3 ms·

That approach works in cities that have established massive cycling communities - the Montreals and Copenhagens. The mid-step approach for North American citie

by Pxtl 11y ago

That approach works in cities that have established massive cycling communities - the Montreals and Copenhagens. The mid-step approach for North American cities is an extra-wide bike-lane clear of the door zone with dotted zones that require drivers to shift into the bike-lane if they want to turn right. Basically, the bike lane is effectively a "bike lane and right-only-turn-lane". It's less protected than the parking-protected bike lane, but it avoids the right-hook problem. This way drivers will always see the cyclist when they wish to go right. In urban areas with established cycling communities where you have enough density that cyclists are expected? There you do the parking-protected lane. In that kind of environment, cyclists are common-enough that drivers expect them and know to look for them. My city (Hamilton, Ontario) uses both, and I get a lot more right/left hooks from cars on the protected lane than I do on the right-turn-plus-cyclist lane. The protected lane is a great endgame and we need to get there, but step one is "take the whole right lane and make it cycling/right-turn-only". It takes a lot of space but it's a great way to begin. The problem is the popular approach is completely half-assed: the glorified shoulder in the door-zone, with no information for drivers about pulling over into the lane to turn. That leaves both the right-hook open and the door-prize.

mcv 11y ago
If you require cars to use the bike lane, it's not a dedicated bike lane anymore. You bring cars and bikes together, and risk collisions between the two. It works only if car drivers are very aware of the presence of bikes, and trained to watch out for them. I think this is more likely to work in cities with an established bike culture than in car dominated cities. When cars dominate, give bikes their own bike path.
- Pxtl 11y ago
  You bring them together regardless at every intersection unless you give the bikes their own crossing signal every block. The bike/turnlane makes turning into a two-step operation - first check for bikes, then second check if your turn is safe. That elevates the normal consideration bikes would get in a turn, which is none at all from most drivers.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    That won't feel safe. It works in Copenhagen, since drivers just wait until the bikes have stopped streaming past — sometimes, only one car turns right through a change of the lights. I don't see that working in the US. Give the bikes their own traffic light phase, at the same time as parallel pedestrians.

by Pxtl 11y ago

mcv 11y ago

If you require cars to use the bike lane, it's not a dedicated bike lane anymore. You bring cars and bikes together, and risk collisions between the two. It works only if car drivers are very aware of the presence of bikes, and trained to watch out for them. I think this is more likely to work in cities with an established bike culture than in car dominated cities. When cars dominate, give bikes their own bike path.

Pxtl 11y ago
You bring them together regardless at every intersection unless you give the bikes their own crossing signal every block. The bike/turnlane makes turning into a two-step operation - first check for bikes, then second check if your turn is safe. That elevates the normal consideration bikes would get in a turn, which is none at all from most drivers.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  That won't feel safe. It works in Copenhagen, since drivers just wait until the bikes have stopped streaming past — sometimes, only one car turns right through a change of the lights. I don't see that working in the US. Give the bikes their own traffic light phase, at the same time as parallel pedestrians.