It is if we the bike path it on the side away from the traffic.
I imagine that is what Rick & Brian are talking about – we are separated from the SUVs by a wall and Armco. That gives us a psychological safety from harm but deprives the motorists of reminders that we exist when they pass.
By the nature of such walls, there is enough room for cyclists alongside the panels. It does not need much imagination to design them so as to incorporate a bike lane. We should nag designers etc as part of our advocacy schemes?
It would give us bridges over things etc.
e.g.: I thought of buying a Mango – travelling by public transport to Amsterdam and riding the thing home. The main route in Holland passes over numerous Dykes etc but although Holland has such a wonderful bike-friendly attitude, they did not incorporate a bike lane when building the autoroute! The alternative for a cyclist is roughly twice the mileage… Poor planning IMHO
The sound barrier wall IS the bike lane. It was just installed wrong: vertically instead of horizontally. It was installed on edge instead of flat on the ground.
Say the sound barrier was a coin, with a heads side, a tails side, and an edge. Yehuda is suggesting that if the tails side was laid flat on the ground, cyclists could ride on the heads side.
Did I ever say, that bike lanes are form evil? People feel safe on bike lanes, because they are separated from cars, but they are not, because their risk of accidents increases at intersections 3.4 to 11.9 times (University of Lund, Sweden, 1984).
Use of bike lanes is in Germany compulsory, when a road sign (round, blue ground, white bike) is next to it. It’s an idea of the 1920th, realized by the Nazi regime in 1934:
“Let’s show [the upcoming 1936 Olympics] the astonished foreigners a new proof of a rising Germany in which the driver is not only on the highways but on all roads by cyclists free, safe path. ”
– From a press release issued by the Reich Transport Ministry to introduce the general obligation to use the bike paths in the first RStVO October 1934) [translated by Google]
That’s an official statement, that bike lanes are build for driver, not for cyclists.
So I disagree, Yehuda, these bike lanes aren’t build on their side.
@HCA – you are missing the forest for the trees; if bike lanes were really dangerous overall, the crash/injury/death rate in the Netherlands would be much higher than in the US, instead of far lower. The total statistic is more important than the partial statistic. Your criticism is not unlike someone who defends the US health care system by pointing out how we excel at laser eye surgery (infant mortality higher, life expectancy lower, spending higher, but we’re winning the war on myopia).
In addition, even if bike lanes were no safer, the fact that they attract more people to cycling means that the health benefits of cycling are available to more people. This is an even larger forest to miss because the health savings are substantial — they are estimated to outweigh the crash-risk loss of live (measured in years of life lost) by a factor of 10 or more, and can also be seen in a measured lower mortality rate (28%) for bicycle commuters (in Denmark) and several years of additional life expectancy (2-5).
We would have a lower injury rate when compared to the USA without bike paths …
Praising bike paths as saviour is ignoring the fact that bikes are part of our culture.
And also ignoring that we had bikes ages before bike paths were introduced by our friendly neighbours …
Bikes were once part of US culture, too, and as I understand it their use in the Netherlands was in decline until the late 1970s — when policies changed, including the introduction of more bicycle-specific infrastructure. I believe one of the campaigns used the slogan “stop the child murder”, so I infer that there was a notable safety problem.
Bikes were once part of UK culture, but they have mostly pursued a bikes-as-vehicles policy, resulting in reduced ride share and reduced safety.
Your claim seems to assume that you can have both the alleged safety of non-path cycling, AND a very high ride share with the accompanying safety-in-numbers effects. That’s never happened anywhere that people can afford to buy cars.
I live in Germany and “enjoy the benefits” of bike lanes, they are objectiv more dangerous than mixed traffic as University of Lund or BASt (Federal Bureau of Road research, Germany) have shown. German Newspapers report many a time of seriously injured or killed cyclists run over by right turning cars or trucks (2008: 456, 2009: 462, 2010: 381, 2009: 462; killed cyclists in total, Germany). But there was no cyclist run over from behind and killed in the last two years (most of streets in Germany don’t have bike lanes, it’s just common at main streets). Drivers see cyclists in front and won’t run them over deliberately. Turning drivers are busy with traffic lights, pedestrians etc. and can’t seek cyclist, who are hided by parked cars, hedges, walls or whatever is between bike lane and road, so they crash accidentally.
The Netherlands’ cyclists profit by safety in numbers (search for more) more than by bike lanes. The more cyclists ride, the more drivers mind them, the less drivers run them over inattentively.
Germany may have issues with bikes lanes causing accidents but come to America and try and ride your bike in any number of cities or suburbs with nonexistent bike lanes where almost no one bikes. Not fun and not safe.
bike infrastructure consists of many things.
Separate bike paths are a tiny fraction of that.
I’d even argue that proper parking spaces for bikes (ones that don’t assume all bikes are equal … ) should be at the top of a list of things to have.
Treating bikes as a separate vehicle category is beyond stupid.
What’s next ? Separate lanes for ‘slow’ cars and ‘fast’ supercars ?
Bikes and cars have more differences than similarities. Treating them identically is what is beyond stupid. The best research also suggests there are safer ways to cycle than throwing bikes and motor vehicles together in the same lanes.
Study was published in 1984 which means the infrastructure studied was built years prior to that, this is 2012. In the intervening 28 years much has been learned about how to integrate bicycle and motor vehicle infrastructure, including separate phases for traffic lights at intersections. Talk about using old data…
I hate riding alongside noisy freeways or confining barrier walls. Neither one makes me feel safe or refreshed. Highway noise is stressful. Such paths are actually isolated and few places to bail out if something ahead looks sketchy. Give me the open road on a grid pattern of streets!
While highways are among the safest places for motor vehicles, they carry some significant risk factors for slower more exposed users.
High-speed vehicles throw up (sic) high-speed road debris ranging from sand grains to extremely hazardous tire fragments.
Air turbulence caused by closely passing vehicles can be very unsettling.
Disabled vehicles can totally block the “bike path” creating a very hazardous passing situation.
Finally, air quality in such a corridor is almost always above the standards for outdoor exercise.
In a not-very-bike-friendly city (Fort Wayne, IN), going from the NorthWest side to the SouthEast side every day can be a bit harrowing – between clipping rearview mirrors on a 50+mph road because drivers can’t be bothered to get over, or having to ride over leaves because there isn’t any other route that wouldn’t get you flattened, it sucks. On the few roads that DO have bike lanes, they’re short and end abruptly. I appreciate them though. It does appear that drivers pay more attention to cyclists when using roads that are so equipped. At least, in a city where people don’t ever pay attention to you…
Just south of San Diego where the concrete meets the wall
There’s a place called Tijuana where a man could lose it all
Find himself inside a bottle or a new will to survive
On the edge of Mexico, at the end of Highway 5
(Concrete Cowboys)
We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
All in all you’re just a another brick in the wall.
“If you don’t eat yer meat, you can’t have any pudding.
how can you have any pudding if you don’t eat yer meat?”
“you! yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!”
(Pink Floyd)
If they’d built bike lanes instead, one might presume, there would be no need for sound barriers as bikes are quiet and would replace the cars (yeah right.) Personally I would prefer the bike path built on the quiet side. It makes for a nicer ride and around here there’s usually a lot of bush and woodsy stuff along there, winding through back alleys and short bits of park. We’ll be getting a new route with the new bridge that wasn’t opened in time for winter and maybe might be open next summer. construction deadlines: Estimated generously.
Bike lanes work when there is no intersection and this is why: there’s a line. Drivers respect the line, not necessarily the fact that we’re in the lane. That subtle separation creates a false sense of security, for both driver and rider, but that sense (false or otherwise) gets both individuals to relax: we, and they, believe the other’s actions are now predictable, and the tension drops. That in itself is safer. Intersections, yes, are a whole other story, and no, I don’t like the fact that the presence of a bike lane suggests we shouldn’t be allowed on the roadway, but I do think bike lanes ease driver tension/aggression where they exist.
Also, my son tells me his normal habit when a car rolls forward into the cycle advance stop line area is to motion the driver to open his window, look admiringly at the car and say “Nice bike!”
The sound of silence?
It is if we the bike path it on the side away from the traffic.
I imagine that is what Rick & Brian are talking about – we are separated from the SUVs by a wall and Armco. That gives us a psychological safety from harm but deprives the motorists of reminders that we exist when they pass.
By the nature of such walls, there is enough room for cyclists alongside the panels. It does not need much imagination to design them so as to incorporate a bike lane. We should nag designers etc as part of our advocacy schemes?
It would give us bridges over things etc.
e.g.: I thought of buying a Mango – travelling by public transport to Amsterdam and riding the thing home. The main route in Holland passes over numerous Dykes etc but although Holland has such a wonderful bike-friendly attitude, they did not incorporate a bike lane when building the autoroute! The alternative for a cyclist is roughly twice the mileage… Poor planning IMHO
I don’t get this one.
The sound barrier wall IS the bike lane. It was just installed wrong: vertically instead of horizontally. It was installed on edge instead of flat on the ground.
Say the sound barrier was a coin, with a heads side, a tails side, and an edge. Yehuda is suggesting that if the tails side was laid flat on the ground, cyclists could ride on the heads side.
Thank you, I get it now : )
Hehehehe.
Haha, where is that big fat “LIKE”-button.
Did I ever say, that bike lanes are form evil? People feel safe on bike lanes, because they are separated from cars, but they are not, because their risk of accidents increases at intersections 3.4 to 11.9 times (University of Lund, Sweden, 1984).
Use of bike lanes is in Germany compulsory, when a road sign (round, blue ground, white bike) is next to it. It’s an idea of the 1920th, realized by the Nazi regime in 1934:
“Let’s show [the upcoming 1936 Olympics] the astonished foreigners a new proof of a rising Germany in which the driver is not only on the highways but on all roads by cyclists free, safe path. ”
– From a press release issued by the Reich Transport Ministry to introduce the general obligation to use the bike paths in the first RStVO October 1934) [translated by Google]
That’s an official statement, that bike lanes are build for driver, not for cyclists.
So I disagree, Yehuda, these bike lanes aren’t build on their side.
@HCA – you are missing the forest for the trees; if bike lanes were really dangerous overall, the crash/injury/death rate in the Netherlands would be much higher than in the US, instead of far lower. The total statistic is more important than the partial statistic. Your criticism is not unlike someone who defends the US health care system by pointing out how we excel at laser eye surgery (infant mortality higher, life expectancy lower, spending higher, but we’re winning the war on myopia).
In addition, even if bike lanes were no safer, the fact that they attract more people to cycling means that the health benefits of cycling are available to more people. This is an even larger forest to miss because the health savings are substantial — they are estimated to outweigh the crash-risk loss of live (measured in years of life lost) by a factor of 10 or more, and can also be seen in a measured lower mortality rate (28%) for bicycle commuters (in Denmark) and several years of additional life expectancy (2-5).
Mandatory use of bike lanes in Germany sounds more like a German problem, not a bike lane problem. Do you generally dislike bike lights because Germany has many bicycle-light regulations? (they do: http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/stvzo/index_en.html )
We would have a lower injury rate when compared to the USA without bike paths …
Praising bike paths as saviour is ignoring the fact that bikes are part of our culture.
And also ignoring that we had bikes ages before bike paths were introduced by our friendly neighbours …
Bikes were once part of US culture, too, and as I understand it their use in the Netherlands was in decline until the late 1970s — when policies changed, including the introduction of more bicycle-specific infrastructure. I believe one of the campaigns used the slogan “stop the child murder”, so I infer that there was a notable safety problem.
Bikes were once part of UK culture, but they have mostly pursued a bikes-as-vehicles policy, resulting in reduced ride share and reduced safety.
Your claim seems to assume that you can have both the alleged safety of non-path cycling, AND a very high ride share with the accompanying safety-in-numbers effects. That’s never happened anywhere that people can afford to buy cars.
I live in Germany and “enjoy the benefits” of bike lanes, they are objectiv more dangerous than mixed traffic as University of Lund or BASt (Federal Bureau of Road research, Germany) have shown. German Newspapers report many a time of seriously injured or killed cyclists run over by right turning cars or trucks (2008: 456, 2009: 462, 2010: 381, 2009: 462; killed cyclists in total, Germany). But there was no cyclist run over from behind and killed in the last two years (most of streets in Germany don’t have bike lanes, it’s just common at main streets). Drivers see cyclists in front and won’t run them over deliberately. Turning drivers are busy with traffic lights, pedestrians etc. and can’t seek cyclist, who are hided by parked cars, hedges, walls or whatever is between bike lane and road, so they crash accidentally.
The Netherlands’ cyclists profit by safety in numbers (search for more) more than by bike lanes. The more cyclists ride, the more drivers mind them, the less drivers run them over inattentively.
Here in NYC streets with bikes lanes installed (especially physically separated bike lanes) are safer for all street users not just cyclists but for motorists and pedestrians as well.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/08/09/the-bike-and-pedestrian-safety-stats-the-daily-news-wont-cover/
Not only that but more people are drawn to cycle than without bike lanes and the more people that cycle the safer cycling becomes.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.abstract
Germany may have issues with bikes lanes causing accidents but come to America and try and ride your bike in any number of cities or suburbs with nonexistent bike lanes where almost no one bikes. Not fun and not safe.
Hm. I remember having read around here K’Tesh being right-hooked by a car…
Are there statistics of bicycle accidents caused by cars for the US?
Academic research strongly suggests that dedicated bicycle infrastructure does, in fact, make cycling safer.
bike infrastructure consists of many things.
Separate bike paths are a tiny fraction of that.
I’d even argue that proper parking spaces for bikes (ones that don’t assume all bikes are equal … ) should be at the top of a list of things to have.
Treating bikes as a separate vehicle category is beyond stupid.
What’s next ? Separate lanes for ‘slow’ cars and ‘fast’ supercars ?
Bikes and cars have more differences than similarities. Treating them identically is what is beyond stupid. The best research also suggests there are safer ways to cycle than throwing bikes and motor vehicles together in the same lanes.
Study was published in 1984 which means the infrastructure studied was built years prior to that, this is 2012. In the intervening 28 years much has been learned about how to integrate bicycle and motor vehicle infrastructure, including separate phases for traffic lights at intersections. Talk about using old data…
I hate riding alongside noisy freeways or confining barrier walls. Neither one makes me feel safe or refreshed. Highway noise is stressful. Such paths are actually isolated and few places to bail out if something ahead looks sketchy. Give me the open road on a grid pattern of streets!
While highways are among the safest places for motor vehicles, they carry some significant risk factors for slower more exposed users.
High-speed vehicles throw up (sic) high-speed road debris ranging from sand grains to extremely hazardous tire fragments.
Air turbulence caused by closely passing vehicles can be very unsettling.
Disabled vehicles can totally block the “bike path” creating a very hazardous passing situation.
Finally, air quality in such a corridor is almost always above the standards for outdoor exercise.
In a not-very-bike-friendly city (Fort Wayne, IN), going from the NorthWest side to the SouthEast side every day can be a bit harrowing – between clipping rearview mirrors on a 50+mph road because drivers can’t be bothered to get over, or having to ride over leaves because there isn’t any other route that wouldn’t get you flattened, it sucks. On the few roads that DO have bike lanes, they’re short and end abruptly. I appreciate them though. It does appear that drivers pay more attention to cyclists when using roads that are so equipped. At least, in a city where people don’t ever pay attention to you…
Just south of San Diego where the concrete meets the wall
There’s a place called Tijuana where a man could lose it all
Find himself inside a bottle or a new will to survive
On the edge of Mexico, at the end of Highway 5
(Concrete Cowboys)
Tear down this wall.
Ride on top of the wall!
Build the wall across the road, with a one metre-wide gap
We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
All in all you’re just a another brick in the wall.
“If you don’t eat yer meat, you can’t have any pudding.
how can you have any pudding if you don’t eat yer meat?”
“you! yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!”
(Pink Floyd)
If they’d built bike lanes instead, one might presume, there would be no need for sound barriers as bikes are quiet and would replace the cars (yeah right.) Personally I would prefer the bike path built on the quiet side. It makes for a nicer ride and around here there’s usually a lot of bush and woodsy stuff along there, winding through back alleys and short bits of park. We’ll be getting a new route with the new bridge that wasn’t opened in time for winter and maybe might be open next summer. construction deadlines: Estimated generously.
Bike lanes work when there is no intersection and this is why: there’s a line. Drivers respect the line, not necessarily the fact that we’re in the lane. That subtle separation creates a false sense of security, for both driver and rider, but that sense (false or otherwise) gets both individuals to relax: we, and they, believe the other’s actions are now predictable, and the tension drops. That in itself is safer. Intersections, yes, are a whole other story, and no, I don’t like the fact that the presence of a bike lane suggests we shouldn’t be allowed on the roadway, but I do think bike lanes ease driver tension/aggression where they exist.
Perhaps if drivers were required to put a foot on the ground to show that they were stopped, intersections would be safer
.
Like.
Also, my son tells me his normal habit when a car rolls forward into the cycle advance stop line area is to motion the driver to open his window, look admiringly at the car and say “Nice bike!”