Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#101

Post by Xylakant » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

ultrarunner wrote: post #88

Xylakant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that protected bike lanes are not designed for you or me, I prefer riding in traffic, too. They are designed for people with less active riding styles. Elderly people, kids, women. For them the trade off works: spend a little more time on turns and crossings, be safe from cars overtaking close. In the end, it doesn’t even really matter if their fear is rational or not, it prevents that demographic from c…

You're probably right, which further underscores GP's position. At least where I am there are zero elderly people or kids riding in protected bike lanes. Older folks simply do not ride outside retirement parks in any appreciable capacity, and children are ostensibly not allowed to ride outside their residential neighborhoods. I'm afraid that continuing to design infrastructure in favor of groups who have no interest…

They entire point is that these groups have no interest in cycling because there’s no infrastructure that makes them feel sufficiently safe. And the goal is to change that.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#102

Post by atg_gcg_aca_aca » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #57

ben7799 wrote: post #40

As a long time long distance cyclist an awfully lot of these lanes, both protected and painted/"sharrow" are really frightening. There is an anti-car/pro-bike lane group of researchers who want to push this style of road design super hard right now at all costs. There are still major problems with their designs though, they are working from the assumption cyclists won't learn to follow the rules of the road. Tell me…

The issue is that protected bike lanes are not designed for you or me, I prefer riding in traffic, too. They are designed for people with less active riding styles. Elderly people, kids, women. For them the trade off works: spend a little more time on turns and crossings, be safe from cars overtaking close. In the end, it doesn’t even really matter if their fear is rational or not, it prevents that demographic from c…

Uhhh... women?

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#103

Post by btrettel » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

pagnol wrote: post #97

toast0 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to get off the bike at most of my intersections and turns, I might as well take a bus, because I'll get there faster. It might make seem to be reasonable to have these protected lanes for slower? cyclists in addition to allowing vehicular cycling, but there are two problems with this: a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes; b) it discourages cyclists from joining the flow…

> a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes This is something I’m struggling with right now. The city where I live has a lot of mediocre or downright dangerous lanes for cyclists which are often very narrow and next to a column of parked cars so that riders can get hit by a suddenly opened door. When I then ride on the road instead, I often have to contend with car drivers who seem se…

Yes, those are often called "punishment passes".

I've even had drivers pass me dangerously closely when I was riding 17 mph in a 15 mph zone with sharrows printed in the lane. I stop and speak with some of these drivers at the stop light, so I'm not even breaking the law and they literally save zero time. Far too many of these drivers seem surprised that the speed limit is 15 mph as they seem to think they should drive 40 mph or faster.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#104

Post by tonymet » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

jxcl wrote: post #2

As a commuting cyclist I usually prefer to ride in the street than in a bike lane. Protected cycle lanes are great only so long as nobody turns to the right directly in front of you. When there are cars parked in between the cycle lane and the car lane it's much easier for the driver to miss the cyclist, and few people check the cycle lane before turning right. I was definitely guilty of this until I started cycling.…

Agreed. Bike lanes are where the most unpredictable stuff happens : the door zone, driveways, truck loading, tree-mulchers.

Also, bike lanes are actually a sinister public policy that deliberately puts drivers against cyclists and here's why.

Cities want to reduce traffic, but don't take the political risk to raise the costs of driving (fuel taxes, geofencing etc). Instead they build useless bike lanes with the deliberate side effect of slowing car traffic.

What this does is generate animosity toward cyclists instead of where is should be directed: city hall.

I'm a lifelong bike commuter in a city that's increased bike lanes over the years. I think bike lanes are bad for both cyclists and drivers.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#105

Post by ben7799 » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

pedantsamaritan wrote: post #90

ben7799 wrote: post #40

As a long time long distance cyclist an awfully lot of these lanes, both protected and painted/"sharrow" are really frightening. There is an anti-car/pro-bike lane group of researchers who want to push this style of road design super hard right now at all costs. There are still major problems with their designs though, they are working from the assumption cyclists won't learn to follow the rules of the road. Tell me…

What specific style of road design are you talking about? There are a variety of bike lanes with various compromises. I've seen DOT presentations consider the situation, not pushing a certain design at all costs. There are multiple methods of left turns: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462 . From the bit I can gather from your post, I might use the "cross, stop, and pivot".

Left turn Option 1 - "Cross Stop and Pivot" is likely illegal. Also you are riding right in front of cars that might be trying to turn right. And you're riding in an unexpected direction so you're surprising the cars. That's dangerous. It also means you likely need to wait for the light to change to take your left. If you don't, that's another dangerous moving violation. If you do, it takes a lot longer.

Left Turn Option 2: This is the legal/safe way to do it. I don't understand where people think this requires great fitness. As traffic increases the cars move slower and slower and it gets easier to merge. The trick if you're slower is to merge earlier when you see an opening, then ride on the right or left side of the lane instead of right down the middle. Then you are not impeding traffic. People have trouble with this because they're afraid to be out in the lanes. Why would you think the gutter is safer? The cars whizz by you when you hug the right hand curb as well, and they actually can't see you as well. Using proper signals is key here. The only weakness of this method is a protected bike lane makes it almost impossible to do safely, even though this is the option that is written into the law as what you should be doing. The only other weakness is if you are taking a left and there are no cars around you will come across lights that won't change for a bicyclist! Some of these won't even change for a motorcycle... those are infuriating!

Option 3 - Nothing wrong with this as long as you actually get off your bike. If you ride your bike in the crosswalk it's a moving violation. This method is REALLY slow. You will have to wait through multiple cycles of the light. This is infuriating enough as a pedestrian.

The thing with Left turn Option 2 is if you get proficient & comfortable with it you will have VERY few times car drivers yell at you. Because you're behaving the way they do. Also you will save time at every intersection. If you are following me and you take Option 1 or 3 and I take Option 2 I will get to my destination much faster if we have the same fitness level. The only way you'll keep up is if you break a bunch of laws and put yourself or pedestrians in danger.

I've been doing Option 2 for 20 years. I've done it in Manhattan if we have to have bragging rights about large cities. (I live in the Boston area, I've also bike commuted into Kendall Square near MIT.) It is no problem even across 3-4 lanes if you get good at it.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#106

Post by dheera » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #29

fhbdukfrh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your general sentiment, but don't think people on electric bikes are going to improve the situation, rather make it much, much worse based on the electric bike share pilot in my city. Someone who owns their ebike might be better, but those on shared bikes are a danger to everyone and never wear a helmet.

Having lived in China, I can tell you it doesn’t get better when they own their own e-bikes. Also, bike helmets are mostly an American/ Anglo sphere thing, there are whole countries with mass bike cultures that don’t bother with helmets and are still much safer than the USA.

I live in the US and consider helmets an absolute necessity here as I'm riding alongside cars, trucks, and various other things that could kill me instantly, and riding in streets that don't have bike lanes to begin with.

The reason most other countries are safer is because of awareness of bikes and proper design of bike lanes. Google image search "bike lane china" or "bike lane netherlands" to see how safe bike lanes should be designed. In these places it's just much less common to be knocked off your bike in a dangerous manner. I've biked all over China and feel a lot safer there than in e.g. Palo Alto or San Francisco.

However, personally, I'd still wear a helmet regardless. I like my brain.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#107

Post by Xylakant » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

atg_gcg_aca_aca wrote: post #102

Xylakant wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that protected bike lanes are not designed for you or me, I prefer riding in traffic, too. They are designed for people with less active riding styles. Elderly people, kids, women. For them the trade off works: spend a little more time on turns and crossings, be safe from cars overtaking close. In the end, it doesn’t even really matter if their fear is rational or not, it prevents that demographic from c…

Uhhh... women?

Yes women. They’re an underrepresented demographic among cyclists where bike infrastructure is lacking. Here’s stats for the UK for example https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics here’s an article discussing the topic https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/0... Here’s data for SF https://w4c.org/case-study/women-and-biking-case-study-use-s...

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#108

Post by nogridbag » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

btrettel wrote: post #93

nogridbag wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes me feel even worse now. The other day I stopped behind a cyclist at a red light on a major avenue in NYC. He was in the left lane and the bike lane is simply one more lane over. When the light turned green he took forever to get going and even after 20 seconds he was still going dangerously slow so I honked him and felt like a jerk. I did not understand why he simply didn't use the bike lane. The cross str…

> When the light turned green he took forever to get going and even after 20 seconds he was still going dangerously slow so I honked him and felt like a jerk. I did not understand why he simply didn't use the bike lane. Cyclist here. My experience suggests that when a cyclist takes the lane, they're doing so because they decided it was the best option for them. I wish more drivers would give them the benefit of the d…

I concur the cyclist must have chosen that lane for a reason which is why I felt in the wrong but none of the reasons listed seem applicable in this case.

Also, are pedestrians walking into bike lanes a valid reason not to use bike lanes? For every pedestrian blindly walking into bike lanes staring at their phone I see an equal number of cyclists going at high speeds through pedestrian crossings (9 times out of 10 when they don't have the right of way). As a pedestrian I've almost been hit by cyclists four times (twice in Queens and twice in Manhattan). The one case in Queens was really bad as it was one of those powered food delivery bicycles and I was pushing a baby in a stroller.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#109

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #106

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in China, I can tell you it doesn’t get better when they own their own e-bikes. Also, bike helmets are mostly an American/ Anglo sphere thing, there are whole countries with mass bike cultures that don’t bother with helmets and are still much safer than the USA.

I live in the US and consider helmets an absolute necessity here as I'm riding alongside cars, trucks, and various other things that could kill me instantly, and riding in streets that don't have bike lanes to begin with. The reason most other countries are safer is because of awareness of bikes and proper design of bike lanes. Google image search "bike lane china" or "bike lane netherlands" to see how safe bike lane…

Yes, I agree with that. But it is a problem we created ourselves because of our love for car culture, not that helmets should be mandatory in other more sane countries. There aren't a lot of brain injuries in the Netherlands from bike accidents, so there is no demand for them.

China really isn't on the list of sane places, but traffic is slow enough that helmets might not matter much anyways. My point about china was more about dangerous electric bicyclists zooming on the sidewalk and almost hitting you.

Re: Roads with protected bike lanes make both cycling and driving safer: study

#110

Post by asdff » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

ben7799 wrote: post #105

pedantsamaritan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific style of road design are you talking about? There are a variety of bike lanes with various compromises. I've seen DOT presentations consider the situation, not pushing a certain design at all costs. There are multiple methods of left turns: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462 . From the bit I can gather from your post, I might use the "cross, stop, and pivot".

Left turn Option 1 - "Cross Stop and Pivot" is likely illegal. Also you are riding right in front of cars that might be trying to turn right. And you're riding in an unexpected direction so you're surprising the cars. That's dangerous. It also means you likely need to wait for the light to change to take your left. If you don't, that's another dangerous moving violation. If you do, it takes a lot longer. Left Turn Op…

Option one is posted on the signage in my local lanes. I'm not sure that it would be illegal anywhere (or enforced if it is).

And sure you might be in front of cars trying to turn right, but the right on red turn being blocked happens all the time via cars just going straight or left. Usually right on red is prohibited for streets that cross the bike lane road as well.

I don't think it would be surprising given you angle your bike to the direction of your travel (and going left takes you where you came from, going right takes you where you were heading to begin with, so where else are you logically going to go?), and light cycles are short enough where this isn't going to add a significant time compared with merging multiple lanes in traffic or waiting for a yield left (way more dangerous imo with people constantly running yellow lights).