Army-Navy Drive losing a bit of the bike lane?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 166147 wrote:

The study had 2/3rds of injuries at non-intersection locations. Is this typical?

Site matching procedure seems arbitrary and am wondering whether a fixed effects model is appropriate, although there is insufficient data. Given the inherent choices being made by cyclists, endogeneity is often an issue. I don’t think using the cyclists prior path solves this as it suggests that each intersection is an independent choice and not path-dependent. There is also a big selection issue as different types of cyclist may choose different types of infrastructure.
Lastly, this shows that cycle paths are safer between intersections than bike paths and bike lanes are slightly safer than bike paths. This seems counterintuitive.

I believe Teschke has also been criticized for misspecifying infra types at some locations.

Though as to two other points – I think bike paths in that article means two way trails (?) so that might make some sense. And I believe I have read elsewhere that the proportion of non intersection injuries to intersection injuries is higher than you see suggested in the Forrester-school literature.

Clearly though there is lots of room for more studies.

[Judd]

Also, lest I’m coming across as anti-PBL, I’m only anti car buffered PBL because of the sight line issues. They’re ok when there not along driveways, alleys or other uncontrolled intersections where a driver legitimately can’t see a cyclist when turning.

If I had kids, I’d rather have them bike in a car-PBL than a Door Zone Bike Lane or on the road.

[Steve O]

It’s pretty well established that the greatest factor that improves safety for people riding bikes (and, all road users) is the presence of more people on bikes. If PBLs significantly increase the number of people riding bikes out in the world, then overall safety will increase for everyone. I am strongly pro anything-that-gets-more-people-riding infrastructure.
Even if that infrastructure, in isolation, is shown to be no more safe than no infrastructure at all.

That being said, if the choice is between infrastructure that gets more people riding AND is safer than different infrastructure that also gets more people riding, then I favor the first. Of course.

[lordofthemark]

@Judd 166150 wrote:

Also, lest I’m coming across as anti-PBL, I’m only anti car buffered PBL because of the sight line issues. They’re ok when there not along driveways, alleys or other uncontrolled intersections where a driver legitimately can’t see a cyclist when turning.

If I had kids, I’d rather have them bike in a car-PBL than a Door Zone Bike Lane or on the road.

That is why the state of the art car protected PBL has the intersections “daylighted” – no parking close to the intersection. From what I can gather this works well in Manhattan, where A. most (all?) PBLs are one way B> NYCDOT has been pretty strict about daylighting all the intersections C. midblock driveways are not that common. I haven’t ridden on the 15th Street PBL recently, but I think its less good in all these respects?

(note though, I think all or at least most of my close calls wrt driveways on Eads Street have been cars turning ONTO Eads Street, rather than off it, so visibility was not the problem, but rather other aspects of driver behavior)

Note, daylighting intersections is an issue even where no bike lane is involved – parking up to the intersection leads drivers to pull into the crosswalk to get visibility (to make a right on red, or just to proceed at a stop sign). There is currently discussion of daylighting intersections in Alexandria, but pushback is expected because it would mean losing on street parking spaces.

[chris_s]

@lordofthemark 166155 wrote:

Note, daylighting intersections is an issue even where no bike lane is involved – parking up to the intersection leads drivers to pull into the crosswalk to get visibility (to make a right on red, or just to proceed at a stop sign). There is currently discussion of daylighting intersections in Alexandria, but pushback is expected because it would mean losing on street parking spaces.

Arlington seems to be trying hard to implement good sight distances on their parking-protected PBLs to the point where it is making them politically difficult to implement. Switching N Vietch to a PBL has been held up so that public outreach can be done because the amount of parking being removed for the sight lines is not insignificant.

[lordofthemark]

@chris_s 166161 wrote:

Arlington seems to be trying hard to implement good sight distances on their parking-protected PBLs to the point where it is making them politically difficult to implement. Switching N Vietch to a PBL has been held up so that public outreach can be done because the amount of parking being removed for the sight lines is not insignificant.

One side benefit some might see of a more general daylighting, would be to remove that incentive to fight PBLs. Note well, I do not see that. I would never call that a benefit of more general daylighting. Never, ever.

[DismalScientist]

@chris_s 166161 wrote:

Switching N Vietch to a PBL has been held up so that public outreach can be done because the amount of parking being removed for the sight lines is not insignificant.

GREAT… Can you please stop trying to implement car-protected PBL on every route I normally ride? I’m sure Fairfax is next. Thank God I moved offices when that M Street monstrosity went in. I refuse to ride in the Pennsylvania Ave. cycletrack.

I will simply ride in the now narrower general traffic lanes as I do not think that car-protected PBLs are safe. Sightlines are bad. I ride at a reasonable speed, which exacerbates these sightline issues. With parked cars, there are no escape routes from passenger side dooring or from pedestrians stepping into the lane, or joggers or salmoners.

Please don’t eliminate what I consider to the be safest routes for my commute. I’ve been riding for more than 40 years and I think I am able to judge what are the safest routes.

[dasgeh]

@chris_s 166161 wrote:

Switching N Vietch to a PBL has been held up so that public outreach can be done because the amount of parking being removed for the sight lines is not insignificant.

Which happens a lot when the amount of parking considered “not insignificant” is one space…

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 166166 wrote:

GREAT… Can you please stop trying to implement car-protected PBL on every route I normally ride? I’m sure Fairfax is next. Thank God I moved offices when that M Street monstrosity went in. I refuse to ride in the Pennsylvania Ave. cycletrack.

I will simply ride in the now narrower general traffic lanes as I do not think that car-protected PBLs are safe. Sightlines are bad. I ride at a reasonable speed, which exacerbates these sightline issues. With parked cars, there are no escape routes from passenger side dooring or from pedestrians stepping into the lane, or joggers or salmoners.

Please don’t eliminate what I consider to the be safest routes for my commute. I’ve been riding for more than 40 years and I think I am able to judge what are the safest routes.

Which are likely to have drivers going more slowly and more carefully than they do now. So for those taking the lane anyway, it will likely improve their safety and comfort. For those willing to ride to the right on a lane narrower than LAB and some others recommend, it may force them to take the lane instead of riding to the right, which may make them less comfortable (not sure if there are studies on the relative safety of these two different approaches to VC in a 12 foot (?) lane).

When we have riders who want seg infra, and we have two different schools of VC riding (as far as the width at which they will take the lane instead of riding to the right) the goal of satisfying ALL riders is complex.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 166188 wrote:

Which happens a lot when the amount of parking considered “not insignificant” is one space…

http://alextimes.com/2017/09/our-view-city-council-wish-list/

Finally, we remain very concerned about the dearth of parking in Old Town and Del Ray and stand by our assertion that city policies in recent years are part of an intentional war on cars. As with the issue of Confederate names, policies need to be set deliberately and as a result of community consensus.

Instead, we are in the midst of a march through required processes toward an attempted pre-determined approval of parking reductions for new construction.

Affected stakeholders need to speak up before this is rammed through city council later this fall.

Sometimes people asking for better things seem unaware of the political realities advocates for walking and biking (and transit and urbanism) face.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 166166 wrote:

GREAT… Can you please stop trying to implement car-protected PBL on every route I normally ride? I’m sure Fairfax is next. Thank God I moved offices when that M Street monstrosity went in. I refuse to ride in the Pennsylvania Ave. cycletrack.

I will simply ride in the now narrower general traffic lanes as I do not think that car-protected PBLs are safe. Sightlines are bad. I ride at a reasonable speed, which exacerbates these sightline issues. With parked cars, there are no escape routes from passenger side dooring or from pedestrians stepping into the lane, or joggers or salmoners.

Please don’t eliminate what I consider to the be safest routes for my commute. I’ve been riding for more than 40 years and I think I am able to judge what are the safest routes.

No one is eliminating anything – you are still free to ride in the travel lanes. But I’m still going to push for more PBLs because (1) it gets more people riding bikes; and (2) it puts a large object between my kids biking and moving cars (just yesterday there was a post on Women & Bikes about an Uber pulling into a woman riding in a painted bike lane, presumably because the driver “didn’t see her”.

[lordofthemark]

BTW, when I was riding the Eads Street SB PBL yesterday, I was more aware of the sightlines, and they were pretty good. The intersections were all well daylighted, at least after the point where it occured to me to look.

Now you can still can right hooked there, don’t get me wrong – because some drivers are morons/distracted/etc/. But I think us short people are in no greater danger from that than tall people.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 166200 wrote:

No one is eliminating anything – you are still free to ride in the travel lanes. But I’m still going to push for more PBLs because (1) it gets more people riding bikes; and (2) it puts a large object between my kids biking and moving cars (just yesterday there was a post on Women & Bikes about an Uber pulling into a woman riding in a painted bike lane, presumably because the driver “didn’t see her”.

Yes you are eliminating something. You are eliminating the “door zone” bike lane and “forcing” me to ride in the new, narrower traffic lanes! Since I can’t cruise at 25 mph, this means that cars can no longer pass me while staying in the lane. This tends to piss drivers off (although that seems to be the goal of a lot of cycling behavior–i.e. shoaling cars at red lights). Personally, I don’t like to piss drivers off and view transportation as a cooperative effort to get everyone where they want to go. Veitch is one lane in each direction and if I am in the narrow travel lane, it means cars cannot legally pass me at all. Drivers also tend to resent cyclist taking the lane when they see a piece of parallel bicycle infrastructure.

Personally, I won’t let MY kids ride in protected bike lanes. They are simply too dangerous, particularly at intersections. They are the moral equivalent of sidewalks with the same issues. I don’t think my kids have a sufficient understanding of traffic patterns to know how to deal these situations.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 166209 wrote:

Veitch is one lane in each direction and if I am in the narrow travel lane, it means cars cannot legally pass me at all. Drivers also tend to resent cyclist taking the lane when they see a piece of parallel bicycle infrastructure.

Personally, I won’t let MY kids ride in protected bike lanes. They are simply too dangerous, particularly at intersections. They are the moral equivalent of sidewalks with the same issues. I don’t think my kids have a sufficient understanding of traffic patterns to know how to deal these situations.

(1) Under Virginia law, a car can cross the double yellow to pass a bike. So “can’t legally pass me at all” is wrong. And if they can’t pass because there is oncoming traffic, then the car’s speed is slowed as much because of the oncoming traffic as it is because of you. It’s amazing how, when you point that out to people, they get it. Even people who never bike.

(2) As to what “drivers resent”, I think the vast majority of them get it — a person on a bike, even if that bike is in “their” lane — is one less car, which means less traffic, more parking for them. There are a few bad apples, but we shouldn’t overgeneralize based on a few bad apples. (BTW, bikes filtering actually makes overall traffic move faster, and again, when you explain this to people, they often get it and get less mad about it).

(3) To each his own. I teach my kids on sidewalks and on PBLs to ride like they are invisible, especially at intersections. The difference between a PBL and a BL is that a kid can’t accidentally swerve into traffic and a car can’t suddenly swerve into the bike lane in those stretches between intersections. So, safer.

Oh, and moral equivalency of transportation infrastructure…. what an odd construct. I’ll have to think on that. Of course, we’re not sharing tiny space among different modes, so that doesn’t seem to fit.

[streetsmarts]

I like your thinking here Dismal.

I have wondered recently about (something I’ve done) shoaling/passing to the front of cars at red lights. What do you all do? If streets are full and you’re on a bike, do you use your “bike privilege” and ride in between lanes or on the right (door zone) to get to the head of the crowd, or just wait a few light cycles like all the cars.(I was biking to Gallery Place after work…btw don’t do it!..and had this dilemma recently. The traffic was not moving).

I believe I squeezed by on the right of some cara but still was held up by some turning right but waiting for peds.

Maybe I should have sat at the back of all the cars and waited like a car?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts