Live data from Hacker News

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

citylab.com

191–199 of 199 posts

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

#191
post #185
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Dutch have that figured out. The problem is that the vast majority of motorists do not have significant experience riding a bicycle, so they don't know where to look for cyclists and will end up colliding with them when they pop out from behind parked cars within 30 feet of the intersection (when traveling at 20 feet per second).

i can confirm this from my own experience. didn't use a bike to get around the city for years, but once i started, my (car) driving style changed noticeably. for example, i do a lot more shoulder checks to the right. i'm a very fast cyclist and sometimes overtake drivers on the right (when riding in the bike lane). some drivers can't fathom a cyclist being faster than them. the other thing is mirror checks when openi…

> once i started [cycling], my (car) driving style changed noticeably. for example, i do a lot more shoulder checks to the right.

What I'll do is move further to the right when preparing to make a right turn in order to prevent cyclists from passing on the right. As a cyclist, I won't pass other vehicles on the right if there's a possibility that they could make a right turn, or a car from the opposite direction could make a left through a gap of stopped traffic, or a car approaching on the intersecting road on my right may not see me before pulling out.

> i'm trying to be safety conscious and always assume a driver in a dangerous spot hasn't seen me; this is impossible for suddenly opening car doors.

You can avoid opening car doors by riding at least 6 feet away from parked cars. I ignore door zine bike lanes and just ride in the center of the rightmost general purpose lane. Faster traffic can change lanes to pass me.

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

#192
post #99
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…

These issues have been solved from the proper protected lanes I've ridden on. >Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead. This is painted on the road for you to follow sometimes. >Also how do they expect me to safely go straight I've…

>> Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left

> You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead.

So now, if you have a red light in the direction of the road you're going in and it changes to green, you now just have to cross the intersection and wait for the full duration of another red light before you can effectively make a left (all while watching left turning traffic from the road you were originally on proceed with a protected left turn phase.

> I've seen a light for the bike lanes and a light for the right turn lane. When the bike lane is green, the right turn lane is red.

I've also seen videos[1] where drivers don't comply with the red light prohibiting right turns. The problem is that drivers will see that through traffic has a green light and will assume that it's okay to make a right turn because that's how most intersections work. Introducing a brand new configuration leads to issues where motorists will make mistakes to the detriment of cyclists.

[1] https://twitter.com/JarekFA/status/1133705797882408960?fbcli...

> Not the case, you just need to learn what the bike lane asks of you

This seems to be inconsistent from intersection to intersection. As a driver, it's just easier to follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles when I need to make a turn at an intersection.

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

#193
post #188
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars can match their speed.

Though it's often the heavier vehicles that can't match speed, but we don't routinely hear of cars rear ending buses or trucks (even with a 50 mph speed difference).

If bicyclists were capable of zipping around at speeds of +40 mph, compared to car traffic, I would have fewer problems with making them share the road with cars.

Many accidents currently occur because most cyclists aren't able to pedal fast enough to ride the center of a lane (Without making every motorist in a 50 yard radius want to kill them, for obstructing traffic.)

So, they end up riding on the shoulder, where they are less visible, are more likely to get doored, are more likely to be killed by people who don't shoulder check on right turns, are often passed with a great speed differential, but only inches of clearance...

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

#194
We need fewer people on bikes. When I moved to SF in 1999, I rode my beater single speed all around town in peace. Now I have to deal with rude people on bikes, people that don't know how to ride bikes on bikes, people that are on bikes that previously were jerks in cars and are jerks on bikes, people that are self-absorbed pedestrians on cell phones that have decided to try riding a bike in total oblivion to their surroundings....

Lets forget about protected bike lanes. Lets let Darwin's rule of evolution work for the responsible cyclists.

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

#195
post #193
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though it's often the heavier vehicles that can't match speed, but we don't routinely hear of cars rear ending buses or trucks (even with a 50 mph speed difference).

If bicyclists were capable of zipping around at speeds of +40 mph, compared to car traffic, I would have fewer problems with making them share the road with cars. Many accidents currently occur because most cyclists aren't able to pedal fast enough to ride the center of a lane (Without making every motorist in a 50 yard radius want to kill them, for obstructing traffic.) So, they end up riding on the shoulder, where…

> If bicyclists were capable of zipping around at speeds of +40 mph, compared to car traffic, I would have fewer problems with making them share the road with cars.

Why would cyclists have to move at 40+ mph on streets where traffic moves at 20 to 30 mph? Even so, traffic is capable of dealing with larger speed differentials due to intersections and steep grades, so there really is no requirement for cyclists to be able to keep up with traffic in order to ride within the general purpose traffic lane.

> Many accidents currently occur because most cyclists aren't able to pedal fast enough to ride the center of a lane

Do you have a citation for this claim? As a counter example, I've been riding in the center of the general purpose lane for a number of years and have never come close to getting rear ended (on roads where traffic goes between 30 to 50 mph).

> are often passed with a great speed differential, but only inches of clearance...

The reason they get passed with inches of clearance is that a cyclist who is edge riding gives motorists the impression that there is sufficient room to pass within the lane. A cyclist who rides in the center of the general traffic lane basically sends the message that faster traffic must change lanes to pass. Hence, they get a lot more clearance when they're passed by faster traffic.

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At rush hour it can be easy to beat commuters in cars on your bike.

But that's due to the average velocity being low, not the maximum velocity. Also, bikes have the advantage of weaving past traffic in those circumstances.

In most cities, average velocity is always low. Where I live, I can beat driving time on my bike for any distance that takes less than an hour. (I can always beat public transit over these distances and further too.) It's basically pointless to drive if you could bike instead and yet so many do it anyway.

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

#197
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - I also find it safer in NYC to just ride with traffic. I have had several collisions with pedestrians who decided they would just step out right in front of me into my “lane” and nearly door’d on a couple of other occasions

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…

I would like to point out that honking at cyclists is really annoying as a cyclist and can even be quite dangerous. From inside your car, it doesn't sound so bad but, on the outside -- particularly when you are as close as bike lanes often are -- it's pretty extreme noise pollution and borderline deafening.

Drivers in NYC are constantly honking for no good reason other than their own self gratification. (And how good can it even feel?) It's completely normalised socially but is clearly a useless and negative act in almost all cases. I find it extremely selfish for people to choose to take up so much space and so much noise at the expense of others. If you really must choose to drive rather than bike/walk/subway, at least choose not to fill the air with more noise than needs to be there.

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

#198
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be avoided with good intersection design that gives bicycles their own light cycle or puts the bike lane's stop line ahead of the automotive stop line.

> This can be avoided with good intersection design that gives bicycles their own light cycle And this now significantly increases the wait time for all modes of transportation. This will lead to signal non-compliance which will lead to more collisions and injuries. > or puts the bike lane's stop line ahead of the automotive stop line. This presents another set of issues where cyclists now have to determine whether t…

I don't think you understand what was meant by those things. Here's a video explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

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

#199

I ride extensively around the Providence, RI area. Cars are simply a scourge to biking here, at a time when we need less global and local pollution and we need to improve health via air quality and exercise. We have VERY few protected lanes, mostly there are "sharrows" aka faded pictures of bikes on the road that do absolutely zilch. I am routinely honked at and ignorant/rude people yell things out of their car windo…

Not from here, are you? :)

Cars simply dominate due to the wealth and political power of all the car owners

"Car owner" is not a really good metric for political power or wealth in RI. It's a sorta given, like in most of the US.

If you are able to own/drive a car, but don't need to-I.E. you both live and work within walking, biking, or public transit distance of anywhere in the state you need to go, then you may be more likely to live in a wealthier neighborhood.

Do any of the politicians even ride bikes to their legislature or have any understanding of cyclists' issues?

Good heavens, you're not from around here, are you?

If you were to list in order of significance "things that Rhode Island politicians have demonstrated a less-than-ideal grasp of", cyclist-related issues would come in pretty close to page 900, if one were to be depressed enough to compile such a list. As a rule, people who think it's OK to divert illegally-solicited campaign funds to pay for their mistress's breast enhancement surgery aren't big into cycling. They prefer Escalades.

The legislators from Smith Hill/North Providence might be the only ones in the state who could plausibly ride a bike to work; Smith Street has a gentler slope in that direction. I'd be surprised if it's ever happened.

Really, the only way to make bike transport work better in RI is if one were to somehow link payout of unionized public-sector employee pension benefits to person-miles traveled by bicycle. If you could pull that off, in no time the only way to get anywhere in the state would be by bike. You'd have to get to Block Island by cycling from Point Judith (there'd be a biiig ramp, see...)

Post reply on HN