e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[lordofthemark]

@streetsmarts 163569 wrote:

VC is vehicular cycling, right?
seg infra – is segregated cycling infrastructure?
Learning

Here is my understanding.

VC is vehicular cycling (but note, some use it as I have above, to mean a style of riding “as a vehicle” while some also use it to mean an approach to bike policy that is skeptical of “seg infra”)

Seg infra is indeed any infrastructure that separates bikes from motor vehicles.

MUT is a multi use trail – a trail, generally through a park (but not always – see the Metropolitan Branch Trail) that is reserved for and designed for use by bikes, pedestrians and similar (similar can vary – horses on the W&OD but not on most other trails) and is not alongside a road (it can be near a road, like Custis or MVT, but does not have regular crosswalks, share signals with the road, etc like a sidewalk (also called a sidepath) does.

A MUP is a sidepath that is built to standards to make sharing between bikes and pedestrians easier. It has a more bike friendly surface than a sidepath is required to have, and is wider than even modern standard sidepaths are. And may be striped for two way traffic, and have better geometry than some sidepaths.

Your question this AM of whether 4MRT between Shirlington Road and Walter Reed is a MUP or a MUT is a good one. Technically I guess it is a MUP, as it is immediately adjacent to Arlington Mill. However, in addition to being part of the 4MRT (which elsewhere is a MUT) it is MUT like in its characteristics – there are no street crossings between Shirlington Rd and Walter Reed. And its in a park.

Note another difficult case is the W&OD by Virginia Lane. Where it passes right in front of single family houses and is not particularly wide. As well as crossing some driveways. There it is effectively a sidepath, though paved and stripped like a trail.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 163563 wrote:

I am confused (both by this and by other comments on this thread)

And I play in traffic a lot more than some people here seem to think is safe or comfortable. From Maine Avenue in SW DC to King Street just south of Beauregard, to Braddock road either way to and from North Hampton. Have I been totally brainwashed by the VCers? (yet I am a big advocate for seg infra, and will even ride a sidewalk here and there, so I don’t think so) Has my age and attitude made me more relaxed about physical danger?

But as an advocate I definitely want alternatives to such routes (or appropriate seg infra on them). And yeah, I don’t expect Isabella riding to her ice cream cone to ride like I do – but I am surprised that riders who I think are stronger, faster, and more experienced than me seem to be less VCish than me.

No. VCers have been inappropriately maligned by “bike advocacy” establishment. It is perfectly reasonable to ride on most streets without dedicated infrastructure. Just follow the general traffic rules and flows and you should interact with drivers perfectly fine.

It is Isabella that is the strawman. A 10 year old not knowing basic traffic patterns is potentially in danger riding with any speed on a sidewalk or protected bike lane (or in the street). The key to defensive cycling is knowing what to expect and how to react to different situations, not some infrastructure silver bullet.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 163576 wrote:

No. VCers have been inappropriately maligned by “bike advocacy” establishment. It is perfectly reasonable to ride on most streets without dedicated infrastructure. Just follow the general traffic rules and flows and you should interact with drivers perfectly fine.

It is Isabella that is the strawman. A 10 year old not knowing basic traffic patterns is potentially in danger riding with any speed on a sidewalk or protected bike lane (or in the street). The key to defensive cycling is knowing what to expect and how to react to different situations, not some infrastructure silver bullet.

Streetsmarts – this is an excellent example of how VC as an approach to safe road cycling tends to overlap with VC as an attitude towards seg infra and policy. Sometimes the connection is quite logical, and sometimes not so much. As you can tell, I am moderately VCish in my riding style, but do believe that more seg infra is important. I don’t want to debate that again, though – Dismal and I have been over that before, and I think agreed to disagree? And is mostly off topic to even the tangent I went on – the question I had was not whether or not its good to stripe bike lanes or not for the sake of 12 YOs (and other living things) (btw, for more on this with dismal, me, steve o, etc chiming in, search on “Isabella”) but why people who know traffic patterns very well, and who can ride faster than I do, etc seem to think that there are no safe alternatives to in park trails (note there are other reasons to prefer such trails – lovely views, some avoidance of auto emissions, etc) .

(note also, at least in Alexandria most of the “bike establishment” is comfortable riding on a range of roads, and does so VC style, AFAICT, though still advocating for bike infra – at least if BPAC is the bike establishment)

[DismalScientist]

As a rejoinder, I would like to say that I didn’t say that there is no “safe” alternatives to riding in the street or off-street trails. What I said was that riding to fast in a PBL (or sidewalk) exposes one to turning conflicts that one might realize, particularly if one is unfamiliar with traffic flows. In particular, PBLs often give users a false sense of security. When confronted with the choice of a PBL or regular vehicle lane on a road, I will choose the one that seems safer to me and my riding style.

Some folks on the forum have indicated that they wish Fairfax Drive and Clarendon/Wilson had PBLs carved out of the roadway (presumably on the right side of the parking lane). This would lead to narrow vehicular lanes, which I would not consider conducive to riding. This would, in effect, eliminate the fastest and most convenient, in MY opinion, bicycling route between Ballston and Rosslyn. Perhaps this is one example why you hear a sneer in my typing when it comes to the bike establishment.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 163576 wrote:

No. VCers have been inappropriately maligned by “bike advocacy” establishment. It is perfectly reasonable to ride on most streets without dedicated infrastructure. Just follow the general traffic rules and flows and you should interact with drivers perfectly fine.

It is Isabella that is the strawman. A 10 year old not knowing basic traffic patterns is potentially in danger riding with any speed on a sidewalk or protected bike lane (or in the street). The key to defensive cycling is knowing what to expect and how to react to different situations, not some infrastructure silver bullet.

When I was 12 YO I rode on sidewalks. VC was, IIRC, simply not a thing in NYC. I almost never saw adults riding, and certainly not in the streets in Brooklyn. I stopped at every street crossing (IIRC), just like a pedestrian. I rode slowly. Despite it being NYC, there were driveways (probably with worse visibility than the driveways around here) and rode carefully (IIRC) through them. I assume that is how Isabella rides on the sidewalk now, esp if a wise adult has taught her how to bike to get places (not the case for me, as I knew no adults who rode AT ALL, IIRC. Well except the guy who owned the LBS, I suppose). I expect Isabella will ride the same way in the PBL as she does on the sidewalk.

And again, my point in referencing her here is that I don’t expect her to ride on King Street from Walter Reed to North Hampton, as I do. Do you?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 163580 wrote:

As a rejoinder, I would like to say that I didn’t say that there is no “safe” alternatives to riding in the street or off-street trails. What I said was that riding to fast in a PBL (or sidewalk) exposes one to turning conflicts that one might realize, particularly if one is unfamiliar with traffic flows. In particular, PBLs often give users a false sense of security. When confronted with the choice of a PBL or regular vehicle lane on a road, I will choose the one that seems safer to me and my riding style.

Some folks on the forum have indicated that they wish Fairfax Drive and Clarendon/Wilson had PBLs carved out of the roadway (presumably on the right side of the parking lane). This would lead to narrow vehicular lanes, which I would not consider conducive to riding. This would, in effect, eliminate the fastest and most convenient, in MY opinion, bicycling route between Ballston and Rosslyn. Perhaps this is one example why you hear a sneer in my typing when it comes to the bike establishment.

We have been over this before. If a vehicular lane is not wide enough to allow passing in lane, then the generally accepted (AFAICT) VC approach is to take the lane, riding in or near the center of the lane. Which is what I do when riding in such a lane. And which VC advocates generally advocate (AFAICT) as just as safe as riding to the right in a wide lane, if not as comfortable. And any lane which is wide enough to safely ride to the right, is so wide that it induces drivers to drive faster and more recklessly. Narrowing lanes is done for general traffic calming, not just to carve out space for cyclists. It benefits pedestrians and lawful drivers as well as full VC in road cyclists.

Note also there is a valid debate about whether protections for PBLs should be parked cars, or things like flexposts, which provide less protection against out of control drivers, but make getting out of the PBL easier (and the choice is not always dictated by rider prefernces, but by the desire to retain parking, etc)

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 163580 wrote:

As a rejoinder, I would like to say that I didn’t say that there is no “safe” alternatives to riding in the street or off-street trails. What I said was that riding to fast in a PBL (or sidewalk) exposes one to turning conflicts that one might realize, particularly if one is unfamiliar with traffic flows.

You did not say that, nor did anyone say it explicitly (not even solar bike car, who thinks that being able to do 20MPH uphill does not make it safe to “play in traffic”) but several people seemed to imply it, to some degree.

yes, riding too fast through a street crossing in a PBL is dangerous. I agree. (Its far worse on a sidewalk though). But then so is riding too fast on a trail that is shared with pedestrians. Riding too fast (but still lawfully) on a PBL exposes the cyclist to the risk of getting hit by cross traffic (where the intersection is not signaled) or by turning traffic (at a signaled intersection with conventional signalling, not Dutch style signalling designed to separate bike phases from turning car phases, as we have I think on 15th street). (though I note that when I ride on Eads PBL drivers seem to see me about as well as when I am taking the lane elsewhere, but perhaps I am mistaken – and of course I am not riding as fast as the folks under discussion, and I am very aware of right turning cars) Riding too fast on a MUT creates, among other dangers, the risk of killing a toddler walking with her parents. That, far more than getting right hooked, gives me the willies when I ride. And as a bike advocate, I dread that happening. We have had only one bike on ped fatal on a trail here in recent years – the one on the 4MRT – the cyclist (as far as we know) was not riding too fast, and it was a misunderstanding about “on your left” combined with the frailty of the elderly pedestrian that caused that tragedy. Nonetheless it is still sometimes thrown in our faces. Imagine what we will face if and when someone bombing along the MVT at over 20MPH kills a two year old.

Now I could have said “instead of wanting more riders on the MUTs, we want more riders taking the lanes on parallel streets” but in addition to a debate on the comfort level of taking the lane on particular parallel streets, as intense as what we had on the comfort level of different bike lanes, Steve O might well have responded that if we followed that approach, most of the would be ebike riders would just drive instead. My point was that even if we take Steve Os approach of accommodating the desire for comfort of new and less confident riders, there are better alternatives to trying to get more of them on the most popular trails.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 163580 wrote:

Some folks on the forum have indicated that they wish Fairfax Drive and Clarendon/Wilson had PBLs carved out of the roadway (presumably on the right side of the parking lane). This would lead to narrow vehicular lanes, which I would not consider conducive to riding. This would, in effect, eliminate the fastest and most convenient, in MY opinion, bicycling route between Ballston and Rosslyn. Perhaps this is one example why you hear a sneer in my typing when it comes to the bike establishment.

I, for one, thank that Fairfax should have a two-way cycle track on the northside (to match up with the current two-way cycletrack by the Blue Goose, avoid the mess by the Metro, then connect to the nub of Fairfax that’s a parking lot. To achieve this, you’d need to knock out the median on FFX and probably a few parking spaces, and realign the parking in the nub. I doubt you’d have to narrow lanes below 11′.

On Clarendon/Wilson, I don’t think you can achieve a PBL without taking out parking. So it’s not a lane width issue.

If these were built, you could still take the lane, and I’d have a place to ride with my kids. Win-win.

The “false sense of security” you fear is not born out in the statistics.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 163586 wrote:

I, for one, thank that Fairfax should have a two-way cycle track on the northside (to match up with the current two-way cycletrack by the Blue Goose, avoid the mess by the Metro, then connect to the nub of Fairfax that’s a parking lot. To achieve this, you’d need to knock out the median on FFX and probably a few parking spaces, and realign the parking in the nub. I doubt you’d have to narrow lanes below 11′.

On Clarendon/Wilson, I don’t think you can achieve a PBL without taking out parking. So it’s not a lane width issue.

If these were built, you could still take the lane, and I’d have a place to ride with my kids. Win-win.

The “false sense of security” you fear is not born out in the statistics.

Are the lanes 11 ft there now? If a bike is two feet wide, a car is 6 ft wide, and you need 3 feet to pass, isn’t riding to the right barely safe in such a lane? Personally my understanding of VC is that in such a lane you ride in the center anyway (which you could do in a 10 ft lane) and only ride on the right in a lane of at least 12 feet or maybe wider.

Do we have different understandings of what VC riding means?

Here is what LAB says:

Bikes can share the same lane with other drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, “take the lane” by riding in the middle.

I thought this was VC.

[dasgeh]

It seems like we agree on quite a bit:
* we’d be better off if there were a place to bike fast safely separate from where people walk
* we need changes (mostly infrastructure) that will convince faster cyclists (on e- and regular bikes) off of trails, leaving trails to the people walking, jogging, kids riding, slow biking, etc.
* what that changes are depend on the road — maybe PBLs on Lee, Wilson, FFX, maybe wayfinding or streamlined stop-signs on neighborhood streets like Key, 5th St N, etc.

So let’s work on getting this done!

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 163588 wrote:

It seems like we agree on quite a bit:
* we’d be better off if there were a place to bike fast safely separate from where people walk
* we need changes (mostly infrastructure) that will convince faster cyclists (on e- and regular bikes) off of trails, leaving trails to the people walking, jogging, kids riding, slow biking, etc.
* what that changes are depend on the road — maybe PBLs on Lee, Wilson, FFX, maybe wayfinding or streamlined stop-signs on neighborhood streets like Key, 5th St N, etc.

So let’s work on getting this done!

Agreed! To which I would only add, changes other than infra to make riding in the road (in seg infra or taking the lane) more attractive – lower speed limits where appropriate, restrictions on turns where appropriate, better enforcement of traffic laws and education about them, a due care standard relative to vulnerable road users and changes to contributory negligence laws.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 163587 wrote:

Are the lanes 11 ft there now? If a bike is two feet wide, a car is 6 ft wide, and you need 3 feet to pass, isn’t riding to the right barely safe in such a lane? Personally my understanding of VC is that in such a lane you ride in the center anyway (which you could do in a 10 ft lane) and only ride on the right in a lane of at least 12 feet or maybe wider.

Do we have different understandings of what VC riding means?

Here is what LAB says:

Bikes can share the same lane with other drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, “take the lane” by riding in the middle.

I thought this was VC.

Fairfax has a parking lane, an unprotected bike lane and two regular vehicle lanes on either side of the median. I just treat this as a wide right lane and narrow left lane and generally end up at the left edge of the bike lane, out of the door zone.

I’m not sure about lane widths, but my general practice is to take more of the lane as my speed increases relative to other traffic. On Fairfax, this means that cars is the right lane can safely pass with moving substantially to the left. On Glebe in far north Arlington, I am generally about 3 feet from the curb with a fairly wide right lane and narrower left lane. Here, cars in the right lane will scooch over in the right lane to pass, if they don’t just change lanes to the left. This is fine with me. On Army Navy drive, a two-lane road with normal lanes but good sightlines, I will be 3 feet from the curb and cars with either scooching over the double yellow line or taking the opposite lane (across the double yellow). Either way they pass is fine with me. I do take the lane on Washington Blvd east of Glebe where there are two narrow lanes in each direction. Here, I want cars to be forced to change lanes if they want to pass. Going downhill on Clarendon (east of Courthouse), I take the lane and am out of the bike lane, because it is too dangerous to be confined to the bike lane at such high speeds. Here, I don’t think cars should pass me at all, but if they pass on the left I won’t get bent out of shape. I generally don’t see the need to take the lane if cars can safely pass in some way without me taking the lane. I guess this doesn’t make me a pure VCer.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 163590 wrote:

…and changes to contributory negligence laws.

I emailed WABA and wrote it in the WABA member survey asking for advocacy/action to build on the successful campaign in DC to repeal Contributory Negligence for cyclists to extend the benefit to include ebikes – we’re still subject to this unfair driver loophole – don’t give car drivers an excuse to abdicate their responsibility to vulnerable road users, that should include pedestrians, cyclists, ebikes, all of us. I’m just asking for equitable treatment.

In addition to Infrastructure, Education, etc. we need a safe Potomac river crossing that is legal for both cyclists and ebikes to use, I like @Scoots suggestion earlier of a PBL on Key Bridge. VC does not work in the rush hour commute on any of the Potomac bridge vehicle lanes for low powered Class 1/2 ebikes that are limited to <20mph.

[lordofthemark]

So instead of cogitating, some reportage (about PBL usage, not directly about Ebikes)

I rode the Eads street bike lane SB this afternoon, around 6ish.

It was almost empty. I saw a CaBi rider in it for about 20 ft, before she made a right turn off Eads. A runner in it for a few to pass some walkers. And a UPS truck.

I saw one rider in the NB lane. This on a nice evening, when the MVT was surely not empty (one motive to do Eads was that coming in on the bridge I already saw passing activity SB on the MVT)

Anyone riding an 20 MPH on Eads SB would not have needed to pass slower folk (well except for me, I guess).

If they HAD needed to pass, there were abundant places to do it. As Dasgeh mentioned, large parts of Eads are not “protected” lanes but only buffered. Which may not feel as safe as the trail (though in fact I think buffered lanes are great to ride in) but enable faster riders to pass slower rides at least as easily as in a conventional bike lane. There are sections where the PBL is protected only by flex posts, and it would not be hard to leave the lane to pass. And places where it protected by parked cars, but where there no parked cars at the time I was there. Now none of those are perfect options for passing, I suppose, but compare that to passing riders (and runners, and walkers) on the MVT. (of course there are other concerns for fast cyclists on the PBL, but then ditto on the MVT)

Now someday we may have enough riders on Eads street lanes, that passing will happen frequently, and maybe the available passing options won’t be enough (or the volumes will enable the bike lane bolsheviks to get the protections extended, and the numerous driveways will disappear with redevelopment), and then I won’t suggest the PBLs as an option for fast riders. Maybe on that great getting up morning when the PBLs get one tenth the volume that the MVT gets.

[SolarBikeCar]

An e-bike that can do 20mph uphill probably does 25mph on the level and downhill. If an e-bike that does 20 on the level is likely doing 15mph on the hills. There are different types of e-bikes and different hill grades, but typical e-bikes don’t have enough spare power to maintain constant speed up a hill. For playing well in traffic one needs to maintain constant speed as motorist’s safety calculations during passing and turns is based on a projection of other vehicle location based on the last observed speed.

[Author]

Posts