4 ms·

Why is that? I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars.

bsder 8y ago
I suspect practicality. The US simply isn't going to tear up a significant chunk of streets in any city and lay down enough bicycle-only infrastructure any time soon. So, it's a lot more effective to co-opt the existing infrastructure and lobby for speed limit changes, access changes, road humps, etc. > I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars. Generally this is on bike paths that were put in to satisfy some "green initiative" but don't actually go anywhere useful. It also sometimes happens on "bike paths" that cross too many roads; you're better off riding on a parallel roadway that's actually optimized for traffic flow. I have rarely seen idle bike paths when they exist in a downtown where people work.
crote 8y ago
Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .
- Steltek 8y ago
  I bike commute in Boston. I avoid a 1 mile stretch of grade separated cycle track because there are so many problems with it, I don't even know where to begin. - Cars emerging from side streets don't stop at the cycle track so there's a constant T-bone risk. - Parking (the only parking lane on the road) obscures drivers' vision leading to a high right-hook risk. - The grade separation disappears at driveways and side streets so you're constantly going up and down like a rollercoaster. - Because the city plows it and homeowners suck at shoveling their sidewalks, people walk in the cycle track like it's a sidewalk. - Actually, people walk in the cycle track regardless of the season. - The "entrance" is marked by a seriously deadly right-hook risk at a Y-shaped fork. And when you're not at risk of getting hooked, there's probably a car blocking the entrance while waiting to turn into traffic. I mean it is a seriously deranged and broken cycle track. Even with cars road raging, honking, and revenge-cutting-off me, it's better than getting smeared against someone's door panel.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Yeah, for some reason this is the sort of situation I think of whenever I hear calls to "fix" our infrastructure so it's more like the Dutch.
  - tinyhouse 8y ago
    Are you talking on the one on Beacon street in Somerville?
  - tinyhouse 8y ago
    It's still a safer alternative to a bike lane on the street with cars and parked cars on your right. You always in the danger zone of getting doored. There are areas where cars are not allowed to park next to the road bike lane which makes a huge difference when riding along driving cars. It's one less thing to worry about and it allows the cyclist to ride on the right side of the lane safely. Also, while your points are all valid, they also apply to pedestrians. The difference is that a cyclist needs to slow down on each side street or driveway to make sure there's no car coming and many cyclists for some reason think they are in a race.
    - r_klancer 8y ago
      > some reason think they are in a race. When you see people out on the sidewalk, most of them are walking ... some of them are jogging ... and some of them are running. I don't think the runners think they are in a race (though they may or may not be training for one.)
  - r_klancer 8y ago
    I don't know if you're referring to Beacon Street in Somerville, but... Even though I actually haven't ridden that way since they built the cycle track, I live in the neighborhood and the cycle track has looked awkward to me since they put it in. Back when I commuted home down Beacon I would bomb down the slight downhill to the Star Market at 25 or so, pretty far out into the "car" lane, because I wanted to be able to see, and have time to react to, any cars attempting to pull out of the side streets. To the grandparent's point, the cycle track is really only compatible with laid back putt-putting. I think if you were to carry any speed at all, you'd eventually get T-boned by a car pulling out of the many poor-visibility side streets ... or you'd T-bone the car yourself ... with your face. So if I'm out on a ride (not just going to the store or something) I think I'll avoid the expensive new cycletrack, thank you.
kasey_junk 8y ago
Where?
brippalcharrid 8y ago
Cycle lanes tend to be designed for speeds below that which a cyclist of even average ability is capable (otherwise, they would tend to more closely resemble roads). Sheltered from motorised traffic, they cater to a wider age, experience and ability range, and the fact that they are typically narrower than roads exacerbates problems that arise from mixed-ability/experience users sharing same facility. Features of cycle lanes[1] tend to put cyclists in closer proximity to pedestrians than they would be on a road, and this creates a lack of physical and psychological separation that further reduces practical speed (and utility). They also create new challenges such as situations[2] requiring a cyclist to observe a 270°-arc on the approach to a junction. In the last example, it doesn't matter if I have right of way, and it doesn't matter if I'm wearing a helmet; all it takes is a motorist not to be paying attention or to misjudge my speed and I could be the victim of a fatal accident, and that's not a risk that I'm willing to take. [1] https://i.imgur.com/CkAxcE5.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CkAxcE5.jpg [2] https://i.imgur.com/0q9PadV.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0q9PadV.jpg
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Those multi use paths in my city are almost all full of people on their phones. You basically have to go at walking pace.
  - crote 8y ago
    Or yell loudly at them. If the bike paths are obvious, people will quickly get used to them, especially if they themselves also bike on them regularly. But multi-use paths where pedestrians mix with cyclists should be avoided at all costs.
- crote 8y ago
  About the first example: something like this should only be used in a highly urbanized area, where it's impossible to bike very fast anyways. A path like this shouldn't cater to cycling above 15mph, and the speed limit for cars is probably going to be around 25mph. A path like this isn't going to be a major through-road. About the second example: The problem is legality. First, note the setback. This already greatly improves visibility. Second, the cyclist doesn't need a 270-degree arc: due to the setback, the cyclist (with right-of-way) will be visible to the driver at a 45-degree angle. Hitting them would be gross negligence. I agree that it's not a risk you should be willing to take. The problem is fixing the traffic laws. Cyclists (and pedestrians!) should be considered as vulnerable. In The Netherlands, the driver will almost always be considered to be at fault in car-cyclist accidents, unless gross negligence by the cyclist can be proven. Killing a cyclist can easily result in a 2- to 4-year jail sentence if the driver is at fault. "He had right-of-way, but I just didn't see him" should never be a valid defence.

bsder 8y ago

I suspect practicality. The US simply isn't going to tear up a significant chunk of streets in any city and lay down enough bicycle-only infrastructure any time soon. So, it's a lot more effective to co-opt the existing infrastructure and lobby for speed limit changes, access changes, road humps, etc. > I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars. Generally this is on bike paths that were put in to satisfy some "green initiative" but don't actually go anywhere useful. It also sometimes happens on "bike paths" that cross too many roads; you're better off riding on a parallel roadway that's actually optimized for traffic flow. I have rarely seen idle bike paths when they exist in a downtown where people work.

crote 8y ago

Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .

Steltek 8y ago
I bike commute in Boston. I avoid a 1 mile stretch of grade separated cycle track because there are so many problems with it, I don't even know where to begin. - Cars emerging from side streets don't stop at the cycle track so there's a constant T-bone risk. - Parking (the only parking lane on the road) obscures drivers' vision leading to a high right-hook risk. - The grade separation disappears at driveways and side streets so you're constantly going up and down like a rollercoaster. - Because the city plows it and homeowners suck at shoveling their sidewalks, people walk in the cycle track like it's a sidewalk. - Actually, people walk in the cycle track regardless of the season. - The "entrance" is marked by a seriously deadly right-hook risk at a Y-shaped fork. And when you're not at risk of getting hooked, there's probably a car blocking the entrance while waiting to turn into traffic. I mean it is a seriously deranged and broken cycle track. Even with cars road raging, honking, and revenge-cutting-off me, it's better than getting smeared against someone's door panel.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Yeah, for some reason this is the sort of situation I think of whenever I hear calls to "fix" our infrastructure so it's more like the Dutch.
- tinyhouse 8y ago
  Are you talking on the one on Beacon street in Somerville?
- tinyhouse 8y ago
  It's still a safer alternative to a bike lane on the street with cars and parked cars on your right. You always in the danger zone of getting doored. There are areas where cars are not allowed to park next to the road bike lane which makes a huge difference when riding along driving cars. It's one less thing to worry about and it allows the cyclist to ride on the right side of the lane safely. Also, while your points are all valid, they also apply to pedestrians. The difference is that a cyclist needs to slow down on each side street or driveway to make sure there's no car coming and many cyclists for some reason think they are in a race.
  - r_klancer 8y ago
    > some reason think they are in a race. When you see people out on the sidewalk, most of them are walking ... some of them are jogging ... and some of them are running. I don't think the runners think they are in a race (though they may or may not be training for one.)
- r_klancer 8y ago
  I don't know if you're referring to Beacon Street in Somerville, but... Even though I actually haven't ridden that way since they built the cycle track, I live in the neighborhood and the cycle track has looked awkward to me since they put it in. Back when I commuted home down Beacon I would bomb down the slight downhill to the Star Market at 25 or so, pretty far out into the "car" lane, because I wanted to be able to see, and have time to react to, any cars attempting to pull out of the side streets. To the grandparent's point, the cycle track is really only compatible with laid back putt-putting. I think if you were to carry any speed at all, you'd eventually get T-boned by a car pulling out of the many poor-visibility side streets ... or you'd T-bone the car yourself ... with your face. So if I'm out on a ride (not just going to the store or something) I think I'll avoid the expensive new cycletrack, thank you.

kasey_junk 8y ago

Where?

brippalcharrid 8y ago

Cycle lanes tend to be designed for speeds below that which a cyclist of even average ability is capable (otherwise, they would tend to more closely resemble roads). Sheltered from motorised traffic, they cater to a wider age, experience and ability range, and the fact that they are typically narrower than roads exacerbates problems that arise from mixed-ability/experience users sharing same facility. Features of cycle lanes[1] tend to put cyclists in closer proximity to pedestrians than they would be on a road, and this creates a lack of physical and psychological separation that further reduces practical speed (and utility). They also create new challenges such as situations[2] requiring a cyclist to observe a 270°-arc on the approach to a junction. In the last example, it doesn't matter if I have right of way, and it doesn't matter if I'm wearing a helmet; all it takes is a motorist not to be paying attention or to misjudge my speed and I could be the victim of a fatal accident, and that's not a risk that I'm willing to take. [1] https://i.imgur.com/CkAxcE5.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CkAxcE5.jpg [2] https://i.imgur.com/0q9PadV.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0q9PadV.jpg

ndnxhs 8y ago
Those multi use paths in my city are almost all full of people on their phones. You basically have to go at walking pace.
- crote 8y ago
  Or yell loudly at them. If the bike paths are obvious, people will quickly get used to them, especially if they themselves also bike on them regularly. But multi-use paths where pedestrians mix with cyclists should be avoided at all costs.
crote 8y ago
About the first example: something like this should only be used in a highly urbanized area, where it's impossible to bike very fast anyways. A path like this shouldn't cater to cycling above 15mph, and the speed limit for cars is probably going to be around 25mph. A path like this isn't going to be a major through-road. About the second example: The problem is legality. First, note the setback. This already greatly improves visibility. Second, the cyclist doesn't need a 270-degree arc: due to the setback, the cyclist (with right-of-way) will be visible to the driver at a 45-degree angle. Hitting them would be gross negligence. I agree that it's not a risk you should be willing to take. The problem is fixing the traffic laws. Cyclists (and pedestrians!) should be considered as vulnerable. In The Netherlands, the driver will almost always be considered to be at fault in car-cyclist accidents, unless gross negligence by the cyclist can be proven. Killing a cyclist can easily result in a 2- to 4-year jail sentence if the driver is at fault. "He had right-of-way, but I just didn't see him" should never be a valid defence.