Relative risks of crossing an intersection. Crossing on a set-back cycle path has been found to be up to 11.9 times more risky than straight crossing on a road with a bike lane. Note that off-set separate paths are often only provided on one side of the road, thus making the 'contraflow' movement with its high accident risk legal, in some jurisdictions officially required.Full article here.Segregated facilities and accident numbers
For urban roads with many junctions, accident analysis suggests that segregated cycling facilities are likely to produce a net increase in the number of collisions. These conclusions are supported by the experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling facilities. In the United States,[41] UK,[42] Germany, Sweden,[43] Denmark[44]and Finland,[45] it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in up to 12-fold increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.[46]
In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on roads with traffic than when using the city's 800 kilometres (500 mi) of cycle paths.[47] The Berlin police and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s.[48] In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths, but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists.[49] In the English town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the off-road Milton Keynes redway system have on a per-journey basis a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists on ordinary roads.[42] Cycle lanes and bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations but even well-implemented examples have been associated with 10% increases in casualty rates.
12 comments:
curiously well timed article. Our local paper has an article suggesting that a section of beachside roadway be converted from two-direction traffic to one-way traffic and to turn part of that roadway to a segregated bike trail "for the safety of the riders".
I've ridden this segment of roadway many times and read that as "for the convenience of the motorists". The proposed trail would be bi-directional and I would not use it. I'm not willing to increase my danger of crash by 1200 percent!
I encourage all to read the whole article. The excerpt leaves one with the impression that cycle-lanes are less safe than not.
The opposite is true!
The full article makes clear that in most cases, and in the larger scope of things, communities (Dallas, TX!) should include bike-paths/lanes in all urban road-way planning.
Blogger buddy said...
I encourage all to read the whole article.
Please do read the whole article, as it is a very evenhanded piece, although buddy's reading of it is incorrect.
Cycle tracks such as PM flags here have one overwhelming advantage in Texas over any bike lane. Unlike bike lanes, I've never heard the suggestion that their use is mandatory. Shh, don't tell our lawmakers.
I ride a path every day. It's not safe, but it's a LOT safer than most and my falls have all been at low speed. I'd not ride a path such as that illustrated. I'd detour if necessary.
Why do I ride that unsafe path? It's a shortcut and I like trees and such as much as the next guy.
Buddy, believe it or not, every street project in Dallas does consider bicycle usage, by not designing impediments.
If a thoroughfare is part of the existing bike plan, it gets wider outside lanes (from 11' width to 14'-15', depending upon traffic speed designation) when it is reconstructed. This adds about $1 million per mile for the reconstruction. If a bike lane was used instead, the added cost jumps to $2+ million per mile (additional private property must often be acquired through expensive condemnation proceedings). Land is not free, and in a built-up urban environment, it must be purchased, and building might have to be demolished.
Unlike many West Coast cities, Dallas specifies 11' travel lanes on city streets, so narrowing lane width is not a viable plan, not when many commercial vehicles (and even some private ones) are almost 10' wide.
The solution some cities (like Austin and Houston) tried was to use 3' wide bike lanes, or place 3' wide bike lanes next to rows of parked cars. We call those "door zone bike lanes", and they are particularly dangerous. Houston removed many of their bike lanes due to the increased traffic congestion and car/bike conflicts these sub-standard designs created.
I ask this of everyone who cries out for bike lanes as the solution to tell me where bike lanes ought to be placed, and I will eagerly discuss what the ramifications and costs will be, but so far, other than some mentioning the Houston Street viaduct, no one has come forward with a request. Perhaps you'll do me the favor and tell me where you want bike lanes? Maybe you know of someplace that will A) work, and B) be beneficial from a transportation perspective, not just an "I want to ride there" one.
The original post was about the increased accident rates of cycle-tracks/side-paths, not about bike lanes. But, one of the cycle-track projects being proposed in Dallas would remove up to 300 on-street parking spaces in the Uptown area, parking spaces that local businesses (and residents) rely upon to stay in operation.
So please, give me your suggestions/requests, and we'll discuss them.
Steve A said...
Cycle tracks such as PM flags here have one overwhelming advantage in Texas over any bike lane. Unlike bike lanes, I've never heard the suggestion that their use is mandatory. Shh, don't tell our lawmakers.
Steve, Texas used to have a "Mandatory Sidepath Law" for bicyclists. Many of the current breed of bicycle segregation advocates would no doubt be willing to accept the reinstatement of those laws, as long as they got their (few) sidepaths.
Even without the law, motorist harassment of cyclists in the roadway escalates dramatically if there is a sidepath (just ask any cyclist who likes to ride on West Lawther Drive in Dallas, next to the White Rock Lake "hike'n bike" path.
Harassment is one thing. I did a post where the motorist informed me there was a path "over there." Citation and conviction is a big step up from that. My attention was drawn to the "bike lane" proviso by one gentleman, seems to me his name was PM Summer. I don't accept his interpretation, but I do admit he has logic behind his interpretation. I've not heard of any convictions yet, which gives me hope he's wrong. I imagine he'd prefer to be wrong about the legality of riding in a traffic lane when a bike lane is present.
As to the escalation of harassment when a bike lane is present, my experience validates the point.
Today, riding back to Ennis from Dallas on South Dallas Avenue (Hwy 342) just south of Lancaster- I experienced five incidents of harassment in less than two miles of travel.
The road increases to 55 MPH, and has a six to ten foot shoulder.
I had angry honks and rude gestures as well as one guy who slowed to inform me I must ride on the shoulder and he claimed to be a cyclist and that he knows Texas traffic law better than I do.
In the seventy five miles of travel today, those were the only hassles of any kind I experienced. My lane position was the same everywhere, and many of the other roads were of similar high speeds. The only difference was the improved shoulder.
I've had the same experience as ChipSeal with bike lanes, shoulders and side-paths present. Those facilities definitely increase harassment vs an unadulterated street.
They usually reduce actual level of service (flow and ease of movement) for the cyclist as well. So the cyclist is left to choose the lesser of two evils — increased workload or increased harassment — on a road that once was easy to use and now will never be again.
That diagram looks a lot like the W. Lawther/Northwest Hwy intersection. I ride the creek trail a lot, but you'll never catch me crossing that intersection on it. It just feels unsafe, and those numbers back up that feeling.
Ignatius J. Reilly - Yes, it does look quite a bit like that intersection. I drive that intersection daily and often think to myself how much easier it would be for cyclists just to queue up with cars to cross Northwest Highway. The light is very long and has plenty of time for cyclists to cross along with cars. Instead there is mass confusion at the Lawther - EB Northwest Highway right turn.
PM, I would be interested in learning more about your source for the supposed cycle tracks along Boedeker. I was at the BFOC publicity stunt a couple of weeks ago, where the proponents of the "Nasher Trail" presented quite a bit of information. There was no mention of cycle tracks, nor did their superimposed satellite imagery show that type of facility. Instead, they are proposing a mixture of double-stripe bike lanes and sharrows.
Eliot, interesting observations concerning the Lawther/Northwest Highway intersection. I have frequented that intersection many hundreds of times during the past two decades. The White Rock Trail diverts toward the roadway and is aligned little differently from a sidewalk. It bears almost no resemblance to the adjacent cycle track illustrated in the Wikipedia article. I cannot comment on the perception of peril one might experience when crossing it, as I am always crossing at the road — where I belong.
Post a Comment