9 ms·

It cuts both ways. I am lucky enough to live in an area with an EXTENSIVE system of mixed-use trails for bikes and pedestrians. I worry that e-bikes, which are

It cuts both ways. I am lucky enough to live in an area with an EXTENSIVE system of mixed-use trails for bikes and pedestrians. I worry that e-bikes, which are potentially much less pedestrian-friendly, will lead to a pushback against bikes being used on these trials at all.

enriquto 5y ago
Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. They should all disappear. If ebikes help to accelerate the inevitable dismissal of these stupid mixed-use lanes, so good! A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three separate networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to stand on its own.
- jnwatson 5y ago
  We’re starting to separate popular mixed-use paths in Northern VA: https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-ushers-in-a-new-era/article_19e2e7a0-2b80-11ec-a818-17f83b30ee45.html https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-...
- stevejb 5y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted on this. I used to live near a very popular mixed-use bike trail, and walking with my kids there was really unpleasant. There were some cyclists who would go really fast and not slow down at all, and I had little kids who might see a butterfly and move unpredictably. It was bad for everyone.
  - TrevorJ 5y ago
    I agree with this. I definitely think there are some kinds of pedestrian traffic that probably shouldn't use a high traffic mixed trail. Situational awareness and understanding how to stay on your 'side' of the trial is pretty important.
- nradov 5y ago
  That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space for three separate networks without knocking down existing buildings and buying a lot of land through eminent domain. Let's focus on what can actually be achieved with realistic levels of funding.
  - Maarten88 5y ago
    A bike lane can carry more people than a car lane. Especially in the US there is plenty of space you can take away from cars, both lanes and parking. The Netherlands did not knock down and rebuild Amsterdam to build bike paths. They took space back from cars.
    - rahen 5y ago
      This also scales well with size, so you will see that with NYC, Paris, Tokyo and most large "world cities".
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.
      - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        And that's a really good idea
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  I think I mostly disagree. But this probably depends on the definition of cyclist. If these path users are lycra-clad individuals trying to go as fast as they can and desperately trying not to lose momentum, the experience will be poor. Similarly if you have e-bike users who are basically taking silent mopeds down a trail and swerving between people things won’t go well. But if it’s someone who is not obsessed with speed just trying to go from one place to the next on a wide path it’s probably fine. E-bikes are an advantage here because they remove the incentive to avoid slowing down to preserve momentum. Ultimately it depends on the cycling culture in a place and a lot of that depends on whom cycling is available to. If it is more accessible you will probably find people acting more sensibly and more like pedestrians. A mixed use trail can provide refuge from busy roads. This is much more important if roads are awful for cyclists and I this can often be the case in some parts of the world. If roads are good for cyclists then the obnoxious people who would otherwise endanger those on the trail will be happier going faster and straighter along the roads. But they will only get better if cycling is more popular which will only happen if it is more accessible. I think mixed use paths are not particularly bad and are also necessary on the way to better infrastructure.
  - Scroedingershat 5y ago
    Mixed use paths as seen in parks are for dogs, pedestrians, children cyclists and beginners. They are not and should not be for commuting except maybe as a last mile connection, because commuters are moving at about 15-20km/h if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. As soon as they get busy there are so many conflict points that accidents are inevitable. Calling them bike infrastructure is like calling a school zone with zebra crossings and speed bumps a highway. They are what should be built first though, because you don't get new cyclists without low speed, safe, fully separated bike infrastructure. They should always be paired with a nearby road with a cycle lane and somr plan for separated infrastructure though.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I don't think this is true. The mixed use paths are pretty good start. People use them for commute. The special bike lane is more expensive and ideal step, but not necessary.
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  In a perfect world, sure. But it's quite a bit better than treating bikes as human powered cars. It's also pretty easy to do safely: walk and ride on the right, pass on the left, and only when there's no oncoming traffic. People here follow that convention and it mitigates almost all of the issues.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  I agree, but I prefer mixed use paths to mixed use roads. In terms of speed and safety, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars. It is insanity to have bikes sharing the road.
bink 5y ago
We're in a weird situation now where I think most people riding e-bikes are doing so illegally on trails and paths. It's not being enforced yet where I live and I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  > I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt. Which is fascinating and really tells you something about ingroups and outgroups because cyclists are hurt and killed every day by drivers and strangely nobody seems to be that fussed about it.
  - jyounker 5y ago
    The only time I ever biked to Cleveland, Texas (about 60 miles North of Houston) I spent much of the trip dodging drivers who thought it was entertaining to throw things at me. Thinks like bricks. The hatred heaped on cyclists escalates towards violence, and next to nobody on the escalating side (motorists) really acknowledges that it happens.
  - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
    The Texas "rolling coal" case shows you can attempt to murder a group of cyclists and face no legal repercussions if you are in the right political climate.
    - scintill76 5y ago
      This one? https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Waller-driver-who-rolled-coal-could-face-16603437.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transpor... Charges were just filed.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        There was also a similar case in Austin where a cyclist shot a driver who tried something similar; the cyclist was released without charged and the driver was charged with attempted homicide or similar. Personally I’m impressed the cyclist managed to hit the driver while biking, which seems like a very hard thing to do. That being said, these are edge cases. The sad reality is that a driver must display extreme levels of negligence or malice before the state will step in to punish them. In NYC only 1 percent of drivers who injured a pedestrian or cyclist even got a ticket. Assuming the driver is sober and doesn’t flee the scene, neither cops nor DA’s really care about prosecuting negligent drivers who injure or kill anyone.
cameldrv 5y ago
This is a real problem. IMO, the issue really is that ebikes are too good/too flexible. They are fast enough to get you to work quickly and more comfortably mix with city traffic. The flipside is that they're too fast to mix with pedestrian traffic. If there were some way of limiting speed on mixed use paths, e-bikes would be perfect.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  Speed limits is how it is usually done -- cars can all go much faster than most roads allow for and we are mostly fine. Set speed limits and mercilessly fine serious violations, and the problem goes away as far as it will ever be.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Speed limits are not enforced in my corner of the country and the limits are way too low; it’s regular to do 85 in a 45. I’m additionally dubious of the ability of police to actually catch a speeding cyclist; when I was a college kid I easily outran the campus bike cops simply by being in good shape.
  - Steltek 5y ago
    Speed limits are effective? Serious enforcement? Surely you must be kidding. Speed limits are a joke everywhere, even school zones during drop off times. Any reasonable speed limit for a shared use bike path (IMO, <15mph) will be routinely ignored by both e-bikes and roadies.
    - dTal 5y ago
      E-scooters in Europe are generally soft-limited to 25kph (15.5 mph). This is seems like quite a good practical measure, although it's "problematic" from a software freedom perspective. It's quite hazardous for the rider to go much faster than that anyway, scooters are much less stable than bikes.
    - atleta 5y ago
      Actually there should be speed limits for shared paths even without ebikes. Here (Hungary, EU), I think it's 20kph (12.5mph). Even that is too fast to hit someone, but of course, the point is that you'll have more time to slow down and react. I'd say they are somewhat effective. I don't ride much on shared paths, but when I do, I usually see people not going full speed. After all, unlike with a car, it's also dangerous for the biker. The only concern might be that you may experience speed differently on an ebike/pedelec since you have to put in less effort. I've never tried those so I have no idea.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

enriquto 5y ago

Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. They should all disappear. If ebikes help to accelerate the inevitable dismissal of these stupid mixed-use lanes, so good! A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three separate networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to stand on its own.

jnwatson 5y ago
We’re starting to separate popular mixed-use paths in Northern VA: https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-ushers-in-a-new-era/article_19e2e7a0-2b80-11ec-a818-17f83b30ee45.html https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-...
stevejb 5y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted on this. I used to live near a very popular mixed-use bike trail, and walking with my kids there was really unpleasant. There were some cyclists who would go really fast and not slow down at all, and I had little kids who might see a butterfly and move unpredictably. It was bad for everyone.
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  I agree with this. I definitely think there are some kinds of pedestrian traffic that probably shouldn't use a high traffic mixed trail. Situational awareness and understanding how to stay on your 'side' of the trial is pretty important.
nradov 5y ago
That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space for three separate networks without knocking down existing buildings and buying a lot of land through eminent domain. Let's focus on what can actually be achieved with realistic levels of funding.
- Maarten88 5y ago
  A bike lane can carry more people than a car lane. Especially in the US there is plenty of space you can take away from cars, both lanes and parking. The Netherlands did not knock down and rebuild Amsterdam to build bike paths. They took space back from cars.
  - rahen 5y ago
    This also scales well with size, so you will see that with NYC, Paris, Tokyo and most large "world cities".
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      And that's a really good idea
dan-robertson 5y ago
I think I mostly disagree. But this probably depends on the definition of cyclist. If these path users are lycra-clad individuals trying to go as fast as they can and desperately trying not to lose momentum, the experience will be poor. Similarly if you have e-bike users who are basically taking silent mopeds down a trail and swerving between people things won’t go well. But if it’s someone who is not obsessed with speed just trying to go from one place to the next on a wide path it’s probably fine. E-bikes are an advantage here because they remove the incentive to avoid slowing down to preserve momentum. Ultimately it depends on the cycling culture in a place and a lot of that depends on whom cycling is available to. If it is more accessible you will probably find people acting more sensibly and more like pedestrians. A mixed use trail can provide refuge from busy roads. This is much more important if roads are awful for cyclists and I this can often be the case in some parts of the world. If roads are good for cyclists then the obnoxious people who would otherwise endanger those on the trail will be happier going faster and straighter along the roads. But they will only get better if cycling is more popular which will only happen if it is more accessible. I think mixed use paths are not particularly bad and are also necessary on the way to better infrastructure.
- Scroedingershat 5y ago
  Mixed use paths as seen in parks are for dogs, pedestrians, children cyclists and beginners. They are not and should not be for commuting except maybe as a last mile connection, because commuters are moving at about 15-20km/h if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. As soon as they get busy there are so many conflict points that accidents are inevitable. Calling them bike infrastructure is like calling a school zone with zebra crossings and speed bumps a highway. They are what should be built first though, because you don't get new cyclists without low speed, safe, fully separated bike infrastructure. They should always be paired with a nearby road with a cycle lane and somr plan for separated infrastructure though.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I don't think this is true. The mixed use paths are pretty good start. People use them for commute. The special bike lane is more expensive and ideal step, but not necessary.
TrevorJ 5y ago
In a perfect world, sure. But it's quite a bit better than treating bikes as human powered cars. It's also pretty easy to do safely: walk and ride on the right, pass on the left, and only when there's no oncoming traffic. People here follow that convention and it mitigates almost all of the issues.
Gareth321 5y ago
I agree, but I prefer mixed use paths to mixed use roads. In terms of speed and safety, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars. It is insanity to have bikes sharing the road.

bink 5y ago

We're in a weird situation now where I think most people riding e-bikes are doing so illegally on trails and paths. It's not being enforced yet where I live and I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
> I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt. Which is fascinating and really tells you something about ingroups and outgroups because cyclists are hurt and killed every day by drivers and strangely nobody seems to be that fussed about it.
- jyounker 5y ago
  The only time I ever biked to Cleveland, Texas (about 60 miles North of Houston) I spent much of the trip dodging drivers who thought it was entertaining to throw things at me. Thinks like bricks. The hatred heaped on cyclists escalates towards violence, and next to nobody on the escalating side (motorists) really acknowledges that it happens.
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  The Texas "rolling coal" case shows you can attempt to murder a group of cyclists and face no legal repercussions if you are in the right political climate.
  - scintill76 5y ago
    This one? https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Waller-driver-who-rolled-coal-could-face-16603437.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transpor... Charges were just filed.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      There was also a similar case in Austin where a cyclist shot a driver who tried something similar; the cyclist was released without charged and the driver was charged with attempted homicide or similar. Personally I’m impressed the cyclist managed to hit the driver while biking, which seems like a very hard thing to do. That being said, these are edge cases. The sad reality is that a driver must display extreme levels of negligence or malice before the state will step in to punish them. In NYC only 1 percent of drivers who injured a pedestrian or cyclist even got a ticket. Assuming the driver is sober and doesn’t flee the scene, neither cops nor DA’s really care about prosecuting negligent drivers who injure or kill anyone.

cameldrv 5y ago

This is a real problem. IMO, the issue really is that ebikes are too good/too flexible. They are fast enough to get you to work quickly and more comfortably mix with city traffic. The flipside is that they're too fast to mix with pedestrian traffic. If there were some way of limiting speed on mixed use paths, e-bikes would be perfect.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago
Speed limits is how it is usually done -- cars can all go much faster than most roads allow for and we are mostly fine. Set speed limits and mercilessly fine serious violations, and the problem goes away as far as it will ever be.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Speed limits are not enforced in my corner of the country and the limits are way too low; it’s regular to do 85 in a 45. I’m additionally dubious of the ability of police to actually catch a speeding cyclist; when I was a college kid I easily outran the campus bike cops simply by being in good shape.
- Steltek 5y ago
  Speed limits are effective? Serious enforcement? Surely you must be kidding. Speed limits are a joke everywhere, even school zones during drop off times. Any reasonable speed limit for a shared use bike path (IMO, <15mph) will be routinely ignored by both e-bikes and roadies.
  - dTal 5y ago
    E-scooters in Europe are generally soft-limited to 25kph (15.5 mph). This is seems like quite a good practical measure, although it's "problematic" from a software freedom perspective. It's quite hazardous for the rider to go much faster than that anyway, scooters are much less stable than bikes.
  - atleta 5y ago
    Actually there should be speed limits for shared paths even without ebikes. Here (Hungary, EU), I think it's 20kph (12.5mph). Even that is too fast to hit someone, but of course, the point is that you'll have more time to slow down and react. I'd say they are somewhat effective. I don't ride much on shared paths, but when I do, I usually see people not going full speed. After all, unlike with a car, it's also dangerous for the biker. The only concern might be that you may experience speed differently on an ebike/pedelec since you have to put in less effort. I've never tried those so I have no idea.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]