Bike lanes continue to confuse drivers, riders in Naptown
A report from Indianapolis. The issues are always the same, and the solutions never work. Illogical, fear-based, segregationist designs don't work. But they do cost money and add injury risk.
So you've picked an example of a horribly designed lane to make your point. Even if I were to agree with you, it's dishonest. 95% of the bike lanes I've ever ridden in have been intuitive and well marked.
No. I posted a story that details the usual confusion caused by irregular traffic control designs, where wishes take precedence over analytical observation. Because these treatments are almost always politically driven, good designs are a rarity.
But, if you think a straight-through lane to the inside of a right-turning lane is good, then there you are.
Having experienced bike-lanes in Portland, Austin, Montreal, Madison, Tulsa, and Houston, I've yet to see very many miles of bicycle facilities that are well maintained, well designed, or even "intuitive".
Thomas, let me back up a second. You may be onto something about "95%".
If you can accept the idea that you need a segregated space, no matter how narrow, or debris filled, or poorly maintained, then I can see how the majority (95%?) of travel in such a lane seems acceptable, even intuitive (presuming there are no door-zones). However, the greatest danger in bike lanes is indeed the 5% (BTW: hit from behind data for bike lanes appears to be the same for streets without bike lanes). The 5% would be every driveway and intersection, where a right-turning motor vehicle will by design cut across your path. The serious injury/fatality danger of the 5% becomes a considerably higher percentage (50%?) of bicyclist injuries.
Once again, I don't necessarily disagree with the original post or PM Summer. I've commuted, both vehicularly and in bike specific structures, almost daily for the past 6 years. The point I am trying to make is that not every bike lane is designed by morons, cycled by incompetent road users, or assaulted by conflicts of automotive right-of-way.
A bike lane is a useable tool in the toolbox, that has a function. many would be shocked to know that I argued for them in the past, in specific locations where their application was appropriate.
The trouble is, far too many "bike lane advocates" (and they aren't bicycling advocates) think it's the only tool in the box ("when your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails").
I wish you would take up Whareagle on his offer to attend a Cycling Savvy course. Here's my offer: if you don't like it/think it was beneficial, I'll personally refund your course costs.
Regarding the Cycle Savvy course, here's what an experienced cyclist and LAB instructor has to say about it...
Being a long-time vehicular cyclist, ex-active advocate, and disgusted LCI, I recently took the Cycling Savvy course to help coax my (freakin' brilliant but cycling-scarred) girlfriend past her well-learned fear of cycling around cars.
The course is GREAT!
Not necessarily in this order; it eschews the advocacy position of the formerly taught EC courses, suggests that you go to your LBS to learn more about maintenance, teaches a very basic safety check for mechanical issues, sort of touches on bike fit on a one-to-one basis, builds bike-handling skills and confidence therein in a closed-course environment, gives a very comprehensive overview of traffic laws and their application to slow moving vehicles, teaches how to cope with existing dangerous infrastructure, teaches by instruction and example how to negotiate lane changes and turns in high traffic volume situations, examines the problems with various bike-specific roadway treatments and suggests methods to avoid these problems, and puts it all on the road with a solid half day of practicum executed as you'd expect to be commuting most of the time - one by one.
I was VERY impressed with the ease of uptake - the information was presented clearly, without jargon or advocacy emphasis, but also without dumbing it down at all. I brought an absolute novice with me who was very much afraid of roadway riding; she's currently not at all afraid to control lanes as needed for safety, and negotiates lane changes assertively and safely. I have MANY miles under me in this riding environment, but I don't think I could have done anywhere near as thorough a job of conveying this material the way I learned to teach it previously.
I also observed some of the other students in the class "unlearning" some of their ingrained behaviors - it will likely take them more effort overall, but they did pick up the important points and run with them almost immediately.
Overall I feel that the class, given its compactness and clarity of presentation, utterly eclipses what I had learned to teach as an LCI. I recommend that anyone on this list with an opportunity ("opportunity" - we drove four hours one way and got a nice cheap motel) to take this course, no matter what your cycling or advocacy credentials, should take it - and bring a hesitant friend. You should also, life permitting, consider becoming a Cycling Savvy instructor - I think this is a program worth getting behind, and I've been assured that it won't end up with the "numbers for the sake of numbers" outlook that seemed to prevail when I got my LCI.
7 comments:
So you've picked an example of a horribly designed lane to make your point. Even if I were to agree with you, it's dishonest. 95% of the bike lanes I've ever ridden in have been intuitive and well marked.
No. I posted a story that details the usual confusion caused by irregular traffic control designs, where wishes take precedence over analytical observation. Because these treatments are almost always politically driven, good designs are a rarity.
But, if you think a straight-through lane to the inside of a right-turning lane is good, then there you are.
Having experienced bike-lanes in Portland, Austin, Montreal, Madison, Tulsa, and Houston, I've yet to see very many miles of bicycle facilities that are well maintained, well designed, or even "intuitive".
95% is a high number.
Thomas, let me back up a second. You may be onto something about "95%".
If you can accept the idea that you need a segregated space, no matter how narrow, or debris filled, or poorly maintained, then I can see how the majority (95%?) of travel in such a lane seems acceptable, even intuitive (presuming there are no door-zones). However, the greatest danger in bike lanes is indeed the 5% (BTW: hit from behind data for bike lanes appears to be the same for streets without bike lanes). The 5% would be every driveway and intersection, where a right-turning motor vehicle will by design cut across your path. The serious injury/fatality danger of the 5% becomes a considerably higher percentage (50%?) of bicyclist injuries.
Thomas - where would you put the bike lane? Serious question. Head on over to cycling savvy.com and have a look. It might make you think twice.
Once again, I don't necessarily disagree with the original post or PM Summer. I've commuted, both vehicularly and in bike specific structures, almost daily for the past 6 years. The point I am trying to make is that not every bike lane is designed by morons, cycled by incompetent road users, or assaulted by conflicts of automotive right-of-way.
Thomas, you are absolutely right. They aren't.
A bike lane is a useable tool in the toolbox, that has a function. many would be shocked to know that I argued for them in the past, in specific locations where their application was appropriate.
The trouble is, far too many "bike lane advocates" (and they aren't bicycling advocates) think it's the only tool in the box ("when your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails").
I wish you would take up Whareagle on his offer to attend a Cycling Savvy course. Here's my offer: if you don't like it/think it was beneficial, I'll personally refund your course costs.
Regarding the Cycle Savvy course, here's what an experienced cyclist and LAB instructor has to say about it...
Being a long-time vehicular cyclist, ex-active advocate, and
disgusted LCI, I recently took the Cycling Savvy course to help coax
my (freakin' brilliant but cycling-scarred) girlfriend past her
well-learned fear of cycling around cars.
The course is GREAT!
Not necessarily in this order; it eschews the advocacy position of
the formerly taught EC courses, suggests that you go to your LBS to
learn more about maintenance, teaches a very basic safety check for
mechanical issues, sort of touches on bike fit on a one-to-one basis,
builds bike-handling skills and confidence therein in a closed-course
environment, gives a very comprehensive overview of traffic laws and
their application to slow moving vehicles, teaches how to cope with
existing dangerous infrastructure, teaches by instruction and example
how to negotiate lane changes and turns in high traffic volume
situations, examines the problems with various bike-specific roadway
treatments and suggests methods to avoid these problems, and puts it
all on the road with a solid half day of practicum executed as you'd
expect to be commuting most of the time - one by one.
I was VERY impressed with the ease of uptake - the information was
presented clearly, without jargon or advocacy emphasis, but also
without dumbing it down at all. I brought an absolute novice with me
who was very much afraid of roadway riding; she's currently not at
all afraid to control lanes as needed for safety, and negotiates lane
changes assertively and safely. I have MANY miles under me in this
riding environment, but I don't think I could have done anywhere near
as thorough a job of conveying this material the way I learned to
teach it previously.
I also observed some of the other students in the class "unlearning"
some of their ingrained behaviors - it will likely take them more
effort overall, but they did pick up the important points and run
with them almost immediately.
Overall I feel that the class, given its compactness and clarity of
presentation, utterly eclipses what I had learned to teach as an
LCI. I recommend that anyone on this list with an opportunity
("opportunity" - we drove four hours one way and got a nice cheap
motel) to take this course, no matter what your cycling or advocacy
credentials, should take it - and bring a hesitant friend. You
should also, life permitting, consider becoming a Cycling Savvy
instructor - I think this is a program worth getting behind, and I've
been assured that it won't end up with the "numbers for the sake of
numbers" outlook that seemed to prevail when I got my LCI.
Hope this review ends up being useful!
Best regards,
Whitney Turner
LCI #902
Post a Comment