8 ms·

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. T

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?
  - btrettel 7y ago
    Yes, those are often called "punishment passes". I've even had drivers pass me dangerously closely when I was riding 17 mph in a 15 mph zone with sharrows printed in the lane. I stop and speak with some of these drivers at the stop light, so I'm not even breaking the law and they literally save zero time. Far too many of these drivers seem surprised that the speed limit is 15 mph as they seem to think they should drive 40 mph or faster.
    - pagnol 7y ago
      Oh wow, so it’s actually a thing. What kinds of responses do you get from drivers when you talk to them afterwards? Thanks also for mentioning the term ‘punishment pass’, googling this led me to some interesting blog posts.
      - btrettel 7y ago
        You also might find the acronym MGIF (must get in front) to be interesting. I think it's mostly used by British cyclists. If my memory serves, the responses range wildly. On one end you have completely reasonable and sincere sounding apologies that they accidentally passed me dangerously. Whether or not these were accidents, I don't know. On the other end you have the typical rants against cyclists. In the middle I might help convince bad drivers to treat cyclists nicer. One time a driver I was speaking to seemed apologetic and some random pedestrian started screaming at me about how I shouldn't be telling drivers what to do. That guy was nuts.
        colpabar 7y ago
        That's awesome you talk to them. I imagine most people yell or do something dangerous because they think they'll never have to face you afterwards.
        pagnol 7y ago
        I didn’t know the MGIF acronym although the attitude is something I pretty much take for granted. If I’m on a narrow road with a car behind me, I mostly expect the driver will try to squeeze past me even though they won’t be significantly faster.
- mpwoz 7y ago
  Assuming a city grid, wouldn't you have at most 2 turns to get where you're going (assuming start and end inside the grid)? Inside a city these dedicated bike lanes are great, especially with dedicated bike traffic lights. Obviously doesn't apply to longer/winding rides. I'm in Seattle and we have one here (2nd Avenue) that "feels" a lot safer than cycling alongside parked cars/traffic.
  - toast0 7y ago
    I commute through Seattle from the ferry dock to south lake union. I could technically do it in two turns, but that wouldn't be great in terms of avoiding hills, avoiding streets with heavy traffic (i rode on denny during commute once, not going to happen again), and avoiding the damn trolley rails (also, not going to touch westlake where the trolley is again either). I don't choose to ride on 2nd ave, because it's too different for the one or two blocks I could be on it, and the transitions are hard. It's a much better idea than some of the other protected lanes I see on my route though. I can't imagine it's worth it for me to go up and down Marion to use it though. (Western is a much nicer slope)
u801e 7y ago
> As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition You don't need to be in "Tour de France" condition to take the lane on city streets (discounting your use of hyperbole). I do so all the time and intersection navigation is far easier when taking the lane than it is when forced to ride all the way to the right. Pedestrian style infrastructure is suitable for pedestrian speeds (3 to 6 mph), not bicycle speeds (10 to 30+ mph). > 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. Except that the curb does not continue through the intersection. A car approaching from your right at the intersecting road, a car approaching from behind preparing to make a right turn. Or a car approaching from the opposite direction preparing to make a left may not see you until it's too late. The vast majority of bike crashes occur at intersections. Very few are due to cars rear-ending cyclists.
- fooblitzky 7y ago
  Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? "Vehicular cycling" has been around since the 1970's, and in practice it doesn't work. Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities, because the number one reason people cite for not cycling is not feeling safe around cars. Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.
  - u801e 7y ago
    > Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? I'm middle aged, a bit overweight and tow two kids in a Burley Bee trailer and still take the lane. It doesn't require one to be able to sustain 25 to 30 mph speeds on flat ground. I go between 8 to 15 mph most of the time. The only requirement is that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The elderly should know that if they have driving experience. Children who are older can be taught these rules. In fact in certain states, 14 year olds are legally allowed to drive and there is an expectation that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles). > Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities The problem is that when they get to intersections and they presume that they have the right-of-way when they don't or there's not enough time for turning vehicles or vehicles approaching the intersection to see them, they end up getting hit. > Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, The fear is not rational. There are people who are afraid of flying despite the fact that, statistically, it's far safer than driving. If they want to fly, then they need to deal with their irrational fear such that they can do so. > and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically. The study never made that claim. It did state that there's a correlation between overall traffic fatalities and city blocks with bicycle facilities. It didn't make the claim that bicycle fatalities specifically went down.

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?
- btrettel 7y ago
  Yes, those are often called "punishment passes". I've even had drivers pass me dangerously closely when I was riding 17 mph in a 15 mph zone with sharrows printed in the lane. I stop and speak with some of these drivers at the stop light, so I'm not even breaking the law and they literally save zero time. Far too many of these drivers seem surprised that the speed limit is 15 mph as they seem to think they should drive 40 mph or faster.
  - pagnol 7y ago
    Oh wow, so it’s actually a thing. What kinds of responses do you get from drivers when you talk to them afterwards? Thanks also for mentioning the term ‘punishment pass’, googling this led me to some interesting blog posts.
    - btrettel 7y ago
      You also might find the acronym MGIF (must get in front) to be interesting. I think it's mostly used by British cyclists. If my memory serves, the responses range wildly. On one end you have completely reasonable and sincere sounding apologies that they accidentally passed me dangerously. Whether or not these were accidents, I don't know. On the other end you have the typical rants against cyclists. In the middle I might help convince bad drivers to treat cyclists nicer. One time a driver I was speaking to seemed apologetic and some random pedestrian started screaming at me about how I shouldn't be telling drivers what to do. That guy was nuts.
      - colpabar 7y ago
        That's awesome you talk to them. I imagine most people yell or do something dangerous because they think they'll never have to face you afterwards.
      - pagnol 7y ago
        I didn’t know the MGIF acronym although the attitude is something I pretty much take for granted. If I’m on a narrow road with a car behind me, I mostly expect the driver will try to squeeze past me even though they won’t be significantly faster.
mpwoz 7y ago
Assuming a city grid, wouldn't you have at most 2 turns to get where you're going (assuming start and end inside the grid)? Inside a city these dedicated bike lanes are great, especially with dedicated bike traffic lights. Obviously doesn't apply to longer/winding rides. I'm in Seattle and we have one here (2nd Avenue) that "feels" a lot safer than cycling alongside parked cars/traffic.
- toast0 7y ago
  I commute through Seattle from the ferry dock to south lake union. I could technically do it in two turns, but that wouldn't be great in terms of avoiding hills, avoiding streets with heavy traffic (i rode on denny during commute once, not going to happen again), and avoiding the damn trolley rails (also, not going to touch westlake where the trolley is again either). I don't choose to ride on 2nd ave, because it's too different for the one or two blocks I could be on it, and the transitions are hard. It's a much better idea than some of the other protected lanes I see on my route though. I can't imagine it's worth it for me to go up and down Marion to use it though. (Western is a much nicer slope)

u801e 7y ago

> As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition You don't need to be in "Tour de France" condition to take the lane on city streets (discounting your use of hyperbole). I do so all the time and intersection navigation is far easier when taking the lane than it is when forced to ride all the way to the right. Pedestrian style infrastructure is suitable for pedestrian speeds (3 to 6 mph), not bicycle speeds (10 to 30+ mph). > 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. Except that the curb does not continue through the intersection. A car approaching from your right at the intersecting road, a car approaching from behind preparing to make a right turn. Or a car approaching from the opposite direction preparing to make a left may not see you until it's too late. The vast majority of bike crashes occur at intersections. Very few are due to cars rear-ending cyclists.

fooblitzky 7y ago
Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? "Vehicular cycling" has been around since the 1970's, and in practice it doesn't work. Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities, because the number one reason people cite for not cycling is not feeling safe around cars. Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.
- u801e 7y ago
  > Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? I'm middle aged, a bit overweight and tow two kids in a Burley Bee trailer and still take the lane. It doesn't require one to be able to sustain 25 to 30 mph speeds on flat ground. I go between 8 to 15 mph most of the time. The only requirement is that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The elderly should know that if they have driving experience. Children who are older can be taught these rules. In fact in certain states, 14 year olds are legally allowed to drive and there is an expectation that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles). > Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities The problem is that when they get to intersections and they presume that they have the right-of-way when they don't or there's not enough time for turning vehicles or vehicles approaching the intersection to see them, they end up getting hit. > Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, The fear is not rational. There are people who are afraid of flying despite the fact that, statistically, it's far safer than driving. If they want to fly, then they need to deal with their irrational fear such that they can do so. > and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically. The study never made that claim. It did state that there's a correlation between overall traffic fatalities and city blocks with bicycle facilities. It didn't make the claim that bicycle fatalities specifically went down.