Sharing v. Segregation

[GuyContinental]

@PotomacCyclist 22125 wrote:

Looks like they are fighting an uphill battle in Loudoun: http://www.bikeloudoun.org/content/about-us

Yeah, having the “pleasure” of a rush hour commute on a Loudoun County Parkway (not “the”) mixed with Arlington I gotta say, we have it good in Arlington. I’m a pretty experienced rider and I get scared witless multiple times a week on these roads (which are plenty wide for a bike lane). “Inattentive” and “aggressive” doesn’t begin to describe the locals out there.

[5555624]

@mstone 22190 wrote:

I guess I’d assumed that could reasonably be assumed to not extend from door to door, and would take effect once you get out of the quiet back streets and onto the main roads.

My comments are based on encounters with people who won’t ride on the streets period. (I’m not counting the “sidewalks are safer than bike lanes” riders I sometimes encounter in Ballston.) I know people who won’t even ride on back streets. (Maybe they know their streets better than I do and have some neighbors who are reckless.) Perhaps the classic example was last summer, a rider who almost ran me down on the sidewalk (I was walking) who was coming from the dead-end of a back street and was still a couple of blocks from a main road. Not only is it a quiet street, but the street is wide enough for two cars to easily pass, which is all too often not the case on back streets. When I suggested she should ride in the street, she told me it was not safe and she never does.

Are these people a minority? Sure. Are they a small minority? I think so. Hence my original blunt (or selfish) comment: “Those people can drive to a MUP and ride. (Yeah, I know, I’m being blunt — sorry.) I know some people like this, people who will not ride on the road — not today, not a year from now. This includes people who will not ride in a bike lane and tell me the sidewalk is safer.”

Given limited resources (money, space, infrastructure), a solution for everyone is simply not feasible. Either at the low end, like this or at the high end, say a bike-only trail with a minimum speed limit of 25 mph and no Stop signs.

[invisiblehand]

@Mark Blacknell 22174 wrote:

Just to nudge things a bit – I don’t think there are really too many people “who simply won’t bike without separate facilities” that extend from their front door. I think the bigger numbers come into play when people reach the edges of their neighborhoods. If folks haven’t seen it already, there’s a City of Portland study that identifies most potential cyclists (60% of all people) as ‘Interested but concerned’. These are people want to ride more, but don’t feel safe near fast moving traffic, even with bike lanes. 60%? That’s a *huge* number of people, and I don’t think it’s good to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

I guess. Surveys without an appropriate context often produce dubious results. How many people want lower taxes? How many people want to lower Medicare — or a long list of other stuff — benefits? You’ll get wildly inconsistent results.

Are there people interested in cycling more and concerned about getting from A to B safely because of motorized traffic? Certainly. But it’s pretty easy to dismiss 60% as misleading if the question is about how many people will meaningfully use an HPV for transportation.

[PotomacCyclist]

Let’s get this built

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1202[/ATTACH]

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 22176 wrote:

It does seem like there is one point of agreement here: optimally, cyclists should be segregated from pedestrians (at least for “through”) trips.

…

As to gaining acceptance with motorists, I think that once the “rules of the road” are better established and communicated, and there are more people on bikes obeying them, drivers will get it. Hopefully signs and pavement markings will be part of the plan. But drivers understand that the rules vary with the type of road – e.g. it’s fine to make left turns through cut outs on divided streets, but not through the cut outs on interstates. They’ll get used to the idea that bikes ride in bike lanes in some places and not in others. And we should listen to their feedback as to the best way to communicate to them (and in some cases in road design).
Another example to think about: in places where we have bike lanes along side 4+ lane roads, does it really make sense to expect bikes to cross 2+ lanes of traffic to turn left? Or should we have bike waiting areas at lights, so that bikes are expected to cross through the intersection in the bike lane of the road they’re on, then wait in the bike box for the other direction to have green, and proceed forward with that green? Again, my experience biking on Lee Hwy between Quincy and Spout Run makes me think the latter would work better in some cases.

I suppose that “optimally” we would have segregated facilities for each form of transportation. When the segregation question boils down to whether bicyclists should be segregated from pedestrians or drivers, I think different groups of cyclists have different answers. In general, I would prefer to be segregated from pedestrians (and certain other cyclists:rolleyes:), who I view as more erratic than drivers in general. Others have other opinions.

I don’t understand the point that rules vary on different roads. They do not. Bicyclists are entitled to any lane they are in consistent with them not obstructing traffic. Otherwise, they need to be in the rightmost lane unless they are making a left turn. Bike lanes are restricted to bicyclists and automobiles make right turns.

On making left turns on multilane streets: There are only two ways to do this. What I normally do is get in the left turn lane and turn like a car would. If not (because the cyclist is uncomfortable with traveling in left lanes or traffic is too heavy to merge left), if I am in a bike lane or not, I proceed to the opposite side of the cross street on the right and cross in the crosswalk (or cross in the right lane of the cross street). This is called a box turn. Turning left from the bike lane itself is extremely dangerous and illegal. Neither of the two legitimate maneuvers would be unexpected by drivers.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 22180Of course, a person has to be able to control the bike to go anywhere, but there’s more involved in controlling a bike on a busy street than on a MUT/cycletrack. .[/QUOTE wrote:

I entirely disagree with this. Distance between users seem to be a lot closer on MUT than roads. Generally there are a lot more escape paths on a road than a MUT. I find that i change my speed much more frequently on MUTs than on roads (except for traffic lights). Of course, an accident on a road has a higher likelihood of carnage.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22089 wrote:

As much as I agree that I have as much right to the road as a driver there is no getting around the fact that the driver is far more protected than I by airbags, seatbelt, two tons of metal, and insurance. Irrespective of the laws and how many cyclists are on the road, I will always be the more vulnerable of the two and I want an equivalent amount of safety. In many cases, that can only be provided by segregated facilities. Put another way, do you want your 10 year old daughter taking the lane on Clarendon, by herself, on the way to school? Your 90 year old granddad who has arthritis and bad vision? Going downhill at rush hour? We should be able to build infrastructure that allows these users a safe, convenient way to travel along the same roads as drivers. Just sayin’

Even in areas with a high concentration of facilities, the direct risk of mortality and injury from cycling is higher than driving. If that is how you define safety, then facilities are not going to achieve what you want.

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Risk.pdf

Alternatively, if you’re thinking of a standard where the total risk of mortality if equivalent over varying transportation form — i.e., where you allow health benefits to offset the increased risk of cycling — then it might be the case that you could already be there without the facilities.

More broadly, it’s really hard to identify what underlies the different mortality and injury rates across different cultures, legal systems, and environments. How much would the risk of collision and injury drop if we moved toward a standard where drivers faced something analogous to strict liability?

[DismalScientist]

My original point: separate infrastructure as designed is less safe than non-segregated.

@dasgeh 22182 wrote:

What in the world do you mean? I can think of a few examples (say, a blind curve and downhill on FMRT) but “often”? Do you mean less efficient/usable (e.g. Lee/Lynn isn’t really unsafe if you wait for the very beginning of the light cycle when you have the protected walk – it’s just annoying to wait an entire light cycle).

PS. Having to wait 30 secs. between posts is annoying.

I should have said the design of the interaction between segregated infrastructure and roads is often less safe than riding on roads. Segregated infrastructure that is grade separated is generally fine, although I am not thrilled with some of the steeper downhill segments on the Custis (along 66 and behind the wall up the hill from Rosslyn) I do think that the Custis trail, a major bicycle thoroughfare, being a glorified sidewalk in Rosslyn is bad. Going downhill, I rarely use it, preferring to take Clarendon down the hill instead.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22216 wrote:

I entirely disagree with this. Distance between users seem to be a lot closer on MUT than roads. Generally there are a lot more escape paths on a road than a MUT. I find that i change my speed much more frequently on MUTs than on roads (except for traffic lights). Of course, an accident on a road has a higher likelihood of carnage.

But on MUTs, going slower is more acceptable and less dangerous than on a busy street. Also, the risk of serious injury if something goes wrong is lower (bike v. bad bump, bike v. slick wood, bike v. pedestrian may hurt, but nothing like bike v. car).

As far as the assertions about the distance between users and number of escape paths, it just depends on where you are. The busy streets I have the most experience with are Washington Blvd and Lee Hwy — lots of cars, not leaving a lot of distance, few escape paths (lots of parked cars, curbs I can’t jump). My experience on MUTs is mainly on the trail beside 27, the trail beside 110 and Custis Rosslyn-Spout Run. Aside from the section of the Custis that is a sidewalk (not really a MUT), I certainly see fewer users, meaning more distance between them, and plenty of nice soft grass to pull into to escape.

So your assertions would need to be verified with data — data that I don’t have, but that my experience and intuition lead me to think would not support your position.

[KLizotte]

@invisiblehand 22221 wrote:

Alternatively, if you’re thinking of a standard where the total risk of mortality if equivalent over varying transportation form — i.e., where you allow health benefits to offset the increased risk of cycling — then it might be the case that you could already be there without the facilities.

I think the latter is probably true for a place like the Netherlands. They show a slightly higher risk for cyclists when compared to driving but the health benefits equalize the playing field for the lucky ones that do not get into an accident. One also has to wonder if their injury/mortality rates would go down if people wore helmets (please don’t start the helmet debate here – I’m just speculating). We are nowhere near that level of equality here in the US.

Lastly, it should be noted that the Netherlands govt is still making a big effort to make the streets safer for peds and cyclists at the expense of convenience to drivers.

[KLizotte]

From WashCycle today:

“Local poll done in conjunction with the Fairfax County Bike Plan shows reasons people don’t bike more have a lot to do with a lack of facilities.”

[invisiblehand]

@DismalScientist 22082 wrote:

I can’t think of many areas in the inner suburbs that are not accessible by bikeable streets (except perhaps bridge access) With the lack of through side streets, many areas of Fairfax are a disaster for biking. The arterials likely need to be widened for any bicycle-friendly treatment of the road, but the question is whether to put in bike lanes or call the wider lanes sharrows. Claiming that anti-segregated facility cyclists are against making bike friendly investments is disingenuous.

Is a bike lane a segregated facility?

Anyway, I largely agree with Dismal Scientist. If it matters, I try to think of cycling within a bigger context of transportation in general … this is somewhat old and I have not revisiting it in a while.

http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2010/12/advocate-safer-robust-and-efficient.html

Broadly speaking, forum discussions are difficult since it is often unclear what people mean by risk and what their subjective estimates are based on. So are we talking about a risk of collision? Risk of hospitalization? Risk of mortality?

What are we holding constant? Rider speed/aggressiveness? Convenience? Pleasure? Motor vehicle speed and volume? Pedestrian volume?

Largely — especially in a black hole like bikeforums.net — there is so much frothing in the mouth and declarations regarding what is “obvious” that, IMO, we tend to overlook some of these points that distinguish different points of view.

Consider something like the cycletracks on 15th ST NW. To me, they’re a “deathtrap”.** I tested them out once on the recumbent at a “normal” pace — this means a light to moderate effort and cruising around 12-15 mph — and there were a few close calls until I slowed down considerably more and this was primarily a function of being segregated (IMO) outside the primary viewing area of drivers since there never were issues when riding in the right lane. Now I suspect that if you’re riding slow and conservatively enough, that the risk (let’s say mortality and serious injury) of riding there is teeny tiny such that we’d have a hard time cognitively registering the number. Although I should point out that the inherent risk from cycling — for some reasonable distance, trip, person — is a tiny number such that we’d have a hard time cognitively registering it.

From the perspective of this bicycle advocate, the 15th ST cycletrack is something that almost certainly gets more people on saddle but encourages (1) the mindset that wildly overestimates the risks of cycling on roads, (2) a style of riding that either makes cycling outside of facilities less convenient and/or more risky, and (3) potentially makes cycling more risky within facilities under certain conditions.

http://tinyurl.com/7ovampn
http://tinyurl.com/78fz3p2
http://tinyurl.com/7gtrv4s

Moreover, it manages to do this while increasing the level of harassment on a route that I enjoyed for years. I’ll point out that taking the right lane puts me in a much better position to use the bike lane that leads up the hill at the end of the cycletrack.

Now is this worth it? Maybe. It depends on what you’re trying to do and what the net effects are. I myself, am willing to tradeoff measures of pleasure, speed, risk, convenience, and overall utility for people. Some environments are different enough that it makes sense to entertain alternatives; for instance, bridges and high speed roads with no/few intersections. But I think that we can go pretty far without segregated facilities everywhere if we concentrated on higher standards of driver responsibility and curbing extreme speeds on roads. I like the idea of bicycle boulevards too.

** Note I put “deathtrap” in quotes since I think the likelihood of mortality probably didn’t change much since cars would have to slow down a lot to make the turn. Nonetheless, I used the expression to convey an idea.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22236 wrote:

From WashCycle today:

“Local poll done in conjunction with the Fairfax County Bike Plan shows reasons people don’t bike more have a lot to do with a lack of facilities.”

Bicycle more? Sure. Whether it’s meaningful is something else. And whether they are willing to sacrifice something else for it is yet another — perhaps the most important — question.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22231 wrote:

I think the latter is probably true for a place like the Netherlands.

This paper says yes in the Netherlands.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901747

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 22230 wrote:

But on MUTs, going slower is more acceptable and less dangerous than on a busy street. Also, the risk of serious injury if something goes wrong is lower (bike v. bad bump, bike v. slick wood, bike v. pedestrian may hurt, but nothing like bike v. car).

As far as the assertions about the distance between users and number of escape paths, it just depends on where you are. The busy streets I have the most experience with are Washington Blvd and Lee Hwy — lots of cars, not leaving a lot of distance, few escape paths (lots of parked cars, curbs I can’t jump). My experience on MUTs is mainly on the trail beside 27, the trail beside 110 and Custis Rosslyn-Spout Run. Aside from the section of the Custis that is a sidewalk (not really a MUT), I certainly see fewer users, meaning more distance between them, and plenty of nice soft grass to pull into to escape.

So your assertions would need to be verified with data — data that I don’t have, but that my experience and intuition lead me to think would not support your position.

Routing is very important for cycling safety. I wouldn’t choose to ride on a busy/unfriendly street just because it happens to be the most direct route. Lee Hwy and Wash Blvd (east of Glebe) are some of the least pleasant in the area. Generally, there are more attractive on-street options. For example, for Wash Blvd, between Glebe and Clarendon, I would choose Fairfax instead. Where I bike, the only MUT options I run into are the high volume W&OD and Custis. The W&OD is well designed and offers a direct route to Shirlington without parallel roads. The Custis, on the other hand, has lots of blind curves and steep hills (and it is the downhills that worry me more). I find taking the streets (Fairfax, Clarendon) less stressful than the trail. These are all sufficiently wide, that if you are riding slowly, you are not obstructing traffic.

I’ve been riding for over 40 years and have been involved in one accident with a car. The driver got me with a left hook at a traffic light when I had the green. Also, left turns were not allowed at that light. Other than that I find that by biking defensively and predictably, the appropriate streets seem pretty safe.

[Author]

Posts