bike lanes

I found the article interesting, too. I was hoping the author would give a more balanced view of the argument (“should there be protected bicycle lanes?”), but the article is definitely an opinion piece from the author’s view. I’d sum it up like this: they put a protected lane on the author’s daily route and he doesn’t like it, so therefore he decides to spend the rest of the piece trying to persuade readers against having protected lanes anywhere. The author seems to like having multiple sets of cycling infrastructure like bike lanes, sharrows, and trails, but his bias gets in the way of accepting any sort of use for protected lanes.

I think (and hope, for Godwin’s sake) the only reason for the reference to the Nazis was to point out that separate cycling facilities were being created at that time explicitly for the purpose of keeping bicycles entirely off roads (and therefore out of the way of cars), obviously contrary to what a good deal of us on this site would promote. I think (and am sure I’m not alone in this) that we need a mixture of bike lanes, bike routes with/without sharrows, cycletracks, and trails for all levels of cyclists so that cyclists can feel comfortable riding in general, later becoming comfortable riding in the street, and drivers will become more aware of cyclists and their presence on/around roads.

How does one determine whether Vehicular Cyclists, advocates for segregated (on-street) facilities, neither, or both constitute a cult?

@dasgeh 52089 wrote:

I think the biggest thing to remember is that cyclists are safest when drivers expect to see them and look for them.

YES. This is why CaBi has done so much for biking in DC. It’s played a huge part in getting more people biking, and getting cars used to seeing bikes. Biking on 14th St is MUCH safer and easier now than it was 2 years ago, despite the best efforts of the construction crews to block as much of the bike lanes as possible, because cars, especially regular commuters, know that there are going to be bikes there.

@dasgeh 52089 wrote:

I think the biggest thing to remember is that cyclists are safest when drivers expect to see them and look for them. Having driven in Berlin, I can tell you I expect cyclists to my right, on the street. At least at the end of the 1990s, when I lived there, that’s where cyclists were. When you turned right, you looked over your shoulder for them. Pretty much all drivers did it because it was hammered home in drivers ed (imagine that!) and because often enough, you’d actually see cyclists.

If you are turning right, why would you not merge into the “lane” where cyclists would be before turning? That is the easiest way to avoid a right hook (and signalling so someone won’t try to pass you on the right).

@dasgeh 52089 wrote:

Sometimes, cycletracks are the way to go (like when you want to enable 2 way bike traffic on a one-way road), but it’s good to remember that the system has to draw drivers’ attention to the presence of cyclists where they wouldn’t normally be.

Hate to disagree, but why would you ever want to enable 2 way bike traffic on a one-way road. This, in my opinion, is asking for trouble.

@DismalScientist 52099 wrote:

If you are turning right, why would you not merge into the “lane” where cyclists would be before turning? That is the easiest way to avoid a right hook (and signalling so someone won’t try to pass you on the right).

It’s the design of the infrastructure there. The bike lanes continue through. Cars are expected to stop and look over their shoulder, not merge in. Since it’s taught in the extensive training you have to take before getting a DL, and everyone does it (I was driving on my American DL, but my German friends corrected me), and you see cyclists all the time to your right, people do it and it works. Plus, what mstone said.

@DismalScientist 52099 wrote:

Hate to disagree, but why would you ever want to enable 2 way bike traffic on a one-way road. This, in my opinion, is asking for trouble.

There are lots of reasons, including hills, available room, routing. See, e.g. two-way cycletracks on one-way roads in DC.

@DismalScientist 52111 wrote:

While I might agree with this, it is less likely that a cyclist will pass a moving driver merging to the right than an almost stopped driver making a (presumably unsignaled) right turn.

I should clarify: as a driver to turn right, you’re expected to stay in the right-most car lane, use your signal, then look over your should for cyclists in the bike lane, and onto the sidewalk for peds about to enter the crosswalk. You almost always have to stop to do all of this. Once it’s clear, you make the right turn. It’s really not that hard.

As a cyclist, going straight in the bike lane, you have ROW over a driver turning right across the bike lane, just like a ped going straight through the crosswalk has ROW over the drivers turning through the crosswalk. It’s just like any city: everyone adapts to the prevailing behavior. The prevailing behavior is that drivers look, so cyclists and peds cautiously keep going straight past cars with their turn signals on (usually stopping). As a cyclist and as a ped, you can usually tell if a driver isn’t going to stop as they should.

@DismalScientist 52114 wrote:

The design here is the opposite, if inconsistently marked. That’s why there are dashed line on the left side of bike lane at corners.

Yes, it is the opposite here. I mentioned Berlin because the article specifically discussed Berlin, and this thread is about that article. My point: in Berlin, there’s a prevailing culture that guides what drivers expect, and cycletracks go against that. No surprise that cycletracks aren’t working in Berlin. What’s your point?

@DismalScientist 52114 wrote:

Every one, in my opinion, is a mistake.

Agree to disagree there.