Survey: Should Bike Lanes Be Separated From Traffic?

As one who does both cycling (for pleasure) and driving (for work) I am on the fence. I always slow and cede room for cyclists until I pass them (flow of car traffic is often faster than flow of cycle traffic...but when it's not I always think "If I were cycling I'd be home by now....") and when I'm cycling I always wish that the same consideration would be shown me.

Our HOV lanes have physical barriers -- tall, flexible "reed" tpye things that discourage lane-changing might be just the ticket on streets that see frequent cycling but where parking is prohibited, and then some variation that would allow for parking and still discourage the direct interaction between cyclist and driver.

I don't like breathing exhaust deeply into my lungs as i exercise. Very separate bike paths are needed.

Looks like folks prefer the ornamental, and false promise, of separated bike lanes. There's a large body of research and data that shows that bike/car collisions are more frequent and injuries more severe from separated bicycle facilities.

At some point, bicycles and pedestrians have to interface with cars. If cars do not expect bicyclists to be present, if bicycles are perceived as intruders on the cars' domain, and the roads are not designed to host cyclists, there will be many and horrific injuries.

Channelizing and segregating vehicle traffic inevitably speeds it up, increasing accident severity, and making it far harder for people to cross traffic safely, and leads to the deterioration of neighborhoods. You have given your streets up to the auto.

It is also a waste of space and a difficult design problem to segregate transportation modes in this fashion. And if cyclists get their own lanes, should rollerbladers also? There's no end to how finely you can try to separate the various modes.

Far better is to provide properly designed roads, where traffic will anticipate and accommodate cyclists in the general flow of traffic, where pedestrians can expect to cross the street safely at any time. This will result in fewer accidents and injuries. It is also cheaper and simpler, and leaves more right of way for other public amenities like trees and plantings, street furniture, places for shops to spill out on the street and informal socialization and public life to happen, creating actual spaces and neighborhood identity.

I'm always torn on the cycling issue. I'm all for people taking up bikes for recreation and commuting, but when I get stuck behind some spandex shorts when trying to drive somewhere I can get... well lets just say very upset. The roads here tend to not have room for cyclists... but on one stretch the city has made extra wide sidewalks for that purpose. The cyclists don't use them though.

Is it wrong for me to get angry with cyclists that avoid the few bike paths made for them, travel down 2-lane highly traveled roads (without shoulder space or bike lanes), and are obviously not commuters?

Wow ! I love that plastic tube thing in the picture.

Another enemy (especially as i get bigger around the middle!) is wind resistance.

Anyway. I wonder what the long term effects of CO and CO2 in the lungs are myself.
I confess, when the snow was still around, I had to train it. I am petrified of the ice underneath and the oblivious taxi cabs on all sides.

Aside from the Greenways, parks, and the bridges, there are only a few bollard-separated bike lanes in NYC.
I am not near the 9th Avenue lane. I have to stop by some time.

The white stripe divided lanes do help a lot. Even though they serve too much as FedEx and UPS loitering lanes, taxi pick up lanes, and lanes for delivery boys riding the wrong way. Language barrier is no excuse, there are arrows!

Car doors and throngs of pedestrians are still a problem.
Totally separated lanes can have choke points as the weather gets better and the amateur parade begins ... people riding alongside their jogging partners, mindless tourists who ignore the bicycle symbols on the road, skittish roller bladers, and the general unpredictable types who don't stay to the right. Hopefully over time, a bikeway will get as much respect as a highway or railway.

vsk

I'm not too happy about your title: cyclists are traffic.
Bike lines certainly help to get more bikes on the road, which in return will make motorists see cyclists as equals on the road, rather than as a nuisance.

better yet, ban personal vehicles from driving in downtown corridors. With the decreased traffic bikes can move around a lot easier. Install bus rapid transit for those who don't want to bike and install municipal wireless systems to encourage telecommuting.

Separate bike lanes cause problems at street crossings.

Evidence from all over Germany shows, that accidents at bike-lane-street-crossing rise because now that the biker is not be seen anymore on the street itself he is not perceived as part of the traffic and thus gets overrun during the car turning into a side street.

Nothing said against totally separate bike lanes in the wilderness. I like my patch of asphalt where the next street has to circumvent the area by many kilometers.

But side by side with a street it is (a) more dangerous for the bikers in most of the cases (_most_ not all) and (b) more expensive. Why should I pay more tax just because (like in Germany) a car driver thinks he has the sole right to use the street (which is what the question often boils down to).

And putting the bike-lane 5m to the left/right does not remove the exhaust fumes. Plead to you government for more strict emission-laws.

When I cycle to work I have the advantage of normally cycling along a wide cycle and pedestrian path. It is great and means that I don't slow down traffic, risk traffic accidents or have to wait while a bus picks up passengers.

Separate lanes means safety and you can ride at your own pace which is great.

in London i have wondered why the un used tube network that have been closed of are not turned into cycle routes?
they are dry, flat, cover areas where you can not take bikes on the underground at peak times and would allow for you to put in secure cycle security and showers and the like at old stations.
They also would make people willing to cycle in the winter when weather is bad (well that counts for the summer too, it is Britain) and it is dark on the roads and messy with being soaked by buses.

I'd settle for anything. There are absolutely no shoulders/bike lanes to speak of where I live. The lane stops the sidewalk begins. And I thought Colorado was supposed to be an outdoor friendly state.....

Krischan, can you please post a reference to your findings, if possible, I agree with your statement and would like to have the facts to back it up in the future!

Another problem with separated bike lanes/paths is that localities often add little clauses to the laws requiring their use. If the paths are ubiquitous, that is not a problem, but they aren't. So if I am expected to use them, and they are out of my way, would that cut down on my bicycle commuting? You betcha! Bicycles are vehicles and must be allowed to use local roads, must be given the legal respect of other vehicles, and, yes, must obey all vehicular traffic laws.

"Is it wrong for me to get angry with cyclists that avoid the few bike paths made for them, travel down 2-lane highly traveled roads (without shoulder space or bike lanes), and are obviously not commuters?" - Flipside

Bicycling for recreation should not be constrained to government-approved bike lanes. Have you actually tried to bike in rural areas? There's usually no paths at all.

I used to bike quite a bit on rural two-lane roads (mainly for work, not recreation, as you seem to separate the two). It was generally pretty safe as cars can see you coming for a long time. I don't ride in the middle of the lane, so there's adequate room for cars to pass.

I like separate bike lines along main raodways where cars are doing 45+, even if there is a generous shoulder. Believe it or not there is something more pleasant about being on an old rail trail well away from the road than having a semi roar by every 3 minutes.
But in cities/urban centers bike should mesh with auto traffic. People should be driving over 30 in areas where peds are crossing and other cars are parking.
Bottom line: people need learn how to drive reguardless if bikes are around. Easily half of drivers in the northeast don't regularly use turn signals or know when to yield.

An answer to eveything: high speed segways.

I don't think cyclists are second class citizens. There's a reason in most places we have physically separated railways away from the road. In a tie between a car and train, the train always goes away unharmed. In a tie between a bike and a car, the car almost always goes away with no damage.

Like others have said before, Bikes are part of Traffic! I think that in a good area cyclists are lucky enough to take advantage of good roads and trails.

I support bike trails as they offer an alternative route, a safer area for riders with less confidence, and a good area for learning how to ride.

I support a cyclist taking their proper spot on the roads and riding responsibly.

I think that driver's ed classes should have a class devoted to learning about how to drive around non-automobiles (bikes, motorcycles and scooters). Classes should also should be made available to cyclists for riding with cars.

Yes you should feel guilty about driving behind a cyclist and getting upset. Just because somebody is wearing spandex doesn't mean they aren't riding to work (some of us are lucky enough to have showers at work). If you feel that recreation isn't a justified use of the roads then examine your own automobile use. Is it all business related?

I have read in several different sources that air quality inside of cars is actually worse then outside. You might more easily recognize you are breathing exhaust when riding a bike, but that doesn't mean you don't get it in a car.

Cyclists still pay for the roads we use despite the fact that they aren't paying a Gas tax. Here is a break down of funding for roads in my area.

http://www.olybikes.com/resources/gastax.html

"Separated bike lanes would definitely encourage cycling" -- for beginners and experienced riders. I'm an avid cyclist & steadfast bike commuter. There are bike lanes in my neighborhood, but I still think that the idea of separated lanes is brilliant. I'm tired of dodging opened doors & clueless/inconsiderate drivers.

I am very lucky to be living the most cyclist friendly cities in the world, Amsterdam. I have also lived in one of the worst, Dublin. I have had more accidents or near accidents in Dublin due to most part lack of separate lanes and lack of respect/acknowledgment. Separate lanes for cities are the only real option due to many reason

1. You don't have to weave in and out of cars, either during heavy traffic or at traffic lights – so you feel safer
2. you are an extra few meters away from exhausts so a smaller amount of the fumes going into your lungs than if you were right beside them, and every little helps. Also studies in the Netherlands show that the biggest polluters for cyclist is the mopeds that use the bicycle lanes, even more so than lorries - http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/02/mopeds_more_polluting_than_lor.php
3. Encourages more people to cycle as they feel safer, and within time their in the majority, or at least even numbered. So drivers get more use to cycles and learn how to respect them more
4. As Eric says: “In a tie between a bike and a car, the car almost always goes away with no damage”, and I’d rather not take the chance
5. yes accidents are more increasingly likely to happen with other cyclist, but mostly tourist, people on phones, drunk cyclists, but id still rather crash into a bike than a car – can someone please share the reports that say accidents are increased as its contrary to my experience
6. keeps bikes off footpaths
7. Great way to get kids to cycle rather than put them beside big scary cars. I always bring my nieces cycling when they come over and they love being able to cycle safely everywhere. Their mothers only allow them cycle on footpaths in Ireland
8. maybe not the most sensible comments but in Amsterdam no one wears helmets or highly visible gear as there are is no real reason to stand out (cyclist own the roads here) where as in Ireland I always wore a helmet and a safety jacket.

Now I know Amsterdam is a freak city in terms of cycling but there is really is a lot to learn from it. The more people you get cycling the more power you have on the roads. You got to do everything you can to encourage more cyclists. And from the cycling aspect alone I couldn’t live anywhere else, I just wouldn’t feel as safe cycling on the same lane as a car (their too big and scary)

I live in Daejeon, South Korea and, since this is not Seoul, I can get almost anywhere by riding on the very wide sidewalks or the separate bike lanes that follow the river (separated from the road by about 1/4 Km and a 50 m drop).

Korea is also trying to encourage pedestrian and bike traffic. The biggest problem here seems to be that motorbikes use the sidewalk and bike lanes, scaring me to bits when I'm riding home at night.

Bike for transportation, yes yes yes.

Bicycle lanes definitely should not be in plastic tubes. Those tubes should be for cars, and all lead to a carbon sequestration plant where the they will be safely pumped deep underground. :)

forget bike paths!

London has the best solution, keep 'em in the gutter. i would miss the adrenaline fuelled battles each morning between the craters, drains and wing mirrors. anything more organised would simple be unwelcome... it'd be just too European and not British enough

forget bike paths!

London has the best solution, keep 'em in the gutter. i would miss the adrenaline fuelled battles each morning between the craters, drains and wing mirrors. anything more organised would simple be unwelcome... it'd be just too European and not British enough

I lived just outside of Grenoble, France, and they had lots of designated bike lanes, from the villages outside, all through town. I used my bike all the time there and it was the only way I felt comfortable with my son riding on the back. Absolutely designated bike lanes!

I live in the Netherlands and we have separated bike roads and bike traffic lights. The roads are wide enough for cars to drive down and there's normally a bike traffic jam on cycle to work!!

It's definintely a good thing!

I am car-free in Dallas Texas. Everywhere I ride I have a 10' to 15' bike lane. It's great!

Dallas has two and three lane (each way) arterials with signed speed limits from 35 to 50 MPH. They have narrow right lanes with no shoulder or car parking. The right lane IS the bike lane!

The other traffic merges into the left lane to go around me, and does so smoothly and rather elegantly, without any fuss at all. It is much safer than cowering in the gutter as one must on a "wide outside lane" street or bike lane.

I have traveled 6,700 miles in these conditions last year alone, and I think the road layout as described is ideal for cycling.

If you want safe streets for cycling, advocate for multi-lane streets with a narrow right lane design. Get rid of parking along the curb and lower the speed limits. These measures are better than bike lanes, and they improve the streets for ALL road users, not just a select few.

As one who has been hit by an unaware driver my stand point is a little more personal. I would at least like to see more bike lanes with road bumps so that drivers know when they are crossing into bike lanes. There is a unique phenomena out there for some, they don't want to hit the bicyclist but by concentrating on that fact they drive straight for them! (I have seen it many times) My boyfriend has cycled his whole life and although he does drive he has never owned a car, so his transportation needs have always been met by cycling. He rides on the oposite side so HE can see THEM and therefore takes responsibility for his own life. I too now do the same. Cyclists are never going to teach the masses, who never have cycled, that they have "rights" to the road. The best we can hope for is to save our selves! deborah

In most cases, no separate bike lane is needed. What IS needed is more education for drivers about bikes, mainly that they are vehicular traffic and can take the lane.

Most of the confrontations I've been in involve an uninformed driver yelling at me to get off the road, if possible I hand them an Oregon cycling pamphlet that details bicycle laws.

Something needs to be done to make this a safer alternative. The idea of the fins above might be the ticket. In Tucson, I do not see parking on roads with bike lanes, so that should not be a problem.

I have a friend who was hit in Ann Arbor, MI while biking home from work. She was in the bike lane, wore a helmet and reflective clothing, and was a hit-and-run victim. Six months later, her thigh bone, which was broken into 4 pieces, is showing no new bone growth. She is now facing reconstructive bone surgery in early April.

I have not been on my bike since her accident. Oro Valley is working at a bike trail system that will be completely closed to cars. When completed a biker will be able to go 100 miles safe from the threat of what my friend has had to endure!

Separated bike lanes only make sense in a whole new infrastructure. Where are you going to put 'em? What happens when you run out of space? If drivers don't interact with other road users all the time, they get bad at it. They fall out of the habit of looking for cyclists and then when there's no lane, they're more of a danger.

Bike lanes are a solution only to a *perception* of risk. So wannabe bikers: toughen up. Play with the rest of us adults.

About the increased risk of accidents WITH bike-lanes: Not exactly for germany (the evidence I read is in de.rec.fahrrad, because you can ask locally for accident-statistics and compare between pre-cycle-lane and post-cycle-lane), but:

- Study from Lund (page 9-11 in english), concluding also exaggeration in risk of biking on the street: http://www.argus.or.at/transdanubien/downloads/sonstiges/lth1984acc_cycles_hires.pdf

- A lot of links, literature and some visual data from Danmark in short version here (text is German):
http://bernd.sluka.de/Radfahren/Radwege.html

And there are also cases where the holy grail of bike lanes fails obviously:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/Irish%20Bike%20Lanes.htm
Dublin: "dramatic reduction (8.5% down to 4.5%) in the number of people cycling to school and work, despite a significant investment in bicycle lanes (220 km)"

PS: Sorry, forgot another site with links to a lot of studies:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Instead of separating cyclists and cars in SPACE we should separate them in TIME by declaring that only bicycles should be allowed on the streets between, say, 7 to 8 AM and 3 to 4 PM

Bike lanes might be good for beginer cyclists, but experienced cyclists often can reach the legal speed limit. Money would be better spent on enforcing speed limits ( Hey wait a minute, don't speeding tickets MAKE money for the town?).
If the bicycle is going the speed limit, it's the same as if it were a motorcycle. Yet mootorcyclists face the same hazzard of being hit from the rear by a speeding car.
A slow lane for slow bicycles? That's all the bike lane is good for. Unfortunately, the bike lane is not designed for my 50 MPH streamlined recumbent bicycle or motorcycles.
What about a fast bike lane, so bicycles can pass gridlocked urban traffic? It's a contradiction in terms.

"Vehicular cycling" is a philosophy that espouses that bikes should be "driven like cars." That any other approach is demeaning and leads to some sort of "inferiority complex". This approach argues that bike lanes and separated bike facilities are somehow dangerous and demeaning.

In reality, it's a philosophy. I like the philosophy on some levels. Bicyclists are equal users of the road. I like some of the training offered. How do you deal with a left turn on a busy street? This is a good skill to have. There are other skills that are important to know if you're riding in a place without a bicycle transportation facility.

There is not a "full body of research" that the vehicular cycling system reduces crashes, injuries, or death. There is a lot of mantra on it, but not research. There are actual crash numbers from places with "vehicular riding" systems and those with "bicycle transportation" systems.

I would define a "vehicular riding" system as one where there are no bicycle specific transportation facilities. I would define a "bicycle transportation" system as one with bicycle specific transportation facilities. I do not consider wider outside shared travel lanes to be bicycle specific. Bicycle specific means the facility is designed to specifically serve exclusive bicycle travel or to heavily favor bicycle travel over motorized travel. Wide outside lanes enhance motorized mobility by increasing operating speeds.

Researchers actually find that in places where there are real transportation systems for bikes, the roadways get safer for everyone. They find this because it turns out to be the reality that as bike ridership and walking increases, death and injury decreases. It's happening here in Portland.

Here's two examples or research that compares our country (almost all vehicular cycling systems) to European countries (almost all bicycle transportation systems):

John Pucher, Lessons from Europe, http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/MakingWalkingAndCyclingSafer_TQ2000.pdf

Peter Jacobsen, Safety in Numbers,
http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Spring04/JacobsenPaper.pdf

Also, look for research from Todd Litman on the subject.

The reality is that places in the world that have developed bicycle transportation systems have had sharp reductions in tragedy. At the same time, while "vehicular cycling" conditions have been optimized in our country, our crash, fatality, and injury rates have remained exponentially higher than countries with real bicycle transportation systems.

In our city, Portland, Oregon, we have more than doubled the number of bicyclists since 2002. Now 6% of our residents report that the bicycle is their primary mode for commuting. Our reported crashes have remained flat. Our crash rate is plummeting. We still average about 2 bicycle fatalities a year.

These "vehicular cyclists", have been making a lot of hay of our pain and suffering from last year. As we move to install bike boxes to reduce right turn conflict, they have written articles, federal complaints, you name it. They're saying that somehow our city is less safe because of our bicycle network.

Yet, the numbers simply tell a different story. Our ridership is skyrocketing and our crash, injury, and fatality rates are 1/4 to 1/2 the rates of cities with conditions ideal for "vehicular cycling".

In 2007, we had 6 bicycle fatalities. Our worst year ever. It was terribly sad. Frankly, 4 of them were unusual fatality types. We had our first single bicycle fatality (.38 BAC head on into a pole), our first fatality from two bicycles colliding, and 2 right hook related fatalities.

In 2006, the city of Portland had ZERO bike fatalities. Where were the "vehicular cyclists" then? Do they really think they can create a conflict free travel environment? I don't.

Right hook crashes are the most common crash type for bikes (even in places where there are not bike lanes), but are amongst the least severe. Placing the cyclist in the middle of the lane on high speed, high volume arterials places the cyclist in a position that is much more vulnerable to high energy, high severity crashes.

Right hook fatalities are rare. In the previous decade, Portland had had 2. Then, we had 2 in two weeks. The two in two weeks involved large trucks. Where is the conversation about important safety equipment on large trucks that are mandated in other countries -- that can be life saving in right hook crashes?

It's uncomfortable to ride around a lot of high speed motor vehicles. Some videos have recently surfaced showing fast riding, spandex wearing riders on 2 to 4 lane arterials in the middle of the lane. These types of streets have a lot more crashes and a lot more serious crashes than any other roadway type here in Portland. Do we really want to encourage a position smack dab in the middle of high crash locations with lots of serious injuries?

You shouldn't have to be a professional race car driver to be able to drive on city streets. In the same sense, you shouldn't have to be a highly trained, highly confident, athletically able person to be able to ride a bike. Children and seniors should be able to ride in a city as comfortably and intuitively as an active adult. That's when it becomes real transportation. When everyone can comfortably, safely, and intuitively use it.

The fact that the "vehicular cycling" model leads to incredibly uncomfortable conditions plays out both in our country's abysmal crash rates AND our terrible ridership levels.

I was just in Boston and saw some new roads that were supposedly built to be "bike friendly". Wide outside lanes. No bike lane. No bike path. Just a wide outside lane on a high speed, high volume street. I saw ZERO bicycles using these streets.

In my mind, we have a choice. Learn from cities that have enormous bicycle and pedestrian use, while having sharp reductions in death and injury. Or, continue on our path of "vehicular cycling" for American cities.

Thanks.
Greg Raisman
Community and School Traffic Safety Partnership
Portland Office of Transportation

I don't think there is just one answer to this question. In some places, physically separated facilities may work very well, particularly in high-volume traffic locations. In other places, the standard on-road bike lanes work well. In yet others a low-volume traffic-calmed roadway may be all that's needed, i.e. a bike boulevard.

It really depends on the context. In general though, we need to do more to make the bicycling environment more comfortable. It's of course not just engineering. We need to teach motorists and bicyclists alike to respect each other and show them how to operate safely.

We would do better if all surface roads had speed limits of 35 mph or less.

Yes, separated bike lanes would probably encourage cycling, but that doesn't mean we should have them. So option 3 ("Separated bike lanes would definitely encourage cycling") conflicts with the title of the survey ("Should bike lanes be physically separated?").

"...where traffic will anticipate and accommodate cyclists in the general flow of traffic..."

I can agree to this statement but only to a point. Where a cyclist has the skills to interact - can match speeds, anticipate auto movements, and so on - this is probably true since it creates a situational parity. However, for the cyclist that hasn't the skill, which is the cyclist who *might* ride a bike more if it were safer, this won't work.

The fault here lies in simplistic approaches and lack of local ownership. In my city we are hamstrung by traffic engineers who work off federal and state booklets on roadway design but none of them actually ride bikes...no kidding.

Local control and flexibility of design incorporated into a network of interconnected and obvious "bike corridors" will *capture* more cyclists. We already capture the better cyclists we NEED to capture everyone else.

M