
Do We Overvalue Bike Lanes? - Osiris30
http://www.davemabe.com/2017/05/09/do-we-overvalue-bike-lanes/
======
idop
He makes some good points, but here's my take: I used to ride my bicycle to
work every day and for general transportation for quite a while (I live in
Israel), but I've basically given that up completely because I have to ride on
the road, and I've had too many close encounters that it's just too much for
me. I've had cars brush up against me, others ignore me completely when taking
a left turn from the opposite direction forcing me to brake suddenly, and
more.

The worst was when I was riding on a two lane road, approaching an
intersection where the right lane could either continue straight or take a
right turn. I was going straight, and was just a few meters from the
intersection when a female driver overtook me on the left lane and slowed
down. I could see her looking at me in her mirror, and right when I was about
to reach the intersection she suddenly turned sharply right. I had to brake
hard and veer to the right, almost slamming into her car. She flashed an evil
smile, and sped away. That was it for me. If drivers are trying to kill me as
if it's a sport, I'm out.

Bike lanes aren't better though. There's basically two types where I live:
first are bike lanes right on the sidewalks. These have many people walking on
them, oblivious or not caring that they're on the bike lanes. Motorcyclists
also like to park on them. The second is even worse, where the bike lane is on
the right edge of the road, but with parking to the left of it. People don't
know how to park, so cars often block the lane, or back up into you while
you're riding, or someone on the passenger side suddenly opens the door on
you. Couples also like to walk in those lanes as if it's some romantic
activity. Seriously, it happens a lot.

Eh, I'll just walk.

~~~
bsimpson
"female driver"

I suspect her gender had nothing to do with it.

~~~
jacquesm
It's a statement of fact. I suspect you wouldn't have made your comment if he
had written 'some guy cut me off'.

~~~
bsimpson
But it's superfluous. He (presumably) went out of his way to identify the
gender of the driver when it has nothing to do with anything.

You're right - I wouldn't have reacted to "some guy", because you're not
calling attention to the person's gender. In fact, given the context, I
wouldn't even presume to know the gender of "some guy."

OP's use of "her" throughout the section makes it clear that she was female,
and that's fine. But going out of his way to call out that it was a FEMALE
driver reinforces stereotypes about women's competency, and that's not OK.

------
addicted
I am not a fan of statements of the format 'There are a lot of studies showing
X but they are flawed because of A,B or C, but among those, there is one
study, which is not flawed in A which shows !X which is the thesis of post,
therefore !X'.

------
snthd
You don't want bike lanes, you want separate routes.
[http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/07/unravelling-
of-...](http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/07/unravelling-of-
modes.html)

~~~
gumby
The article says the opposite, claiming that it dooms cyclists to second hand
status.

~~~
jaxbot
I agree with this. We have both here in NYC. First of all, cyclists need a way
to get to their destination. Nobody is going to ride on the greenway and then
walk a few blocks to their destination. Second of all, motorist behavior has
really changed since the lanes were installed. The protected lanes are mostly
like a separate route, but they still intersect the same road, and force
drivers to mix in with cyclists on some turns. It can be hairy, but it's
helped define space for everyone and increase safety for pedestrians,
cyclists, and drivers alike by reducing turn speeds.

------
johngalt
The safest answer is separate bike infrastructure. Full Netherlands style.

[http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/11/first-cycle-
sup...](http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/11/first-cycle-superhighway-
revisited.html?m=1)

~~~
keypress
Have you ever visited Milton Keynes in the UK. You can get across town without
touching a road, as they have a completely separate cycling infrastructure.
The red routes. Sadly though as they are out of sight, they are used by
hoodlums and gangs at night, to the point people don't want to use them.
Shucks, people. They are also used by mobility scooters.

~~~
chrismealy
A major part of the Dutch system is the bike network has the most direct
routes, while cars generally have to go around.

~~~
jacquesm
Except around highways where bikes have to make ridiculous detours and the car
on-ramps are relatively straight.

Near Zaandam there are a couple of really nice examples of this, bike detours
easily 1 km for what would have been 200 m at best without the detour. (Onramp
of A8, both sides).

------
phyzome
God yes. I live in Boston, Massachusetts. There are bike lanes here and there,
and for the most part I stay the hell out of them. Here are common reasons a
bike lane is more dangerous than riding in the road:

    
    
      - Too narrow
      - Too close to parked cars (being doored is the *most* common collision I hear about)
      - Full of debris that you have to dodge into traffic to avoid, which is super dangerous
      - Full of people picking up passengers (same)
      - They suddenly end at an intersection, or just randomly, so you have to merge with traffic *in* an intersection
    

If you don't have clear line of sight or it's not a bike lane you're super
familiar with? Don't chance it. Take the lane, as is legally permitted. (The
law in MA says to ride as far to the right as is safe, and many bike lanes are
not.)

As the article stated, they also make drivers think cyclists don't have rights
to the full lane, so assholes will try to give me shit about being in the left
lane when I'm trying to turn left. I don't need that.

~~~
jaxbot
It sounds like the problem isn't the existence of a bike lane, but the
construction of a really half-assed bike lane. Here in NYC, we have some of
those, and I avoid them like the plague. If someone doors me, I'm going flying
into traffic. Ridiculous.

But we also have lanes that put parking between the bike lane and the motor
lanes, and have a few feet of buffer between to eliminate the door zone.
They're pretty fantastic to ride in, except when NYPD parks in them for
whatever reason.

~~~
phyzome
Yeah, I'd at least partly agree with this -- half-assed bike lanes are worse
than nothing, and well-made ones are great. But there's not always room for
well-made ones.

------
erikpukinskis
I was thinking about this the other day:

What if we had a dotted bike lane on _EVERY_ road, so cars could straddle it,
but when trying to pass a bike would have a clear indicator of how much space
they need to leave.

You could still have dedicated solid-line bike lanes where you had high bike
traffic, but you might not need so many of them because the dotted lane would
get you part of the safety/bicyclist comfort benefits.

Edit: I guess this exists. It's called "Advisory bike lanes"
[http://www.minneapolismn.gov/bicycles/advisory-bike-
lane](http://www.minneapolismn.gov/bicycles/advisory-bike-lane)

~~~
revelation
Those "lanes" _decrease_ safety. We have plenty of them here because it's just
paint so it costs nothing.

Just look at the picture on the linked site. Left of the dotted line is where
I would be _just to keep enough space to opening car doors_. But now there is
a dotted line and lots of bicycle symbol paint in it so I get all the nutjobs
driving at me to tell me I should ride in that "bicycle lane". And beginner
cyclists who do end up riding in that lane get a double whammy, car doors in
their face and cars passing way too close because they think the dotted line
somehow means you don't need to keep space when overtaking.

Notice that cyclists in those lanes have priority over turning vehicles! You
have to be suicidal to get anywhere close in one of them to a vehicle that has
"mysteriously slowed" (no signal of course) though. I see bikes in those lanes
getting cut off every single commute.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Part of what makes them dangerous is that virtually no one performs a legal
turn when a bike lane is present. You are supposed to change lanes into the
bike lane and then turn after you are driving in the bike lane. Turning across
a lane is super dangerous, but everyone does it when the lane is a bike lane.

------
Fricken
I've grown up cycling in a historically cycling-hostile city, I'm used to it,
and several years ago when the city jumped on the bandwagon and got serious
about cycling infrastructure, I was all like 'I don't need those', for mostly
the reasons cited in the article. But I was just being one of those assholes
radiating his toxic masculinity.

The lanes have a strong signalling effect, that's the real reason for them.
They grant cyclists legitimacy in their minds, and in the minds of drivers. As
in 'fuck you, I've got a lane now, I'm riding here, You can't fuck with me
anymore!'.

They're working. Whatever myths and superstitions are running through the
minds of tentative new cyclists, the lanes get them out riding and not
driving. The number of cyclists commuting in and out of the core has visibly
doubled each year for the past 4 years, and there is safety in numbers, one
thing the studies all agree with.

Otherwise I agree, except on the last point - that lanes make drivers more
hostile to cyclists. Driver tolerance of cyclists goes up when they perceive
cyclists to be legitimate, and that's what the lanes do.

------
jogjayr
The article cites bike lanes in residential neighborhoods being less safe.
I've never found bike lanes to be useful in such an environment anyway. Taking
into account traffic and stop signs bikes are effectively already as fast as
cars and don't need special treatment. On multi-lane roads with speed limits >
35mph is where bike lanes become more useful.

~~~
theparanoid
By law bikes in CA are supposed to stop at stop signs [0]. Most cyclists
ignore it.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-cycling-
coll...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-cycling-
collisions-20131002-story.html)

~~~
cmurf
It's less safe for bicyclists to stop because they have to dismount and
remount. But even less safe than that is the inconsistency. If the law was
that bikes had to slow down within e.g. 50 feet of an intersection to ~8 mph,
and then had the right of way like a pedestrian in a cross walk, that would be
followed much more consistenty than stop signs applying to bikes.

Some municipalities let bicylists treat stop signs as yield signs, and that's
also safer because it's more consistently followed.

------
raarts
OP makes some good points but should go on vacation in the Netherlands. Way
ahead in road safety. For example:

[https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA](https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA)

Or more extensively:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)

------
uoaei
Here in Germany, all these bike lanes exist and function more or less as well
as they can. Taxis tend to play chicken with you a lot, but they also respect
your space if you claim it.

The main difference between here and where I learned to drive (CA, US) is
driver's education. Bicycles are not treated as second-class in the driving
curriculum: you are required to check over your right shoulder every time you
take a right turn. The presence of marked bike lanes helps reinforce this
notion. You will still find those who park in or walk on them, which is
annoying, but overall I feel safer here riding my bike than in the US.

------
djrogers
What frustrates me most where I live is poorly marked bike lanes/paths. My
neighborhood is surround by 'multi-use paths' that consist of a wide finely
crushed gravel path next to a double wide sidewalk-like path. These are
supposed to be used by cyclists as well as horses and pedestrians, and when
used as such are glorious and completely safe.

Problem is, many cyclists don't realize they are for their use, and wind up
riding on the narrow, winding, traffic-calmed streets where it's most
definitely not safe or convenient for cyclists or motorists.

~~~
revelation
Multi-use paths typically don't go anywhere, are circuitous and have to yield
all the time. Of course nobody uses them because well people on bikes are just
trying to get to work, too.

~~~
phyzome
Yeah, the stupidest thing I hear shouted out of car windows is "you belong on
the bike path!" (meaning the scenic multi-use path).

(Well you belong on the highway, dipshit, but I'm guessing that doesn't take
you to the grocery store either.)

------
gman83
I'm a big fan of protected bike lanes -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6LZ0iRO-
TM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6LZ0iRO-TM).

------
ebbv
I live just off a road that has long been popular with cyclists. I used to
bike on it myself. But the towns it connects have grown a lot in the past 10
years and the car traffic on it has grown as well. Last year a woman on a bike
was killed on the road. I don't bike on it myself any more. It just isn't
safe.

It would be a lot safer with bike lanes, and safer still if there was separate
pavement for bikes.

------
JBReefer
No, not at all. The case for protected bike lanes is rock solid, but it's been
tread so many times that it's only worth addressing the article itself:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headline...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

Remember, in this age conflict, not content, drives journalist profit.

------
awptimus
Didn't read the article. But the answer is yes.

------
aurizon
We all know that the law of car-driving-assholes means that any bike lane that
a car is capable of entering, will be entered by a car = risk of death/injury.
The only way for bike lanes to be a safe method is to introduce barriers so
cars CAN NOT ENTER AT ALL. Sadly there are so many roads that are too narrow
for these bike lanes to exist as well as allow two way traffic as well as
parking that I think the only way is to create one way roads from the old 2
way roads and have a segregated bike lane use up one car space, with barriers
to cars, and parking one one side only. They have created trial bike lane on
bloor street in Toronto, with only one parking lane (which alternates from
side to side.) Bloor still has 2 way car traffic.

I think one way is the way. Then with self driving cars(cab like, but lots
cheaper) reducing the numbers of cars will help.
[http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=18cc...](http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=18ccded2f6711510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD)

~~~
pyromine
How often do you bike in these protected bike lanes?

My city has them and I intentionally avoid roads with them. It's more
dangerous because every intersection the protection is broken for the turning
lane and let me tell you, cars do not check for you before jumping in to that
turning lane. It's terrifying.

~~~
jaxbot
I think D.C. has some mixing zones that are gold standard:
[https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-
content/uploads/201...](https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/dc_mixing_zone.jpg?w&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2Cpx)

Would love to see this in more places, because seriously, no other method is
safe. For me, mixing zones usually mean merging over to the turn lane and
riding to the right side of cars turning left (NYC puts bike lanes on the left
side of the road).

------
mperham
As always, the answer to all articles titled with a question is "No".

~~~
CalChris
Betteridge's law of headlines

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

------
PaulHoule
Bike lanes have always been controversial. MIT professor John Forrester has
long argued that it is better for people to think that "a bicycle is a
vehicle".

Bicyclists often have a fear that somebody is going to hit them from behind,
but earlier studies show that the majority of accidents happen around
intersections: if bikes are segregated from traffic, often cyclists are
invisible at intersections and get hit.

More recent studies in the U.S. south, however, show that bicyclists are more
likely to be hit from behind than previous studies -- but that might just be
southern culture...

~~~
chrismealy
America has done the vehicular cycling approach for decades and what we have
to show for it is 1% cycling mode share. Vehicular cycling is the
transportation policy for the 1% of cyclists (it made sense to me when I was
22 years old and fearless). By contrast Dutch infrastructure is designed for a
60 year old woman with two bags of groceries.

