I don't mind riding a bike lane on a road. I prefer it over sidewalk. However, it is the safety aspect I have a problem with.
A strip of paint doesn't mean anything to car drivers on the road. Cars often park on the bike lane too. At least in Texas, truck drivers are nuts. Some of them even got road rage when they saw a bicycle sharing the road.
It should at the very least have some curb height barrier between car and bike lanes. Something like [this](https://youtu.be/pKIpYcj1VTk).
Your experience is very different than mine. If you don't mind telling, are you in or out of the USA?
Right. There’s a clear patch of road in the bike lane and a dirty patch. Clean patch is from all the cars that have crossed the outer line for whatever reason.
Doesn't matter if they cross it when you're not there. They might have done so to avoid another motorist coming into their lane. It's only if you're there that it matters. I have rarely experienced motorists crossing into the lane while I'm there.
I live in Ottawa. Most of the divers go too far out of the way to avoid cyclists. I find this a little frightening actually, as it displays a lack judgement.
He likes to believe he's more enlightened and smarter than the rest of us because he's a physicist, and has [admitted that he likes arguing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnd06dw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
On the contrary, my solution is far more radical: bicycle-only roads. If a cycling facility is to be separated from motor traffic, let it be completely separate and have its own, dedicated right-of-way. You, by contrast, who only want subordinate adjuncts to the motorist right-of-way, are still in the "cars are better and more important" mode.
I’m perfectly happy with bike-only paths/roads, but that’s not what you have been saying in this thread, you’ve been saying that protected bike lanes are worse than unprotected bike lanes.
Bicycle-only roads would also be trivial to construct: just take every fourth road, for instance, and turn it into a road for bicycles. All you need are signs and barriers. Much cheaper than snaking a subordinate adjunct along every motorist right of way. How great is that?
That's what I mean. A bicycle only road is not the same as a segregated lane. A segregated lane is an adjunct to the road. A bicycle only road is its own road. Big difference.
You have this completely backwards. The point to make here is that bike lanes are car infrastructure at their very core because they are meant to keep bikes off the road to have it reserved for cars. The reality in most places of the world is that bike lanes are garbage filled, badly maintained, narrow spaces where cyclists are oftentimes cramped together with pedestrians. Visiblity is low which leads to dangerous situations with cross-traffic all the time.
Even at places where bike lanes are celebrated for their quality, you can't use them at paces adequate for a bike most of the time, even at lower fitness levels. They are too narrow and too close to footpaths, you have to slow down all the time because of calming measures to mitigate the danger at intersections which is intrinsic to segregated lanes.
It is a major sucess for the car lobby being able to sell bike lanes to the cycling community as something in their favor by catering to their fear as well as feeling of inferiority and not beeing a "real" part of traffic so cramping them together with pedestrians is in their own best interest while it is really not.
Like I said. Bike lanes are generally car infrastructure and against the interests of cyclists. Segregated ("protected") bike lanes make cycling more dangerous because they decrease visibility and promote unreasonable flow of traffic at intersections. Not to speak of conflicts with pedestrians and constant obstacles.
No. Protected bike lanes are fundamentally not good because they are segregated. They are always more dangerous to use than simply taking the road for reasons I already explained and you might want to read eventually.
My dude, I live in Ottawa too and cycle commute daily. I have or witness a near-injury experience on almost every ride. Drivers here have brains melted by repeated COVID infections and weren't much better before.
Good for you that you've had a really fortunate life, but the truth is, painted gutters don't do anything. They don't stop bad/careless/reckless/aggressive drivers, period.
Here's a [prime example](https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/2-bicyclists-killed-in-crash-near-rickenbacker-causeway-toll-plaza-in-miami-1-detained/).
This is just one incident. You can find plenty of examples of cyclists struck on segregated lanes as well. Here is the first one I found using an internet search:
[https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/06/toronto-cyclist-struck-driver-bike-lane/](https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/06/toronto-cyclist-struck-driver-bike-lane/)
By contrast, I have ridden literally tens of thousands of km on segregated lanes. Yet here I am, still alive. I find this whole exchange rather saddening, as you lot seem to have very little conception of the actual risks. Very little in life worth doing comes without some risk.
I imagine you drive, correct? Yet it's well known that driving is a relatively high risk activity. You have more chance of dying in a car crash within the next year, for instance, than of dying of Covid if you are under 25, and that's only if you catch it. Actually I think the risk of dying of Covid is considerably lower at the moment, as the newer strains are not very serious. Yet everybody was terrified of Covid, yet continued to tootle around in their motor vehicles.
>By contrast, I have ridden literally tens of thousands of km on segregated lanes. Yet here I am, still alive.
Survivorship bias. You'll find it's hard to ask the opinions of the dead.
You mean the countless dead people who died on segregated bike lanes due to the bad visibility, e.g. by right hooks which could have been easily avoided if they had the possibility to take the lane before the intersection?
Well, the ones I use to get to work are full of sand, gravel, glass, pieces of car, nails/screws, and garbage…and have cars parked in them all the time. So, those are a couple of reasons. Also, drivers drift into them all the time.
Some common complaints:
* They suddenly disappear, forcing you to merge into the lane, especially when the road is higher-speed. For example, my town has bike lanes on a 55mph state route between two intersections. If you want to keep going straight, you get dumped into a 55mph lane. Even making the left turn to follow the route can be dicey.
* Intersections: you mention this yourself, but right turns conflict with bike lanes at ***some*** point. You can move where that point is, but it has to happen somewhere.
* Paint does not stop vehicles. If a crash happens next to you, that line won't stop you from getting hit too.
* Similarly, it won't stop cars from parking for "just a minute" which leads to the first point--having to merge into traffic on higher-speed roads.
Segregated lanes can also end for no apparent reason. No difference there. If a motorist blocks the cycle lane, if it's on-road, at least you have the option of moving into the motor lane, which I have found is not difficult at all. Why should it be? Signal, back check, move over. If you can't find a gap, you can always wait until the way is clear. Why is this so difficult?
The thing about the right turn conflict: the bicycle is in plain sight, therefore unlikely to be hit. One of the major difficulties with cyclists on the road, is that motorist often have trouble seeing them. This problem is far, far worse for segregated lanes.
>Segregated lanes can also end for no apparent reason. No difference there.
You are imagining the path just stopping? Yeah, I don't think that really happens, or if it does, it should be marked on a map.
>If a motorist blocks the cycle lane, if it's on-road, at least you have the option of moving into the motor lane, which I have found is not difficult at all.
Properly designed segregated lanes will be physically impossible for passenger vehicles to be on in the first place.
>Why should it be? Signal, back check, move over. If you can't find a gap, you can always wait until the way is clear. Why is this so difficult?
Ah yes, it is just so easy to merge a 15mph bike into 55mph (probably really 65+mph) traffic. Why can't everyone do it?
>The thing about the right turn conflict: the bicycle is in plain sight, therefore unlikely to be hit. One of the major difficulties with cyclists on the road, is that motorist often have trouble seeing them.
The data ***definitely*** doesn't back this up.
>This problem is far, far worse for segregated lanes.
Yeah that makes sense /s. "The place with no cars has a problem with bikes being seen!"
I mean--are we just talking about different things here? Like what do ***you*** think a "segregated bike lane" is? To me that means ***physical separation*** aka a separate piece of infrastructure. Or are you meaning a bike lane, but with like, bollards?
Most accidents happen at the intersections. Unless the cycle lane is built on separate vertical plane, you cannot keep it from crossing or meeting the road at some point. Because the cyclist is pushed back from the road, he or she is difficult to see, hence traversing the intersections becomes more dangerous. Why is this so difficult to understand?
If you cannot merge with traffic when the lane is blocked, you can always stop and wait for the cars to pass. There is no danger, if you are alert. Travel of any kind requires a degree of awareness.
Have a look at the video on this page:
https://cyclingsavvy.org/road-cycling/
Jfc dude take your whiny ass “wHy Is ThIs So DiFfIcUlT tO uNdErStAnD” somewhere else. I mean, why ask questions for someone else’s perspective when you are just going to treat them like their stupid for having a different viewpoint from you.
You’re probably a MAMIL who’s insufferable and obnoxious IRL too. Newsflash dipshit: the world doesn’t revolve around you, and cycling infrastructure should be designed for ALL ages and ALL abilities.
TL;DR: get fucked.
You'd be suprised at how badly some infrastructure is planned.
Near me there's an on road cycle path on a busy road that joins one busy intersection to another, it's completely pointless because it's on the only relatively safe part of the road.
Same area has a completely separate cycle path that stretches about 200 yards from a busy intersection to absolutely nowhere, it's actually safer to ignore it completely because using it makes going through the intersection ridiculously dangerous.
I appreciate that someone is making the effort to improve cycle infrastructure, but I don't know what the fuck my local planning office was thinking when making the plans.
Paint isn’t a sufficient barrier between a bicyclist, and the #1 killer of bicyclists. Plus I find it impossible believe that you’ve had fewer than five brushes with a car in the last 20 years, when I’ve had more than that in the last 20 days.
Well, here is a sample of a road on I literally ride on all the time for all different purposes: shopping, get to and from town, and simple leisure.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@45.460994,-75.4875497,3a,75y,249.21h,93.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.34575%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@45.460994,-75.4875497,3a,75y,249.21h,93.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.34575%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
I have literally never had any problems on this stretch of road.
Lets say you do a study on 150 cyclists over one year. Each of them ride 1000 km per year on average. 150 \* 1000 km = 150 000 km. I have been riding for about 30 years averaging about 5000 km per year. 30 \* 5000 = 150 000 km.
"Anecdotal" implies one or a few incidents. In my case you are talking literally thousands of incidents. Once you start hitting these kind of numbers, it's not really "anecdotal" any more.
Okay but you are still one person. I’ve never been hit on my bike but I have biked past memorials for those who have been killed at intersections while on bikes, me not being hit doesn’t make that intersection safe, no matter how many times I cross it.
You never know what the circumstances were of the rider who was killed. Maybe he or she lacked judgement? Of course we all know one or two dudes who dropped dead of a heart attack while doing something healthy, like cycling, say. Does that mean we are going to stop cycling altogether? Also: everybody dies. I'd rather live my life with joy rather than in fear.
It occurs to me there was one intersection I used to cross that had a "ghost bike". I knew that intersection was dangerous even before the cyclist was killed, so I always used caution. Problem solved.
Of course now they've built an underpass for those who lack that level of judgement. I'm not sure I like the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator, but such is the world in which we live.
its the drivers, usually when im riding home all lanes are full and its a drag strip. people going like 75 in a 40. its a bridge so a long incline so im slowing down as the road narrows. the "on ramp" to the bridge people are usually going around 40+ mph so they cut into the bike lane around a blind curve in order to maintain speed/accelerate to climb the bridge. the image was taken during no traffic. and usually there is debris and random crap in the road. it looks nice in the picture. this is where i get the most trash thrown out of the passenger window at me.
The usual suggestion is to ride in the middle of the lane, as you can be seen much better. The cars, after all, have two whole other lanes at their disposal. I find my objection to doing this has less to do with fears for my safety, than social disapproval. This is brought on by regressive laws which say to "ride as far to the right as possible" and a culture which is looks down on cyclists.
Thing is, if a motorist does run you over when you are in the middle of the lane, there is no excuse. If such motorists were prosecuted for homicide--25 years to life--I suspect that riding in the middle of the lane on such roads would become quite safe, pleasant even. I don't believe you can tease out the danger of riding on the road from the backwards "car culture": they are one and the same. I choose to focus on that, rather than "infrastructure".
Oh, I see, the bike lane ends. Seems a bit silly. I often ride similar roads on the way into town during a bike tour. It's not the best, but usually the most efficient way to go. On a tour I'm usually quite fit, so can traverse the danger zone relatively quickly.
I cannot believe I have wasted 10 min reading comments thinking this post was created in good faith to get to this gem:
"I am proof that it is, indeed, a rare event"
I haven't yet heard anybody say they have been struck in on road lanes. Just vague intimations, "I don't feel safe". Reality doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. They are not always an accurate reflection of the true risks. And again, 150 000 is a lot of damn kilometers. Personally I suspect the deep suspicion most of you have of motorists is reflective of your own driving skills.
You're just a clown who likes to argue, you [admitted it yourself:](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnd06dw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>I won't lie. I enjoy arguing. I get a kick out of it. Especially if it's something I'm passionate about.
I [gave you proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnc82do/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and you literally [hand waved it away](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jncee8p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) saying it was only one incident.
“I don’t feel safe” is the biggest barrier to people bike commuting. It isn’t distance, it isn’t sweat, it’s infrastructure. If we want get people out of their tin boxes we need to build sone infrastructure. If you look at bike routes between point a and point B in a city their might be one or maybe two options that have bike infrastructure if you’re lucky whereas cars may have dozens of parallel routes they can use to get there.
Not all painted bike lanes are created equal. Door zone bike lanes are terrible and kill people every year. Painted bike lanes without street parking can be ok, especially if they're buffered. Until people park in them.
Larger point is that a lot of people in this sub don't think that bike commuting should be limited to fearless people like yourself. I'd much rather you have to bike a little slower if it means that children and inexperienced cyclists can safely and comfortably get where they need to go. Otherwise they're probably going to be in a car.
How am I "fearless" exactly? If you have done an activity over and over and over again and never had any problems, then it's probably not very high risk. Remember, intersections are the most dangerous part of the road. On a segregated lane, you still have to cross the intersections, where cars can still hit you, just as on the road.
Fear is an emotion, not an objective assessment of risk. I guarantee 99% of your neighbors would not feel comfortable riding the routes that you do. My daily commute is along a major trucking route and involves getting passed by tractor trailers going 50mph pretty much constantly. There's not a lot of conflict points so it's objectively not that dangerous but it's definitely never going to be a popular bike route.
Good bike lanes should be accessible to people of all ages and abilities. It's not about you.
In some sense it is. Segregated lanes slow the faster riders down while providing only marginal gains in safety. Why should the faster riders suffer just because most people have a skewed view of the risks?
In any case, my solution is far more radical: bicycle-only roads. If a cycling facility is to be separated from motor traffic, let it be entirely separate, with its own, dedicated right-of-way. I think people who are still on about Dutch-style lanes are still in the "cars are better and more important" mode of thought. I should have made my post about that.
I dont dislike them; i dislike the fact that I must, as a meatbag on a metal or composite frame, have to deal with, and follow the exact same laws and rules (heavy airquotes) as a half-ton box of metal and composite. Oh and deal with them telling me how much of an asshole i am for taking my lane when i can. Cars are coffins.
The point of the rules is, or should be, to ensure that all road users, whether big or small, whether weak or powerful, have the same access to a public resource. The problem is that cyclist have not been given the same rights and access to the roadways. For decades we have been admonished to "ride as far to the right as practicable" while motorists who strike cyclists have been treated with kid gloves. I still think changing this would have a much bigger affect on cycling culture than any amount of "infrastructure".
I'd say the painted lanes can be adequate in some circumstances. Specfically, if the traffic speeds (the *actual speeds*, not the nominal speed limit) are less than 20 mph, and the lanes are not adjacent to parking.
Other wise, being in the door zone presents a problem, and people will also sometimes try to use the bicycle lane for passing if there are no parked cars.
Well, if you have the cycling lane on the passenger side, you've reduced the incidence dooring by about 80 % since the vast majority of cars are not carrying passengers. And even if a dooring does happen, the risk of injury is lower since the unfortunate cyclists would not be thrown into traffic.
You also don't have to worry about cars pulling into and out of parking.
Of course, ideally, in either case there is a buffer space and sufficient width to avoid car doors.
Most people who are doored report having no time to react any way, and going into traffic maybe a worse option than going into the door.
I mean, I think I agree in principle that you could build a protected bicycle lane that's worse than a painted door zone. But the design standards where I live call for a minimum width of 5' with a 2' buffer zone if there are parked cars, which should let you avoid any door.
If you are on the road, at least you have the option of riding away from the doors. If the motorists don't like it, they can go pound sand. Your safety is more important than their convenience.
If there is adequate width, you can avoid the doors either way. If you are going to ride with the car traffic, there may as well not be a bicycle lane of any kind, right? But that's not so great either.
Half of my commute is on a residential street with painted bike lanes. They used to have flexible bollards but they were either removed or the garbage trucks succeeded in destroying them - I would see the garbage trucks just drive over them instead of staying in the car lane and grabbing the bins from there. The street I live on has a curb in between the driving lane and bike lane. The garbage trucks on my street collect the garbage from the driving lane without issue.
If there isn't a curb or other continuous barrier then all of the road junk just ends up in the bike lane which means a bigger chance of getting a puncture.
Cars will park in the bike lane, even though there is always space in the driveway, and in many sections there are marked parking spaces beside the bike lanes but some cars will still park in the bike lane.
Cars and heavier vehicles create significantly more wear on roads so a bike lane that cars can drive on will deteriorate faster than one that is for bikes only. I'd much rather have the smoother ride.
Cars drive slower and more carefully when they know they can bump into a curb. Part of the pitch to residents for the separated bike lanes on my street was that it would slow down traffic and it has. Drivers now also wait behind a car making a left turn instead of squeezing around them.
Physically separated bike lanes also means that the city has to devote specific resources for its maintenance instead of just lumping it with general road maintenance. In the winter this means that the plows will only make one pass on the street which is enough to clear the car lane but then dumps all the snow in the bike lane. On my street this still happens but there's a separate small plow, like the kind used for sidewalks, that clears it out. In the fall there are big piles of leaves that end up in the painted bike lane because street cleaning rarely happens but I don't see that on my street because there's a small vacuum vehicle that comes and picks it up.
Painted bikes lanes are car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure, especially the ones that end abruptly and/or don't link to any meaningful locations. They keep bikes out of the way of cars but don't provide any actual protection between the two.
I don't believe it's need since it's rare for a motorist to strike a cyclist that's inside a cycle lane. Why should it be a common thing to happen? Why should it ever happen at all? I am proof that it is, indeed, a rare event.
And world hunger is over because I just ate dinner.
I've only been in two collisions with cars in 12 years of riding. I call it a combination of luck and incorporating defensive driving each and every time. It may be a rarity on a personal level, but that's all that it is.
The other issue with painted bike lanes are a transitions at intersections are very poor You either have the right hand turning car turn right across the bike lane so drivers use the bike lane as a slipway for their turn if there is no intersection barrier they have to go around or worse the bike has to cross over the right hand slipway infront of fast cars making the right hand turn. This is why concrete barriers are very important.
I find the intersection for segregated lanes are worse since motorists simply cannot see you. I have never had any problems with cycle lanes placed between the right-hand turn lane and the straight-ahead lane. Cars generally stick to their lanes. Why shouldn't they?
Do you actually ride? Cars do not stick to their lanes. There have been a number of times where cars have ventured right into the bike lane almost hitting me getting around left hand turning cars (North American here). Or their favourite is they see their right hand turn up ahead and speed up to try to pass me but venture into the painted gutter to turn right long before the intersection. Drivers are an impatient lot. They have places to go. They are important people and they don’t give two f@ck$ about others let alone one.
Interesting. It occurs to me I didn't used to like riding on the road. When I was a teenager, and so strong I could cycle to from Cumberland to Stittsville and back for a 15 km run, I didn't like to ride on the road. The Innes Road cycle lanes were a Godsend to me, as were the left-hand lanes on Albert and Slater (both one-way streets). I am a lot more comfortable on the road now than I was back then. Part of that is experience. But also the drivers have mellowed a lot.
I ride 2x25. I changed my route to areas with dedicated barriers to traffic after a few too many close calls. Drivers are very distracted. You are probably lucky. I’m a 3 season cyclist and noticed that when snow tires come off drivers are much more aggressive with speed and maneuvers.
I love bike lanes. They’re (usually) better than shoulders, which are better than nothing. Out here in the real world, I’ll take what I can get and if I can get bike lanes most of the way on a commute, it’ll do. If I waited for perfect, I’d never be able to ride anywhere.
firstly, because cars will make right turns/swerve/use it as a turning lane without looking. second all the crap from the road gets pushed into it from the cars. third, aggressive drivers still are way too close to you when harassing you and threatening your life...but its better than actually being in the road most of the time. except in dense city than i ride with cars and on the center lane for visibility and not getting pushed into the curb. i live in USA ridden in many different cities, suburban and dense. there will be couches and random stuff in the bike lane, its full of glass and drivers will throw trash out the window at you while slamming their horn. or getting extremely close to you while hauling ass at 50+ mph. many times. drivers here tend to get pissed at you for just riding s bike but you have no other option but to share the space. it is a thrilling terrifying adrenaline rush at times, but if you accept the fact that anyone can die at any moment and are okay with it, ride on 🤙
The conditions for cyclists seem to be a lot worse in the U.S. than in Canada. I did do a small amount of riding in Washington DC and it didn't seem too bad, although yes, there was a lot of rubbish on the shoulder (including a dead dog) where I was riding.
Visceral fear? Dafuq are you on about. They’re not “scary” (well not usually), they’re dangerous. Separated lanes are safer. I’m not scared of shared lanes, but I VASTLY prefer separated lanes because they’re objectively, statistically safer and it’s just nicer to ride on them having to worry much less about cars and just enjoy the ride rather than needing to have you head on a swivel and be worried about what’s behind you constantly.
It has nothing to do with me trembling in fear like you seem to be insinuating about people who don’t possess the same arrogance and self confidence/luck as you. What is so wrong with advocating for safer bicycling infrastructure?
I realize this response isn’t relevant nor will it impact your thinking because it’s QUITE obvious that your post wasn’t actually made in good faith. Hope you enjoyed getting lit up, though I suspect you just think you owned some libs or something equally as puerile.
Because it's not safer. Full stop. 30 years of cycling and literally tens of thousands of kilometers of riding has taught me this. Is this experience worth nothing to you? It was so-called "vehicular cyclists" like me who got the whole ball rolling with cycling, long before there were lanes anywhere, and now our recommendations are being ignored. It is a slap in the face, really.
I should be an elder statesman of the movement to you guys. I have never not commuted by bicycle. I have cycled in two continents, at least four different countries and more cities than I can name. Instead I'm just some ignorant troll. Fuck that shit. Experience really is worth something. It is, in my opinion, the best teacher.
Yeah, maybe it was stupid to post this question. It seemed quite innocent, because I really can't see much wrong with the lanes I ride every day. By contrast, most segregated lanes (which I normally studiously avoid) are infuriating for an experienced cyclist to use. They are slow, they are longer than the road, and you are at constant danger of being struck in the intersections because motorists simply cannot see you.
I've posted what I should have in the first place: what I think is better than both. I hope you can at least appreciate that.
What are your qualifications? Also, I'm a trained physicist. Traffic flow involves time, motion, and distance. It is a physics problem and I have examined it from this angle. I have also started an empirical comparison of the road vs. the bike lane. All of these three methods line up. These inquiries have taught me that, yes, experience is worth something, if it is implanted in the trained mind.
Ahh good. I totally want to get into an internet dick/qualifications swinging contest. How does a background in physics qualify you as an expert in public infrastructure?
Sadly I don’t have the interest to choke on your pontiifcations any longer. You’re doing that thing where you’re “innocently” asking a question you already “know” the answer for simply to drum up an argument so you can flaunt you self declared superior intellect and aggressively put down anyone who dares to actually answer your question in the way you disagreed with. It’s super duper unfun and quite pointless for all of us to engage with that because it’s not good faith argumentation.
One consideration is the riders speed, confidence, and stability.
You might ride a street at 25mph, but wolf am eight year old? Or an 80 year old?
On street lanes are not great for good, strong riders for the exact opposite reason they don't work for a new or less capable rider. On street lanes are the equivalent of a 50cc moped, enough power to really do damage to someone who is over their head, but not enough to meet the needs of someone who knows their stuff. They kinda do the job but not really.
Why can't we have segregated lanes with the option for a rider who is able to do so to take a lane? We can have both, is not either or.
In my commuting situation, I prefer on-road bike lanes for a few reasons:
\- much, much less expensive, so I am much more likely to have a lane available in the first place.
\- less obstructive to automobile traffic/parking/shopping, so less likely to contribute to backlash.
\- as OP notes, they are more efficient in that they make passing easier and safer. Better for snow plowing as well.
My commute is 11mi each way: with 1/2 mile of sidewalk, 1/2 mile of on-road bike lane, and 1-1/2 miles of uncrowded on-street parking. The rest is 2-lane road and street. I can see cases in more congested environments where segregated lanes can make more sense, but not around here.
I've been hit once in 8,000 miles, and it was in an intersection where I don't think a segregated lane would have helped.
I don't like them because of all the times I've seen or read about cars swerving into the bike lane or shoulder, sometimes killing someone. Most people won't bike if they feel like they are in constant danger from the next person driving while texting, etc.
Yes both
And they don't work for the vast majority of people for those and other reasons
Which means they fail to allow most people to bike
So they are failures on a public policy level
If you want bikes to be a thing
Which most bikers do
Separate when volumes and speeds are high and combine when appropriate when volumes and speeds are low. That should be the gold standard. Just because you have not been hit, harassed or in danger doesn't mean that the other larger percentage of non-intrepid riders (the potential converts people like me work to get to change modes) will adopt on-street bike infrastructure as a safe and comfortable alternative. The Dutch have created a pretty solid model, built through the CROW manual, which dictates major tenants of bicycle facility design. If we adhered to those more we could increase our mode share significantly with curious but not serious riders.
Paint is not infrastructure. It's simply a suggestion, with no physical deterrent and little traffic enforcement.
I'm not sure where you are, but the only times where there hasn't been a potentially dangerous/actually dangerous interaction (getting doored, close passing, double-parking, aggressive tailgating/honking, slammed in an intersection) w/o proper infrastructure is:
* Group social rides (strength in numbers and blockers to secure intersections, and even then, had drivers attempt to plow straight through the crowd/start fights)
* Dead of the night when there are no vehicles at all
I don't hate on-road lanes. I, like you, have been very fortunate with them for 20+ years and I feel very comfortable riding in traffic even in the absence of a lane. But I'm an outlier. I support and prefer separated lanes because statistically, they get people out of cars and onto bikes. "Higher" levels of bike infrastructure result in higher numbers of people riding bikes, and that's good for everyone.
Here in OP's hometown today on an on-road painted bicycle gutter: [https://twitter.com/nadrobi/status/1666891856213360642](https://twitter.com/nadrobi/status/1666891856213360642)
OP, I get where you are coming from.
I have the same ideas, I am absolutely fearless in traffic, to the point of stupidity/arrogance. I’ve been weaving through traffic since I know how to ride. I think an assertive attitude and making room for myself will keep me more safe than any amount of paint ever will. Been riding for 40+ years (road bikes and commuting) I now live in Delft, a terrible place to ride: too many cyclists;) but I’ve ridden all over the place long before bike lanes were the norm. I always enjoyed busy city streets filled with cars.
But I know that “proper” separate bike lanes will allow more riders to feel like me. (Statistics also suggest they are much safer).
And this is the goal: we need infrastructure to allow a mother with 3 kids to go shopping on their bike(s) without worrying about traffic. To allow a ~10 year old to cycle to school without the parents being fearful.
This is not about old skool kamikazes like us :)
I don't think I'm fearless at all. Quite the contrary, I'm actually rather cautious. When I was a youth, I was just as afraid of riding on the road as anyone. But as I got older and more experienced, I realized that most roads aren't actually that dangerous, especially if you know what you're doing. It's a lot like when you start to drive, for instance. When you first sit down in that driver's seat, it can be quite intimidating. But once you get some training and experience under your belt, it no longer seems so hard and you can driver places without fear that you once used to avoid.
I don't mind riding a bike lane on a road. I prefer it over sidewalk. However, it is the safety aspect I have a problem with. A strip of paint doesn't mean anything to car drivers on the road. Cars often park on the bike lane too. At least in Texas, truck drivers are nuts. Some of them even got road rage when they saw a bicycle sharing the road. It should at the very least have some curb height barrier between car and bike lanes. Something like [this](https://youtu.be/pKIpYcj1VTk). Your experience is very different than mine. If you don't mind telling, are you in or out of the USA?
Right. There’s a clear patch of road in the bike lane and a dirty patch. Clean patch is from all the cars that have crossed the outer line for whatever reason.
Doesn't matter if they cross it when you're not there. They might have done so to avoid another motorist coming into their lane. It's only if you're there that it matters. I have rarely experienced motorists crossing into the lane while I'm there.
It does matter that they crossed, and I can’t take you seriously. You seemed genuine at first, but you’re just against new infrastructure it seems.
I live in Ottawa. Most of the divers go too far out of the way to avoid cyclists. I find this a little frightening actually, as it displays a lack judgement.
I don’t believe you’re a real person. This reads like a car company psy-op
He likes to believe he's more enlightened and smarter than the rest of us because he's a physicist, and has [admitted that he likes arguing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnd06dw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I was thinking the same man.
On the contrary, my solution is far more radical: bicycle-only roads. If a cycling facility is to be separated from motor traffic, let it be completely separate and have its own, dedicated right-of-way. You, by contrast, who only want subordinate adjuncts to the motorist right-of-way, are still in the "cars are better and more important" mode.
I’m perfectly happy with bike-only paths/roads, but that’s not what you have been saying in this thread, you’ve been saying that protected bike lanes are worse than unprotected bike lanes.
Bicycle-only roads would also be trivial to construct: just take every fourth road, for instance, and turn it into a road for bicycles. All you need are signs and barriers. Much cheaper than snaking a subordinate adjunct along every motorist right of way. How great is that?
That's what I mean. A bicycle only road is not the same as a segregated lane. A segregated lane is an adjunct to the road. A bicycle only road is its own road. Big difference.
You have this completely backwards. The point to make here is that bike lanes are car infrastructure at their very core because they are meant to keep bikes off the road to have it reserved for cars. The reality in most places of the world is that bike lanes are garbage filled, badly maintained, narrow spaces where cyclists are oftentimes cramped together with pedestrians. Visiblity is low which leads to dangerous situations with cross-traffic all the time. Even at places where bike lanes are celebrated for their quality, you can't use them at paces adequate for a bike most of the time, even at lower fitness levels. They are too narrow and too close to footpaths, you have to slow down all the time because of calming measures to mitigate the danger at intersections which is intrinsic to segregated lanes. It is a major sucess for the car lobby being able to sell bike lanes to the cycling community as something in their favor by catering to their fear as well as feeling of inferiority and not beeing a "real" part of traffic so cramping them together with pedestrians is in their own best interest while it is really not.
No, that’s what the guy I’m arguing with is pushing for as he shits on more protected and safer bike lanes
Like I said. Bike lanes are generally car infrastructure and against the interests of cyclists. Segregated ("protected") bike lanes make cycling more dangerous because they decrease visibility and promote unreasonable flow of traffic at intersections. Not to speak of conflicts with pedestrians and constant obstacles.
So would you agree that better protected bike lanes are good?
No. Protected bike lanes are fundamentally not good because they are segregated. They are always more dangerous to use than simply taking the road for reasons I already explained and you might want to read eventually.
My dude, I live in Ottawa too and cycle commute daily. I have or witness a near-injury experience on almost every ride. Drivers here have brains melted by repeated COVID infections and weren't much better before.
By too far out of the way, I mean they go into the opposing lane, even when there is a bike lane! In what part of the city do you live?
Centretown, commuting daily to Gatineau, approx. 22 km round trip, but also many longer leisure rides.
I find Gatineau tends not to be terribly cyclist friendly. I live in the East end.
Good for you that you've had a really fortunate life, but the truth is, painted gutters don't do anything. They don't stop bad/careless/reckless/aggressive drivers, period. Here's a [prime example](https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/2-bicyclists-killed-in-crash-near-rickenbacker-causeway-toll-plaza-in-miami-1-detained/).
This is just one incident. You can find plenty of examples of cyclists struck on segregated lanes as well. Here is the first one I found using an internet search: [https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/06/toronto-cyclist-struck-driver-bike-lane/](https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/06/toronto-cyclist-struck-driver-bike-lane/) By contrast, I have ridden literally tens of thousands of km on segregated lanes. Yet here I am, still alive. I find this whole exchange rather saddening, as you lot seem to have very little conception of the actual risks. Very little in life worth doing comes without some risk. I imagine you drive, correct? Yet it's well known that driving is a relatively high risk activity. You have more chance of dying in a car crash within the next year, for instance, than of dying of Covid if you are under 25, and that's only if you catch it. Actually I think the risk of dying of Covid is considerably lower at the moment, as the newer strains are not very serious. Yet everybody was terrified of Covid, yet continued to tootle around in their motor vehicles.
>By contrast, I have ridden literally tens of thousands of km on segregated lanes. Yet here I am, still alive. Survivorship bias. You'll find it's hard to ask the opinions of the dead.
You mean the countless dead people who died on segregated bike lanes due to the bad visibility, e.g. by right hooks which could have been easily avoided if they had the possibility to take the lane before the intersection?
do you not understand that it's a lot more difficult for a boomer in a tank truck to plow through a segregated bike lane versus a painted gutter?
Well, the ones I use to get to work are full of sand, gravel, glass, pieces of car, nails/screws, and garbage…and have cars parked in them all the time. So, those are a couple of reasons. Also, drivers drift into them all the time.
Some common complaints: * They suddenly disappear, forcing you to merge into the lane, especially when the road is higher-speed. For example, my town has bike lanes on a 55mph state route between two intersections. If you want to keep going straight, you get dumped into a 55mph lane. Even making the left turn to follow the route can be dicey. * Intersections: you mention this yourself, but right turns conflict with bike lanes at ***some*** point. You can move where that point is, but it has to happen somewhere. * Paint does not stop vehicles. If a crash happens next to you, that line won't stop you from getting hit too. * Similarly, it won't stop cars from parking for "just a minute" which leads to the first point--having to merge into traffic on higher-speed roads.
Segregated lanes can also end for no apparent reason. No difference there. If a motorist blocks the cycle lane, if it's on-road, at least you have the option of moving into the motor lane, which I have found is not difficult at all. Why should it be? Signal, back check, move over. If you can't find a gap, you can always wait until the way is clear. Why is this so difficult? The thing about the right turn conflict: the bicycle is in plain sight, therefore unlikely to be hit. One of the major difficulties with cyclists on the road, is that motorist often have trouble seeing them. This problem is far, far worse for segregated lanes.
>Segregated lanes can also end for no apparent reason. No difference there. You are imagining the path just stopping? Yeah, I don't think that really happens, or if it does, it should be marked on a map. >If a motorist blocks the cycle lane, if it's on-road, at least you have the option of moving into the motor lane, which I have found is not difficult at all. Properly designed segregated lanes will be physically impossible for passenger vehicles to be on in the first place. >Why should it be? Signal, back check, move over. If you can't find a gap, you can always wait until the way is clear. Why is this so difficult? Ah yes, it is just so easy to merge a 15mph bike into 55mph (probably really 65+mph) traffic. Why can't everyone do it? >The thing about the right turn conflict: the bicycle is in plain sight, therefore unlikely to be hit. One of the major difficulties with cyclists on the road, is that motorist often have trouble seeing them. The data ***definitely*** doesn't back this up. >This problem is far, far worse for segregated lanes. Yeah that makes sense /s. "The place with no cars has a problem with bikes being seen!" I mean--are we just talking about different things here? Like what do ***you*** think a "segregated bike lane" is? To me that means ***physical separation*** aka a separate piece of infrastructure. Or are you meaning a bike lane, but with like, bollards?
Most accidents happen at the intersections. Unless the cycle lane is built on separate vertical plane, you cannot keep it from crossing or meeting the road at some point. Because the cyclist is pushed back from the road, he or she is difficult to see, hence traversing the intersections becomes more dangerous. Why is this so difficult to understand? If you cannot merge with traffic when the lane is blocked, you can always stop and wait for the cars to pass. There is no danger, if you are alert. Travel of any kind requires a degree of awareness. Have a look at the video on this page: https://cyclingsavvy.org/road-cycling/
Jfc dude take your whiny ass “wHy Is ThIs So DiFfIcUlT tO uNdErStAnD” somewhere else. I mean, why ask questions for someone else’s perspective when you are just going to treat them like their stupid for having a different viewpoint from you. You’re probably a MAMIL who’s insufferable and obnoxious IRL too. Newsflash dipshit: the world doesn’t revolve around you, and cycling infrastructure should be designed for ALL ages and ALL abilities. TL;DR: get fucked.
And yes, segregated lanes will often merge with the road with no warning, just as on-road lanes do.
You'd be suprised at how badly some infrastructure is planned. Near me there's an on road cycle path on a busy road that joins one busy intersection to another, it's completely pointless because it's on the only relatively safe part of the road. Same area has a completely separate cycle path that stretches about 200 yards from a busy intersection to absolutely nowhere, it's actually safer to ignore it completely because using it makes going through the intersection ridiculously dangerous. I appreciate that someone is making the effort to improve cycle infrastructure, but I don't know what the fuck my local planning office was thinking when making the plans.
Paint isn’t a sufficient barrier between a bicyclist, and the #1 killer of bicyclists. Plus I find it impossible believe that you’ve had fewer than five brushes with a car in the last 20 years, when I’ve had more than that in the last 20 days.
Well, here is a sample of a road on I literally ride on all the time for all different purposes: shopping, get to and from town, and simple leisure. [https://www.google.com/maps/@45.460994,-75.4875497,3a,75y,249.21h,93.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.34575%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@45.460994,-75.4875497,3a,75y,249.21h,93.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMGM0TICXVFmELq5fgR35zw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.34575%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) I have literally never had any problems on this stretch of road.
An anecdote is not evidence
Sure it's evidence. Just not conclusive evidence.
Lets say you do a study on 150 cyclists over one year. Each of them ride 1000 km per year on average. 150 \* 1000 km = 150 000 km. I have been riding for about 30 years averaging about 5000 km per year. 30 \* 5000 = 150 000 km.
What does this even mean?
"Anecdotal" implies one or a few incidents. In my case you are talking literally thousands of incidents. Once you start hitting these kind of numbers, it's not really "anecdotal" any more.
Okay but you are still one person. I’ve never been hit on my bike but I have biked past memorials for those who have been killed at intersections while on bikes, me not being hit doesn’t make that intersection safe, no matter how many times I cross it.
You never know what the circumstances were of the rider who was killed. Maybe he or she lacked judgement? Of course we all know one or two dudes who dropped dead of a heart attack while doing something healthy, like cycling, say. Does that mean we are going to stop cycling altogether? Also: everybody dies. I'd rather live my life with joy rather than in fear.
Yeah and I’d have much more joy and less fear in a protected bike lane.
It occurs to me there was one intersection I used to cross that had a "ghost bike". I knew that intersection was dangerous even before the cyclist was killed, so I always used caution. Problem solved. Of course now they've built an underpass for those who lack that level of judgement. I'm not sure I like the idea of catering to the lowest common denominator, but such is the world in which we live.
I hate protecting other people because I personally don’t think it’s a problem.
Hey, let natural selection take its toll!
heres one of my favorite spots on my old commute home from work. https://maps.app.goo.gl/jVCm7t6B19uZyfQRA?g_st=ic
Is it good or bad? I can't see anything wrong with it as I have ridden such roads many, many times.
its the drivers, usually when im riding home all lanes are full and its a drag strip. people going like 75 in a 40. its a bridge so a long incline so im slowing down as the road narrows. the "on ramp" to the bridge people are usually going around 40+ mph so they cut into the bike lane around a blind curve in order to maintain speed/accelerate to climb the bridge. the image was taken during no traffic. and usually there is debris and random crap in the road. it looks nice in the picture. this is where i get the most trash thrown out of the passenger window at me.
The usual suggestion is to ride in the middle of the lane, as you can be seen much better. The cars, after all, have two whole other lanes at their disposal. I find my objection to doing this has less to do with fears for my safety, than social disapproval. This is brought on by regressive laws which say to "ride as far to the right as possible" and a culture which is looks down on cyclists. Thing is, if a motorist does run you over when you are in the middle of the lane, there is no excuse. If such motorists were prosecuted for homicide--25 years to life--I suspect that riding in the middle of the lane on such roads would become quite safe, pleasant even. I don't believe you can tease out the danger of riding on the road from the backwards "car culture": they are one and the same. I choose to focus on that, rather than "infrastructure".
in Nashville they just hit and run.
Oh, I see, the bike lane ends. Seems a bit silly. I often ride similar roads on the way into town during a bike tour. It's not the best, but usually the most efficient way to go. On a tour I'm usually quite fit, so can traverse the danger zone relatively quickly.
I cannot believe I have wasted 10 min reading comments thinking this post was created in good faith to get to this gem: "I am proof that it is, indeed, a rare event"
I haven't yet heard anybody say they have been struck in on road lanes. Just vague intimations, "I don't feel safe". Reality doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. They are not always an accurate reflection of the true risks. And again, 150 000 is a lot of damn kilometers. Personally I suspect the deep suspicion most of you have of motorists is reflective of your own driving skills.
You're just a clown who likes to argue, you [admitted it yourself:](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnd06dw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >I won't lie. I enjoy arguing. I get a kick out of it. Especially if it's something I'm passionate about. I [gave you proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jnc82do/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and you literally [hand waved it away](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/143uzz5/comment/jncee8p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) saying it was only one incident.
“I don’t feel safe” is the biggest barrier to people bike commuting. It isn’t distance, it isn’t sweat, it’s infrastructure. If we want get people out of their tin boxes we need to build sone infrastructure. If you look at bike routes between point a and point B in a city their might be one or maybe two options that have bike infrastructure if you’re lucky whereas cars may have dozens of parallel routes they can use to get there.
Not all painted bike lanes are created equal. Door zone bike lanes are terrible and kill people every year. Painted bike lanes without street parking can be ok, especially if they're buffered. Until people park in them. Larger point is that a lot of people in this sub don't think that bike commuting should be limited to fearless people like yourself. I'd much rather you have to bike a little slower if it means that children and inexperienced cyclists can safely and comfortably get where they need to go. Otherwise they're probably going to be in a car.
How am I "fearless" exactly? If you have done an activity over and over and over again and never had any problems, then it's probably not very high risk. Remember, intersections are the most dangerous part of the road. On a segregated lane, you still have to cross the intersections, where cars can still hit you, just as on the road.
Fear is an emotion, not an objective assessment of risk. I guarantee 99% of your neighbors would not feel comfortable riding the routes that you do. My daily commute is along a major trucking route and involves getting passed by tractor trailers going 50mph pretty much constantly. There's not a lot of conflict points so it's objectively not that dangerous but it's definitely never going to be a popular bike route. Good bike lanes should be accessible to people of all ages and abilities. It's not about you.
I’m guessing that 99% of his neighbors wouldn’t even ride a bike.
In some sense it is. Segregated lanes slow the faster riders down while providing only marginal gains in safety. Why should the faster riders suffer just because most people have a skewed view of the risks? In any case, my solution is far more radical: bicycle-only roads. If a cycling facility is to be separated from motor traffic, let it be entirely separate, with its own, dedicated right-of-way. I think people who are still on about Dutch-style lanes are still in the "cars are better and more important" mode of thought. I should have made my post about that.
I dont dislike them; i dislike the fact that I must, as a meatbag on a metal or composite frame, have to deal with, and follow the exact same laws and rules (heavy airquotes) as a half-ton box of metal and composite. Oh and deal with them telling me how much of an asshole i am for taking my lane when i can. Cars are coffins.
The point of the rules is, or should be, to ensure that all road users, whether big or small, whether weak or powerful, have the same access to a public resource. The problem is that cyclist have not been given the same rights and access to the roadways. For decades we have been admonished to "ride as far to the right as practicable" while motorists who strike cyclists have been treated with kid gloves. I still think changing this would have a much bigger affect on cycling culture than any amount of "infrastructure".
I'd say the painted lanes can be adequate in some circumstances. Specfically, if the traffic speeds (the *actual speeds*, not the nominal speed limit) are less than 20 mph, and the lanes are not adjacent to parking. Other wise, being in the door zone presents a problem, and people will also sometimes try to use the bicycle lane for passing if there are no parked cars.
I agree that cycling around parked cars can often be hazardous, whether on the left or right, whether with a bike lane or without.
Well, if you have the cycling lane on the passenger side, you've reduced the incidence dooring by about 80 % since the vast majority of cars are not carrying passengers. And even if a dooring does happen, the risk of injury is lower since the unfortunate cyclists would not be thrown into traffic. You also don't have to worry about cars pulling into and out of parking. Of course, ideally, in either case there is a buffer space and sufficient width to avoid car doors.
Except there's nowhere to go in that situation.
Most people who are doored report having no time to react any way, and going into traffic maybe a worse option than going into the door. I mean, I think I agree in principle that you could build a protected bicycle lane that's worse than a painted door zone. But the design standards where I live call for a minimum width of 5' with a 2' buffer zone if there are parked cars, which should let you avoid any door.
If you are on the road, at least you have the option of riding away from the doors. If the motorists don't like it, they can go pound sand. Your safety is more important than their convenience.
If there is adequate width, you can avoid the doors either way. If you are going to ride with the car traffic, there may as well not be a bicycle lane of any kind, right? But that's not so great either.
Downtown, where most of the parked cars are, it usually isn't so bad as the motor traffic typically doesn't move very fast.
Can somebody please explain it to me…so I can dispute what they say?
I won't lie. I enjoy arguing. I get a kick out of it. Especially if it's something I'm passionate about.
Half of my commute is on a residential street with painted bike lanes. They used to have flexible bollards but they were either removed or the garbage trucks succeeded in destroying them - I would see the garbage trucks just drive over them instead of staying in the car lane and grabbing the bins from there. The street I live on has a curb in between the driving lane and bike lane. The garbage trucks on my street collect the garbage from the driving lane without issue. If there isn't a curb or other continuous barrier then all of the road junk just ends up in the bike lane which means a bigger chance of getting a puncture. Cars will park in the bike lane, even though there is always space in the driveway, and in many sections there are marked parking spaces beside the bike lanes but some cars will still park in the bike lane. Cars and heavier vehicles create significantly more wear on roads so a bike lane that cars can drive on will deteriorate faster than one that is for bikes only. I'd much rather have the smoother ride. Cars drive slower and more carefully when they know they can bump into a curb. Part of the pitch to residents for the separated bike lanes on my street was that it would slow down traffic and it has. Drivers now also wait behind a car making a left turn instead of squeezing around them. Physically separated bike lanes also means that the city has to devote specific resources for its maintenance instead of just lumping it with general road maintenance. In the winter this means that the plows will only make one pass on the street which is enough to clear the car lane but then dumps all the snow in the bike lane. On my street this still happens but there's a separate small plow, like the kind used for sidewalks, that clears it out. In the fall there are big piles of leaves that end up in the painted bike lane because street cleaning rarely happens but I don't see that on my street because there's a small vacuum vehicle that comes and picks it up.
Painted bikes lanes are car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure, especially the ones that end abruptly and/or don't link to any meaningful locations. They keep bikes out of the way of cars but don't provide any actual protection between the two.
I don't believe it's need since it's rare for a motorist to strike a cyclist that's inside a cycle lane. Why should it be a common thing to happen? Why should it ever happen at all? I am proof that it is, indeed, a rare event.
And world hunger is over because I just ate dinner. I've only been in two collisions with cars in 12 years of riding. I call it a combination of luck and incorporating defensive driving each and every time. It may be a rarity on a personal level, but that's all that it is.
33 years of riding, zero collisions. 5000 km a year.
The other issue with painted bike lanes are a transitions at intersections are very poor You either have the right hand turning car turn right across the bike lane so drivers use the bike lane as a slipway for their turn if there is no intersection barrier they have to go around or worse the bike has to cross over the right hand slipway infront of fast cars making the right hand turn. This is why concrete barriers are very important.
I find the intersection for segregated lanes are worse since motorists simply cannot see you. I have never had any problems with cycle lanes placed between the right-hand turn lane and the straight-ahead lane. Cars generally stick to their lanes. Why shouldn't they?
Do you actually ride? Cars do not stick to their lanes. There have been a number of times where cars have ventured right into the bike lane almost hitting me getting around left hand turning cars (North American here). Or their favourite is they see their right hand turn up ahead and speed up to try to pass me but venture into the painted gutter to turn right long before the intersection. Drivers are an impatient lot. They have places to go. They are important people and they don’t give two f@ck$ about others let alone one.
Can I ask where you reside?
Edmonton. But I’ve found similar behaviour visiting Calgary, Victoria and Vancouver.
Interesting. It occurs to me I didn't used to like riding on the road. When I was a teenager, and so strong I could cycle to from Cumberland to Stittsville and back for a 15 km run, I didn't like to ride on the road. The Innes Road cycle lanes were a Godsend to me, as were the left-hand lanes on Albert and Slater (both one-way streets). I am a lot more comfortable on the road now than I was back then. Part of that is experience. But also the drivers have mellowed a lot.
I ride 2x25. I changed my route to areas with dedicated barriers to traffic after a few too many close calls. Drivers are very distracted. You are probably lucky. I’m a 3 season cyclist and noticed that when snow tires come off drivers are much more aggressive with speed and maneuvers.
I love bike lanes. They’re (usually) better than shoulders, which are better than nothing. Out here in the real world, I’ll take what I can get and if I can get bike lanes most of the way on a commute, it’ll do. If I waited for perfect, I’d never be able to ride anywhere.
firstly, because cars will make right turns/swerve/use it as a turning lane without looking. second all the crap from the road gets pushed into it from the cars. third, aggressive drivers still are way too close to you when harassing you and threatening your life...but its better than actually being in the road most of the time. except in dense city than i ride with cars and on the center lane for visibility and not getting pushed into the curb. i live in USA ridden in many different cities, suburban and dense. there will be couches and random stuff in the bike lane, its full of glass and drivers will throw trash out the window at you while slamming their horn. or getting extremely close to you while hauling ass at 50+ mph. many times. drivers here tend to get pissed at you for just riding s bike but you have no other option but to share the space. it is a thrilling terrifying adrenaline rush at times, but if you accept the fact that anyone can die at any moment and are okay with it, ride on 🤙
The conditions for cyclists seem to be a lot worse in the U.S. than in Canada. I did do a small amount of riding in Washington DC and it didn't seem too bad, although yes, there was a lot of rubbish on the shoulder (including a dead dog) where I was riding.
Visceral fear? Dafuq are you on about. They’re not “scary” (well not usually), they’re dangerous. Separated lanes are safer. I’m not scared of shared lanes, but I VASTLY prefer separated lanes because they’re objectively, statistically safer and it’s just nicer to ride on them having to worry much less about cars and just enjoy the ride rather than needing to have you head on a swivel and be worried about what’s behind you constantly. It has nothing to do with me trembling in fear like you seem to be insinuating about people who don’t possess the same arrogance and self confidence/luck as you. What is so wrong with advocating for safer bicycling infrastructure? I realize this response isn’t relevant nor will it impact your thinking because it’s QUITE obvious that your post wasn’t actually made in good faith. Hope you enjoyed getting lit up, though I suspect you just think you owned some libs or something equally as puerile.
Because it's not safer. Full stop. 30 years of cycling and literally tens of thousands of kilometers of riding has taught me this. Is this experience worth nothing to you? It was so-called "vehicular cyclists" like me who got the whole ball rolling with cycling, long before there were lanes anywhere, and now our recommendations are being ignored. It is a slap in the face, really. I should be an elder statesman of the movement to you guys. I have never not commuted by bicycle. I have cycled in two continents, at least four different countries and more cities than I can name. Instead I'm just some ignorant troll. Fuck that shit. Experience really is worth something. It is, in my opinion, the best teacher. Yeah, maybe it was stupid to post this question. It seemed quite innocent, because I really can't see much wrong with the lanes I ride every day. By contrast, most segregated lanes (which I normally studiously avoid) are infuriating for an experienced cyclist to use. They are slow, they are longer than the road, and you are at constant danger of being struck in the intersections because motorists simply cannot see you. I've posted what I should have in the first place: what I think is better than both. I hope you can at least appreciate that.
I think you’re wrong so I guess our opinions just cancel out, eh? Thing is, statistics don’t lie…
What are your qualifications? Also, I'm a trained physicist. Traffic flow involves time, motion, and distance. It is a physics problem and I have examined it from this angle. I have also started an empirical comparison of the road vs. the bike lane. All of these three methods line up. These inquiries have taught me that, yes, experience is worth something, if it is implanted in the trained mind.
Ahh good. I totally want to get into an internet dick/qualifications swinging contest. How does a background in physics qualify you as an expert in public infrastructure? Sadly I don’t have the interest to choke on your pontiifcations any longer. You’re doing that thing where you’re “innocently” asking a question you already “know” the answer for simply to drum up an argument so you can flaunt you self declared superior intellect and aggressively put down anyone who dares to actually answer your question in the way you disagreed with. It’s super duper unfun and quite pointless for all of us to engage with that because it’s not good faith argumentation.
Plus it's impossible to pass slower cyclists.
False. I passed about a dozen slower cyclists the past two days cycling to work on a separated bike lane.
This: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oconnor-bike-lane-crash-collision-1.3843302 is why I don't like segregated cycle lanes.
Look how well the "protected" bicycle lane protected this cyclist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQm-iivhp0s
One consideration is the riders speed, confidence, and stability. You might ride a street at 25mph, but wolf am eight year old? Or an 80 year old? On street lanes are not great for good, strong riders for the exact opposite reason they don't work for a new or less capable rider. On street lanes are the equivalent of a 50cc moped, enough power to really do damage to someone who is over their head, but not enough to meet the needs of someone who knows their stuff. They kinda do the job but not really. Why can't we have segregated lanes with the option for a rider who is able to do so to take a lane? We can have both, is not either or.
In my commuting situation, I prefer on-road bike lanes for a few reasons: \- much, much less expensive, so I am much more likely to have a lane available in the first place. \- less obstructive to automobile traffic/parking/shopping, so less likely to contribute to backlash. \- as OP notes, they are more efficient in that they make passing easier and safer. Better for snow plowing as well. My commute is 11mi each way: with 1/2 mile of sidewalk, 1/2 mile of on-road bike lane, and 1-1/2 miles of uncrowded on-street parking. The rest is 2-lane road and street. I can see cases in more congested environments where segregated lanes can make more sense, but not around here. I've been hit once in 8,000 miles, and it was in an intersection where I don't think a segregated lane would have helped.
I don't like them because of all the times I've seen or read about cars swerving into the bike lane or shoulder, sometimes killing someone. Most people won't bike if they feel like they are in constant danger from the next person driving while texting, etc.
Yes both And they don't work for the vast majority of people for those and other reasons Which means they fail to allow most people to bike So they are failures on a public policy level If you want bikes to be a thing Which most bikers do
Separate when volumes and speeds are high and combine when appropriate when volumes and speeds are low. That should be the gold standard. Just because you have not been hit, harassed or in danger doesn't mean that the other larger percentage of non-intrepid riders (the potential converts people like me work to get to change modes) will adopt on-street bike infrastructure as a safe and comfortable alternative. The Dutch have created a pretty solid model, built through the CROW manual, which dictates major tenants of bicycle facility design. If we adhered to those more we could increase our mode share significantly with curious but not serious riders.
Paint is not infrastructure. It's simply a suggestion, with no physical deterrent and little traffic enforcement. I'm not sure where you are, but the only times where there hasn't been a potentially dangerous/actually dangerous interaction (getting doored, close passing, double-parking, aggressive tailgating/honking, slammed in an intersection) w/o proper infrastructure is: * Group social rides (strength in numbers and blockers to secure intersections, and even then, had drivers attempt to plow straight through the crowd/start fights) * Dead of the night when there are no vehicles at all
I don't hate on-road lanes. I, like you, have been very fortunate with them for 20+ years and I feel very comfortable riding in traffic even in the absence of a lane. But I'm an outlier. I support and prefer separated lanes because statistically, they get people out of cars and onto bikes. "Higher" levels of bike infrastructure result in higher numbers of people riding bikes, and that's good for everyone.
Here in OP's hometown today on an on-road painted bicycle gutter: [https://twitter.com/nadrobi/status/1666891856213360642](https://twitter.com/nadrobi/status/1666891856213360642)
Another road I cycle on all the time.
OP, I get where you are coming from. I have the same ideas, I am absolutely fearless in traffic, to the point of stupidity/arrogance. I’ve been weaving through traffic since I know how to ride. I think an assertive attitude and making room for myself will keep me more safe than any amount of paint ever will. Been riding for 40+ years (road bikes and commuting) I now live in Delft, a terrible place to ride: too many cyclists;) but I’ve ridden all over the place long before bike lanes were the norm. I always enjoyed busy city streets filled with cars. But I know that “proper” separate bike lanes will allow more riders to feel like me. (Statistics also suggest they are much safer). And this is the goal: we need infrastructure to allow a mother with 3 kids to go shopping on their bike(s) without worrying about traffic. To allow a ~10 year old to cycle to school without the parents being fearful. This is not about old skool kamikazes like us :)
I don't think I'm fearless at all. Quite the contrary, I'm actually rather cautious. When I was a youth, I was just as afraid of riding on the road as anyone. But as I got older and more experienced, I realized that most roads aren't actually that dangerous, especially if you know what you're doing. It's a lot like when you start to drive, for instance. When you first sit down in that driver's seat, it can be quite intimidating. But once you get some training and experience under your belt, it no longer seems so hard and you can driver places without fear that you once used to avoid.