[OutsmartDan]

As an avid cyclist in NYC, this is a huge step forward into cyclist protection. I can't tell you how many times i've almost been hit, or doored, by a car. Sometimes, it's a lot safer to run a red light to get in front of a car versus waiting for the light to turn- but of course that's not legal.

Honestly, as huge and condensed NYC is, I am surprised this hasn't happened years ago. It's much, much more efficient to get from Point A to Point B on a bike vs taking the Subway, bus, or car. Would love to see something like the 14th street car ban to allow buses and cyclists only more widely adopted across the 5 boroughs.

[e40]

As a pedestrian, I've often thought that. There are no cars coming (in the direction that has the right of way), but if I wait, the cars waiting to turn might not yield to me.

My threshold for cars entering my personal space is clearly different than drivers. I've had drivers accelerate toward me and pass me with 1-2' of space. Way too close.

My rule, as a driver is simple: never accelerate toward a pedestrian. That means I have to stay on the break until they are not in front of me.

The law, btw, says that you can't go into the crosswalk until the pedestrian is has made it onto the sidewalk. At least, in CA that is the law. I was warned once, by a LEO about this.

[mumblemumble]

There seems to be something about being cocooned in a thousand or so kilos of steel and glass that causes people to forget that some of the things outside of your moving box aren't just obstacles to get around, they're actually sentient beings that deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.

[pedantsamaritan]

Leading Pedestrian Interval is what NYC calls the getting ahead of cars.

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/leading-pe...

People riding bikes will be able to follow LPIs at intersections that have them soon (sometime in December, I think)

[tombert]

My biggest pet peeve is when cops treat the bike lane as additional parking. I've seen cops do it just to walk into 7-eleven and buy a snack.

I wonder if that will be addressed at some point.

[bobbylarrybobby]

Cops all drive into the city from Long Island. They don't understand how New Yorkers actually live and get around; to them a bike lane is a curiosity for weirdos who like to get around on a child's vehicle.

Getting change in this regard will require either very serious change in how cops are regulated, or a change in cops' mindsets regarding cars and bikes. Not sure which I'd bet on happening first.

[milkytron]

Is parking in a bike lane illegal? If so, would it be possible to citizen's arrest a cop for that? Or take them to court?

Maybe it's an overreaction to a small crime, but it would set a precedent, no?

Edit: I do not recommend trying to citizen's arrest a cop.

[phyzome]

Citizen's arrest for a non-moving traffic violation? Sounds implausible, though I don't know NY law at all.

[ianleeclark]

> Or take them to court?

Probably not a viable course of action considering they murdered Eric Garner just for selling loosies.

[OutsmartDan]

bike lane parking is just a form of "double parking", so theoretically it is illegal- however the laws of the road do not apply in NYC :)

[InitialLastName]

Let me adjust that: The rules of the road (and common decency) do not apply to the NYPD.

[nielsole]

In Berlin we have a very limited amount of cops on bikes. Getting out of the car changes their perspective.

[Ambele]

Maybe for a couple of days a month, some cops may be rotated onto a police bicycle?

[rasz]

Impossible, NY cops are too fat https://nypost.com/2018/02/18/fat-cops-are-weighing-down-the...

[RandallBrown]

Casey Neistat, a prominent YouTuber, partially got his start by making a video about people/things blocking the bike lanes in NYC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

[Scarblac]

In the Netherlands the bike lanes are usually separated from the car lanes, so you'd have car lane - car parking - bike line - sidewalk. Much safer and also prevents people parking on the bike lane.

[Aaronmacaron]

In Europe there are separate traffic lights for bicycles that turn green a few second earlier than the car traffic lights. This adds a lot of safety since the bikes have time to get past the first car in line. I think a lot of accidents where the car turns right and overlooks a bike in the blind spot can be prevented through this measure.

[u801e]

> I think a lot of accidents where the car turns right and overlooks a bike in the blind spot can be prevented through [the separate bike signal] measure.

This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left.

[JoeAltmaier]

Typically the car passes the bike which is riding to the right. Then the car turns right directly in front of the bike. Forgetting it was there, even though they just swerved around it.

[u801e]

That's because the driver believes the cyclist is going much slower than they actually are, but this can be mitigated by taking the lane when approaching an intersection such that the driver of the faster vehicle will make the turn from the same lane the cyclist is in.

But there's another scenario where a cyclist is passing traffic on the right and then gets right-hooked by a vehicle making a right turn.

[Someone]

So, you’re on your bike, in dense traffic. Even if all of them are already indicating direction, how do you know whether you’ll be next to a car wanting to turn right by the time you reach the junction? How do you even get from the right of a row of cars to the left of it in slow moving (⇒ short distances between cars) traffic? How do you get back to the right of the cars after making a turn?

But even if that’s doable, it doesn’t apply here, where NY wants to build segregated bike lanes. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/junction-design/ has plenty inspiration on how to design junctions for those, in particular https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/state-of-the-a...

[u801e]

> how do you know whether you’ll be next to a car wanting to turn right by the time you reach the junction?

Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction. If you plan to go straight, you get behind the vehicles that are going to make a right turn or go straight. Depending on how dense traffic is, you'll have to do this further in advance from the intersection. A lot of the time, you'll find that gaps are created in traffic by traffic lights. You can use one of those gaps to easily change lanes in advance for example.

> https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/state-of-the-a...

The problem with the NACTO guidelines for this design is that cyclists are hidden by parked vehicles until shortly before the intersection, so, if a cyclist is approaching from behind the motorist, it's not possible for the motorist to see the cyclist before they start making their turn.

Even with the curb extension, according to their example and measuring the distances in the provided diagrams on pages 12 and 13, a motorist will only be able to see roughly 8 feet down the cycle lane. That won't work when the cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second. The typical reaction time for something not completely expected is at least 1 to 1.5 seconds. The document also makes the assumption that the cyclist will yield to the car in that case, but many of them assume they have the right of way and that the motorist will stop prior to a collision.

The other problem is that current US law and driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable and yield to pedestrians. They don't say anything about treating cyclists as pedestrians, and they do say that cyclists are considered vehicles and have all the rights and duties of vehicle operators (meaning they're expected to follow the rules of the road).

In contrast, Dutch law and driver education is complementary to the intersection design you reference. But you're not going to change the law and driver education/training overnight.

[Someone]

"Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction"

Aha! You assumed that there are multiple lanes. That wasn't explicit in "This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left"

I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other, just eyes that can look in front of you.

Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

It won't solve the problem of "cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second", but those cyclists, IMO, are suicidal, if they do so in places where they can't know things will end up OK.

[u801e]

>> "Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction

> You assumed that there are multiple lanes.

No, I didn't. If there's a single lane, then you ride in the center of it. If there are multiple lanes, then you use the leftmost lane for a left turn, the rightmost lane for a right turn, and the lane in the middle for going straight.

> I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

By ride in the same lane, I mean in serial (one after the other), not parallel (two vehicles besides each other). So, if the car ahead of you is turning right, you would end up passing them on their left as they leave the lane to proceed onto the intersecting road. If the car is behind you, they would simply make the right turn behind you while you're traversing the junction. Under no circumstance would a car be parallel to you on your left and take a right turn while crossing your path straight through the junction.

> I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other,

No one needs that. That's why vehicles are equipped with mirrors and why it's illegal to turn from a lane that's not the left or right most lane (other than dual turn lanes).

> Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

Drivers already do that. Normally the right most lane is considered as far right as practicable for the purpose of making a right turn, but putting cycle lanes to the right of right turning traffic actually causes the turning conflict problem.

> It won't solve the problem of "cyclist is traveling at about 16 feet per second", but those cyclists, IMO, are suicidal,

16 feet per second is about 10 mph which is about 16 km/h. I don't think that's a suicidal speed and is actually relatively slow from a transportation point of view. My own bicycle commute is about 15 miles (24 km) long and I average about 11 mph (18 km/h). If I only rode at a speed less than 16 km/h, I would not be able to complete the commute in a reasonable period of time.

On the road itself, it's quite safe to traverse junctions at 25 mph (40 km/h).

[Someone]

"Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction"

Aha! You assumed that there are multiple lanes. That wasn't explicit in "This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left"

I read that as "ride in the same lane as the cars, but pass them on their left".

I still think that's way scarier than the Dutch approach where nobody needs eyes in their back to detect each other, just eyes that can look in front of you.

Having separate cycle lanes, as this will, also solves the "driver education states that drivers must make their turns as close to the edge of the road/curb as practicable" problem.

[Doxin]

> Prior to the junction, you move into the center of the lane corresponding to your intended direction.

Over here in the netherlands we're phasing these out, crossing traffic at a diagonal like that means that drivers will need to look almost 180 degrees behind them to spot you. It's a fine solution if there's only one lane of cars, but as soon as there's more than one lane merging movements just make it plain too dangerous.

[u801e]

> crossing traffic at a diagonal like that

I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. What I was saying was that the cyclist should change lanes to the one corresponding to their desired direction of travel through the junction (like one would do when in a car or on a motorcycle).

> means that drivers will need to look almost 180 degrees behind them to spot you.

Why couldn't they use their mirrors?

[Aaronmacaron]

If bikes drove on the left side of the lane it would be impossible for cars to overtake bikes. (Overtaking on the right is illegal.)

[u801e]

Drivers of vehicles are supposed to pass on the left, so they can switch lanes to pass when safe to do so.

[flanbiscuit]

NYC has these as well. 8th Ave has a separate protected bike line for a large part of midtown down to the west village and the bike Lanes does have its own green light. I personally haven't seen it elsewhere but wouldn't be surprised if there were more

[u801e]

> I can't tell you how many times i've almost been hit, or doored, by a car.

Do you try to pass right turning vehicles on the right or left turning vehicles on the left? If you're at risk for getting doored, then you need to ride further away from parked vehicles (at least 6 feet away).

[physguy1123]

This doesn’t do anything when cars decide to park in your bike lane anyways, and your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side.

It’s also an interesting attitude, that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who should check the road when opening their door, but bikers who should lose the 6 feet of street space near parked cars which is the only semi-safe place for bikes in New York

[u801e]

> This doesn’t do anything when cars decide to park in your bike lane anyways

When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.

> your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side.

You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.

> that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who should check the road when opening their door

No one is saying that they shouldn't check before opening their door, but I am saying that you can eliminate the risk of being doored if you ride far enough away from parked vehicles. It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you.

> but bikers who should lose the 6 feet of street space near parked cars which is the only semi-safe place for bikes in New York

Riding in the door zone is not safe, period. It's safer to just ride in the general purpose traffic lane far enough away from parked vehicles. There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.

[physguy1123]

> When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.

> You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.

These comments proves my whole second point. If a car were to just park in the car lane because it felt like it, there would be outrage, tickets, and the car would get towed immediately. Nobody would say "no big deal, just change lanes". But when a biker says "I don't like using the street because it's dangerous", it's just dismissed like this.

You also ignore that bikers DO just change lanes into the street, which can be quite dangerous somewhere like New York. I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike in New York, but drivers, especially taxis, are at best ignorant of you and often antagonistic. There's a reason bike lanes exist in the first place, and it's because the car lanes are dangerous.

> It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you

Imagine somebody saying this when a car driver complains about somebody else running a red light, or cutting them off in a lane - you would get laughed out of the room. But when drivers act dangerously towards a biker it's the biker who should be taking responsibility.

When bikers do all the terrible biker things like roll through stop signs, or "act like pedestrians", or roll to the front of the line, that IS taking our own safety into our hands by doing legally dubious things that make biking much safer, yet everybody hates that as well.

> There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.

Have you ever been in New York? Plenty of car lanes themselves are near the door zone, not to mention bike lanes themselves ARE the door zone usually.

I don't mean to be aggressive, but the endless victim blaming towards bicyclists gets really tiresome. I really wish that people who just dismiss these complaints out of hand would bike to work in NYC for just a week.

[lacampbell]

You're arguing past the GP. They're saying "here's some practical tips, in the real world, at this point in space time, to stay safe while riding a bicycle". And you're talking about how that sucks, and it shouldn't have to be that way. Ok right, it shouldn't. But that's how it is. Do you want to ride a bicycle safely or not?

[u801e]

> If a car were to just park in the car lane because it felt like it, there would be outrage, tickets, and the car would get towed immediately.

And drivers of those cars would switch lanes to get around it in the interim. Cars can develop mechanical issues that prevent them from proceeding and if they driver can't get to the side of the road, then they remain in the general purpose traffic lane (which isn't for the exclusive use of cars).

> But when a biker says "I don't like using the street because it's dangerous", it's just dismissed like this.

What's dangerous about changing lanes after checking for traffic in the adjacent lane? People do this all the time while driving cars, trucks and motorcycles. Why would it be any different when on a bicycle?

> There's a reason bike lanes exist in the first place, and it's because the car lanes are dangerous.

According to NY state law, they exist so that cyclists do not interfere with traffic[1]. It's not for safety. It's just to keep cyclists out of the way.

> Imagine somebody saying this when a car driver complains about somebody else running a red light

When I drive a car or ride a bike, I check for approaching traffic when I enter an intersection. This is out of self-preservation. People are going to screw up (whether intentionally or not). But if you can avoid a collision regardless of what someone else did, then that's a far better alternative.

> When bikers do all the terrible biker things like roll through stop signs, or "act like pedestrians", or roll to the front of the line, that IS taking our own safety

No, that's for the cyclist's convenience. If everyone followed the same set of rules, then everyone's actions are predictable and there would be fewer conflicts and lower risk of collision. Imagine if drivers of motor vehicles started following the same strategy you mentioned. They can justify it by saying they needed to stay out of the way of the bus and they saved time as well.

> Plenty of car lanes themselves are near the door zone, not to mention bike lanes themselves ARE the door zone usually.

If other lanes are present, then drivers stay out of the door zone. That is always true when there is a door zone bike lane.

> I don't mean to be aggressive, but the endless victim blaming

Providing advice in order to prevent others from becoming victims is not victim blaming.

[1] https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/bicycle/safety_laws/...

[frabbit]

This is definitely not victim blaming. It is sound advice based on the usual flow of traffic and the uniform vehicle code.

Bike lanes of various types are experimental parallel transport systems dropped into an existing system with which most people have experience and education. The bizarre undertaking on the inside and right-hook problems at intersections are completely predictable.

[lacampbell]

I'm a long time cycle commuter and you are spot on. If your lane is obstructed, switch lanes. So much safer than just hoping you won't get doored.

[bobthepanda]

A lot of bike lanes in New York do not have six feet of separation from parked cars.

[u801e]

A lane that instructs you to ride in the door zone should be ignored. It's safer to ride in the center of the general purpose lane that's far enough from parked vehicles to avoid the risk of getting doored. Your safety is far more important than someone else's convenience.

[frabbit]

From bitter experience I concur: take the lane! It is safer for everyone.