Bicycles and Road Design

[Zmapper]

Today, a new bikeway design guide was released by NACTO Cities for Cycling.

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/

So what are your thoughts on this? Personally, the inclusion of colored pavement and cycle tracks are the most important things included.

[realjd]

My only complaint is that they still don't properly address the dangers of striping a bike lane next to parallel parking. If the bike lane is between cars and traffic, bike riders must ride in what is known as the "door zone". What happens is someone opens a car door without checking to see if a bike rider is behind them, the bike is thrown toward the car and the rider is thrown into traffic. Very dangerous. And some of their example pictures even show this!

[froggie]

Understandable concern, but they do address it under "Design Guidance" on the Conventional Bike Lane page.

[NE2]

Understandable concern, but they do address it under "Design Guidance" on the Conventional Bike Lane page.

Unfortunately they copy the AASHTO minimum of 12 feet, which is not enough: http://mighkwilson.com/2009/04/when-professionals-disappoint-part-ii/ http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

[Zmapper]

Now if you are building a new street from scratch there is no excuse for having a door zone bike lane but sometimes such facilities are the only politically feasible way to add a bike lane to an existing street.  Another thing to consider is that bike lanes increase bicycle numbers, giving you the 'safety in numbers' effect.

[NE2]

Have you ever considered that perhaps a bike lane shouldn't be added if it would be unsafe? Or are you more concerned with getting people cycling even if it means killing them?

[Tarkus]

My other concern . . . have they actually gotten approval from the FHWA to do this stuff?  I know some of it has been approved--"sharrows", for instance, are in the 2009 MUTCD.  However, much of it seems to be stuff that's only gotten to the approved experiment stage. 

For instance, I've seen the green markings all over the place in Portland, but they're not MUTCD-compliant (neither with the 2009 version or the 2009 Oregon Supplement draft).  New York City, and the Vermont DOT were authorized to experiment with it, but New York's experiment expired in 2006, and I believe Vermont is the only jurisdiction currently authorized to use it. 

[hobsini2]

When my brother did his cross country trip on his bicycle, his biggest complaint was a lack of shoulders on some state and county roads he was on especially in Utah and South Dakota.  I always argue with him that cyclists need to be educated about the rules of the road when cycling.  I can't tell you how many times i have seen cyclists blow thru stop signs and stoplights.  If you are going to be that stupid, then you deserve to get hit with no compensation.

[NE2]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen motorists blow through crosswalks

Oh, I agree that cyclists should follow stop signs and red lights. But I won't stop at a stop sign if the coast is clear, instead treating it as a yield.

[hobsini2]

But if you were a car, regardless of having no traffic, you have to stop.  it is the same for bikes.

[NE2]

Yes, that's what the law says. I don't care, and my not caring doesn't affect anyone else. When you bike, do you come to a complete stop at every stop sign?

[hobsini2]

actually i do ever since my brother got a ticket in SD for not stopping at a stop sign with no traffic.

[NE2]

How do you stop? Do you put your foot down on the ground?

[hobsini2]

not completely. i put one foot down by dragging my toes.

[J N Winkler]

I have been "doored" once.  I accept that it is conceptually possible to design bicycle lanes immediately adjacent to street parking in such a way that cyclists are able to use the lane without being within the door zone, but as a general rule I will cycle well outside the door zone--whether I am in the marked cycle lane or not--rather than try to do an engineering study to determine whether the cycle lane has been designed not to overlap the door zone.  As a general rule I prefer that cycle lanes not be marked next to street parking, to avoid giving motorists the false impression that a safe facility is being provided for cycling which cyclists are therefore obliged to use instead of cycling down the middle of the traffic lane.

[realjd]

Now if you are building a new street from scratch there is no excuse for having a door zone bike lane but sometimes such facilities are the only politically feasible way to add a bike lane to an existing street.  Another thing to consider is that bike lanes increase bicycle numbers, giving you the 'safety in numbers' effect.

If the choice is door-zone bike lane or no bike lane, I would have to choose no bike lane. Let the bikers ride in the main lanes, outside of the door zone. Add "sharrows" if necessary to indicate safe lane placement for bicycles.

Here in Florida sidewalk riding is both legal and extremely common. I find myself using both depending on how the road is.

[NE2]

not completely. i put one foot down by dragging my toes.

Well, do you come to a complete stop? If so, that's your choice, and I respect it.


I, on the other hand, will treat a stop as a yield, meaning I'll still slow down, but not bother to stop if I can see all approaches and verify that nobody's coming. Similarly, I'll go 5-10 over the speed limit on a freeway, walk against a ped signal if the coast is clear, and smoke weed every day nope, not my thing.

I recently went for a short ride, passing four stop signs. The first was at the intersection of two 25 mph residential streets (it replaced a yield sign when a school was put in and it became part of a secondary exit from the subdivision). I slowed for a right turn, and continued on after checking for conflicts. The second was at the exit of the subdivision onto a two-lane collector. I was turning left, and came to a complete stop because there was traffic on the collector. The other two were turning right onto the collector, and I didn't come to a complete stop at either, though at one I slowed to let a pedestrian cross.

[english si]

As a general rule I prefer that cycle lanes not be marked next to street parking, to avoid giving motorists the false impression that a safe facility is being provided for cycling which cyclists are therefore obliged to use instead of cycling down the middle of the traffic lane.

I find this happens with any cycle facility to some extent - even ones that would qualify for the Warrington Cycle Campaign Facility of the Month (note that irony is used - these are bad facilities). And of course there are a few people that seem to think that cyclists have no place on the road at all.

I do get annoyed when a cyclist is on the sidewalk (illegal in the UK), when there's a perfectly good on-road cycle lane next to it and they are going in the same direction as the cycle lane is. Even if there's no cycle lane, it would take an extremely dangerous road to be less safe than narrow sidewalks.

[NE2]

If the choice is door-zone bike lane or no bike lane, I would have to choose no bike lane. Let the bikers ride in the main lanes, outside of the door zone. Add "sharrows" if necessary to indicate safe lane placement for bicycles.

Agreed, as long as they don't place the sharrows in the door zone

Here in Florida sidewalk riding is both legal and extremely common. I find myself using both depending on how the road is.

Legal depending on where you are. Orlando city code prohibits it, but it's legal outside city limits. If I were cycling on a busy arterial at rush hour through a residential suburb, I'd probably use the sidewalk. Outside a residential area there are likely too many conflict-causing driveways for ther sidewalk to be both convenient and safe.

[realjd]

Legal depending on where you are. Orlando city code prohibits it, but it's legal outside city limits. If I were cycling on a busy arterial at rush hour through a residential suburb, I'd probably use the sidewalk. Outside a residential area there are likely too many conflict-causing driveways for ther sidewalk to be both convenient and safe.

At least here in Palm Bay, the sidewalks are extra wide to accommodate bikes. Whether they are safer or not depends on your attitude. Serious road bikers going quickly and trying to use the standard right-of-way rules on the sidewalk tend to get hit by cars in driveways (I see it at least twice a year at one particular driveway on the way to work). The trick is to assume that there is a yield sign at every driveway. I ride a mix of bike lanes and sidewalks and have never once had a close call. Sidewalks

The one area where sidewalk riding is more dangerous is at intersections. The bike lanes around here usually go between the right turn lane and the straight lane. If you try to cross with the sidewalk, there's a conflict with right turning traffic which often don't see you. I'll always use a bike lane to go straight if one is available.

That good info that sidewalk riding is illegal in Orlando. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever riding out there.

[Zmapper]

I just saw this video on David Hembrow's blog and I just had to share it here:

Also, for the dutch members here, how well does this work in practice? Do you like or dislike this setup?

[NE2]

Yuck. That seems like a parody of over-engineering.

The main thing to remember when looking at Dutch designs is that the culture is different. If you hit a cyclist, you're automatically presumed to be at fault. Motorists are willing to accept shortening their signal phase length for a reasonable cyclist phase on a sidepath.

If that design were done in the US, where "I didn't see him" is a valid defense, you'd have right hooks out the ass. Try to cross on foot at a busy suburban intersection and see how many right-turners (and left-turners) fail to yield. Now imagine you're on a bike, 2-3 times walking speed, and less maneuverable than a pedestrian.

[Alps]

The initial premise is wrong. The driver can see the bicycle well in advance before entering the right turn lane. The Dutch just arrived at a different solution. Could be some anti-American bias there.

[NE2]

However, the motorist might underestimate the speed of a cyclist he just passed, or might just not care that he's cutting off the cyclist. When there's heavy traffic, some of which may be turning right, it's safest to merge out of the bike lane into the rightmost straight lane.

[realjd]

Too many cyclists here have a militant "my bike has the same rights as a car dammit" mentality to make this work. They'd be pissed that they can't go through the intersection without slowing down, or that they have to make two crossings to make a left turn. I imagine the Dutch treat cycling more as a pragmatic means of transportation and less as a political statement.

Or maybe I just read too many cycling activist blogs.