8 ms·

> Bike infrastructure can be used for walking. Please, no more of this. Bicycles should be on their own dedicated right of way, mixing them with cars is danger

> Bike infrastructure can be used for walking. Please, no more of this. Bicycles should be on their own dedicated right of way, mixing them with cars is dangerous for cyclists, but mixing bikes with pedestrians is dangerous for pedestrians. Multi-use paths are fine for recreation, but they are not transit infrastructure and should not be treated as such.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
As both a cyclist and pedestrian, I definitely prefer bikes off the sidewalk. Even conscientious cyclists who call “on your left” or whatever routinely underestimate the necessary reaction time and overestimate how far their voice will carry. Even if they get both of those right, they’ve frequently terrified my pup by just being faster and louder and larger than anything on foot she’s ever met. I’ve had to return home and restart our entire morning/evening because of this countless times. I don’t feel as strongly about separated bike infrastructure, mainly because my experience with it is that it’s more dangerous than riding in auto lanes, and that it creates an illusion of separation that both heightens that danger and heightens the dangerous attitudes of drivers trying to navigate it. I’m sure it’s better where the infrastructure is better, but where I live I choose to ride my bike away from those accommodations and right in traffic with the cars and drivers who flow together with me.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > separated bike infrastructure > drivers trying to navigate it Well, there's your problem - it's not actually separated.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    Yep, that is exactly my problem.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    If you have a T junction, either you're going to have the car path going through the bike path, or you'll need a bridge or tunnel. And the best places for cycle commuting have high density - meaning more T junctions per mile. 'Truly separated' bike infrastructure isn't easy.
- snuxoll 4y ago
  > I don’t feel as strongly about separated bike infrastructure, mainly because my experience with it is that it’s more dangerous than riding in auto lanes, and that it creates an illusion of separation that both heightens that danger and heightens the dangerous attitudes of drivers trying to navigate it. That's why I specifically said "dedicated infrastructure", painted bicycle gutters are NOT proper bicycle infrastructure either. Bicycles should be at grade with pedestrians, but on dedicated cycling pathways so there's no conflict between the medium-speed traffic from bikes and the low-speed pedestrian traffic (even though they may often run parallel with each other). Ultimately I call it "bike infrastructure", but really it's better to think about it this way - we have three different speed classes that need dedicated rights of way to make sure everyone is safe. High speed / automobiles - It's not just cars and trucks, motorcycles and high end electric scooters belong here as well (I don't share space with bikes when I'm going 40MPH on my eScooter, it's unsafe for cyclists and dangerous for me as well - so I take normal travel lanes because I'm going the speed of traffic anyway). Medium speed / bikes / eBikes / lower end electric scooters / EUCs / etc - Things that have a top speed of 20-30MPH generally speaking. Doesn't need wide lanes, and ideally should have more direct routes with fewer stops to conserve momentum. Low speed / pedestrians / mobility scooters / etc - Obvious, you're going 5-6MPH max here even if you're out taking a run.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    > painted bicycle gutters are NOT proper bicycle infrastructure either To be clear, where I live there are recently installed “dedicated” bike routes which are separated from car traffic by concrete barriers and curbs, and also separated from pedestrian traffic by curbs and intermittent heavy ceramic planters. The problem is that the separations are interrupted to allow turns and deliveries. All of the separation is partial. I feel a ton safer in a painted gutter, and much safer still in the middle of a car-wide lane. To make matters worse, the particular “dedicated” infrastructure I’m thinking of is on the left side of a one-way street and introduced complicated signal timings that surprise even regular riders and drivers. I’ve posted this before here and elsewhere: when I have to go somewhere in that part of the city and have to brave even a stretch of the route, I deliberately choose to be in car traffic even with drivers irrationally yelling at me to get in the bike lane and trying to run me off the road with their cars, because it feels safer than being in the bike space. The theory of dedicated bike infrastructure is interesting to me, but what I’ve seen in practice where I live mostly motivates me to ride on roads with sharrows right in the middle of the road clearly indicating that I’m allowed to be there even if every single driver forgot their driving instruction.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > Even conscientious cyclists who call “on your left” or whatever routinely underestimate the necessary reaction time and overestimate how far their voice will carry. You are absolutely right. As a cyclist there isn’t really any good way to reliably avoid startling a pedestrian in a mixed environment. Even if you do the even more conscientious thing and you slow all the way down to match speed with them, and then “walk” with their speed for seconds and softly anounce your presence with an “excuse me” there are still some who get startled. I have had people act after all of that as if I tried to murder them. And I totally understand them! From their perspective they were all alone and “all of a sudden” a cyclist poped into existence behind them. And in their subjective reality they have just avoided a collision by jumping out of the way of some “crazy speeding biker”, but that biker only exists in their imagination. An outside observer would see a bike slowly catching up and matching speed with them, with zero chance of collision no matter what they might do, but that is not what they seem to experience.
  - toast0 4y ago
    > As a cyclist there isn’t really any good way to reliably avoid startling a pedestrian in a mixed environment. A loud freewheel is probably as close as it gets. I'd guess a loud freehub could work too, but I like my bikes old, so no freehubs. Maybe some sort of jetsons noise generator.
    - abecedarius 4y ago
      Some people are deaf or hard of hearing. In my experience, though, the worst sidewalk speeders are on skateboards or scooters. (I'm not saying you shouldn't skate; rather, when there was a close call or a collision, that's what they were barreling by on.)
    - Gud 4y ago
      Where do you guys live? Here in Sweden we have a small bell on the steering you ring when you want to pass. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&q=cykel+ringklocka&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2i8aujv35AhXNX_EDHT0gAKwQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=390&bih=664&dpr=3 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_b...
- questiondev 4y ago
  bikes honestly should follow pedestrians, a bike is not a car and the person who will be the most amount of injured will be the person on the bike over the person of the car. so maybe have both car and bike be able to see each other in bike lanes, and keep the sidewalks to the cars. there really should be an initiative to expand the shoulders in rural america. lost of places in america are not even walking friendly. america decided to be different and make cars the main focus which is killing us (toxic gas fumes everywhere)
Scarblac 4y ago
And this is especially true for 30mph ebikes. Those really don't mix with pedestrians.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Those are electric motorcycles and should be treated as such, the pedals are largely irrelevant. They have no place on dedicated bike infrastructure either.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  E-bikes in the EU are limited to 25km/h, 16mph. Faster vehicles exist, but they are no longer considered bicycles. In Copenhagen these vehicles (petrol or electric) are forbidden from the more pedestrian-proximate paths, like those going through parks.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    Were they just limited to that, they also must be pedelecs, and 300W or less. There are higher ebike classes, but many countries sit on that legislation. It's a bit crazy that in many places the electric scooters may go faster than ebikes, despite having worse brakes.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    Unassisted bicycles that are ridden faster than that certainly are bicycles. Which points out a huge problem with certain approaches to bike infrastructure: if you force everybody down to the speed of the slowest ones (usually small children) because there are no opportunities for safe passing, then bikes can't compete with cars for any distance beyond walking. having to go 12 km/h when you would do 30 is worse for your commute duration than having to go 25 when you would go 50.
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      It's not a problem in Copenhagen. Most bike paths are wide enough to allow overtaking, and even the fastest cyclists are respectful enough of small children to slow down as they pass. (Many fast cyclists will be parents, after all.)
aqme28 4y ago
This is true, but to OP’s point, biking infrastructure is way more pedestrian friendly than car infrastructure.
60Vhipx7b4JL 4y ago
Just take a look at countries where they have a working bike infrastructure like Denmark or the Netherlands and adapt it your your country. (Also, separated bike lanes)
- yourusername 4y ago
  In the Netherlands bicycle paths are also walking paths when there is no dedicated walking path (which is quite common).
  - ht_th 4y ago
    Yes, outside the cities and villages, where the number of pedestrians is low and that of cyclists often not large either. In those situations sharing infrastructure generally isn't an issue. Inside cities and villages, I don't think I've seen roads with a bike path, but without a pedestrian path. Maybe I've seen one in an industrial park or so.
    - yourusername 4y ago
      >Inside cities and villages, I don't think I've seen roads with a bike path, but without a pedestrian path. I see this situation all the time. Does every single bicycle underpass under the motorway have a full sidewalk alongside it? I can point to many situations in the Hague, Utrecht and Rotterdam where the bicycle path is the only option for pedestrians getting from point to point. I also know of tunnels that have bicycle paths but no pedestrian path. The only way to get across as a pedestrian is to use the bicycle path.
      - ITWarrior 4y ago
        Yes that is true, but most of the time this happens in places where only a few pedestrians are likely to use it. I can count on one hand the amount of times in the last few years that I have needed to walk on a bike path as a pedestrian while working in Amsterdam and visiting many other cities and towns. It happens I agree, but as far as I can tell there are few places in the Netherlands where more than the occasional pedestrian need to walk on the bike path for more than a few meters.
DrBazza 4y ago
Agreed. Cheap and nasty shared pavements for bikes and people in the UK are a nightmare.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Especially if people are suggesting bikes traveling at 30mph that also contain the heft needed for pedal assistance.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

As both a cyclist and pedestrian, I definitely prefer bikes off the sidewalk. Even conscientious cyclists who call “on your left” or whatever routinely underestimate the necessary reaction time and overestimate how far their voice will carry. Even if they get both of those right, they’ve frequently terrified my pup by just being faster and louder and larger than anything on foot she’s ever met. I’ve had to return home and restart our entire morning/evening because of this countless times. I don’t feel as strongly about separated bike infrastructure, mainly because my experience with it is that it’s more dangerous than riding in auto lanes, and that it creates an illusion of separation that both heightens that danger and heightens the dangerous attitudes of drivers trying to navigate it. I’m sure it’s better where the infrastructure is better, but where I live I choose to ride my bike away from those accommodations and right in traffic with the cars and drivers who flow together with me.

crooked-v 4y ago
> separated bike infrastructure > drivers trying to navigate it Well, there's your problem - it's not actually separated.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Yep, that is exactly my problem.
- michaelt 4y ago
  If you have a T junction, either you're going to have the car path going through the bike path, or you'll need a bridge or tunnel. And the best places for cycle commuting have high density - meaning more T junctions per mile. 'Truly separated' bike infrastructure isn't easy.
snuxoll 4y ago
> I don’t feel as strongly about separated bike infrastructure, mainly because my experience with it is that it’s more dangerous than riding in auto lanes, and that it creates an illusion of separation that both heightens that danger and heightens the dangerous attitudes of drivers trying to navigate it. That's why I specifically said "dedicated infrastructure", painted bicycle gutters are NOT proper bicycle infrastructure either. Bicycles should be at grade with pedestrians, but on dedicated cycling pathways so there's no conflict between the medium-speed traffic from bikes and the low-speed pedestrian traffic (even though they may often run parallel with each other). Ultimately I call it "bike infrastructure", but really it's better to think about it this way - we have three different speed classes that need dedicated rights of way to make sure everyone is safe. High speed / automobiles - It's not just cars and trucks, motorcycles and high end electric scooters belong here as well (I don't share space with bikes when I'm going 40MPH on my eScooter, it's unsafe for cyclists and dangerous for me as well - so I take normal travel lanes because I'm going the speed of traffic anyway). Medium speed / bikes / eBikes / lower end electric scooters / EUCs / etc - Things that have a top speed of 20-30MPH generally speaking. Doesn't need wide lanes, and ideally should have more direct routes with fewer stops to conserve momentum. Low speed / pedestrians / mobility scooters / etc - Obvious, you're going 5-6MPH max here even if you're out taking a run.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > painted bicycle gutters are NOT proper bicycle infrastructure either To be clear, where I live there are recently installed “dedicated” bike routes which are separated from car traffic by concrete barriers and curbs, and also separated from pedestrian traffic by curbs and intermittent heavy ceramic planters. The problem is that the separations are interrupted to allow turns and deliveries. All of the separation is partial. I feel a ton safer in a painted gutter, and much safer still in the middle of a car-wide lane. To make matters worse, the particular “dedicated” infrastructure I’m thinking of is on the left side of a one-way street and introduced complicated signal timings that surprise even regular riders and drivers. I’ve posted this before here and elsewhere: when I have to go somewhere in that part of the city and have to brave even a stretch of the route, I deliberately choose to be in car traffic even with drivers irrationally yelling at me to get in the bike lane and trying to run me off the road with their cars, because it feels safer than being in the bike space. The theory of dedicated bike infrastructure is interesting to me, but what I’ve seen in practice where I live mostly motivates me to ride on roads with sharrows right in the middle of the road clearly indicating that I’m allowed to be there even if every single driver forgot their driving instruction.
krisoft 4y ago
> Even conscientious cyclists who call “on your left” or whatever routinely underestimate the necessary reaction time and overestimate how far their voice will carry. You are absolutely right. As a cyclist there isn’t really any good way to reliably avoid startling a pedestrian in a mixed environment. Even if you do the even more conscientious thing and you slow all the way down to match speed with them, and then “walk” with their speed for seconds and softly anounce your presence with an “excuse me” there are still some who get startled. I have had people act after all of that as if I tried to murder them. And I totally understand them! From their perspective they were all alone and “all of a sudden” a cyclist poped into existence behind them. And in their subjective reality they have just avoided a collision by jumping out of the way of some “crazy speeding biker”, but that biker only exists in their imagination. An outside observer would see a bike slowly catching up and matching speed with them, with zero chance of collision no matter what they might do, but that is not what they seem to experience.
- toast0 4y ago
  > As a cyclist there isn’t really any good way to reliably avoid startling a pedestrian in a mixed environment. A loud freewheel is probably as close as it gets. I'd guess a loud freehub could work too, but I like my bikes old, so no freehubs. Maybe some sort of jetsons noise generator.
  - abecedarius 4y ago
    Some people are deaf or hard of hearing. In my experience, though, the worst sidewalk speeders are on skateboards or scooters. (I'm not saying you shouldn't skate; rather, when there was a close call or a collision, that's what they were barreling by on.)
  - Gud 4y ago
    Where do you guys live? Here in Sweden we have a small bell on the steering you ring when you want to pass. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&q=cykel+ringklocka&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2i8aujv35AhXNX_EDHT0gAKwQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=390&bih=664&dpr=3 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_b...
questiondev 4y ago
bikes honestly should follow pedestrians, a bike is not a car and the person who will be the most amount of injured will be the person on the bike over the person of the car. so maybe have both car and bike be able to see each other in bike lanes, and keep the sidewalks to the cars. there really should be an initiative to expand the shoulders in rural america. lost of places in america are not even walking friendly. america decided to be different and make cars the main focus which is killing us (toxic gas fumes everywhere)

Scarblac 4y ago

And this is especially true for 30mph ebikes. Those really don't mix with pedestrians.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Those are electric motorcycles and should be treated as such, the pedals are largely irrelevant. They have no place on dedicated bike infrastructure either.
Symbiote 4y ago
E-bikes in the EU are limited to 25km/h, 16mph. Faster vehicles exist, but they are no longer considered bicycles. In Copenhagen these vehicles (petrol or electric) are forbidden from the more pedestrian-proximate paths, like those going through parks.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Were they just limited to that, they also must be pedelecs, and 300W or less. There are higher ebike classes, but many countries sit on that legislation. It's a bit crazy that in many places the electric scooters may go faster than ebikes, despite having worse brakes.
- usrusr 4y ago
  Unassisted bicycles that are ridden faster than that certainly are bicycles. Which points out a huge problem with certain approaches to bike infrastructure: if you force everybody down to the speed of the slowest ones (usually small children) because there are no opportunities for safe passing, then bikes can't compete with cars for any distance beyond walking. having to go 12 km/h when you would do 30 is worse for your commute duration than having to go 25 when you would go 50.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    It's not a problem in Copenhagen. Most bike paths are wide enough to allow overtaking, and even the fastest cyclists are respectful enough of small children to slow down as they pass. (Many fast cyclists will be parents, after all.)

aqme28 4y ago

This is true, but to OP’s point, biking infrastructure is way more pedestrian friendly than car infrastructure.

60Vhipx7b4JL 4y ago

Just take a look at countries where they have a working bike infrastructure like Denmark or the Netherlands and adapt it your your country. (Also, separated bike lanes)

yourusername 4y ago
In the Netherlands bicycle paths are also walking paths when there is no dedicated walking path (which is quite common).
- ht_th 4y ago
  Yes, outside the cities and villages, where the number of pedestrians is low and that of cyclists often not large either. In those situations sharing infrastructure generally isn't an issue. Inside cities and villages, I don't think I've seen roads with a bike path, but without a pedestrian path. Maybe I've seen one in an industrial park or so.
  - yourusername 4y ago
    >Inside cities and villages, I don't think I've seen roads with a bike path, but without a pedestrian path. I see this situation all the time. Does every single bicycle underpass under the motorway have a full sidewalk alongside it? I can point to many situations in the Hague, Utrecht and Rotterdam where the bicycle path is the only option for pedestrians getting from point to point. I also know of tunnels that have bicycle paths but no pedestrian path. The only way to get across as a pedestrian is to use the bicycle path.
    - ITWarrior 4y ago
      Yes that is true, but most of the time this happens in places where only a few pedestrians are likely to use it. I can count on one hand the amount of times in the last few years that I have needed to walk on a bike path as a pedestrian while working in Amsterdam and visiting many other cities and towns. It happens I agree, but as far as I can tell there are few places in the Netherlands where more than the occasional pedestrian need to walk on the bike path for more than a few meters.

DrBazza 4y ago

Agreed. Cheap and nasty shared pavements for bikes and people in the UK are a nightmare.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Especially if people are suggesting bikes traveling at 30mph that also contain the heft needed for pedal assistance.