[exabrial]

Usually big cities try things like bicycle lanes. This has moderate success for brave bicycle riders but probably is not a safe for less brave riders around cars that aren't used to bicycles.

I keep trying to point my local government, since they've already taken my money anyway, towards the Bentonville model. Instead of building bike lanes, build single track that runs through the town. This has been incredibly successful for them. Instead of building sidewalks they build dirt paths.

The other option is streamway buffer trails which completely remove bikes from traffic and provide shortcuts without red lights through the city.

[CydeWeys]

The real problem in the US is that we aren't building protected bike lanes networks that treat riders as first-class users like the Netherlands does. Most of our "bike lanes" are nothing more than narrowed painted lanes on the road sandwiched between fast moving traffic and parked cars (with potentially opening doors). Non-experienced cyclists will rightfully not feel safe using these lanes because they aren't safe. But build better infrastructure and even children can use it safely.

[rob74]

I live in Germany, where the tendency in the past ~50 years has been to add bike lanes to sidewalks. This may feel safer for "non-experienced riders", but has its own issues: instead of being on the driver's side of cars (who tend to look into the mirror before opening the door), you'll be on the passenger side, and the passengers don't have a mirror to look into. At intersections, drivers turning right (especially truck drivers) will tend to overlook you. Plus, you'll have pedestrians stepping in front of your bike, snow not being cleared in Winter and other annoyances. So, the grass may look greener on the other side, but not all that glitters is gold...

[redprince]

The legislation around bike lanes has changed considerably in Germany 20 years ago but the removal of existing cycling lanes which don't conform to the current law is taking a lot of time.

In a nutshell: To construct a separate bike lane which cyclists are then obligated by law to use, is only permissible in rare circumstances where the road would be exceptionally dangerous for cyclists to use. In 2009 improved standards for the construction of separated bike lanes were codified.

Previously separate cycling lanes were constructed mostly to help cars move faster. Their quality (width, separation from foot traffic or parked cars, surface quality, etc.) was often horrendously bad and it is in no way enjoyable or expedient to use them.

Additionally if separated from the road by a row of parked cars or a hedge drivers turning right at intersections have a hard time to spot cyclists. As a cyclist you always have to be on the lookout even if you would have the right of way because a driver just might not have seen you.

[TulliusCicero]

Germany is still far superior to the US here. IIRC bike mode share in Germany is like 10%, whereas in the US it's under 1%.

I'm in Munich and agree that it's not Netherlands-level infrastructure, but it still blows basically anywhere in the US out of the water.

[clairity]

i advocate converting street parking into protected bike lanes. this has the advantage of also internalizing the cost of parking to car owners.

[u801e]

The only good infrastructure makes use of existing rail right of way or paths near rivers. If they provide a way to get to various destinations around town or a fast way to travel between towns, then they'll be used and prove useful.

Protected bicycle lanes is a misnomer. Protected, in traffic engineering terms, refers to something like a protected traffic light phase where one stream of traffic has exclusive access to the intersection (e.g., a protected left turn arrow).

The barrier separated lanes reduce the visibility of cyclists from the motorists' point of view and vice versa. When both get to an intersecton and the motorist needs to turn right, it's not possible for them to see the cyclist well enough in advance to actually yield to them. The same thing happens to cyclists because they can't easily see approaching traffic due to visual obstructions.

The safest solution is to have cyclists follow the same rules of the road that all other vehicle operators follow and allow cyclists full use of the lane they're in. That is, get rid of laws that require cyclists to ride as far right as practicable regardless of the presence of marked lanes or use a bike lane (e.g., https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234).

[Muximize]

Or you could build protected intersections, as is standard in the Netherlands: https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA

[u801e]

Drivers in the US are trained to yield to traffic before entering an intersection. They don't typically yield to traffic when exiting one. For pedestrians moving at walking pace, it's possible for them to see the pedestrian about to cross and yield since the pedestrian will be very close to the intersection.

A cyclist 20 to 30 feet away will not be in view of the motorist who is in the process of accelerating as they exit the intersection.

Making intersecton navigation more complex makes it more likely that someone will make a mistake.

[Muximize]

There's usually no need to yield, traffic signals regulate that. The idea here is to create a more forgiving environment where making mistakes is less likely and less harmful. Thousands of these intersections have been build, here's some examples and some US context and research:

https://youtu.be/5HDN9fUlqU8

http://www.protectedintersection.com

https://altago.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Prote...

[u801e]

> There's usually no need to yield, traffic signals regulate that

Yet, the one example of a protected intersection I'm aware of in the US in Salt Lake City Utah[1] doesn't have bicycle specific traffic signals that regulate turning movements. They rely on motorists yielding to cyclists, or cyclists yielding to motorists. This causes problems when cyclists believe they have pedestrian style right-of-way when there's no law supporting that notion and it's not possible to see a cyclist moving at 20 to 30 feet per second in time to yield to them as they're about to cross the path of the motorist.

[1] https://twitter.com/i/status/654674368597852161

[TulliusCicero]

This kind of attitude is amazing to me.

American bike infra design and culture has been a failure on nearly every level, and yet you're rejecting the lessons from the world leader.

Do you really think American drivers wouldn't eventually adapt to better infrastructure? Even the Dutch had to learn at some point.

[u801e]

> American bike infra design and culture has been a failure on nearly every level

In what way? I live in a town with a major university and there are plenty of cyclists on the roads leading to and from campus as well as on campus itself. This is the case at many universities I've been to.

Also, as far as I'm aware, there are no protected bike lane installations anywhere around campus or in town, but we do have a nice rail trail.

[CydeWeys]

You're over-thinking it. "Protected" just means physical protection is provided. E.g. right now a lot of the supposedly separated bike lanes near me in Manhattan aren't protected in any meaningful way, so you often see cars illegally parked in them and sometimes even driving in them (!). Protection is as simple as physical curbs and other barriers that prevent vehicles from being able to get into the bike lanes. That's protection. Intersections actually do tend to be protected the most because they have started building some curbs at corners as pedestrian refuges between the bike and vehicle lanes, which have the side-effect of keeping cars out.

[u801e]

> You're over-thinking it. "Protected" just means physical protection is provided.

I'm using the standard definition of protected (as opposed to permissive) as used in the traffic engineering profession. Besides, I've heard the term protected used for lanes where flexi bollards are placed between the general purpose lane and bike lane. This in no way is going to provide any notion of protection and there's no intersection management separating traffic flow in terms of time slices (as would be done using a traffic signal).

> Protection is as simple as physical curbs and other barriers that prevent vehicles from being able to get into the bike lanes. That's protection. Intersections actually do tend to be protected the most because they have started building some curbs at corners as pedestrian refuges between the bike and vehicle lanes,

Except, that protection/barrier, as you define it does not extend all the way through the intersection. At some point, the paths of a motorist and cyclist will cross (e.g., cyclist going straight while motorist is turning). If you have bicycle specific signals that regulate traffic in such a way that cyclists and motorists never go through the intersection at the same time, then you do have protection.

[TulliusCicero]

No. Protected bike lanes are safer, and with protected intersections, drivers can indeed see them coming. The US has even fewer protected intersections than lanes though, IIRC the first ones were only built in like 2014 or something.

The Netherlands does this with protected lanes, often with a little bit of extra separation from cars, and it works great. They also do mixing, but only in areas that can accommodate low speeds.

[u801e]

> No. Protected bike lanes are safer

Could you provide a citation supporting this assertion using data obtained in the US or Canada?

[TulliusCicero]

Why does it have to be in the US or Canada, places known to have extremely few protected bike lanes, and almost no protected intersections?

Look, on safe, Dutch-style infrastructure, you'll have even six year olds riding bikes semi-independently around (their parents will be near, but not, like, constantly bodyblocking cars from them). I know, because here in Munich we have some infrastructure like this, not as much as the Dutch, but some.

Now, how many six year olds do you think can safely 'take the lane' on busy American arterials independently from their parents? The idea is absurd on its face.

I have actual experience here with our son being as young as five, biking on city streets with us, and not just the calm local residential roads, something I would never do in the states at that age, and certainly not having him 'take the lane'. If I did that, I'd probably be getting a talking to from CPS, and rightly so.

[u801e]

> Why does it have to be in the US or Canada, places known to have extremely few protected bike lanes, and almost no protected intersections?

Because then you can make a direct comparison in terms of crash rates, counts, etc. between roads that have these facilities and those that don't, or compare the data before and after facilities have been put in place.

> Now, how many six year olds do you think can safely 'take the lane' on busy American arterials independently from their parents?

How many 6 year olds do you see traveling independently around places outside their immediate neighborhood? It seems you're using an example of a need that simply doesn't exist. As a parent and knowing other parents, I've and they have never sent a 6 year old child to travel independently to some destination that requires they ride their bicycle for a couple of miles to get to.

In contrast, how many 6 year olds understand where to look for approaching traffic when cycling in the pedestrian position. Do they understand the risk of a right hook, left cross, or drive out? I tried asking my 9 year old and she wasn't able to figure it out even with me showing a picture of a barrier separated bike lane approaching an intersection and asking her leading questions about where to look for approaching vehicles.

That being said, I would never let my children ride in a barrier separated bike lane because they don't understand where they need to check for traffic when crossing an intersection.

As for taking the lane, one must understand the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles prior to doing that. I'm still working on that with my 9 year old. I don't think that most 6 year olds are capable of that.

[zip1234]

Not all bike lanes are created equal. Paint does not protect riders. Plastic cones do not protect riders. Car drivers can still veer into a bike lane that is delineated in this manner if they are not paying attention. Actual protected bike lanes that have concrete or steel barriers do protect those on bikes.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Protected lanes set up cyclists to get t-boned by turning drivers. In the US these are effectively glorified sidewalks where every road and driveway crossing is a death trap.

[Muximize]

Protected lanes should be accompanied by protected intersections as well: https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA

[u801e]

NACTO standards for protected intersections provide insufficient visibility for the cyclist and motorist on approach to the intersection [1]. For example they claim that for 25 mph traffic, the total clear sight distance should be 50 feet for a cyclist approaching the intersection where the turning car is ahead of the cyclist.

They're making several assumptions:

1. The cyclist will be looking to their left for traffic to the front rather than paying attention to what's directly in front of them

2. The cyclist assumes that the motorist cannot see them and will not yield

For the first item, there may be slower traffic in front of them they need to watch out for, taking their attention away from the street beside them. Same thing for surface hazards. For the second item, the cyclist may believe that since they can see the motorist, the motorist can see them and they can go ahead and proceed through the intersection.

From the motorist point of view, they're assuming that the motorist is lookinat the bikeway rather than at the road (checking the color of the traffic light, verifying that a car making a left turn is going to yield, pedestrians, etc). A motorist traveling between 15 to 25 mph is going to cover the clear sight distance of 50 feet in a second or two, meaning they don't have much time at all to assess the situation on the bikeway.

The second thing they claim [2] is that a bikeway setback increases visibility. Yet the pictures they use at the bottom of the page are the same picture cropped differently. One would think that they would have tried to use an actual example of this in their guide, but they did not. The other fundamental problem is that cyclists move between 15 to 30 feet per second. That means that a car driver needs to be able to see 30 to 60 feet down the bikeway in order to see an approaching cyclist in order to have enough time to yield to them. And they need to do this while moving through the turn at 10 to 15 feet per second.

[1] https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersecti...

[2] https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersecti...

[TulliusCicero]

That's why you also have protected intersections.

This is how they do it in the Netherlands, world leader in safe biking for everyone.