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

#121

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

stevesimmons wrote: post #118

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I nearly got a brain injury in the Netherlands! I was riding too fast, carrying a TV, in heavy rain (all perfect normal for Amsterdam!). For some reason, I took my other hand off the handlebars, the front wheel spun round and I landed face-first on the road. :( 100% my fault; no other vehicles involved. (btw, I wear a helmet 100% of the time in the UK, and in NL when on my road bike with clipless pedals)

Congrats! You are one in 90 lifetimes! From http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-...

> Rather than reacting emotionally we have to look at the numbers to make sense of this. The overall risk to Dutch cyclists (it's on page two of the document) of a "head/brain injury" is 153 per billion kilometres ridden. That means that one such injury is one per 6.5 million kilometres ridden.

> On average, every Dutch person makes a trip by bicycle 5.6 times per week. This works out as an average across the whole population of 2.5 km cycled every day. That's the highest figure for any population in the world. If we assume that people cycle every day of their lives to the age of 80, and that they cycle that 2.5 km every day of their life, they will ride a bike for a total of 73000 km during their lifetime. Divide it into 6.5 million and you find a figure that a typical Dutch cyclist can expect a "head/brain injury" once every 90 lifetimes.

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

#122

Post by tobylane » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #42

I was wondering about a fence between bike lanes sides.

Generally a waste of space but it depends how one way the peak flow is and what local casual riders think. I can’t picture a fence in the UK.

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

#123

Post by btrettel » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #119

btrettel wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I agree with this, at least for activists as I don't have much experience with researchers. Many people view bike lanes as some sort of panacea, and they sometimes end up making the situation worse than it would be otherwise for the exact reasons you mention. Just to give an example,…

What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes. Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets.

> What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes.

"Protected" here refers to the bike lane itself having a physical barrier in the straight sections. The barrier disappears at intersections and crossings. I know from discussions with others (particularly Europeans) that this doesn't meet a stronger definition, but this is what "protected bike lane" means in my experience as a US cyclist.

I agree entirely that the "protection" this style of lane affords is not enough.

> Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets.

That's one good way to do it, but I strongly doubt the city of Austin will implement anything like that at the intersection I have in mind.

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

#124

Post by pagnol » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

btrettel wrote: post #103

pagnol wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dri…

Oh wow, so it’s actually a thing. What kinds of responses do you get from drivers when you talk to them afterwards?

Thanks also for mentioning the term ‘punishment pass’, googling this led me to some interesting blog posts.

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

#125

Post by linuxftw » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #100

linuxftw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. I'd argue, the points you make are 100% obvious if you've ever been through any intersection on a bicycle and needed to go straight or left from one of these lanes. You don't need 'research' when something is obviously stupid, but that seems to be something we've forgotten as a society. Around me, they put these 'bi…

I think people just have to realize that they can't act like a car on a bike, especially in the bike lane. Take the left. In no way are you supposed to merge over into a left lane, wait for cars to clear, and move left on a green or yellow like you would in a car. That's just not what's supposed to be done, but everyone does it because we aren't educated on biking laws or even best practices like we are when we take…

These people say otherwise about left-turns [1]. What you're suggesting only works if you're able to first cross the intersection safely on the right (debatable due to cars turning) before the light switches. A car would queue in the left-turning lane, which is usually deep enough so you can squeeze over if the light is already red up ahead and catch the signal. Left typically goes green just before the straight goes green again, so in most circumstances, a cyclist on the right hand side would have to wait for two light intervals. You also have to navigate twice the amount of lanes of traffic. Turning left in a car, you only have to navigate 1/2 of the perpendicular traffic on a stretch of road. If there's no light, this might be very difficult and dangerous to do on a bicycle.

1: https://bikeleague.org/content/bike-lanes

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

#126

Post by zten » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:38 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…

> 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.

If they see you / you don't screw up... otherwise, you get https://www.outsideonline.com/2392955/lets-talk-about-driver... written about you.

(edit: the article's situation is different, because it is describing a high speed rural road and not a city intersection.)

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

#127

Post by jt2190 » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

From a much better article about the same study (with a better photo):

> Instead, researchers found that bike infrastructure, particularly physical barriers that separate bikes from speeding cars as opposed to shared or painted lanes, significantly lowered fatalities in cities that installed them. [Emphasis mine.]

from: "Separated Bike Lanes Means Safer Streets, Study Says" https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-sepa...

The actual study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...

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

#128

Post by Tsubasachan » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109

dheera wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bicycle helmets aren't completely unknown, I see kids under 10 wearing them more.

Cycling in the US isn't dangerous because of traffic or speed. Amsterdam has that in abundance! Its that American automobile drivers simply don't see bicycles let alone understand what they can and cannot do. Anything that isn't a car or truck does not compute.

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

#129

Post by bvanderplaats » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

rapnie wrote: post #52

In NL the country is full with separate bycicle infrastructure, making it a paradise for cyclers. "Cycling is a common mode of transport in the Netherlands, with 36% of the people listing the bicycle as their most frequent mode of transport on a typical day as opposed to the car by 45% and public transport by 11%." "Some 35,000 km of cycle-track has been physically segregated from motor traffic, equal to a quarter of…

You're not kidding. I took a 30 second jaunt with google maps and found this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9223839,4.4624592,3a,60y,117...

Note how it is physically impossible for the cars to drive or park in the bike lanes. Very cool.

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

#130

Post by u801e » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:03 PM UTC

framebit wrote: post #53

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…

As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition, I whole-heartedly love what few physically protected bike lanes there are in my city. They've greatly extended the range of places I feel comfortable riding my bike. I don't know if I'll ever be in good enough shape to feel comfortable claiming a lane and riding in traffic anywhere but neighborhoods and steep downhills. Yeah, it's a pain to turn…

> As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition

You don't need to be in "Tour de France" condition to take the lane on city streets (discounting your use of hyperbole). I do so all the time and intersection navigation is far easier when taking the lane than it is when forced to ride all the way to the right.

Pedestrian style infrastructure is suitable for pedestrian speeds (3 to 6 mph), not bicycle speeds (10 to 30+ mph).

> Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.

Except that the curb does not continue through the intersection. A car approaching from your right at the intersecting road, a car approaching from behind preparing to make a right turn. Or a car approaching from the opposite direction preparing to make a left may not see you until it's too late.

The vast majority of bike crashes occur at intersections. Very few are due to cars rear-ending cyclists.