
A New Bike Lane That Could Save Lives and Make Cycling More Popular - nherbold
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/a-new-bike-lane-design-that-could-make-biking-more-popular-and-save-lives/
======
guptaneil
Interesting ideas, though I can't imagine it getting a lot of support in the
US, since it prioritizes bikes over cars.

Chicago recently added separated bike lanes to one of its streets, and it's
definitely much more enjoyable and less stressful riding on that street than
the rest of the city. In fact, whether or not I can spend most of my commute
in that bike lane plays a huge factor in deciding if I'm going to bike to my
destination. Unfortunately, even that bike line is flawed. For one, it relies
on painted lines to separate the lane, which as the video in the article says,
isn't that great a solution, since it doesn't physically keep the cars out.
Taxis are the worst offenders and tend to treat the bike lane as their
personal parking space.

Chicago also implemented dedicated traffic signals for bikes, as the article
recommends, which sound amazing in theory. Unfortunately, most cars seem to
completely ignore them and drive as they would on non-protected streets. For
example, when the bike lane is green, the turn signal for cars is red. I
rarely see cars actually obey that red light and regularly turn into oncoming
bike traffic. Even worse is pedestrians who view the bike lane as an extension
of the sidewalk, and will wait in the bike lane to cross the street.

These problems won't be fixed until protected bike lanes are the norm, rather
than the exception, and following bike lane laws are taught in driver's ed and
heavily enforced by police.

Unfortunately, nobody really cares about bikers. The New York Times had a
great article last year about how hitting bicyclists isn't considered that big
a deal[1].

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-
to...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-
cyclists.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

~~~
zephjc
Belligerent, law-breaking drivers will foil most traffic flow schemes.

~~~
alphapapa
s/drivers/cyclists/

~~~
RhysU
[http://www.sticksinspokes.com](http://www.sticksinspokes.com)

------
akjetma
The reason people don't ride bikes in the US is not because unprotected bike
lanes are scary. It's because our cities have been laid out with the premise
in mind that everyone will have cars. We have disparate clusters/districts
related to activities like 'work', 'play', 'shop', and 'sleep', rather than
having these constructs evenly interspersed. We have supermarkets instead of
markets. Monoliths instead of distributed systems.

~~~
bane
We also have bad weather. Right now, where I live at least, a top 10 metro,
it's around 90-95degF and 80-90% humidity or it's raining. Suppose I decide to
ride to work. Google puts that at a 1 hour and 13 to 1 hour 23 minute ride
depending on my route. It sucks but it's doable.

Now I arrive at work and I'm soaked either from sweat or rain. Now what? I can
stink up the office with my B.O. all day while I desperately try to dry my
clothes. Or I go through the indignity of getting to work, waiting an hour to
cool-down and dry off, then trying to change out of my riding kit into some
decent professional work clothes in a dirty stall in the men's room after
giving myself a paper towel bath in the sink.

Then at the end of a long work-day, reverse this absurd course of events? Now
instead of a 10 minute drive and 8.5 hours at the office followed by a 10
minute drive home (total time commitment under 9 hours), I've succeeded in
turning my 9 hours of work time into a 10.5-11.5 hours of work time so I can
put myself dangerously out in traffic, exposed to the elements and be
uncomfortable the entire day and can't go anywhere else once I'm there?

Even if the stars aligned and I had door-to-door bike trails, I wouldn't
partake in this uncivilized madness. I'd much rather just get home earlier,
_not_ smelling like exhaust fumes and body odor and go do a leisurely jog
around my neighborhood park for a half hour or go to one of the 3 gyms next to
my house where I can ride a stationary bike in a temperature controlled
environment while watching TV.

Edit: for the record, I support dedicated bike lanes and infrastructure almost
everywhere because of all the side benefits it brings. But I'm also not
treating it as a religious issue, mindful of acute practicalities that explain
the world better than assuming one of the most technologically sophisticated
countries on the planet doesn't like to ride bikes to work because they're too
stupid to do so.

~~~
funkyy
Because in London, Amsterdam, Tokyo or Singapore the weather is amazing all
the time - this must be a reason for all the bikers there...

You prefer comfort over bikes - we get it. But bicycling is not "uncivilized
madness". Its common way of transportation in most of the world (with
exception of majority of the US). Healthy as well (much more healthy than
gym).

~~~
bane
In four total weeks in London, I can count on 1 hand the number of cyclists I
saw.

Never been to Tokyo or Singapore, but if they're anything like Seoul, where
I've spent months, riding a bike in the streets is both playing Russian
Roulette and virtually impossible on account of the bad terrain (and for
pretty much all the same reasons I brought up earlier). You also have almost
no place to store them given the size of the average apartment. Outside of
dedicated parks, I've almost never seen a person on a bike their either.

I've been to dozens of countries on almost every continent, and bikes are a
very uncommon mode of transportation. That's why places like the Netherlands,
where it is common, are so notable. If it was common, we wouldn't care.

Rather than being snarky, what's your suggestion for overcoming these
practical and social issues?

~~~
dohertyjf
Wow really? You spent 4 weeks in London and never saw a cyclist? Were you out
in the suburbs? I spent a bunch of time in London and saw a TON of cyclists in
central London. Many of them took the train out to where I was staying too
(outside Brixton).

I also don't buy the "small apartments" thing. We live in a 650sq ft apartment
and have 4 bikes hung up on our wall. Where there's a will, there's a way.

~~~
bane
Not surprisingly, being London, the weather was lousy.

650 sq ft is a pretty large place by Korean standards. I expect by Tokyo or
Singapore as well.

~~~
dohertyjf
It was grey and lousy when I was there too :-) Still a lot of cyclists
including my old coworkers.

I'd dare say we could fit 4 bikes in a much smaller place too. It's not the
size of the place that's at debate here though.

~~~
bane
It was so strange that I even remember one of the few riders I saw because he
was using the DLR to get near the tower. I was curious if you could bring
bikes on it and that answered my question.

------
akulbe
Are we finally deciding to learn from the Dutch? The Netherlands has been
doing this for a long time. I honestly don't know how long, but I'd expect
someone from NL to read this, and have a _yawn_ \- you don't say?! kind of
reaction. :)

I remember when Portland was called one of the most bike-friendly cities in
the US, and its transit was also one of the top-rated.

After I spent ~2 years in Amsterdam, I think both biking and transit in
Portland are a joke, in comparison.

EDIT: changed wording for clarity

~~~
zorbo
As a Dutch person, I think the US has a long way to go, and these proposed
bike paths won't really help all that much. I also feel that the US and the
Netherlands can't be compared when it comes to biking. Some of the problems I
see with biking in the U.S.

* The speed limit in residential zones in the Netherlands is always 50 km/h (31 mph). This doesn't seem to be the case in the U.S.

* Bicyclists are considered full first-class participants in traffic on the road in the Netherlands.

* We have no policy of allowing turning-on-right here. It seems like a dangerous thing to have if bicyclists are involved in traffic. These new bike lanes might help with this.

* In accidents involving both a car and a bicyclist, the burden of proof always lies with the driver of the car, not the bicyclist.

* Our cities are way, way smaller and arranged completely differently. Everything I need in daily life is within a 3 mile radius of my house. Convenience stores, clothes shops, electronics stores, restaurants, etc. I've never been to the U.S, but I wonder if that's the case over there.

I think the biggest problem the U.S has is that car drivers and law
enforcement don't give a shit about bicyclists.

It also seems to me that the people who bike in the U.S. take it _way_ to
seriously. I could very well be wrong on this; I'm not intimately familiar
with bike culture in the U.S., but to me it seems you all ride extremely fancy
bikes, work up a sweat on each ride and change clothes and shower every time
you hop on or off a bike. That seems like a huge effort, and if I had to do it
every time I took my bike, I'd probably just say "screw this, I'll take the
car". In comparison, when I commute to work, I just get on my cheap $200 bike
(not the cheapest category either) in my work clothes and slowly paddle to
work. If there are hills, which we don't get much in the Netherlands of
course, or if there are strong head-winds, which we _do_ get a lot, I simply
paddle slower. I could be completely mistaken of course, so please do point
that out, but biking in the U.S. seems like a very tiring experience.

 _edit_ Some more differences:

* Round-abouts in the Netherlands are everywhere. Bikes and pedestrians have the right of way on these. Stop-light intersections are annoying and are easily avoided in the Netherlands.

* Nearly every city center (the shopping zones) is car-free in the Netherlands.

* The roads in our cities are layed out completely differently. There are usually a few main roads with heavy car traffic and lots of smaller side roads for destination-specific traffic. These side roads are much less crowded, and less car-friendly. That means cars generally stay on the "doorgaand verkeer" (passing-through traffic) roads. These generally have separate bike paths. This works because cars and bikes don't have to intermix all the time on those roads, unlike the grid-like road system in U.S. cities.

~~~
andrewliebchen
I use to live in Cambridge, which seemed to ban right-on-red citywide (more or
less). This made the roads much safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and
automobiles.

I think you're right about some cyclists in the US taking it WAAY to
seriously. Because they're such a marginalized group, they define themselves
by their difference. It's the American way :)

~~~
blueskin_
There's nothing inherently wrong with right on red; it's a _massive_ fuel
saving. The only issue is if it's allowed without stopping first.

~~~
zorbo
Ever since the introduction of roundabouts, car-on-cyclist accidents have
risen in the Netherlands. Why? Because when a car leaves the roundabout, it
basically has to take an almost blind right turn, where it's very difficult to
see a cyclist approaching from the side / behind. Just a few months ago I was
hit by a car in this exact scenario. It happens about two to three times a
week where a car will not spot me in time when it leaves the roundabout (I
cross about 50 roundabouts a week). I know this, so I adjust my cycling speed
at roundabouts to near-nothing.

I'm not convinced right on red doesn't pose a dangerous situation, even if
cars come to a full stop first. In a right on red scenario, the bicyclist
always approaches from behind, in the blind spot of the mirror. I'm not saying
the right on red policy should be abolished, just as I don't want roundabouts
to be abolished in the Netherlands (I love those things). Just that, as a
cyclist, it's primarily _your_ duty to ensure cars have seen you. Let's hope
that as cycling increases in the U.S., motorists become more aware of cyclists
in the street.

~~~
andrewliebchen
It shouldn't be incumbent upon the cyclist to ensure motorists see her, beyond
doing the things required by law. Cars are bigger, faster, and there's more of
'em. They need to watch out for everyone that is more vulnerable.

------
hyperion2010
This is more or less how they do it all over Germany. Parked cars next to
traffic buffering bikes and then peds all the way on the inside. Much safer
and more sensible design. The key word being design, not hacked on after
thought that reduces the number of lanes for traffic.

~~~
judk
If the bike lane were sidewalk-side of the parking lane in USA, 10+% of parked
cars would intrude on bike lane. :-(

~~~
steanne
not if it has a curb or planters.

------
zephjc
I think the Dutch example the video cites is more a roundabout like this:
[http://thisoldcity.com/sites/default/files/images/netherland...](http://thisoldcity.com/sites/default/files/images/netherlands_bike_lane_rbt.jpg)
which also incorporates the typical roundabout center island, and of course,
no confusing light signaling system.

Edit: as a note, some people are concerned about losing lanes, but if the
lanes are (almost) always moving, and there is no redundant middle left-turn
lane, you don't need as many lanes, freeing up the space for sidewalks and
bike paths.

~~~
randomknowledge
Here is an old video about the Dutch system:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA).
Looks pretty similar to me.

------
watson
This is not a thing that can be changed overnight. It takes decades to update
the city infrastructure, but the city planners can take small steps in the
right direction each year.

Take a look at this short film from 2009 from my home town of how we re-
invented the biking culture:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX8qiC_rXE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX8qiC_rXE)

Edit: My comment is more a reaction to the general theme of the comments on
this post, rather than a comment to the linked article

------
jessaustin
_From a cyclist 's perspective, intersections are basically death traps, where
right-turning drivers threaten collisions at any moment._

A bike can travel on the right near an intersection only when it's passing
traffic that is _completely stopped_. If traffic is moving _at all_ , you
shouldn't be on the right, you should be _in the lane_. If you still want to
pass, pass on the left, although if there's only a single lane of traffic in
each direction you should probably just ride in the lane and wait to pass
until after the intersection.

I appreciate attempts to solve real problems like this, but I doubt this
design will be an improvement. The _most_ dangerous thing a cyclist can do at
an intersection is blast off the sidewalk into the crosswalk. Such a cyclist
is more dangerous than properly-crossing cyclists, because from motorists'
perspectives he appears out of nowhere instead of simply continuing to travel
in the street. He is more dangerous than pedestrians, because he's moving much
faster. This new design appears to force _all_ cyclists into that situation:
traveling quickly and appearing, to motorists, out of nowhere.

Another problem with this design is it prevents large trucks from turning
right.

~~~
ffumarola
Not sure of your familiarity with biking in major metro's, but separated bike
lanes are getting more and more common. These bike lanes put you on the right
side of the road and cars often times turn right into the path of the bike
lane without looking for bikers.

~~~
GrantS
My city is getting more of these and I always check before turning right. But
last week I witnessed a car-bike collision that I'm unsure how to ever avoid:
traffic in my lane was backed up to a standstill, but oncoming cars were
flowing freely and one took a left into a restaurant parking entrance (between
two stopped cars in my lane) just as a bike was passing the stopped cars in my
lane on the right (NOT in a designated bike lane but even if it was, the left-
turning car would have had no way of seeing the bike coming because all cars
were stopped and blocking view.) Bike hit side of turning car at full speed.
Neither saw each other coming. Bicyclist was seemingly ok and kept riding
after 30 seconds. Do you just outlaw left turns in the presence of bike lanes?

As I said in this case there was no bike lane and my understanding is that
this is a known danger and the cyclist should not have been passing all the
stopped cars on the right. See example #8 on this page:
[http://bicyclesafe.com/](http://bicyclesafe.com/)

~~~
judk
Indeed, passing on the right is unsafe for bikers and for car-on-car scenarios
as well

------
malandrew
I'd love to see something like this paired with a project like this that takes
parks and parklets and treats them like nodes in a graph and converting part
of the streets into dedicated park lanes forming green edges between the green
nodes. Taken all together, this turns the city into a veritable park.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/12588351@N02/sets/721576231926...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/12588351@N02/sets/72157623192662899/show)

~~~
jzwinck
Read about Singapore's "Park Connector Network." It's more or less what you're
describing, and it's already (partially!) implemented.

~~~
xnerak
Most of the PCN I ride on isn't converted from streets. Usually, it's part of
a park or a sidewalk. So it's pretty much like biking on a sidewalk, including
having to dodge pedestrians who zig zag around while staring at their phones.

------
blueskin_
>Falbo proposes that at big intersections bike lanes should have their own
signals to synchronize movement.

I'm not sure if this is the same in the US, but at least here (UK), cyclists
are extremely infamous for ignoring traffic lights, to the frustration and
occasional fear of both pedestrians and drivers alike.

In the case of a car, they always have to use extreme caution when a cyclist
is coming up to a junction as there's probably a 50% chance they will blast
straight through a red light without slowing, and if you hit them, you're
going to be the one they expect people to blame. In the case of a pedestrian,
you always have to look out for ones who do similar things at crossings, in
addition to treating the pavement as a cycle lane in roads without a dedicated
lane.

I know that both represent a minority (albeit a large one) and I personally
know many responsible cyclists, but I think perception of cycling in general
(and so concessions made) won't change until the irresponsible ones are a
thing of the past.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
It is very common in the US as well. Cyclists are meant to have equal right to
the road and, in turn, are meant to follow the vehicle traffic rules. We have
lots of campaigns for drivers to "share the road" and "watch for cyclists".
But I have yet to see a campaign imploring cyclists to actually follow vehicle
traffic rules. Occasionally, I've seen a story about a cyclist getting a
speeding ticket and it is usually met with much criticism of the police. I
have never heard of a cyclist getting a ticket for blowing a stop sign/light.

~~~
blueskin_
Same situation here - I think it has happened once or twice ever for simple
traffic violations; most action has been when they actually run someone down
on the pavement or crash into the side of a car after running a red light.

------
barrystaes
I dont know if its april fools, but this is how all bike lanes are in the
Netherlands, it works and already has for tens of years..

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o)

------
andrewliebchen
You all have heard of sneckdowns, right?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneckdown](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneckdown)

Road geometry goes a long way to influence driver speed and perception.

~~~
alphapapa
"the term first appeared on Twitter on January 2, 2014 at 11:19pm EST" :/

------
funkyy
Major problem with people on bikes in the cities is not safety caused by cars
(its issue, but not major for regular biker that drives from a to b at regular
speed). Its the fact that most bikers ignore laws. They drive through red
lights, use side walks as their own, change lines like crazy... I am a biker
myself and I see first hand all this people getting themselves in dangerous
situations by ignoring road rules and then complaining how bad and ignorant
car drivers are. Bicycle bays wont help much here...

~~~
jrock08
I used to blame other cyclists for this, but at some level I understand. After
getting buzzed by yet another car while going downhill at 30 mph on a 25 mph
road, and then getting pulled out in front of by a car off a side street, who
assumed that I was moving slowly. I then got to a stop light that didn't
change in my favor due to the sensors not being quite sensitive enough to pick
up a bike which forced me to make a decision between running the (traffic-
less) red light or fully unclipping, and shuffling my way 20 feet and up a 6
inch curb to the pedestrian button.

While technically I may be a "vehicle" in the eyes of the law, in reality, I'm
between a pedestrian and a "real vehicle" without the benefits of either. Add
to this strange intersections with traffic, where the cars have a stop sign
(side road) and the bike path traffic have the right of way (in theory). Or
worse, places where bike paths strangely end leaving a biker unfamiliar with
the area unsure as to how to proceed. Adopting seemingly inconsistent and
strange behavior is the only way to make cycling feasible in many places. The
adoption of standard ways for interaction with traffic and better signage
would decrease the cognitive load required to cycle and produce more
consistent cyclist/vehicle interactions.

Regardless of my dislike of certain car behavior, such as overtaking without
giving space, and misjudging speed, I much prefer riding on speed limited
(25mph-35mph) streets to bike paths simply because I know how to act like a
car, and people generally expect me to act like a car.

~~~
alphapapa
I try to sympathize with reasonable cyclists like you, but I can't help but
think of it as swimming with sharks and complaining about it being dangerous.
Humans aren't designed to live in the ocean. Roads (the ocean) are filled with
cars (sharks). People who swim with sharks do so in cages (cars). Forego the
cage at your own risk.

A more reasonable solution, as strange as it might seem, would be to have
elevated or underground bike tunnels. Cars and bikes SHOULD be completely
separated. Trying to cram them into the same space is asking for trouble.

~~~
jrock08
But you're assuming a car first approach. And on a high-way, I agree with you.
It's a car's world, but in a city, or town on a non-major thoroughfare, cars
and bikes should be able to co-exist peacefully. To stretch your analogy a
bit, low speed roadways would be like swimming in non-shark infested waters.
Sure, you are liable to see car but you shouldn't feel like you are in danger
when your are passed by the car, and on the other side, drivers shouldn't feel
like they are within inches of killing a cyclist when they use a road legally
and responsibly. (I add responsibly there because many drivers will complain
that they feel they have to pay more attention when the drive near cyclists. I
find this a wholly unconvincing argument, if you aren't paying attention while
driving you aren't driving responsibly)

I also don't have any desire to use a car frequently. I shouldn't be forced to
resort to a car to travel anything less than 15 miles due to fear or lack of
infrastructure. And we face a chicken and egg problem. It would be great if we
could have elevated bikeways tomorrow, but the truth of the matter is we
should be encouraging bike use now not hypothetically in a utopian future.
Because without proven use, there's no way major bike infrastructure projects
will happen.

------
RhysU
Why are motorcycles and mopeds never part of the discussion? Better fuel
economy versus a car. No need to revamp basic infrastructure because they keep
up with traffic. And, at least for motorcycles, a requirement to carry
insurance and generally accept personal responsibility for one's safety
instead of demanding bogeymen cagers change three generations of urban habits.
For example: killed on a bicycle implies stupid car; killed on a motorcycle
implies idiot motorcyclist. I see no difference.

------
bbarn
As a long time bike commuter, I've never liked the "protected" bike lanes put
in in Chicago. The few streets they work WELL on were already great cycling
routes before they had the lanes, and the other streets they haven't worked
well on they are often repurposed by whatever entity decides to repurpose
them.

Several of them are somehow converted into school children drop off zones for
cars during the morning (i.e., at the time that people should be commuting on
them they're made even more dangerous - Des Plaines Ave near the church school
for example) And of course despite multiple calls out to advocacy groups and
local leadership, nothing seems to beat the "for the children" argument,
despite the fact that what it's really doing is "for the traffic" more than
anything.

That's one of many examples though, but the short of it is - things like
protected bike lanes ignore the real problems in urban commuting, of which
there are essentially four, in my opinion:

1 - Traffic is too fast - The basic speed limit unless posted otherwise, in
the city of Chicago is 30mph. this speed limit is nearly NEVER enforced by
police (Hello free revenue stream?) and traffic down major streets regularly
goes at 50+ mph.

2 - Traffic is too slow - congested streets cause just as many problems as
speeding. Being in a car when you're stuck in stop light to stop light traffic
is infuriating. People are constantly looking for a move they can make to
avoid it. Even with a bike lane, cars will constantly try to pass on the
right, use what's supposed to be parking to make moves towards turning early,
etc. This has been the source of my own collisions with automobiles 4/5 times
I've had them in 10 years.

3 - Lack of a safe place to stow the bike. Any respectable bike will cost
$500.00 and up. Sure, you can get some used single speed or old ten speed for
less, but walk into any shop, and you won't see much below that. Locking those
outside, especially on a regular schedule, makes them not last very long. (not
to mention weather, which while often fine to do a short ride in, all day
exposed to can wreak havoc on even a great bike).

4 - The whole, stinky at work, work stigma, aging building infrastructure
problem. Sure, a few downtown offices have showers, but it's certainly the
exception (spoken as a developer who's worked in many offices over the years)
and in some companies being "that guy" seems to have it's own negative
connotations.

Want to spend that bike-focused infrastructure money well? Start offering tax
breaks to companies providing showers (I'd hear this was a thing once, but
never found any proof of it), or safe places to store bicycles indoors. Want
to create more of that bike-focused infrastructure money? Start enforcing
speed limit laws that exist already, and start looking more towards traffic
patterns for cars as a whole, and stick to shared lanes and painted lanes.

~~~
dohertyjf
I both agree and disagree with you. As a bike commuter in San Francisco, which
is a much more bike friendly city than New York where I used to commute to
Union Square from Park Slope, I definitely experience the "traffic too fast"
thing. I am lucky to have an office now where I can store my bike in our
office (we have dedicated bike parking inside on the 11th floor where our
office is), but I also know that is rare. However, it does make it more likely
that I'll ride to work (and do every day).

Regarding getting to work sweaty, why not ride slower? Sure, you might live in
a hotter place than I do, but if you reduce your speed you'll sweat less. I
think many of us on bikes are still getting out of the lead foot mentality of
driving a car.

Traffic too fast can be controlled. Traffic too slow? That's one that can be
solved by separated bike lanes. Look at the Netherlands and how they solve it.
I personally hate the combined bike/traffic sections of Market St in San
Francisco. Those are the most terrifying 7 blocks of my commute.

~~~
bbarn
Disclosure here - I'm a racer, own some 10 odd bikes for various disciplines,
but realize my 4 mile commute to the loop every day does nothing to further
that. It's essentially the "garbage miles" your typical racer talks about. As
a result, I typically ride at a pace into work that is focused on not sweating
as much as possible, but there are 4 months out of the year that it's so cold
out that I've got to put on enough clothes that unless I get it JUST right
(almost impossible in chicago) I have to err on the side of being too hot, and
2-3 other months where no matter if I'm wearing my fancy near-mesh high tech
Assos jersey or not, barely going at a pace to beat walking, I'm going to be
soaking wet from the heat.

As far as "Separated" I guess it becomes important to define separated. If
there were physical curbs between, I could see it - but where I have seen that
those tend to become even more pedestrian travelled, but even the flexible
post at interval type ones, I've seen most of those destroyed in the first
year they'd been put in by plows, UPS drivers, you name it. It's a bit of a
tall ask to put in full on curbs, as much as I think it could work. Most of
our major downtown streets aren't much wider than SF's smaller streets, with
parking on both sides.

~~~
dohertyjf
Interesting points for sure. At some point I just say that sweating after a
commute is something we have to deal with (same as getting fat by driving a
car :-)). I'd rather bike and be sweaty than fat and driving a car (yes, I
know not all car commuters are fat, but in generalities...).

The separated thing is super interesting to me. Obviously we couldn't do it on
all streets, like the very skinny SF ones you talk about (I live near many of
them in the Lower Haight). On those, which are not major thoroughfares, mixing
bikes and cars is fine. But when it comes to a 4-6 lane street like Market St
(or some in Chicago), separated makes sense. The traffic will go around if the
street is less amenable to them. It's the same argument as taking down a
freeway through a city. SF did it both at the Embarcardero (well, that one was
by natural causes aka an earthquake), but then also at Octavia. Traffic
slowed, neighborhoods revitalized. Studies have been done showing that taking
these down doesn't greatly increase driving times, and often the traffic
driving them doesn't actually stop in the city that they pass through. Instead
they pollute the air and leave. Strong argument for taking them down, IMO.

But I've digressed. I agree there are challenges and never a one-size-fits-all
solution. But there are solutions that are not currently being put into place
that benefit the vast majority.

</rant>

~~~
hueving
Your association with being fat and driving is idiotic. A commute to work on a
bike is not an intense activity so it's still very easy for overweight people
to do. About 1/5 of the bikers I see (South Bay) are overweight. 95% of them I
see commuting are not exerting themselves so they aren't getting meaningful
exercise.

------
kevinpet
Looks like a death trap to me. My problem when cycling is the j-hook when cars
pass me and then turn right. That's killed at least two cyclists in the bay
area in the past couple years. This intersection makes the problem worse -- it
moves cyclists where they are less likely to be seen. Better to add a handful
of "right turn must merge to bike lane" signs which is the law but poorly
followed.

(Other states may vary from CA)

~~~
i_am_ralpht
I saw it happen to someone two days ago crossing the Caltrain tracks and going
over Alma on Meadow in Palo Alto. White van went past the cyclist and then
turned right into him -- luckily he just hit his front wheel (though the van
drove off, ignorant of everything).

It happens all the time and it's a function of poor design. I'm not sure what
the right fix is (preventing right turns on some Alma crossings? Forced right
turn lane to the right of a green lane?). With this intersection at least the
cyclists start out ahead of the traffic when waiting on a red -- but if the
light is green and a cyclist is at the speed of traffic then this design does
nothing to prevent right hooks...

~~~
alphapapa
The solution is simple:

1\. License and insure all cyclists on public streets. Equal rights, equal
responsibilities. 2\. Require all cyclists to stop at all intersections, no
matter what. Any cyclist who runs into a vehicle is at fault by definition.

This is the only realistic solution.

------
thrush
Have we ever considered underground biking lanes? I wonder if they could be
fairly shallow compared to subways, and would definitely be safer than the
proposed option above by entirely avoiding conflict with cars. Better even,
with underground biking lanes, we could try to build infrastructure to avoid
weather problems. Snow, rain, flooding and cold are the problems I'm referring
to.

~~~
adrianN
Digging tunnels is super expensive and you have to take care of lighting and
ventilation.

~~~
learc83
That got me thinking. What if instead of tunnels, you dug channels in place of
sidewalks and put grates along the top. Basically tunnels under the sidewalk
except you don't have to worry about the weight of earth or cars on top of the
tunnel--just pedestrians. You do the digging much cheaper from the surface,
and it wouldn't require ventilation.

~~~
adrianN
Digging is still expensive and now you have people spitting on cyclists and
raining dirt from their shoes and you prevent women from wearing skirts.

~~~
learc83
Excellent points. OK so the grating is solid on the top with mesh on the sides
for ventilation.

It was just a half baked idea, and now that I think about it drainage would be
a pretty big problem as well. If the drains got clogged it could turn into a
death trap pretty fast in a heavy downpour.

------
kevin_thibedeau
This design is like all others that involve separated, segregated facilities:
Cyclists are at extreme risk of getting right hooked by turning drivers who
will assume they have the supreme right of way even if they do see the
bicyclists they mow over. Little tweaks like moving the stopping positions
around have no effect on oblivious cagers.

------
meandave
Sort of reminds me of the buffered bike lanes in Portland, Oregon up on
Broadway on the East side.
[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/50346](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/50346)

------
redthrowaway
So his solution for cyclists feeling uncomfortable is to take away a lane of
traffic at every intersection? And he wants a special light for cyclists to
proceed while all the cars are stopped? This would be a traffic nightmare.

~~~
stingraycharles
I agree that the taking away the lane would likely be a problem for traffic,
the special light for cyclists works very well over here in The Netherlands.
Once every few minutes the green light turns on for all cyclists and is red
for all cars -- cyclists can manage having a "free for all" while crossing the
intersection where cars cannot.

Before you say "but that means that there is less time for cars to cross the
intersection", consider the fact that a lot of the people using bikes would
otherwise have to use other means of transportation, resulting (at least
partially) in reduced traffic.

~~~
micro_cam
Does the bike free for all really work that well on popular routes? In my old
bike commute there were a couple spots where lots of cyclists would pile up
(draw bridges, stop lights on a bike path) and I can't imagine having that
many cyclists having to wait and then crossing each others direction of travel
at every intersection.

~~~
stingraycharles
Well most of the time it does. Whether to go for a free for all or more
"complex" strategies depends upon the complexity of the intersection.

For a lot of the less popular intersections, free for alls work good enough
and trying to be clever would be a premature optimization. In other
situations, there are generally two approaches:

* implement a more complex routing strategy that can route both cyclists and cars concurrently; an example would be [1], where the blue line is how the cyclist should travel.

* avoid the intersection al together with tunnels[2] or bridges[3] -- this is the most desirable strategy, but probably the most expensive one. It is used fairly often in popular-by-cycle cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam.

[1]
[http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg](http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg)

[2] [http://www.n246.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg](http://www.n246.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg)

[3]
[http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeeldi...](http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeelding1.jpg)

------
arghbleargh
Seems like a fine design, but doesn't it require a lot of space? It looks like
you would have to widen existing roads by at least 10 ft or so, which wouldn't
be practical for a lot of roads in the city.

~~~
angersock
So, if more people are on bikes, less lanes are needed for cars.

~~~
redthrowaway
Bikes are not a viable replacement for cars for most people in most cities.

~~~
ffumarola
They are in the major east coast cities and some west coast cities. I'm sure
they aren't _currently_ viable in plenty of cities, but that doesn't mean the
infrastructure shouldn't be built to allow for bikes.

~~~
redthrowaway
Are you going to take your kids to school on a bike? Ride in your business
suit? Go to Ikea or Costco? Going to ride in from the suburbs?

Bikes work as primary transportation for active 20-somethings who live in
cities near work. They do not work for the vast majority of people, and never
will. Wanting to make cities bike-friendly is fine. Wanting to do so at the
expense of the 80% of the population that needs a car is addle-brained.

~~~
quinnchr
I live in one of the worst cities for cycling in the US and I do all of those
things regularly.

I bike to Costco and Ikea all the time, but sure you do have to get big stuff
delivered unless you have a trailer ([https://www.bikesatwork.com/blog/move-
it-by-bike-moving-serv...](https://www.bikesatwork.com/blog/move-it-by-bike-
moving-service)). I used to commute to downtown from the suburbs daily. When I
was young my dad used to bike me to daycare/school all the time. If you need
to be somewhere in a suit you bike in pants + undershirt and add the rest when
you get there.

All of these things are possible, admittedly there is a real limitation of
needing to live within a 15-20 mile radius of work. The best data I can find
suggests about 23% of commuters have a commute of more than 20 miles. So I
would say cycling is a perfectly reasonable solution for the majority of
people.

~~~
ars
> When I was young my dad used to bike me to daycare/school all the time.

How did all your siblings fit? Or did your Dad make multiple trips?

> live within a 15-20 mile radius of work

You really think people want to bike 20 miles? That's going to cost you about
2,000 calories (round trip). That's completely unrealistic for most people.
They would have to double their food, plus end up exhausted every day at work.

And that's for perfectly flat terrain!

(The weirdest part is the extra food costs more than the equivalent gasoline,
and produces more CO2.)

~~~
quinnchr
My dad used a bike seat for me, which was doable since my brother and I were
different ages and weren't often going to the same place. There are of course
bike trailers for hauling 2-3 children around and don't forget pedicabs which
regularly haul around 3-4 adults.

After you get used to it you don't really feel exhausted. Yes commuting 20
miles by bike is definitely an upper limit, at least for me, but I do know
people with longer bike commutes.

So assuming you fuel yourself with pure beef, the most unsustainable food I
could find, you'd need about .85 kg to get 2000 calories. On average the
production of beef releases about 13.3 kg of CO2 per kg of beef, so we're
looking at 11.305 kg of CO2 per commute. The average CO2 produced for a medium
sized car is about .5 kg per mile. So for the same 40 mile commute you're
looking at around 20 kg of emissions. So even if you choose to only eat the
most unsustainable food it's still better than driving. If you switch to pork
or poultry you can reduce that 11.305 kg of CO2 by about 75%. Cars just don't
even come close.

------
whistlerbrk
This is not "new" as other commenters have pointed out.

I'm a proponent of the floating parking lane we've adopted in NYC as it also
keeps cyclists away from pedestrians and melds nicely when a bike line ends.

------
rdl
How do you do right hand turns on red in this? Oh, it's actually worse -- it
basically means every 2 lane road is now a one lane road. Also, you're going
to slow down every intersection for cars and pedestrians by a minute or two
per cycle?

Seems highly unlikely to be something people support unless bikes are >25% of
all traffic in an area. I don't know anywhere in the US where that's the case.
(Maybe on a university campus or something?)

~~~
ffumarola
It's a catch 22. Less people ride bikes when the infrastructure sucks.

In Washington, DC, 4.1 percent of working residents regularly commuted by bike
last year; it was 3.8 percent in San Francisco, 2.3 percent in Philadelphia, 2
percent in Boston, 1.6 percent in Chicago, and 1 percent in NYC. NYC increased
from .6 percent to 1 percent over the course of a few years by investing more
heavily in bike infrastructure.

One thing to keep in mind is that these numbers are for daily commuters. When
you look at casual riders, people running errands, etc, and then hone in on
certain neighborhoods the numbers can sky rocket. The Brooklyn chapter of
Transportation Alternatives has done mode (of transportation) counts in
certain neighborhoods and in many areas count 20-30% of all traffic on the
street as being bikes, going over 50% in some neighborhoods for some sprints.

~~~
snogglethorpe
Japan might be a partial counter-example to that.... There's traditionally
been almost no dedicated bike routes or even lanes in Japan, although this has
( _very_ slowly) been improving a little in recent years and there's fairly
extensive bike _parking_ infrastructure in many places. Despite this, bike
usage is _very_ high in many parts of Japan, with numbers dwarfing anyplace in
the U.S. (~20% mode share in some places).

However, the situations aren't entirely comparable, as typical bike usage in
Japan is fairly local (to local shops or between home and the station), with
public transport being used for longer trips (thus the emphasis on bike
parking around stations and other major destinations). Japanese urban layout,
which clusters housing and commerce around the nodes of an extremely large and
dense public transport network, tends to encourage such usage.

Americans, as I understand it are more likely to view bicycling as an
_alternative_ to public transport rather than as an adjunct to it, and thus
want faster speeds and more extensive bike routes.

~~~
rdl
I don't think I'd ever consider taking a bike on BART, even though my commute
is essentially optimal for bike + BART (15 min walk, BART for 10+15min, 15 min
walk, each way, with SF commuter check paying the $3.30 each way fare). I'd
rather BART+walk (which I tend to do on game days), or drive (which sucks
because it's $4-6 bridge toll + $10 car operating costs + $12-90 to park, but
can be done in 18-30 minutes each way, depending on traffic).

Probably buying a street motorcycle as soon as my health insurance kicks in,
though, which solves all of this.

~~~
snogglethorpe
People in Japan don't bring bikes on public transport either (it would be
utterly unworkable given the crowding levels), but the transport network is
generally structured so that most work/shopping destinations are a reasonable
walk from transit. So it's typically only the "home" end where people use
bikes, and suburban stations can have massive amounts of bike parking to
accommodate people leaving their bikes there while they go off to work or
play. [There's parking for many thousands of bikes around the biggest station
near my house (distributed amongst many locations of varying sizes, some
underground or multi-story)....and no car parking at all.]

Because of that greater transit-network density in the more central areas,
bike usage is generally greater in the suburbs and slightly less dense areas
of the city.

~~~
rdl
I assume bike-theft in Japan is lower than in a place like Oakland (or even
normal parts of the USA), so they can have high density vs. high-security bike
parking, too.

~~~
snogglethorpe
So far as I'm aware, yes that's true... There is some theft but I think not so
much the pervasive professional theft that seems to be an issue in some other
places. The sort of giant bike lock which is pretty much standard equipment in
the U.S. is something you almost never see in Japan....

When people lock their bikes at all, it's mostly with very simple locks, thin
cable or just a sort of built-in thing that stops the wheels from rotating.
That's enough to discourage very casual (or accidental) theft.

I guess partly it's cultural, but also compared to the modern U.S., I think
expensive high-end bikes are less common in Japan, so maybe bike theft is also
less profitable. [Though I have seen obviously very expensive carbon fiber
road bikes and the like just locked up in an alleyway with a thin cheap cable
lock...!]

------
glesica
Munich has similar bike lanes and it seems to work out pretty well, though I
only spent a few days there.

~~~
valevk
Every bigger intersection has a similar system in Munich. Works pretty well.
But in Munich (and Germany as a whole), the road-hierarchy is "the weaker one
is right", thus car drivers must be very careful not to run over pedestrians
and bicycles.

When you take driving lessons in Germany, an essential part of it is how to
handle traffic around you. There are many intersections you need to watch out
for pedestrians and bicycles, when turning left, and the hard part is,
sometimes bicycles drive faster than cars!

But when you have a lot of bicycles, this also gives room for new ideas like
mobile repair services:
[http://www.startnext.de/en/harryandmarv](http://www.startnext.de/en/harryandmarv)

------
Waevian
Like many pointed out, I didn't get this straight away, since this has been
done before.

------
fiatjaf
So the big idea is to remove a car lane and give it to bikes. Wow.

------
elnate
Why not just give bike lanes a pedestrian crossing button?

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-your-city-had-
bi...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-your-city-had-bike-lanes-
these-would-you-ride-more-1-180951812), which points to this.

------
forrestthewoods
Another short term improvement until self-driving cars take over. Asking for
better bike lanes is like asking for a faster horse. I'd even consider modern
public transportation to fit that bill although I recognize that puts me in a
minority viewpoint.

~~~
jrock08
Explain to me how automated transportation replaces biking?

~~~
tzs
He didn't say it replaces biking. He implied that it replaces the need for
bike lanes.

I can see that as being plausible, assuming self-driving cars become required.
We won't need bike lanes to provide safety for cyclists then because the self-
driving cars will be good at not running into cyclists.

~~~
jrock08
If that's the case I disagree, even if self driving cars were flawless I would
want to have signage that makes my interaction with the self driving cars
obvious and obviously safe.

------
efsavage
In a city with half-decent public transportation, bikes don't take cars off
the road, they take people off the trains/buses and pedestrians off the
sidewalk (on nice days).

I've lived and/or worked in Boston/Cambridge for 20 years and can't think of a
single person who ever took a bike that would have otherwise driven (as
evidenced by the fact that they would take the train during the winter or bad
weather).

~~~
graeme
This is probably true for marginal cases, but I expect it's not true on
average.

Bikes, trains, buses and walkable neighborhoods all offer alternatives to
cars. If a city only had the last three but not bikes, I expect more people
would have cars.

Some people uses cases would be fully covers by the final three, but some
might find it more difficult and drive.

For example, I live in Montreal. I walk, take metros, and bike. I don't like
buses, and can't be bothered to figure out schedules.

Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro. But if I didn't live near a metro, and
couldn't bike, I'd probably use the local short term car rental options more
often.

All four options are complementary. Remove one, and you'll harm the ensemble.

~~~
efsavage
"Without bikes, I'd just walk and metro."

Exactly my point. You wouldn't buy a car. People who live in Boston/Cambridge
only use their car to get out of the city, not travel within it. For people
outside of the city coming in, bikes are not a replacement (trains and buses
are).

Now if the plan is to have fewer people coming into the city, then bike lanes
are great for discouraging that, but I'm going to guess that is not what the
cities want. For example, I have a new startup and since we mostly live
outside of the city proper and are tired of commuting in (especially to the
nightmare of Kendall Square), we're setting up shop in the suburbs where there
is unfortunately no public transportation.

~~~
graeme
I feel you're quoting me out of context. I used to not live near a metro. If I
hadn't had bikes then, and could have afforded a car, I would have driven.

My point was that all factors count. In cities without metros, some people
still take transit and bike, but more people take cars. In cities with poor
biking, some people still metro and bus. But the more non-car options you
have, the easier it is the not have a car.

You're making the argument "since bikes are not required in most cases,
they're not useful". But you could say the same about any of the other four
factors I listed.

