bike lanes

[ShawnoftheDread]

@dasgeh 52113 wrote:

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.

If you’re in a car turning right across a bike lane, the proper way is to merge into the bike lane before turning right.

[mstone]

@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 disagree with your unsupported assertion. In the case that the motorist is following all the rules and the cyclist is an inattentive git, the merge-first plan provides added safety. Otherwise, it’s mostly a wash, and the real problem is people not signalling, slowing, and looking (on both sides).

edit to add: it would be nice if everyone merged first, but it’s not going to happen, and I’d rather waste energy getting people to be aware than waste energy getting them to merge.

[mstone]

@ShawnoftheDread 52105 wrote:

I didn’t see any ad hominem, merely an historical reference. If it’s an historic fact that the Nazis started segregated bike lanes, then it’s hard to talk about why they’re common in Europe without mentioning that. Just like it’s hard to talk about the history of a social safety net in Europe without bringing up Bismarck (damn Prussians).

Consider two statements: “segregated bike lines were developed to remove cyclists from streets to allow cars to go faster” and “segregated bike lines were developed by Nazis to remove cyclists from streets to allow cars to go faster”. Does mentioning the “who” add anything substantive to the discussion? No? Then it’s an ad hominem.

If he had mentioned other “historical facts” then I’d be more sympathetic to that argument. But he didn’t mention the role of MacAdam in paved roads, or the failure of the 19th Arroyo Seco bikeway, or the Good Roads Movement, or anything that might suggest this was a historical piece rather than a piece which tossed in nazis for effect. And, in point of fact, the movement to ban cyclists from roads in Germany predated the Nazi government, and the Swedes (sans Nazis) actually had a fairly significant influence on the development of separated infrastructure in northern europe.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 52117 wrote:

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.

I would think that cycletracks are more consistent with driving culture in Berlin than they would be here. If I understand correctly, drivers that are turning stop, look in all directions (sidewalks, bike paths, and cycletracks, which is segregated, cyclist-only infrastructure analogous to a sidewalk) and then turn. It would seem that bike lanes are treated as more segregated in Germany than here and I would expect, therefore, that cycletracks would be easily accommodated by drivers in Germany than here.

[dasgeh]

@ShawnoftheDread 52118 wrote:

If you’re in a car turning right across a bike lane, the proper way is to merge into the bike lane before turning right.

Ugh. Read the thread. I was referring to Berlin.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@dasgeh 52126 wrote:

Ugh. Read the thread. I was referring to Berlin.

Well that explains all the right hooks I have to avoid on my commute: my neighbors think they’re German.

And thanks, I read the thread. I hadn’t thought of doing that before your directive.

[jabberwocky]

Arguments aside, there is no question that dedicated bike facilities help get new people riding bikes. New people riding bikes are a good thing.

[Terpfan]

I understand the premise behind the argument, but I’m not sure it’s right in the dense urban settings. The cycletrack still deals some with the right hooks issue (or left depending on which one you’re on), but I think it actually reduces them because it makes the distance between rider and driver slightly greater. Plus most of our lights have no turn on red in rush hour. The bigger issue is those who choose to block the box or make illegal turns. I do think it would change based on a suburban setting or rural, where I think they may do more harm than good.

Given a choice, I would prefer lightly traveled/clear visibility back roads over trails and cycletracks, but that’s more nonexistent in the urban and suburban settings.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 52130 wrote:

Arguments aside, there is no question that dedicated bike facilities help get new people riding bikes. New people riding bikes are a good thing.

Yup, that’s the tension. All the arguments against segregated infrastructure sound good, but those arguments are less effective at getting people on bikes than is the infrastructure. One can either accept that reality, or reject that reality by assuming that more argument will change human behavior.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 52125 wrote:

I would think that cycletracks are more consistent with driving culture in Berlin than they would be here. If I understand correctly, drivers that are turning stop, look in all directions (sidewalks, bike paths, and cycletracks, which is segregated, cyclist-only infrastructure analogous to a sidewalk) and then turn. It would seem that bike lanes are treated as more segregated in Germany than here and I would expect, therefore, that cycletracks would be easily accommodated by drivers in Germany than here.

Not if they are two-way and/or behind parked cars.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 52148 wrote:

Not if they are two-way and/or behind parked cars.

If they are two-way and/or have less visibility than on-street traffic, they are the equivalent to sidewalks (perhaps wider with better pavement) with potentially faster traffic. And it gets worse if there is chances for mid-block turning into garages and other driveway-type things.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 52151 wrote:

If they are two-way and/or have less visibility than on-street traffic, they are the equivalent to sidewalks (perhaps wider with better pavement) with potentially faster traffic. And it gets worse if there is chances for mid-block turning into garages and other driveway-type things.

My point is that whether cycletracks work depends on local drivers expect. IN BERLIN, drivers don’t expect cycletracks, which explains the resistance to them cited in the article. IN BERLIN, cyclists don’t ride fast on sidewalks (I think it’s illegal, but regardless, it’s generally not done). It’s the difference in speed that’s key. If drivers are expecting only peds on sidewalks, they only look so far down the sidewalk before turning, because peds can only go so fast.

But really the success of ANY cycling infrastructure (that interacts with cars) depends on what the drivers expect. E.g. this whole to-merge-or-not-to-merge before a right turn — if drivers expect cyclists to stay in the lane and be to the right of cars when cars turn right, then drivers look and yield accordingly. IN BERLIN, if a cyclist jumped out of a bike lane because s/he saw a car up ahead with its right turn signal on, that would startle drivers, and could lead to a collision – again, because it’s not the norm.

Planners can do things to influence everyone’s expectations — signs, signals, road markings, bumps, pylons, outreach campaigns, enforcement campaigns, etc. One main thing that influences expectations is prevailing behavior. Which is why having more cyclists on the road/path/whatever is good for cyclists — once a driver sees cyclists, they start looking for cyclists.

I don’t think cycletracks are necessarily a bad idea. I do think they get more butts on bikes, which is good. I think they’re made safer when the powers that be design them well, with the necessary attempts to change expectations. And there are some places that they don’t make sense.

[mstone]

He posted an update, which tracks a bit closer to my experience: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/bike-to-work-4-best-of-all-worlds-together/

I live out in the burbs, where essentially all of the streets that go somewhere you might want to be are 45MPH or higher, and there are no lower-speed through-streets–just the kind of environment where he acknowledges that separated infrastructure may be valuable. Intersections are still a huge issue, but there aren’t any great options, only “bad” and “less bad”. (Side note–my state rep is Jim “why are we spending any money on the W&OD” LeMunyan, need I say more about the quality of local bike infrastructure?)

[dasgeh]

@mstone 53788 wrote:

He posted an update, which tracks a bit closer to my experience: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/bike-to-work-4-best-of-all-worlds-together/

I live out in the burbs, where essentially all of the streets that go somewhere you might want to be are 45MPH or higher, and there are no lower-speed through-streets–just the kind of environment where he acknowledges that separated infrastructure may be valuable. Intersections are still a huge issue, but there aren’t any great options, only “bad” and “less bad”. (Side note–my state rep is Jim “why are we spending any money on the W&OD” LeMunyan, need I say more about the quality of local bike infrastructure?)

If we had streets with speed limits of 12 or 20 mph!

[Author]

Posts