Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on September 21, 2016 at 5:29am

Thank you for starting the petition. I'll do what I can to help get the word out.

Permalink Reply by Mallika Thomas on September 22, 2016 at 6:25am

I am an avid biker, but I also do drive around Hyde Park quite a bit where they have similar protected bike lanes.  I have to say that for drivers, this lane is very confusing, since the natural place for parked cars is the rightmost lane, and usually a protected lane for bikers is left of the lane for parked cars.  As a result, at least in Hyde Park, a lot of trucks and movers end up parking in the bike lane anyway, and there's little enforcement.  For bus drivers, I think it's very difficult to pull over to pick up passengers, and for drivers, suddenly seeing a small metal pole, where you did not expect one, especially at night, and in the dark is dangerous, causes swerving, and seems unnatural and out of place.  I'm all for protected bike lanes - but they should go left of the parking lanes.  I know this makes things more difficult for bikers, since people can open their driver's side door into the bike lane, but they do open their passenger side door into the bike lane, as it is right now, with the bike lanes on the right.  I know that cars often have a tendency to drive in the bike lanes when they are not protected, but right now, it's just so unexpected to have a car parked in the middle of the road that I have seen drivers coming close to having collisions with parked cars!  So, of the two, I think bike lanes on the left of parked cars are the solution, along with proper signs that the bike lane is for bikes ONLY!

Permalink Reply by Stuart Kipnis on September 22, 2016 at 2:50pm

The primary issue with non-protected bike lanes is bicyclists are not protected from cars. They can be hit by a car passing them. They can also be doored when a driver opens the car door. While this can happen in protected lanes, there are two main differences. Driver side doors open a lot more than passenger doors, as there are always drivers and only sometimes passengers. Getting doored in an unprotected bike lane or a street without a bike lane, or swerving to avoid a car door, can have severely negative consequences in terms of the bicyclist being hit by a car. If a passenger door opens, the bicyclist may be hurt by hitting the door or swerving into the curve to avoid it. This may cause injury but the chance of death is much lower than when a car smashes into a bicyclist. 

Many less experienced bicyclists do not feel comfortable in unprotected bike lanes (between parked cars and traffic), which protected bike lanes feel (and are) much safer for all bicyclists. As I mentioned earlier, to increase safety, bicyclists have to ride safely, meaning slowing down to 10-12 mph, riding in the correct direction, not having headphones, and being extremely alert. That is the way to avoid accidents in a protected bike lane, as these are still possible with cars turning off of or onto the road, pedestrians crossing, and car doors being flung open.

Thanks for your comments!

Permalink Reply by Filka Bean on September 22, 2016 at 4:04pm

Now come on Stuart! Motorists colliding with parked cars or metal poles is a tragedy which I know we all want to help prevent! My heart goes out to the families of those cars, dented and scraped... for what? The "safety" or "survival" of a few human beings? No more, not in my city!

Permalink Reply by Filka Bean on September 22, 2016 at 4:09pm

Seriously, curb protected lanes helps solve the problem of disoriented drivers (poor dears!) AND protects cyclists from being killed by drunk drivers etc.

Permalink Reply by Mallika Thomas on September 22, 2016 at 6:27am

Thank you for starting this petition - it's important to improve the bike lanes, rather than remove them!

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on September 24, 2016 at 8:31am

Bump

https://www.change.org/p/evanston-city-clerk-rodney-improve-not-rem...

930 = Supporters.(now)
+70 = Needed.
______________
1000+ Goal.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on September 25, 2016 at 8:03am

I've been seeing a lot of claims that a parking "protected" configuration is safer, but I'm aware of no data that supports that conclusion.  The best (only?) argument for this configuration right now is that it SEEMS safer to novice cyclists and, as a result, encourages more novices to ride.

 

Without supporting data, the general notion that cars parked on the left ACTUALLY protect cyclists is a non sequitur and contrary to the anecdotal experience of numerous cyclists in this thread and elsewhere.  After conventional lanes were converted to this configuration, many cyclists have reported decreased visibility and an increase in difficult-to-avoid conflicts with debris, pedestrians, parked cars, and turning cars.

 

As we've tragically seen this year, turning drivers who do not see cyclists are extremely deadly, and it certainly doesn't help that parking enforcement and lane cleaning are rare.

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on September 25, 2016 at 2:05pm

As with changes to almost anything, you have to consider the tradeoffs that come along with any new idea. You can try to solve the problem with a new proposal and end up creating different challenging situations. No change is a perfect solution. You can only strive to get the best resolution for each situation.

Permalink Reply by Filka Bean on September 25, 2016 at 2:57pm

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/the-first-major-academic-s...

This links to a pretty gigantic 2014 study, which explicitly debunked the idea that intersections with protected bike lanes are inherently dangerous. Just slow down a little. Incidentally, finding the study required one (1) Google search. I used the key words "protected bike lane research".

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on September 26, 2016 at 1:23am

Hmmm... I don't have time to read the entire report right now. My main questions would be

• How do protected bike lanes compare to other types of bike infrastructure? (Not just no bike infrastructure)
• It's clear that people perceive protected bike lanes as safer than regular bike lanes. Can they offer evidence which supports that perception?
• In the section on safety, the authors indicate they were only concerned with conflicts at intersections, yet PBLs add another set of hazards (debris, car doors opening by inexperienced riders (kids). Why did they not feel that to be important? I realize that getting plowed by a car is more dangerous than hitting a branch and tumbling ass over teakettle, or taking out a six-year old who exits a minivan without looking. Still those are both likely as common (if not more common) than the more serious collisions we all fear.

Also, the link to the actual study report no longer exists, but fortunately the Wayback Machine had captured a working redirect:

http://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC-RR-583_ProtectedL...

Permalink Reply by Maurice on September 25, 2016 at 5:55pm

The study in the link doesn't say whether they're safer at intersections. They didn't measure how safe the intersections were before the configuration changed. The only comparison is that most people subjectively FEEL safer, which is precisely my point.

All intersections are not equally dangerous. The best parking "protected" designs (often ignored in Chicago) avoid the visibility issue by prohibiting parking near conflict points...which is to say that the best practice is to make intersections NOT protected by parked cars.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page