What’s in a name? That which we call a bike path, by any other name would…

[Tim Kelley]

People have strong feelings on the topic:

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?3077-My-Morning-Commute/page325&p=95595#post95595

[Crickey7]

This is overthinking things. They’re bike lanes, they just happen to come in different flavors, protected vs non, and with degrees of protection. Though we may need a special name for the M street one. The “Rollercoaster?”

[PotomacCyclist]

I’m going with “bikeway” for now (for the protected facilities). But I’ll probably slip up and continue to use cycletrack for a while. I think it’s useful to have the terminology standardized. Makes everything seem more official and legitimate. That can have some importance in the ongoing quest for new and better bike infrastructure and for accurate and predictable traffic enforcement. Without standard terminology, maybe some people will continue to think of bikes as toys or recreational items, not as elements of a modern multimodal transportation system.

I don’t think the terminology is the deciding factor in someone’s attitude toward cycling, but I think it could help in some cases.

[Tim Kelley]

@Crickey7 102132 wrote:

with degrees of protection.

And that makes all the difference in getting someone to ride or not. At this point in the bicycle transportation evolution in the US, I think it’s still important to call out the differences. Someone who would ride in a Protected Bike Lane may not even think of riding in a regular bike lane.

[PotomacCyclist]

@Tim Kelley 102135 wrote:

And that makes all the difference in getting someone to ride or not. At this point in the bicycle transportation evolution in the US, I think it’s still important to call out the differences. Someone who would ride in a Protected Bike Lane may not even think of riding in a regular bike lane.

This applies to a lot of casual cyclists and potential cyclists. Surveys continue to show that the perception of road safety is one of the major reasons why people do or don’t bike in busy urban areas like DC.

[PotomacCyclist]

FYI – NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) uses bike lane and cycle track as follows:

“A Bike Lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. A bike lane is distinguished from a cycle track in that it has no physical barrier (bollards, medians, raised curbs, etc.) that restricts the encroachment of motorized traffic.”

“A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks have different forms but all share common elements—they provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily used for bicycles, and are separated from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. In situations where on-street parking is allowed cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking (in contrast to bike lanes).”

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/

AASHTO (the influential American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) does not even cover protected bike facilities at all, in its latest edition of the bicycle facilities design guide. This is considered to be a major flaw and a big problem, because so many DOTs rely on the AASHTO guidelines. NACTO has indeed left AASHTO behind.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/06/19/aashto-adds-designs-to-bikeway-guide-but-not-protected-bike-lanes/

I had never thought about this before, not in such detail.

[Crickey7]

Everyone “knows” what bike lanes are. New terms may never catch on in wide useage. Morover, I’m unconvinced that there is large latent demand for something better than what people imagine when they think of a bike lane.

[jrenaut]

It always astounds me that people can be so imprecise with language in situations where it really matters.

designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings

AND? So if it lacks any of the three it’s not a bike lane?

the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists

What? I’m not sure I’d consider anything for the preferential use of cyclists as a bike lane. Unless they mean that cars can drive in a bike lane to turn or park? But they should really say that.

This is why everyone should take more advanced math classes. They teach you how to use language with some [expletive deleted] precision.

[baiskeli]

@jrenaut 102142This is why everyone should take more advanced math classes. They teach you how to use language with some [expletive deleted wrote:

precision.

Don’t you mean “with some x precision”? Solve for x.

[jrenaut]

@baiskeli 102147 wrote:

Don’t you mean “with some x precision”? Solve for x.

Nope. If I meant that, I would have said that. Precision.

[Tim Kelley]

@Crickey7 102141 wrote:

I’m unconvinced that there is large latent demand for something better than what people imagine when they think of a bike lane.

Portland disagrees with you: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497

But then I don’t expect too many people on this forum to agree with me because the majority of folks here are seven percent-ers…

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 102141 wrote:

Everyone “knows” what bike lanes are. New terms may never catch on in wide useage. Morover, I’m unconvinced that there is large latent demand for something better than what people imagine when they think of a bike lane.

“I am DEELIGHTED that they built a bike lane on Main Street”

“What was there before?”

“A bike lane”

“Huh?”

There is clearly a need in many contexts to distinguish between a bike lane protected by nothing but paint, and one much more protected. One can debate where the line should be drawn (should a lane protected by nothing more than flex posts, and with no buffer, be called “protected”?) or which term to use, but the utility of a term seems clear to me.

Edit – note I read you as speaking to a latent demand for a WORD for protected bike lanes, not a latent demand for protected bike lanes.

[PotomacCyclist]

@Tim Kelley 102151 wrote:

Portland disagrees with you: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497

But then I don’t expect too many people on this forum to agree with me because the majority of folks here are seven percent-ers…

We’re imaginary people? I didn’t think so, but now I’m not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven-Per-Cent_Solution

[dplasters]

@jrenaut 102148 wrote:

Nope. If I meant that, I would have said that. Precision.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7201[/ATTACH]

Or perhaps more literary, Le mot juste.

[dasgeh]

It seems to me that “bikeway” is a good description for two-way bicycle-only infrastructure. It could be protected, like First Street NE “protected bikeway”, or not, like most of Pennsylvania Ave NW “bikeway”. It also needn’t be on the same level as or right up against the main road.

But when you have a lane that is reserved for bikes that is on the same level as the road, it makes more sense to call that a “bike lane” (Wilson/Clarendon) or “protected bike lane” (Hayes/Eads), as the case may be. Unless it’s on M Street NW, in which case “sh*tshow” may be a better term.

[Author]

Posts