4 ms·

> 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 l

> 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.
u801e 7y ago
> 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. The only real way to protect the crossing is to protect it the same way that the crossing of I-35 is protected from the surface street you're riding on. That is, you need a grade separated interchange for cyclist traffic. The other way would be to ignore the bike lane and ride in the center of the lane that you would use if you were driving a car through there.
- btrettel 7y ago
  > The other way would be to ignore the bike lane and ride in the center of the lane that you would use if you were driving a car through there. This is what I do for the most part, and I'd say very roughly 20% of cyclists do the same. Few cyclists are confident enough for this solution.
Xamayon 7y ago
Ack, making the bike lanes protected in this case could easily make things worse. Additional barriers right up to the on/off ramps might reduce visibility of bikes approaching the crossing. Worst case, at night or during less than ideal weather, even attentive drivers might not have enough warning to stop safely. Good luck at the meeting, hopefully it's not too late to get them working on an actual solution...

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.

u801e 7y ago

> 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. The only real way to protect the crossing is to protect it the same way that the crossing of I-35 is protected from the surface street you're riding on. That is, you need a grade separated interchange for cyclist traffic. The other way would be to ignore the bike lane and ride in the center of the lane that you would use if you were driving a car through there.

btrettel 7y ago
> The other way would be to ignore the bike lane and ride in the center of the lane that you would use if you were driving a car through there. This is what I do for the most part, and I'd say very roughly 20% of cyclists do the same. Few cyclists are confident enough for this solution.

Xamayon 7y ago

Ack, making the bike lanes protected in this case could easily make things worse. Additional barriers right up to the on/off ramps might reduce visibility of bikes approaching the crossing. Worst case, at night or during less than ideal weather, even attentive drivers might not have enough warning to stop safely. Good luck at the meeting, hopefully it's not too late to get them working on an actual solution...