Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

bicycletimesmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#111

Post by mattnewport »

jnty wrote: post #18
mattnewport wrote: post #15

This doesn't really prove anything. My observations from Vancouver where a lot of time and money has been spent on bike lanes over the last few years: (I'm a non car owner, mostly pedestrian) - Pilot projects are not representative of actual long term use. When Burrard bridge lost a footpath to a temporary cycle lane, as a regular pedestrian commuter I saw a brief spike in cycle traffic but then a big drop off again.…

Sounds like Vancouver is seeing fastest growing number of cycling trips in the world - do you think it's possible your experiences might not have been representative, or is there an effect you believe the stats aren't capturing? http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index...

Lots of effects yes. I never suggested that bike lanes don't increase bike traffic however, I think it's pretty obvious that they will to some extent. I merely suggested that the large increase that might be observed in a temporary and well publicised pilot project likely greatly overrepresents the actual sustained usage.

Questions I would ask that I haven't seen addressed as part of Vancouver's bike lane push:

- Given the higher risks of cycling relative to driving or walking, how many extra deaths and injuries are associated with increased cycle use substituting for other forms of transport?

- How many people are switching to cycling from driving because you have made things worse for drivers, pedestrians and transit users by installing cycle lanes (less parking space available, fewer car lanes, dramatically more congestion during the construction process)

- Are pedestrians at greater risk due to the increased cycle use? (anecdotally it appears to me they are)

- Given all the other ways the transport budget could be spent and road space used, is building cycle lanes the best bang for the buck?

- What exactly are the goals of transport policy (hopefully not just 'increase the number of cyclists') and how are you measuring your success?

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#112

Post by ygra »

dmurray wrote: post #109
ygra wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit confused there, though. The signage clearly marks this as a road you're not allowed to enter from that side, regardless of vehicle and forbidden for pedestrians. The guerilla bike lane thus is not supported by the existing signage and if behaviour prior to this matched what the lane now codifies, then it's worrisome as well. As a cyclist, I'm all for making cycling safer, but breaking road laws to achieve t…

I'm not familiar with Italian road signs but I'd interpret that sign to mean the exact opposite: pedestrians only.

Then it would be blue, not white with a red border. The latter always signifies a forbiddance, while blue signs are an allowance (and often implicitly disallowing everything else).

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#113

Post by usrusr »

awjr wrote: post #76
usrusr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't design cycle infrastructure for children. Bikes can be toys, but they can also be so much more. Designing for children locks bikes into the toy-role. Do I have to arm myself with a car to be treated like an adult?

This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous. That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abil…

It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset.

"Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride.

I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs.

Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#114

Post by FussyZeus »

phicoh wrote: post #107
FussyZeus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how it's done in my area of the US, but I can tell you American drivers almost universally ignore where you're supposed to stop at a T junction, especially when turning right. It's maddening, multiple times I've had to leave the bike lane into traffic to get around a vehicle that isn't where it's supposed to be. I've never seen anyone get pulled over for this either because cycling isn't recognized as a "real…

Vehicles turning right is a big problem in the Netherlands as well. Not so much that they block intersections, but that bikes going straight have priority over the vehicle turning right, bikes take priority and then get in an accident. It doesn't matter who was right if you are dead. In my experience, separate bike lanes are great for long stretches of road without intersections. Also quite safe on intersections with…

Every time I cross in front of a car I have both hands sitting on the handlebar brakes. On one occasion I actually had to kick the car, someone started moving forward while I was right in front, I kind of bounced off the bumper with a foot and managed to maintain my balance. Thankfully didn't mess up their car, and they got out of the car to make sure I was alright.

It's not hostility very often, it's just not paying enough attention to things that aren't cars.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#115

Post by usrusr »

jnty wrote: post #53
usrusr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't design cycle infrastructure for children. Bikes can be toys, but they can also be so much more. Designing for children locks bikes into the toy-role. Do I have to arm myself with a car to be treated like an adult?

Do you object to using sidewalks which are also suitable for children to walk on?

If that means that you either get a sidewalk covered in the expensive soft rubber floor used on modern playgrounds or no sidewalk at all, then sure, I will definitely prefer a complete network of hard sidewalks where it hurts to fall over insular sprinklings of rubber-sidewalks here and there.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#116

Post by pmontra »

ygra wrote: post #70
pmontra wrote: post #10

This in Milan, Italy three weeks ago: https://www.wired.it/lifestyle/mobilita/2017/06/01/milano-pi... It's on a narrow bridge quite dangerous for cyclists as cars tend to cut the turn to the left. After years of asking somebody decided to help themselves.

I'm a bit confused there, though. The signage clearly marks this as a road you're not allowed to enter from that side, regardless of vehicle and forbidden for pedestrians. The guerilla bike lane thus is not supported by the existing signage and if behaviour prior to this matched what the lane now codifies, then it's worrisome as well. As a cyclist, I'm all for making cycling safer, but breaking road laws to achieve t…

I guess this is the picture you're writing about https://images.wired.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/01132104/...

You are right, because the signs are, roughly in this position:

1) One way road. 2) Pedestrian crossing, the one the kid is standing on.

3) No pedestrians allowed.

So yes, bikes shouldn't go down that bike lane. If it were an official one they would have changed the road signs to allow it. However I know that's a slow road, so combined with the white line it's probably safe at least during the day. In the night not so much, by direct experience, but bikes were going down there in the forbidden direction anyway.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#117

Post by usrusr »

phicoh wrote: post #107
FussyZeus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how it's done in my area of the US, but I can tell you American drivers almost universally ignore where you're supposed to stop at a T junction, especially when turning right. It's maddening, multiple times I've had to leave the bike lane into traffic to get around a vehicle that isn't where it's supposed to be. I've never seen anyone get pulled over for this either because cycling isn't recognized as a "real…

Vehicles turning right is a big problem in the Netherlands as well. Not so much that they block intersections, but that bikes going straight have priority over the vehicle turning right, bikes take priority and then get in an accident. It doesn't matter who was right if you are dead. In my experience, separate bike lanes are great for long stretches of road without intersections. Also quite safe on intersections with…

In Copenhagen, bike lanes and turn right lanes often overlap. Not bike lane left of the turn right lane, but actually sharing the space, like a C union type. I think it is much safer to merge than to cross.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#118

Post by the_gastropod »

coldpie wrote: post #61
Jacqued wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you mean drivers deliberately hitting a biker with their car are not in the wrong?

Heheh, I feel like I'm making my point poorly :) The driver is in a 3000 pound vehicle capable of accelerating from 5 MPH to 60 MPH in a couple of seconds. The biker is an unprotected human capable of traveling 10, maybe 20 MPH as an absolute maximum. My point is that these two objects cannot share traffic on a US street that is designed for cars traveling 30 MPH for more than a brief period of time. If they do share…

Maybe speed limits should be reduced to 25 MPH within cities (a la NYC).

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#119

Post by coddingtonbear »

coldpie wrote: post #97
nkrisc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharing the road is dangerous with dangerous, aggressive drivers. Tailgating and bumping bikers is the fault of the driver, not an unavoidable consequence of sharing the road.

So why does it happen, and how do you propose to solve this? Complain on the Internet? Shake your first at those damn angry drivers? Something something driver's education? I mean, this is a real problem. "Share the road" doesn't work, and complaining on the Internet isn't going to suddenly fix it.

It seems like fining and, if necessary, revoking the drivers licenses of dangerously aggressive drivers might be a simple way of solving the problem, no? Sharing public goods is be the norm in other areas of society; why not on the road?

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#120

Post by rhinoceraptor »

coldpie wrote: post #87
ehnto wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to figure out a harmonious scenario, sharing the road is absolutely the answer right now because the road is all we have to work with at the moment. In a perfect for me world the CBD would have zero cars and everyone would be on bikes, foot or mobility devices after they parked on the CBD fringe carparks or caught public transport in. That will never happen. So the next best step for me is dedicated bike lane…

I actually take the bus most places, I only drive once or twice a week, to the grocery store or so. I have no real skin in this game. In my experience, and in the OP's experience, "share the road" is a dumb, dangerous solution that leaves everyone unhappy. Bikers should refuse to put up with it. Demand real lanes.

If we could magically re-do all of the existing infrastructure overnight, then that would be a good solution. But since it's impossible to re-build all roads to have dedicated bike lanes, cyclists will have to use the road at some point.

And once there is the precedent that cyclists ride only in dedicated bike lanes, then you've limited the area that cyclists can ride to dense, affluent areas that have the demand and money for dedicated bike lanes.

Post reply on HN