Separated Cycle Paths: Who Asks the Cyclists?

Jan Heine's latest blog post:

Separated Cycle Paths: Who Asks the Cyclists?

Views: 2241

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by S on August 14, 2013 at 5:08am



Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

This initially makes little sense.  The LFT would seem to be more protected from cars in general, and have many fewer interactions.  If you think about it though, it begins to make some sense.  Clark is often congested, forcing motorists to slow down.  Cyclists along that route are quite visible, and except for a few intersections (Diversey, Ashland and Ashland/Devon) the intersections are pretty straightforward to navigate.  The LFT, however, especially in the zone north of Fullerton, has few impediments for bikes, allowing them to be ridden faster, and the intersections are atypical, having not only east/west traffic on the avenue, but northbound traffic exiting LSD. Add to that the stop signs for the cars and nothing more than yield signs for the bikes, and the opportunity for collisions becomes apparent.

I'd be hesitant to make any judgements based on what you've seen.  The traffic on each of the routes is different so if the LFT gets a lot more traffic than it's more likely to see more accidents.  Also, you might be a statistical outlier and just saw more accidents on LFT vs. Clark due to chance.    Determining the safety of various types of cycling infrastructure is hard and really needs a comprehensive study rather than blindly building stuff that we think works and then finding out later that it actually makes things more dangerous.

Permalink Reply by millenial removing Bernie tattoo on August 14, 2013 at 5:30am

The Dutch figured out how to get huisvrouw's to take a 50# bike to go 1.5 miles at 8 mph on perfectly flat ground to go buy some frozen pannekoeken.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

The Dutch figured cycle tracks out thirty years ago. Why can't we just copy them?

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on August 14, 2013 at 6:50am

1,000x this.  They don't call it a blind spot for nothing...

Tricolor said:

You never want to be to the right of anyone needing to make a right turn, no matter what kind of transportation you're using.  A protected lane that forces bikes to do this is not safe, even with a convoluted system of lights.  It's barely enough to keep bikes from tangling with traffic turning left from Dearborn since there are still a lot of riders that try to go through against the signal and a some cars that still aren't used to the no left turn arrows.

I absolutely love the idea of a separate path, but not on the street itself.

Permalink Reply by John C. Wilson on August 14, 2013 at 9:52am

Well yes, you never want to be there on the right. But you are, all the time. You do not know which overtaking vehicle is going to turn into an alley or a parking lot or a driveway or a parking space. You don't know when some hotshot is about to decide that an unoccupied (except by that cyclist) parking lane is a traffic lane. You can't know if some drunk is about to swerve out of lane. The situation of being to the right of someone needing to make a right turn is a continual situation for anyone who rides in traffic. It is not only at intersections, it is all the time.

And you deal with it. You figure out how to ride in traffic. Or you don't ride.

For those who are new to the city or new to riding it is challenging, daunting, terrifying. And it should be. No amount of traffic engineering is going to change the basic situation. Soft, fragile, light, slow cyclists against hard, overbuilt, heavy, fast motor vehicles. If you go out the door it hardly matters if part of your route is "protected", you are still out there and at risk. Telling new riders that we got the problem solved for them is dangerous and silly. Each rider has to ride their own bike and you can't do it for them.

Went far afield there. I think you're right, Tricolor.  It's a messy situation however you look at it. Putting the separate path right there in the street only changes the mess, doesn't solve it.



Tricolor said:

You never want to be to the right of anyone needing to make a right turn, no matter what kind of transportation you're using.  A protected lane that forces bikes to do this is not safe, even with a convoluted system of lights.  It's barely enough to keep bikes from tangling with traffic turning left from Dearborn since there are still a lot of riders that try to go through against the signal and a some cars that still aren't used to the no left turn arrows.

I absolutely love the idea of a separate path, but not on the street itself.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on August 16, 2013 at 6:35am

Looks like Logan Square Driver has a new ally!

http://logansquaredriver.tumblr.com/post/52917740463/know-your-alli...

Permalink Reply by Jocelyn S.P. on August 16, 2013 at 6:53am

I agree cycling on the street is inherently risky, and all cyclists choose their own methods to balance perceived/real safety and speed/route preference. (And I think perceived safety is interesting to consider...) I've been commuting by bike in Chicago for 5 years or so, and I personally feel like the more bicycle infrastructure, the better! Bright new painted lines, colorful lines, and the extra attention even shared lanes get creates more visibility. And, from my perspective, it's all about visibility! I think separate lanes off the street just for cyclists would be slow and not so great for commuters, but might be nice for children/new cyclists/older cyclists to enjoy our city on bike!

I commuted by bicycle in France for about a year, and took a route of a separate path just for cyclists, and then all green painted lanes on the street, but separated from traffic by cement blocks, and felt very safe/had no incidents. Food for thought...

I for one will continue to support more bicycle infrastructure in Chicago = more awareness for drivers!

Permalink Reply by Tim on August 16, 2013 at 7:05am

I was really mad about all the separated bike lanes that started going up around town, but I am actually much happier with them  than I thought I would be. I still wish they were just the old way with two white lines and a stick figure though.  My issue with them is that they are great for casual bikers, but for people who have been doing this year-round for many, many years, they slow you down and trap you.

I am really curious to see how the winter goes and if they really will try to clear the snow off the separated lanes. Milwaukee towards the loop is a pretty important thoroughfare for people riding on Elston and Milwaukee. If that isn't cleared in the winter, it's going to be much more hazardous for everyone. After riding in on Milwaukee for several years, I just moved and now Elston is my route. Is the separated lane really going to be plowed all the way from North Ave all the way to Milwaukee?

Permalink Reply by Christopher on August 16, 2013 at 7:11am

Prohibiting a car to turn right on red, only protects cyclists (illegally) going through a red light, as both the car AND cyclist must stop for red lights (pedestrians shouldn't be crossing against the red either). We need an additional right turn arrow, and a "turn right on arrow only" sign for cars LINKED/SYNC'd to a red light for the cycling lane, when the green arrow is lit, cyclists must stop. When the cyclists have a green/turn arrow is NOT lit, the penalty for turning right = running a red light.
 
Thunder Snow said:

Heine goes on and on about the dangers of intersections, but doesn't examine what can be done to make intersections less dangerous for cyclists.  We could prohibit motorists from turning right on red.  That would make things much safer for both cyclists and pedestrians.  We could put in separate traffic signals for motorists and cyclists, as on the Dearborn bike lanes, so that there is little or no conflict between the two groups. We could even redesign intersections as the Danes have done, to minimize the mixing of modes.

But no, Heine, and the other vehicular cyclists descended from John Forester--they go by "updated" names of "savvy cyclists" and "cycle drivers" these days--use the perceived dangers of cycle tracks as a red herring, in order to try to hang on to the way things have been for the past hundred years: cyclists thrown in among the cars, fending for themselves, often bullied out of the way by drivers who don't wish to share.

Permalink Reply by Eli on August 16, 2013 at 7:29am

Looks like Logan Square Driver has a new ally!

This is the favorite dishonest rhetorical technique of parking-delimited bike lane absolutists: pretend not to know the difference between people who dislike one very specific type of bike infrastructure and the very small number of "vehicular cyclists" who oppose all bike infrastructure (and who exist largely in the minds of the parking-delimited bike lane absolutists--I have not seen a single self-proclaimed "vehicular cyclist" in either this thread or in the comments on Jan Heine's blog, and Heine himself specifically says that he is in favor of non-parking-delimited bike lines). It's a dick move.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 16, 2013 at 8:16am

Thunder Snow said:

But no, Heine, and the other vehicular cyclists descended from John Forester--they go by "updated" names of "savvy cyclists" and "cycle drivers" these days--use the perceived dangers of cycle tracks as a red herring, in order to try to hang on to the way things have been for the past hundred years: cyclists thrown in among the cars, fending for themselves, often bullied out of the way by drivers who don't wish to share.

Many people use the perceived safety of cycle tracks as an excuse to build them, without considering if they are, in fact, safer (or using flawed studies to support their claims that the are safe).  Heine contends (and my own experience suggests that he is right) that the way they tend to be constructed, there are inherent flaws with cycle tracks at intersections, and that these flaws are ignored by those people who rush to build them.  He points out a study of cycle paths in Copenhagen which found that is the case.  Still, people apply adjectives like "savvy" to him as a pejorative.  He rides his bike all over the place, from the streets of Seattle, to the mountains around Seattle, and travels to Europe to ride there.  He the editor of a well-respected magazine (at least by other "savvy" cyclists) and also runs a bicycle component company (Compass Bicycles).  What he doesn't do is build cycle tracks. Maybe that's his problem.  If he were in the business of building cycle tracks, perhaps he would like them more.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cohen on August 16, 2013 at 8:59am

I can well believe you that Clark has fewer accidents than the Lake Front Trail (although I don't know for sure) and endorse your choice of Clark over the LFT but not for the reasons you give!

     The LFT is about the most "protected" bike lane you could ever imagine.

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind!  The LFT is dangerous as hell, but not primarily because of car/bike collisions.  The reason it's dangerous is because it's a multiple use path for which the Chicago Park District refuses to take any responsibility for even suggesting reasonable behavior.  Thus 

  1. year round cycle commuters
  2. tour de france wannabes who insist on riding as fast as their legs will carry them regardless of conditions
  3. beachgoers who won't look both ways before crossing the path
  4. idiots who insist on wearing headphones so they can't hear people warning them even as they themselves refuse to take responsiblity for their own safety let alone that of others
  5. pedestrians who think nothing of stopping and talking in the middle of the path
  6. dogwalkers on skates 
  7. tourists trying to pedal surries up the bridge over the Chicago River and no one daring to suggest that this might not actually be safe.
  8. multiple other classes of selfish idiots

are all equally empowered by law to do whatever the hell they want on the path.

Skip Montanaro 12mi said:

My intention in posting Jan Heine's blogs is not to rile people up.  As an experienced cyclist, I think he raises a good point about so-called protected bike lanes.  (I suppose if I disagreed with him I would either not get updates about his blog or discard them.)

I have three routes between Evanston and the Loop: Clark Street, the LFT, and just recently, Elston/Milwaukee to the North Shore Channel Trail.  Over the past three years or so that I've been commuting regularly, I have spent much more time on Clark, much less on the LFT, and so far, only a few times on the NSCT.  The only time i have ever seen incidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles has been on the LFT, north of Fullerton, at the intersections.  By "incident", I mean cyclist down with other people providing aid, be it an ambulance, police car, bus, or other passing motorists or cyclists.

The LFT is about the most "protected" bike lane you could ever imagine.  The only opportunity for interaction with cars in that stretch between Fullerton and Ardmore are near Belmont Harbor (at both ends), at Addison Dr (entry to the golf course), at Montrose Dr, and at Wilson, Lawrence, and Foster Avenues.  Of those crossing points, I've never seen problems at any but the four northernmost crossings.  I have personally never seen accidents involving bikes and motor vehicles on Clark, though bikes and cars travel in much closer proximity, and I have ridden that route many more times than the LFT. That is not to say there haven't been incidents on Clark, just that over the total time I've ridden it, I've never seen any.  I would estimate that I've ridden Clark at least ten times more than the LFT over the past three years.

This initially makes little sense.  The LFT would seem to be more protected from cars in general, and have many fewer interactions.  If you think about it though, it begins to make some sense.  Clark is often congested, forcing motorists to slow down.  Cyclists along that route are quite visible, and except for a few intersections (Diversey, Ashland and Ashland/Devon) the intersections are pretty straightforward to navigate.  The LFT, however, especially in the zone north of Fullerton, has few impediments for bikes, allowing them to be ridden faster, and the intersections are atypical, having not only east/west traffic on the avenue, but northbound traffic exiting LSD. Add to that the stop signs for the cars and nothing more than yield signs for the bikes, and the opportunity for collisions becomes apparent.

This is not to say that all cycle paths/protected bike lanes are bad.  Jan is not saying that either.  He's saying they have to be properly designed and constructed.  He references a study in Copenhagen, perhaps the most bicycle-saturated city in Europe.  From the abstract, I quote:

This paper presents a before-after crash, injury and traffic study of constructing bicycle tracks and marking bicycle lanes in Copenhagen, Denmark.... The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries.... Design of bicycle facilities and parking conditions for motor vehicles clearly seems to have safety implications, especially at intersections.

I understand many peoples' hesitation about riding in traffic, and the common sense idea that separating bikes and cars is a good thing, especially since it makes people feel safer, and thus gets them on their bikes.  Perception is not always reality though.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 16, 2013 at 9:08am



Steve Cohen said:

I can well believe you that Clark has fewer accidents than the Lake Front Trail (although I don't know for sure) and endorse your choice of Clark over the LFT but not for the reasons you give!

The LFT is about the most "protected" bike lane you could ever imagine.

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind!  The LFT is dangerous as hell, but not primarily because of car/bike collisions.  The reason it's dangerous is because it's a multiple use path for which the Chicago Park District refuses to take any responsibility for even suggesting reasonable behavior. 

You'll get no argument from me on that.  I was specifically not interested in the multi-use aspects of LFT for this thread, however, just in how the structure of its intersections makes car/bike incidents more likely.  If you just consider it as a cycle track, you have no car/bike interaction except at the various places where it crosses streets.  I haven't ridden it south very often, but have used the section between LaSalle and Ardmore a fair amount.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service