4 ms·

>But I just think the marked lanes and sharrows are a good enough compromise for the serious commuters and the casuals. There have been several studies that sh

by tga_d 7y ago

>But I just think the marked lanes and sharrows are a good enough compromise for the serious commuters and the casuals. There have been several studies that show sharrows don't actually help, and in some cases even hinder, bike safety. E.g., https://trid.trb.org/view/1393928 https://trid.trb.org/view/1393928 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40917 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40917 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2046043018300583 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S204604301...

richk449 7y ago
What are sharrows for? I already have the right to the road without the sharrows. As far as I can tell, their only purpose is to let cities pretend that they have done something for bikers, while actually doing nothing. perhaps less than nothing - if a sharrows implies anything, then the absence of a sharrows must imply the opposite, right? And there are a lot more streets without sharrows than with.
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure sharrows are for indicating to motorists that they should give you 20cm of margin when passing instead of the meter or so that would be customary on a street without them.
dmix 7y ago
Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea and are probably the best compromise for the average rider. It’s just something me and a lot of people I know would avoid for safety and further push us into traffic while confused cars think we’re the dumb ones. I’ve never been on a separated bike lane without it being jammed up and cluttered with people who don’t know what they are doing, unless it’s dead out I’m not using them or would avoid the street entirely. I miss Montreal which built bike highways in neighborhoods adjacent to busy one way streets (another good idea). Riding there was always a joy. SF scared the shit out of me but mostly because the city is disgustingly dirty and the roads are weird.
- Cougher 7y ago
  'Speed differential' is a thing for any sort of traffic, be it cars, bicycles, and runners. 'Experience differential' is also a thing. It may be that one of the problems that you've experienced is due to the fact that you yourself "don't know what [you're] doing" and are riding far too aggressively amongst people who are learning or riding "casually" . . . as they have every right to.
  - dmix 7y ago
    That’s not a fair assessment of me nor the average biking commuter who does know what they are doing. There’s just always going to be a small minority who aren’t and are learning and I do not want to be forced into a tiny lane with them. I’ve already said it’s probably the best compromise for tourist and casuals but I’m not using them unless as others mentioned they are wide enough for these people to be one side like a slow lane, others have mentioned Toronto has smaller ones than Copenhagen.
- bkor 7y ago
  > Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea As mentioned, separated bike lines are way safer. Pedestrians won't suddenly step on bike lanes if you actually mark them properly and consistently, plus apply a height difference. Obviously there's exceptions to this but "right of way" goes in hand with "mistakes happen". Meaning, anticipate on what might happen. I cycle every day to work. There's something weird every single day. Sometimes a car, sometimes another bicycle, sometimes a pedestrian. I live in The Netherlands btw, and those shared roads are _way_ more dangerous. What's way more likely is that the separated bike path was implemented in name, but missed out on the several bits that Netherlands has standard that other countries IMO completely mess up.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    > other countries IMO completely mess up That looks to be the issue here. For the segregated cycle paths in Copenhagen, "legally, the minimum width is 1.7 metres"[1]. That cycle path on Adelaide Street, Toronto looks to be about as wide as the tram tracks (1.4m), but about ⅓ of it is wasted with rough asphalt at the edge, and for something like 80% of its length it's just paint, with the remaining 20% using poles and planters. There are also regular manholes. One in Copenhagen [2] has a kerb most of the way, and is wider. It's still worse around the junctions than the standard design in the Netherlands [3] (somewhere in Rotterdam). (Note that both of these are typical, I clicked once on the map on a likely-looking medium-sized road.) dmix praises Montreal, which looks to be approaching the Danish or Dutch quality, although still has a way to go -- there are gaps in the lanes, and they sometimes go traffic-side past parked cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6830112,12.5481995,3a,75y,295.22h,87.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-manrWCSaz-mu4DgQdLQAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6830112,12.5481995,3a,75y,29... [3] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9381892,4.5402326,3a,75y,267.77h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF582I8ObZzxRc1knQeXiWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9381892,4.5402326,3a,75y,267...

by tga_d 7y ago

richk449 7y ago

What are sharrows for? I already have the right to the road without the sharrows. As far as I can tell, their only purpose is to let cities pretend that they have done something for bikers, while actually doing nothing. perhaps less than nothing - if a sharrows implies anything, then the absence of a sharrows must imply the opposite, right? And there are a lot more streets without sharrows than with.

mumblemumble 7y ago
I'm pretty sure sharrows are for indicating to motorists that they should give you 20cm of margin when passing instead of the meter or so that would be customary on a street without them.

dmix 7y ago

Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea and are probably the best compromise for the average rider. It’s just something me and a lot of people I know would avoid for safety and further push us into traffic while confused cars think we’re the dumb ones. I’ve never been on a separated bike lane without it being jammed up and cluttered with people who don’t know what they are doing, unless it’s dead out I’m not using them or would avoid the street entirely. I miss Montreal which built bike highways in neighborhoods adjacent to busy one way streets (another good idea). Riding there was always a joy. SF scared the shit out of me but mostly because the city is disgustingly dirty and the roads are weird.

Cougher 7y ago
'Speed differential' is a thing for any sort of traffic, be it cars, bicycles, and runners. 'Experience differential' is also a thing. It may be that one of the problems that you've experienced is due to the fact that you yourself "don't know what [you're] doing" and are riding far too aggressively amongst people who are learning or riding "casually" . . . as they have every right to.
- dmix 7y ago
  That’s not a fair assessment of me nor the average biking commuter who does know what they are doing. There’s just always going to be a small minority who aren’t and are learning and I do not want to be forced into a tiny lane with them. I’ve already said it’s probably the best compromise for tourist and casuals but I’m not using them unless as others mentioned they are wide enough for these people to be one side like a slow lane, others have mentioned Toronto has smaller ones than Copenhagen.
bkor 7y ago
> Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea As mentioned, separated bike lines are way safer. Pedestrians won't suddenly step on bike lanes if you actually mark them properly and consistently, plus apply a height difference. Obviously there's exceptions to this but "right of way" goes in hand with "mistakes happen". Meaning, anticipate on what might happen. I cycle every day to work. There's something weird every single day. Sometimes a car, sometimes another bicycle, sometimes a pedestrian. I live in The Netherlands btw, and those shared roads are _way_ more dangerous. What's way more likely is that the separated bike path was implemented in name, but missed out on the several bits that Netherlands has standard that other countries IMO completely mess up.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  > other countries IMO completely mess up That looks to be the issue here. For the segregated cycle paths in Copenhagen, "legally, the minimum width is 1.7 metres"[1]. That cycle path on Adelaide Street, Toronto looks to be about as wide as the tram tracks (1.4m), but about ⅓ of it is wasted with rough asphalt at the edge, and for something like 80% of its length it's just paint, with the remaining 20% using poles and planters. There are also regular manholes. One in Copenhagen [2] has a kerb most of the way, and is wider. It's still worse around the junctions than the standard design in the Netherlands [3] (somewhere in Rotterdam). (Note that both of these are typical, I clicked once on the map on a likely-looking medium-sized road.) dmix praises Montreal, which looks to be approaching the Danish or Dutch quality, although still has a way to go -- there are gaps in the lanes, and they sometimes go traffic-side past parked cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6830112,12.5481995,3a,75y,295.22h,87.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-manrWCSaz-mu4DgQdLQAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6830112,12.5481995,3a,75y,29... [3] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9381892,4.5402326,3a,75y,267.77h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF582I8ObZzxRc1knQeXiWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9381892,4.5402326,3a,75y,267...