10 ms·

As a long time long distance cyclist an awfully lot of these lanes, both protected and painted/"sharrow" are really frightening. There is an anti-car/pro-bike

As a long time long distance cyclist an awfully lot of these lanes, both protected and painted/"sharrow" are really frightening. There is an anti-car/pro-bike lane group of researchers who want to push this style of road design super hard right now at all costs. There are still major problems with their designs though, they are working from the assumption cyclists won't learn to follow the rules of the road. Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left out of one of these protected bike lanes in any way that is safe and time/distance effective? They've stuck me in a "protected" lane on the far right side of the road and I can't signal and get over to the left side turn lane without jumping a curb or plowing through some grass. Or they expect me to take a left from the far right side of multiple lanes of traffic? At least an unprotected lane doesn't require mountain bike skills to exit. Also how do they expect me to safely go straight through the intersection when they've locked me into a protected bike lane that is to the right of the "right hand turn lane" for the motor vehicles? If I was riding in the road I would signal left and move left into the "go straight" lane. It seems they think all cyclists need to dismount and become pedestrians in the crosswalk at all intersections. That's the only way to use these bike lanes safely. That is hardly time efficient compared to learning how to ride in the lanes. And most places outside of the city core there are no crosswalks anyway. This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. If they put more effort into educational programs it'd go a long way since city riders tend to break every law they can constantly and pull incredibly bone headed moves. All their work is dedicated towards reducing the chances you get hit from behind by a car, which is the irrational fear. The real danger is getting hit from the side or the front at intersections.

linuxftw 7y ago
> This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. I'd argue, the points you make are 100% obvious if you've ever been through any intersection on a bicycle and needed to go straight or left from one of these lanes. You don't need 'research' when something is obviously stupid, but that seems to be something we've forgotten as a society. Around me, they put these 'bike' lanes on 45+ mph roads. The average driver is reckless and much too distracted to effectively spot the occasional cyclist.
- ben7799 7y ago
  Yes I would say you're right and this stuff should be obvious immediately to any adult, especially one who also knows how to drive a car. But watching the behavior of "people on bikes" who are not "established cyclists" it seems as soon as everyone gets on a bike they initially go through a period of forgetting everything about how the road works, probably because they are super afraid of the cars. I don't think you really can blame them, fear is a very real & serious thing and it makes us all forget how to think things through. You have to get through a period where someone educates you and you get your bearings enough to get rid of the fear and have the basics ingrained enough you can start to think clearly about your behavior. It's no different than the process someone goes through in all kinds of other activities which can be super dangerous without training. People go through this process for sure with swimming for example. I had the correct way of doing things drilled into me from an early age as I am not the first generation of my family to decide it's fun & worthwhile to ride thousands and thousands of miles/yr. So by the time I was an adult I just had to learn the extra stuff around big huge multi-lane roads and city intersections. I'd gotten all the basics drilled into me from at least a decade of riding on suburban roads and being told when I was doing it wrong. I am trying to gradually introduce the rules of the road and correct cycling behavior to my own son now, that started right after he got off training wheels.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >Yes I would say you're right and this stuff should be obvious immediately to any adult, especially one who also knows how to drive a car. >But watching the behavior of "people on bikes" who are not "established cyclists" it seems as soon as everyone gets on a bike they initially go through a period of forgetting everything about how the road works, probably because they are super afraid of the cars You're being too generous. There's a subset of the population that is simply lacking the ability to think about what other participants in traffic are doing and what they're trying to do and adjust their behavior accordingly. These people shit up the infrastructure for everyone else regardless of whether they're walking, on a bike or driving. They tend to leave near misses and accidents that are their fault but technically not their fault in their wake.
  - 7y ago
dmix 7y ago
If I was forced to use a bike lane all the time, without an easy way to bypass people/things, I wouldn't use the bike lane. With maybe the exception of non-busy times like at night, or the road option is very high speed or somehow hostile to bikes.
chrisco255 7y ago
Can't you just take the crosswalk to make a left?
- cujo 7y ago
  No. And if you think it through, you'll come up with several reasons very quickly.
- kingnothing 7y ago
  Not legally in most US cities. Sidewalks are for walking, the street is for bicycles and cars.
- lrajlich 7y ago
  in strictly legal sense you can if you dismount... There are other options (aka "box turn")
framebit 7y ago
As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition, I whole-heartedly love what few physically protected bike lanes there are in my city. They've greatly extended the range of places I feel comfortable riding my bike. I don't know if I'll ever be in good enough shape to feel comfortable claiming a lane and riding in traffic anywhere but neighborhoods and steep downhills. Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.
- toast0 7y ago
  If I have to get off the bike at most of my intersections and turns, I might as well take a bus, because I'll get there faster. It might make seem to be reasonable to have these protected lanes for slower? cyclists in addition to allowing vehicular cycling, but there are two problems with this: a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes; b) it discourages cyclists from joining the flow when they're ready As a cyclist, I'll gladly use separated infrastructure if it's fit for the purpose -- limited use trails that go where I want to go are great; separated bike lanes on big climbs are great. Separated lanes that don't allow me to turn where I need to are unusable. Separated lanes that throw me into the flow of traffic from the right of parked cars with maybe 10-20 feet until the intersection where drivers are going to stop on green to turn right onto a crowded street are a death trap.
  - pagnol 7y ago
    > a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes This is something I’m struggling with right now. The city where I live has a lot of mediocre or downright dangerous lanes for cyclists which are often very narrow and next to a column of parked cars so that riders can get hit by a suddenly opened door. When I then ride on the road instead, I often have to contend with car drivers who seem seem to purposefully pass by very closely at high speeds, seemingly in an attempt to ‘teach me a lesson’ and get me to ride on the bicycle lane again. That’s my interpretation at least. Has anyone else here noticed something like this?
Xylakant 7y ago
The issue is that protected bike lanes are not designed for you or me, I prefer riding in traffic, too. They are designed for people with less active riding styles. Elderly people, kids, women. For them the trade off works: spend a little more time on turns and crossings, be safe from cars overtaking close. In the end, it doesn’t even really matter if their fear is rational or not, it prevents that demographic from cycling. And to be an effective mode of transport, cycling needs to feel safe for everyone. The Dutch have that figured out.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  You're probably right, which further underscores GP's position. At least where I am there are zero elderly people or kids riding in protected bike lanes. Older folks simply do not ride outside retirement parks in any appreciable capacity, and children are ostensibly not allowed to ride outside their residential neighborhoods. I'm afraid that continuing to design infrastructure in favor of groups who have no interest in it will result in a whole lot of wasted effort without solving any problems.
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    They entire point is that these groups have no interest in cycling because there’s no infrastructure that makes them feel sufficiently safe. And the goal is to change that.
- atg_gcg_aca_aca 7y ago
  Uhhh... women?
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    Yes women. They’re an underrepresented demographic among cyclists where bike infrastructure is lacking. Here’s stats for the UK for example https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics here’s an article discussing the topic https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/08/how-to-get-more-women-cycling-in-cities https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/0... Here’s data for SF https://w4c.org/case-study/women-and-biking-case-study-use-san-francisco-bike-lanes https://w4c.org/case-study/women-and-biking-case-study-use-s...
Swizec 7y ago
Here in SF many protected bike lanes cross over at intersections so they are to the left of the right-turn lane. Of course then you have the nerve-wrecking problem of what happens in the crossover zone. You are approaching cars in their biggest blindspot (rear right) and they are actively driving over your lane. I don’t think there’s a safe solution to this problem at all other than maybe saying bicycles are full participants in traffic and should go everywhere. Then making sure there’s no such thing as a 45mph (or even 30mph) road in the city unless it’s isolated and bicyclists aren’t allowed on it. Ie, it isn’t a street, but a road road. No sidewalks, no crosswalks, no bikes, on/off ramps
- jerry1979 7y ago
  I think the Dutch have come up with a solution to the rear-right problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
foxyv 7y ago
I agree, they are missing a major component. They need cycles of the light where NO motorized vehicle traffic is going through. When they allow right turns through crosswalks or straight traffic while people are crossing they are making it far more likely for pedestrians and cyclists to be hit. Some New York intersections already do this. I keep seeing right turning vehicles blow through intersections and almost cream someone and then honk at them like they did something wrong.
alistairSH 7y ago
Dutch style protected lanes. 1:55 if you only want to see the left turn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA
pedantsamaritan 7y ago
What specific style of road design are you talking about? There are a variety of bike lanes with various compromises. I've seen DOT presentations consider the situation, not pushing a certain design at all costs. There are multiple methods of left turns: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462 https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462. From the bit I can gather from your post, I might use the "cross, stop, and pivot".
- jtuente 7y ago
  For simplicity, the left turn is a "traffic circle" for bicyclists around the automobile intersection.
- ben7799 7y ago
  Left turn Option 1 - "Cross Stop and Pivot" is likely illegal. Also you are riding right in front of cars that might be trying to turn right. And you're riding in an unexpected direction so you're surprising the cars. That's dangerous. It also means you likely need to wait for the light to change to take your left. If you don't, that's another dangerous moving violation. If you do, it takes a lot longer. Left Turn Option 2: This is the legal/safe way to do it. I don't understand where people think this requires great fitness. As traffic increases the cars move slower and slower and it gets easier to merge. The trick if you're slower is to merge earlier when you see an opening, then ride on the right or left side of the lane instead of right down the middle. Then you are not impeding traffic. People have trouble with this because they're afraid to be out in the lanes. Why would you think the gutter is safer? The cars whizz by you when you hug the right hand curb as well, and they actually can't see you as well. Using proper signals is key here. The only weakness of this method is a protected bike lane makes it almost impossible to do safely, even though this is the option that is written into the law as what you should be doing. The only other weakness is if you are taking a left and there are no cars around you will come across lights that won't change for a bicyclist! Some of these won't even change for a motorcycle... those are infuriating! Option 3 - Nothing wrong with this as long as you actually get off your bike. If you ride your bike in the crosswalk it's a moving violation. This method is REALLY slow. You will have to wait through multiple cycles of the light. This is infuriating enough as a pedestrian. The thing with Left turn Option 2 is if you get proficient & comfortable with it you will have VERY few times car drivers yell at you. Because you're behaving the way they do. Also you will save time at every intersection. If you are following me and you take Option 1 or 3 and I take Option 2 I will get to my destination much faster if we have the same fitness level. The only way you'll keep up is if you break a bunch of laws and put yourself or pedestrians in danger. I've been doing Option 2 for 20 years. I've done it in Manhattan if we have to have bragging rights about large cities. (I live in the Boston area, I've also bike commuted into Kendall Square near MIT.) It is no problem even across 3-4 lanes if you get good at it.
btrettel 7y ago
> There is an anti-car/pro-bike lane group of researchers who want to push this style of road design super hard right now at all costs. I agree with this, at least for activists as I don't have much experience with researchers. Many people view bike lanes as some sort of panacea, and they sometimes end up making the situation worse than it would be otherwise for the exact reasons you mention. Just to give an example, I'm a cyclist. I live in Austin and cross I-35 on a daily basis. Recently I was trying to reach a city traffic engineer to understand why where the bike lanes there cross the highway exits and onramps are so dangerous. Some of the locations have two signs saying to yield to cyclists in the crossing, but in my experience many drivers don't even seem to notice those signs. I was put in contact with some bike program coordinator. The coordinator told me that they plan to convert those bike lanes to protected bike lanes. I told them that the problem was the crossing between the bike lanes and the highway exits and onramps, not that the bike lane wasn't protected. Whenever Austin makes a protected bike lane, they don't protect the crossings, so a protected bike lane can't address the problems I have. Fortunately, the coordinator did tell me they'll inform me when the next planning meeting is for improvements to those bike lanes. But my experience suggests that my concerns will fall on deaf ears. So, as you said, most of the risk is from intersections, not being hit from behind. Protected bike lanes won't fix the intersections. > This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. Yes, as transportation cyclist for over a decade now, it seems clear to me that experience matters. I have a friend who has been riding for probably over 20 years now and we both have far more nuanced views than the more green cyclists who tend to view bike lanes as a panacea.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes. Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets.
  - btrettel 7y ago
    > What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes. "Protected" here refers to the bike lane itself having a physical barrier in the straight sections. The barrier disappears at intersections and crossings. I know from discussions with others (particularly Europeans) that this doesn't meet a stronger definition, but this is what "protected bike lane" means in my experience as a US cyclist. I agree entirely that the "protection" this style of lane affords is not enough. > Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets. That's one good way to do it, but I strongly doubt the city of Austin will implement anything like that at the intersection I have in mind.
asdff 7y ago
These issues have been solved from the proper protected lanes I've ridden on. >Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead. This is painted on the road for you to follow sometimes. >Also how do they expect me to safely go straight I've seen a light for the bike lanes and a light for the right turn lane. When the bike lane is green, the right turn lane is red. >It seems they think all cyclists need to dismount Not the case, you just need to learn what the bike lane asks of you, which is pretty simple when you figure out what you need to do for left turns, and if there are bike onlyu lights for you to follow.
- u801e 7y ago
  >> Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left > You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead. So now, if you have a red light in the direction of the road you're going in and it changes to green, you now just have to cross the intersection and wait for the full duration of another red light before you can effectively make a left (all while watching left turning traffic from the road you were originally on proceed with a protected left turn phase. > I've seen a light for the bike lanes and a light for the right turn lane. When the bike lane is green, the right turn lane is red. I've also seen videos[1] where drivers don't comply with the red light prohibiting right turns. The problem is that drivers will see that through traffic has a green light and will assume that it's okay to make a right turn because that's how most intersections work. Introducing a brand new configuration leads to issues where motorists will make mistakes to the detriment of cyclists. [1] https://twitter.com/JarekFA/status/1133705797882408960?fbclid=IwAR1EmvBVnmeCPyByK3dNgC2QVsP76tpHP0OCuojsAa008fV-U_7M1bobAYM https://twitter.com/JarekFA/status/1133705797882408960?fbcli... > Not the case, you just need to learn what the bike lane asks of you This seems to be inconsistent from intersection to intersection. As a driver, it's just easier to follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles when I need to make a turn at an intersection.
timwaagh 7y ago
Usually the barrier opens up when you can make turns. So when cycling you look. if the road is clear you can make the turn easy otherwise you have to stand there for a while.
bamboozled 7y ago
Lowering speed limits to 40/30 km/h is a wise and better move in densely populated areas. It protects pedestrians too. I think that’s the safest and best option, it apparently get help traffic flow easier too.

linuxftw 7y ago

> This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. I'd argue, the points you make are 100% obvious if you've ever been through any intersection on a bicycle and needed to go straight or left from one of these lanes. You don't need 'research' when something is obviously stupid, but that seems to be something we've forgotten as a society. Around me, they put these 'bike' lanes on 45+ mph roads. The average driver is reckless and much too distracted to effectively spot the occasional cyclist.

ben7799 7y ago
Yes I would say you're right and this stuff should be obvious immediately to any adult, especially one who also knows how to drive a car. But watching the behavior of "people on bikes" who are not "established cyclists" it seems as soon as everyone gets on a bike they initially go through a period of forgetting everything about how the road works, probably because they are super afraid of the cars. I don't think you really can blame them, fear is a very real & serious thing and it makes us all forget how to think things through. You have to get through a period where someone educates you and you get your bearings enough to get rid of the fear and have the basics ingrained enough you can start to think clearly about your behavior. It's no different than the process someone goes through in all kinds of other activities which can be super dangerous without training. People go through this process for sure with swimming for example. I had the correct way of doing things drilled into me from an early age as I am not the first generation of my family to decide it's fun & worthwhile to ride thousands and thousands of miles/yr. So by the time I was an adult I just had to learn the extra stuff around big huge multi-lane roads and city intersections. I'd gotten all the basics drilled into me from at least a decade of riding on suburban roads and being told when I was doing it wrong. I am trying to gradually introduce the rules of the road and correct cycling behavior to my own son now, that started right after he got off training wheels.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Yes I would say you're right and this stuff should be obvious immediately to any adult, especially one who also knows how to drive a car. >But watching the behavior of "people on bikes" who are not "established cyclists" it seems as soon as everyone gets on a bike they initially go through a period of forgetting everything about how the road works, probably because they are super afraid of the cars You're being too generous. There's a subset of the population that is simply lacking the ability to think about what other participants in traffic are doing and what they're trying to do and adjust their behavior accordingly. These people shit up the infrastructure for everyone else regardless of whether they're walking, on a bike or driving. They tend to leave near misses and accidents that are their fault but technically not their fault in their wake.
- 7y ago

dmix 7y ago

If I was forced to use a bike lane all the time, without an easy way to bypass people/things, I wouldn't use the bike lane. With maybe the exception of non-busy times like at night, or the road option is very high speed or somehow hostile to bikes.

chrisco255 7y ago

Can't you just take the crosswalk to make a left?

cujo 7y ago
No. And if you think it through, you'll come up with several reasons very quickly.
kingnothing 7y ago
Not legally in most US cities. Sidewalks are for walking, the street is for bicycles and cars.
lrajlich 7y ago
in strictly legal sense you can if you dismount... There are other options (aka "box turn")

framebit 7y ago

As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition, I whole-heartedly love what few physically protected bike lanes there are in my city. They've greatly extended the range of places I feel comfortable riding my bike. I don't know if I'll ever be in good enough shape to feel comfortable claiming a lane and riding in traffic anywhere but neighborhoods and steep downhills. Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.

toast0 7y ago
If I have to get off the bike at most of my intersections and turns, I might as well take a bus, because I'll get there faster. It might make seem to be reasonable to have these protected lanes for slower? cyclists in addition to allowing vehicular cycling, but there are two problems with this: a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes; b) it discourages cyclists from joining the flow when they're ready As a cyclist, I'll gladly use separated infrastructure if it's fit for the purpose -- limited use trails that go where I want to go are great; separated bike lanes on big climbs are great. Separated lanes that don't allow me to turn where I need to are unusable. Separated lanes that throw me into the flow of traffic from the right of parked cars with maybe 10-20 feet until the intersection where drivers are going to stop on green to turn right onto a crowded street are a death trap.
- pagnol 7y ago
  > a) it encourages car drivers to assume bicycles should not be in the lanes This is something I’m struggling with right now. The city where I live has a lot of mediocre or downright dangerous lanes for cyclists which are often very narrow and next to a column of parked cars so that riders can get hit by a suddenly opened door. When I then ride on the road instead, I often have to contend with car drivers who seem seem to purposefully pass by very closely at high speeds, seemingly in an attempt to ‘teach me a lesson’ and get me to ride on the bicycle lane again. That’s my interpretation at least. Has anyone else here noticed something like this?

Xylakant 7y ago

The issue is that protected bike lanes are not designed for you or me, I prefer riding in traffic, too. They are designed for people with less active riding styles. Elderly people, kids, women. For them the trade off works: spend a little more time on turns and crossings, be safe from cars overtaking close. In the end, it doesn’t even really matter if their fear is rational or not, it prevents that demographic from cycling. And to be an effective mode of transport, cycling needs to feel safe for everyone. The Dutch have that figured out.

ultrarunner 7y ago
You're probably right, which further underscores GP's position. At least where I am there are zero elderly people or kids riding in protected bike lanes. Older folks simply do not ride outside retirement parks in any appreciable capacity, and children are ostensibly not allowed to ride outside their residential neighborhoods. I'm afraid that continuing to design infrastructure in favor of groups who have no interest in it will result in a whole lot of wasted effort without solving any problems.
- Xylakant 7y ago
  They entire point is that these groups have no interest in cycling because there’s no infrastructure that makes them feel sufficiently safe. And the goal is to change that.
atg_gcg_aca_aca 7y ago
Uhhh... women?
- Xylakant 7y ago
  Yes women. They’re an underrepresented demographic among cyclists where bike infrastructure is lacking. Here’s stats for the UK for example https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics here’s an article discussing the topic https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/08/how-to-get-more-women-cycling-in-cities https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/0... Here’s data for SF https://w4c.org/case-study/women-and-biking-case-study-use-san-francisco-bike-lanes https://w4c.org/case-study/women-and-biking-case-study-use-s...

Swizec 7y ago

Here in SF many protected bike lanes cross over at intersections so they are to the left of the right-turn lane. Of course then you have the nerve-wrecking problem of what happens in the crossover zone. You are approaching cars in their biggest blindspot (rear right) and they are actively driving over your lane. I don’t think there’s a safe solution to this problem at all other than maybe saying bicycles are full participants in traffic and should go everywhere. Then making sure there’s no such thing as a 45mph (or even 30mph) road in the city unless it’s isolated and bicyclists aren’t allowed on it. Ie, it isn’t a street, but a road road. No sidewalks, no crosswalks, no bikes, on/off ramps

jerry1979 7y ago
I think the Dutch have come up with a solution to the rear-right problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

foxyv 7y ago

I agree, they are missing a major component. They need cycles of the light where NO motorized vehicle traffic is going through. When they allow right turns through crosswalks or straight traffic while people are crossing they are making it far more likely for pedestrians and cyclists to be hit. Some New York intersections already do this. I keep seeing right turning vehicles blow through intersections and almost cream someone and then honk at them like they did something wrong.

alistairSH 7y ago

Dutch style protected lanes. 1:55 if you only want to see the left turn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

pedantsamaritan 7y ago

What specific style of road design are you talking about? There are a variety of bike lanes with various compromises. I've seen DOT presentations consider the situation, not pushing a certain design at all costs. There are multiple methods of left turns: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462 https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/54628/37462. From the bit I can gather from your post, I might use the "cross, stop, and pivot".

jtuente 7y ago
For simplicity, the left turn is a "traffic circle" for bicyclists around the automobile intersection.
ben7799 7y ago
Left turn Option 1 - "Cross Stop and Pivot" is likely illegal. Also you are riding right in front of cars that might be trying to turn right. And you're riding in an unexpected direction so you're surprising the cars. That's dangerous. It also means you likely need to wait for the light to change to take your left. If you don't, that's another dangerous moving violation. If you do, it takes a lot longer. Left Turn Option 2: This is the legal/safe way to do it. I don't understand where people think this requires great fitness. As traffic increases the cars move slower and slower and it gets easier to merge. The trick if you're slower is to merge earlier when you see an opening, then ride on the right or left side of the lane instead of right down the middle. Then you are not impeding traffic. People have trouble with this because they're afraid to be out in the lanes. Why would you think the gutter is safer? The cars whizz by you when you hug the right hand curb as well, and they actually can't see you as well. Using proper signals is key here. The only weakness of this method is a protected bike lane makes it almost impossible to do safely, even though this is the option that is written into the law as what you should be doing. The only other weakness is if you are taking a left and there are no cars around you will come across lights that won't change for a bicyclist! Some of these won't even change for a motorcycle... those are infuriating! Option 3 - Nothing wrong with this as long as you actually get off your bike. If you ride your bike in the crosswalk it's a moving violation. This method is REALLY slow. You will have to wait through multiple cycles of the light. This is infuriating enough as a pedestrian. The thing with Left turn Option 2 is if you get proficient & comfortable with it you will have VERY few times car drivers yell at you. Because you're behaving the way they do. Also you will save time at every intersection. If you are following me and you take Option 1 or 3 and I take Option 2 I will get to my destination much faster if we have the same fitness level. The only way you'll keep up is if you break a bunch of laws and put yourself or pedestrians in danger. I've been doing Option 2 for 20 years. I've done it in Manhattan if we have to have bragging rights about large cities. (I live in the Boston area, I've also bike commuted into Kendall Square near MIT.) It is no problem even across 3-4 lanes if you get good at it.

btrettel 7y ago

> There is an anti-car/pro-bike lane group of researchers who want to push this style of road design super hard right now at all costs. I agree with this, at least for activists as I don't have much experience with researchers. Many people view bike lanes as some sort of panacea, and they sometimes end up making the situation worse than it would be otherwise for the exact reasons you mention. Just to give an example, I'm a cyclist. I live in Austin and cross I-35 on a daily basis. Recently I was trying to reach a city traffic engineer to understand why where the bike lanes there cross the highway exits and onramps are so dangerous. Some of the locations have two signs saying to yield to cyclists in the crossing, but in my experience many drivers don't even seem to notice those signs. I was put in contact with some bike program coordinator. The coordinator told me that they plan to convert those bike lanes to protected bike lanes. I told them that the problem was the crossing between the bike lanes and the highway exits and onramps, not that the bike lane wasn't protected. Whenever Austin makes a protected bike lane, they don't protect the crossings, so a protected bike lane can't address the problems I have. Fortunately, the coordinator did tell me they'll inform me when the next planning meeting is for improvements to those bike lanes. But my experience suggests that my concerns will fall on deaf ears. So, as you said, most of the risk is from intersections, not being hit from behind. Protected bike lanes won't fix the intersections. > This stuff is plainly obvious when you've rode 10s or 100s of times more miles than the researchers. Yes, as transportation cyclist for over a decade now, it seems clear to me that experience matters. I have a friend who has been riding for probably over 20 years now and we both have far more nuanced views than the more green cyclists who tend to view bike lanes as a panacea.

greglindahl 7y ago
What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes. Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets.
- btrettel 7y ago
  > What's "protected" about a bike lane that crosses freeway onramps? I think you're talking about something completely different from what some other people in this discussion are calling "protected" lanes. "Protected" here refers to the bike lane itself having a physical barrier in the straight sections. The barrier disappears at intersections and crossings. I know from discussions with others (particularly Europeans) that this doesn't meet a stronger definition, but this is what "protected bike lane" means in my experience as a US cyclist. I agree entirely that the "protection" this style of lane affords is not enough. > Around here, the "protected" way to cross a freeway is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. These usually have entrances and exits on residential streets. That's one good way to do it, but I strongly doubt the city of Austin will implement anything like that at the intersection I have in mind.

asdff 7y ago

These issues have been solved from the proper protected lanes I've ridden on. >Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead. This is painted on the road for you to follow sometimes. >Also how do they expect me to safely go straight I've seen a light for the bike lanes and a light for the right turn lane. When the bike lane is green, the right turn lane is red. >It seems they think all cyclists need to dismount Not the case, you just need to learn what the bike lane asks of you, which is pretty simple when you figure out what you need to do for left turns, and if there are bike onlyu lights for you to follow.

u801e 7y ago
>> Tell me how I'm supposed to safely take a left > You pull up and stop in front of the cars to your right on the perpendicular road. You turn your bike 90 degrees. You wait until they get a green light, and you ride straight ahead. So now, if you have a red light in the direction of the road you're going in and it changes to green, you now just have to cross the intersection and wait for the full duration of another red light before you can effectively make a left (all while watching left turning traffic from the road you were originally on proceed with a protected left turn phase. > I've seen a light for the bike lanes and a light for the right turn lane. When the bike lane is green, the right turn lane is red. I've also seen videos[1] where drivers don't comply with the red light prohibiting right turns. The problem is that drivers will see that through traffic has a green light and will assume that it's okay to make a right turn because that's how most intersections work. Introducing a brand new configuration leads to issues where motorists will make mistakes to the detriment of cyclists. [1] https://twitter.com/JarekFA/status/1133705797882408960?fbclid=IwAR1EmvBVnmeCPyByK3dNgC2QVsP76tpHP0OCuojsAa008fV-U_7M1bobAYM https://twitter.com/JarekFA/status/1133705797882408960?fbcli... > Not the case, you just need to learn what the bike lane asks of you This seems to be inconsistent from intersection to intersection. As a driver, it's just easier to follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles when I need to make a turn at an intersection.

timwaagh 7y ago

Usually the barrier opens up when you can make turns. So when cycling you look. if the road is clear you can make the turn easy otherwise you have to stand there for a while.

bamboozled 7y ago

Lowering speed limits to 40/30 km/h is a wise and better move in densely populated areas. It protects pedestrians too. I think that’s the safest and best option, it apparently get help traffic flow easier too.