
intersections, weren't two-way, and weren't off to the side -- where sight
lines are poor, and where drivers aren't looking for cross traffic.

Imagine driving a car, making a left turn across normal traffic, but then
having to account for the equivalent of 15mph, two-way bike traffic on the
sidewalk. (This is why we're required to walk bikes in crosswalks.) Now
imagine a poor driver, one who's impatient, agitated, distracted, tired,
drunk, senile, or just not too bright, trying to cope with this situation.

Why create what we know to be the most dangerous situation?

If you can solve all these problems, then fine, separate bike paths are
great. They do encourage more people to ride.

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an offsetting drop in bike vs car
door and bike vs motor vehicle crashes.

Sometimes we're in a position of choosing one bad thing over a perceived
worse one. Welcome to public safety management.

There are no universally
applicable solutions just as there are no perfect solutions.

Absolutely. But we have a better chance of solving problems when we
deconstruct each situation, and actually design a solution, according to
accepted best practices. The danger is thinking we've discovered a pat
solution for everything.

Matt O.