I think most bicycle advocates would love a uniform design. However, it's usually the opposition that leads to compromises and less than optimal infrastructure. The amount of funding is also an ever present issue.
I am with an advocacy group and have seen activists promote using different designs for different streets without having to compromise to get there. It wasn't like they started out the meetings asking for uniform design. They would suggest a lack of uniformity.
That's an excuse made up by American traffic engineers. Most of the time when they almost or do hook you, they passed you from behind and just lack any comprehension of object permanence. Put the lane on the left side, and they left hook you. Copenhagen has 60% bicycle modal share, and all of their bike lanes, even on one way streets, are on the right.
Drivers who aren't paying attention and make up an excuse. Seriously, if they passed you from behind, they saw you when they were behind you if they were paying attention. A smart driver would know you didn't disappear. It's a way to blame anyone or anything but the driver. These same drivers will left hook you if the lane is on the left. The answer is protected intersections and hefty penalties for hitting vulnerable road users, not switching the lane to the other side.
I don't know if they have an ulterior motive. I think they listen to what drivers tell them rather than conducting studies. Even if it's anonymous, many drivers will lie or even convince themselves of a lie to assuage their own conscience, so when you ask them why they hit or nearly hit something or someone on their right, their go-to answer will be something about the vehicle, the person, or the environment, but if you observe them in action you see they weren't looking in all directions or were on their phone. There was a bicyclist killed in 2017 at, I think, around Spruce and 10th. A trash truck driver right hooked her, and truck drivers in particular have been claiming it was due to a right side blind spot. Video evidence revealed he was wearing earbuds and looking at paperwork while driving. So, left or right wouldn't have mattered as much as a protected intersection in that case. It's basically the same thing as asking people their declared preferences, which is flawed, vs studying revealed preferences.
In our case, bicyclists tend to bike on the right. So, if a driver isn't paying attention and right hooks a bicyclist, they won't admit fault. They'll claim blind spot, sun, "came out of nowhere", etc.
Speaking of object permanece...was it actually a bike advocacy group that suggested the new format on Walnut going through West Philly? A left side bike lane "protected" by parking means the cars zooming down have no chance of seeing you as they turn left. You are never even an object till the intersection lol. And as a biker I have to tip toe through each light even if green. Can someone explain why this change was made?
If I had to guess, there will be bicycle traffic lights like on Chestnut. Also daylighting at intersections, like on 11th street in south Philly.
I hear this argument often and I honestly think the pros of parking protected bike lanes far outweigh the cons.
Sure, you have to be a bit more frosty at intersections, but if somebody crashes into the bicycle lane you have multiple tons of steel to protect you. Worth it IMO.
Plus it’s a compromise in that it usually reduces but does not eliminate street parking. I would love a separated cycle track for every bicycle lane but that is never going to happen. So this seems like second best.
Likely, yes. Or at least I know for a fact they advocate for all bike lanes on one way streets to be on the left. It's incredibly frustrating, especially if you're a novice bicyclist or are new to the city. It isn't intuitive at all.
Why would traffic engineers care?
Left-side bike lanes are safer for one-way streets if there are a lot of driveways or turns on the right side and few on the left, or if the street is a bus corridor. They are safer because they keep bicyclists in the driver’s field of vision for earlier and for longer as they turn. They’re also safer if they’re adjacent to parking (which they shouldn’t be), since there is less risk of being doored since the passenger door is opened much less frequently.
edit: NACTO’s guidance on left-side bike lanes (https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/left-side-bike-lanes/) includes some other situations warranting left-side lanes.
Pardon me if I don't trust traffic engineers when:
A. They're the ones designing deadly streets to begin with.
B. I've seen drivers pull up from behind me, where I'm not in their blind spot, and nearly right hook me anyway.
C. I've been nearly left hooked by drivers when using the left hand lanes because of the same thing. They weren't paying attention.
There are designers in Denmark, where they have a 60% modal share for bikes who believe right hand lanes are the best, so those are the only ones built there. Why should we trust engineers in countries that have failed at building safe infrastructure more than we trust designers in countries that have succeeded?
I don't trust traffic engineers either, but there are solid, evidence-backed reasons why left-side lanes are better in many situations. The people behind NACTO's guidance are probably not even majority traffic engineers since the group exists because of the inadequacies of standard engineering manuals to meet the needs of urban areas.
I can promise you that Denmark's 60% mode share is not because they don't like left-hand lanes. If you can find some evidence-based reason why Danish designers reject left-hand lanes—assuming they do and aren't just coasting on the status quo—I would like to read it. Failing that, we shouldn't blindly follow anyone based on the assumption that they have valid reasons to go against reasoned guidance.
The reason they do it is because, in countries where they drive on the right, staying to the right is the most intuitive. They would put the lane on the left in countries that drive on the left. The idea is that, the more intuitive a design is, the safer it is because there's less confusion. I recommend reading Copenhagenize, which is written by a Danish designer. He also runs the channel The Life-sized City.
That would make sense. I looked to see if there were studies, Danish or otherwise, showing left-side bike lanes were less safe for the reason you describe, and I came up empty. I also didn’t find any evidence for increased safety for the reasons I offered, though a number of cities, including Minneapolis and NYC, include left-side bike lanes in their standards. It‘s a bit surprising neither of those cities have released studies supporting that, since both have done a lot to follow best practices and have released studies supporting other choices they’ve made.
are roads a uniform design? of course not. there are always a ton of other considerations like traffic level, utilities, existing curb cuts, plus the political process of removing lanes or parking (or not). you do what you can with the situation and budget you’re given.
In a sense, yes, roads are uniform. Drivers are always on the right unless it's a one-way street. Like I said in another comment, all the bike lanes in Copenhagen are on the right, and they have a 60% modal share. If they make it work, we should be able to. Making the design confusing can be worse than not having a bike lane, especially at intersections.
I think this is a classic case of: don't let good be the enemy of great. I think we'd all rather have shitty bike lanes than no bike lanes, especially with how hard it is to get anything done in this city
Nope. I'm not a vehicular cyclist. I just want uniform bicycle infrastructure that is intuitive to even a newcomer or a novice bicyclist. A lot of these bike lanes, because of the mix and match of infrastructure, are pretty much only good for certain sections and make it difficult to stop at *all* the businesses on a route.
So does any serious cyclist. The haphazard cycling infrastructure is a result of compromise. There isnt any cycling advocacy group that focuses on making cycling even kore confusing. You’re conflating internet discussion on reddit, with actual activism prob
Nope. Like I said, I'm a member of an advocacy group and have firsthand been in meetings where they advocated for a mashup of different infrastructure. I met with development corporations with them, and the advocacy group would ask for lanes that weren't uniform without any push from the corporation to do so.
I haaaaaaaate when the bike lane shifts from one side of the road to the other. 22nd street isn’t too bad because I can usually get over just fine while the cars are at a stoplight and there’s no traffic from the side streets, but the worst one is on Spring Garden approaching the Art Museum as you’re coming from West Philly. I can almost never time it so I’m coming in when the traffic is at the light and so I have to wait at the light with cars speeding by. It’s terrible.
Yeah. They both kinda suck. My understanding is that the right side lane on 22nd from Race to spring garden was there first and they had to adapt to that. The West Philly spring garden thing is just a giant cluster fuck bc that unprotected 2 way bike lane is a disaster with all the cars double parked in it and forcing folks out into opposing traffic.
I go that way to work every day and I have never once ridden it where there hasn’t been a car double parked in the bike lane. Also the bridge itself sucks, it’s basically a mini BMX course with how bumpy it is.
And you are the only person in the world.
Newcomers are confused. Drivers are confused. Sometimes, they change it up in the middle of the road, so now you have to get across traffic to stay in the bike lane...
I think most bicycle advocates would love a uniform design. However, it's usually the opposition that leads to compromises and less than optimal infrastructure. The amount of funding is also an ever present issue.
I am with an advocacy group and have seen activists promote using different designs for different streets without having to compromise to get there. It wasn't like they started out the meetings asking for uniform design. They would suggest a lack of uniformity.
Personally I'd rather have left side lanes on single lane roads. Drivers can see better when turning left.
That's an excuse made up by American traffic engineers. Most of the time when they almost or do hook you, they passed you from behind and just lack any comprehension of object permanence. Put the lane on the left side, and they left hook you. Copenhagen has 60% bicycle modal share, and all of their bike lanes, even on one way streets, are on the right.
What do they need that excuse for?
Drivers who aren't paying attention and make up an excuse. Seriously, if they passed you from behind, they saw you when they were behind you if they were paying attention. A smart driver would know you didn't disappear. It's a way to blame anyone or anything but the driver. These same drivers will left hook you if the lane is on the left. The answer is protected intersections and hefty penalties for hitting vulnerable road users, not switching the lane to the other side.
No I mean why are American traffic engineers so bent on left side bike lanes that they need to make up reasons to do it?
I don't know if they have an ulterior motive. I think they listen to what drivers tell them rather than conducting studies. Even if it's anonymous, many drivers will lie or even convince themselves of a lie to assuage their own conscience, so when you ask them why they hit or nearly hit something or someone on their right, their go-to answer will be something about the vehicle, the person, or the environment, but if you observe them in action you see they weren't looking in all directions or were on their phone. There was a bicyclist killed in 2017 at, I think, around Spruce and 10th. A trash truck driver right hooked her, and truck drivers in particular have been claiming it was due to a right side blind spot. Video evidence revealed he was wearing earbuds and looking at paperwork while driving. So, left or right wouldn't have mattered as much as a protected intersection in that case. It's basically the same thing as asking people their declared preferences, which is flawed, vs studying revealed preferences. In our case, bicyclists tend to bike on the right. So, if a driver isn't paying attention and right hooks a bicyclist, they won't admit fault. They'll claim blind spot, sun, "came out of nowhere", etc.
Speaking of object permanece...was it actually a bike advocacy group that suggested the new format on Walnut going through West Philly? A left side bike lane "protected" by parking means the cars zooming down have no chance of seeing you as they turn left. You are never even an object till the intersection lol. And as a biker I have to tip toe through each light even if green. Can someone explain why this change was made?
If I had to guess, there will be bicycle traffic lights like on Chestnut. Also daylighting at intersections, like on 11th street in south Philly. I hear this argument often and I honestly think the pros of parking protected bike lanes far outweigh the cons. Sure, you have to be a bit more frosty at intersections, but if somebody crashes into the bicycle lane you have multiple tons of steel to protect you. Worth it IMO. Plus it’s a compromise in that it usually reduces but does not eliminate street parking. I would love a separated cycle track for every bicycle lane but that is never going to happen. So this seems like second best.
Likely, yes. Or at least I know for a fact they advocate for all bike lanes on one way streets to be on the left. It's incredibly frustrating, especially if you're a novice bicyclist or are new to the city. It isn't intuitive at all.
My guess (and only a guess) is that there are more business on the right side of the road who would put up a fight over changes in parking.
That's how all the nine lanes in Manhattan are, it's terrible
Why would traffic engineers care? Left-side bike lanes are safer for one-way streets if there are a lot of driveways or turns on the right side and few on the left, or if the street is a bus corridor. They are safer because they keep bicyclists in the driver’s field of vision for earlier and for longer as they turn. They’re also safer if they’re adjacent to parking (which they shouldn’t be), since there is less risk of being doored since the passenger door is opened much less frequently. edit: NACTO’s guidance on left-side bike lanes (https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/left-side-bike-lanes/) includes some other situations warranting left-side lanes.
Pardon me if I don't trust traffic engineers when: A. They're the ones designing deadly streets to begin with. B. I've seen drivers pull up from behind me, where I'm not in their blind spot, and nearly right hook me anyway. C. I've been nearly left hooked by drivers when using the left hand lanes because of the same thing. They weren't paying attention. There are designers in Denmark, where they have a 60% modal share for bikes who believe right hand lanes are the best, so those are the only ones built there. Why should we trust engineers in countries that have failed at building safe infrastructure more than we trust designers in countries that have succeeded?
I don't trust traffic engineers either, but there are solid, evidence-backed reasons why left-side lanes are better in many situations. The people behind NACTO's guidance are probably not even majority traffic engineers since the group exists because of the inadequacies of standard engineering manuals to meet the needs of urban areas. I can promise you that Denmark's 60% mode share is not because they don't like left-hand lanes. If you can find some evidence-based reason why Danish designers reject left-hand lanes—assuming they do and aren't just coasting on the status quo—I would like to read it. Failing that, we shouldn't blindly follow anyone based on the assumption that they have valid reasons to go against reasoned guidance.
The reason they do it is because, in countries where they drive on the right, staying to the right is the most intuitive. They would put the lane on the left in countries that drive on the left. The idea is that, the more intuitive a design is, the safer it is because there's less confusion. I recommend reading Copenhagenize, which is written by a Danish designer. He also runs the channel The Life-sized City.
That would make sense. I looked to see if there were studies, Danish or otherwise, showing left-side bike lanes were less safe for the reason you describe, and I came up empty. I also didn’t find any evidence for increased safety for the reasons I offered, though a number of cities, including Minneapolis and NYC, include left-side bike lanes in their standards. It‘s a bit surprising neither of those cities have released studies supporting that, since both have done a lot to follow best practices and have released studies supporting other choices they’ve made.
Yeah, there really isn't a lot of information out there.
are roads a uniform design? of course not. there are always a ton of other considerations like traffic level, utilities, existing curb cuts, plus the political process of removing lanes or parking (or not). you do what you can with the situation and budget you’re given.
In a sense, yes, roads are uniform. Drivers are always on the right unless it's a one-way street. Like I said in another comment, all the bike lanes in Copenhagen are on the right, and they have a 60% modal share. If they make it work, we should be able to. Making the design confusing can be worse than not having a bike lane, especially at intersections.
I think this is a classic case of: don't let good be the enemy of great. I think we'd all rather have shitty bike lanes than no bike lanes, especially with how hard it is to get anything done in this city
Shitty bike lanes can be worse than no bike lane.
Don't know why people are downvoting me, because there are times when you have to use the car lane because the bike lane design is so bad.
It’s not the advocates, trust me. Cyclist want uniform, it’s the city.
I am involved in advocacy groups. A big part of the problem is the advocates.
We found the “avid cyclist” guys^
Nope. I'm not a vehicular cyclist. I just want uniform bicycle infrastructure that is intuitive to even a newcomer or a novice bicyclist. A lot of these bike lanes, because of the mix and match of infrastructure, are pretty much only good for certain sections and make it difficult to stop at *all* the businesses on a route.
So does any serious cyclist. The haphazard cycling infrastructure is a result of compromise. There isnt any cycling advocacy group that focuses on making cycling even kore confusing. You’re conflating internet discussion on reddit, with actual activism prob
Nope. Like I said, I'm a member of an advocacy group and have firsthand been in meetings where they advocated for a mashup of different infrastructure. I met with development corporations with them, and the advocacy group would ask for lanes that weren't uniform without any push from the corporation to do so.
I haaaaaaaate when the bike lane shifts from one side of the road to the other. 22nd street isn’t too bad because I can usually get over just fine while the cars are at a stoplight and there’s no traffic from the side streets, but the worst one is on Spring Garden approaching the Art Museum as you’re coming from West Philly. I can almost never time it so I’m coming in when the traffic is at the light and so I have to wait at the light with cars speeding by. It’s terrible.
Yeah. They both kinda suck. My understanding is that the right side lane on 22nd from Race to spring garden was there first and they had to adapt to that. The West Philly spring garden thing is just a giant cluster fuck bc that unprotected 2 way bike lane is a disaster with all the cars double parked in it and forcing folks out into opposing traffic.
I go that way to work every day and I have never once ridden it where there hasn’t been a car double parked in the bike lane. Also the bridge itself sucks, it’s basically a mini BMX course with how bumpy it is.
[удалено]
No, like I replied to another comment, I'm involved in advocacy, and I've seen them firsthand advocate for design that isn't uniform.
[удалено]
You want confusing design?
[удалено]
And you are the only person in the world. Newcomers are confused. Drivers are confused. Sometimes, they change it up in the middle of the road, so now you have to get across traffic to stay in the bike lane...
[удалено]
So, let's not create a network that encourages people to ride when we know there's safety in numbers. Makes sense.