bike lanes save money/lives/health

[Argus]

Well, first off they'd be speeding.

Plenty of roads have 60k speed limits.

Second, it's no different than having to slow down for a car making the same turn,

I thought we were talking about you driving along the road, not turning. Slowing down for a driver to turn is fine. But those driving down busy roads, like the one I passed today on Heron (speed 60k), who was not hugging the curb too closely, I had to either slow down or move at least a little into the lane next to me. Now, I had room to do so, but that road is often busy. I grant you that I could have probably passed him without moving into the left, but like many car riders I'm a bit paranoid when passing bikes. There is no such thing as a fender bender with a bicycle.

And to be honest, I really don't get the insistence of police that people not drive on the sidewalk. We have bike paths in Ottawa along both sides of the rivers and canals which are used by bicycles, pedestrians, skateboarders, and whatever. I don't know why we couldn't do that, particularly along routes like, for example, Heron and Baseline, where the traffic is high volume, high speed, and there are practically no pedestrians anyway.

[BubberMiley]

What I said was that taking away space on an existing road winds up inconveniencing the many of the benefit of the very few.

How does it benefit only the very few when you yourself described how inconvenient it is for you to have to share the road?

[Bonam]

Plenty of roads have 60k speed limits.

I thought we were talking about you driving along the road, not turning. Slowing down for a driver to turn is fine. But those driving down busy roads, like the one I passed today on Heron (speed 60k), who was not hugging the curb too closely, I had to either slow down or move at least a little into the lane next to me. Now, I had room to do so, but that road is often busy. I grant you that I could have probably passed him without moving into the left, but like many car riders I'm a bit paranoid when passing bikes. There is no such thing as a fender bender with a bicycle.

You should absolutely never pass a bicyclist in the same lane. There is simply not enough room to safely do so. You are passing within inches of the cyclist to do so, and the slightest error either on your part or on the part of the cyclist, a bump in the road, a rock in front of the cyclist, etc, can result in death. Absolutely never ever do this. Shift into the left lane properly like you would if you were passing a slower car.

I don't even bike that often and I've been almost killed a half dozen times by idiot drivers passing within 1-3 inches of their mirrors clipping my bike, while I'm squeezed all the way over on the right against the curb, already riding over debris, leaves, sewer drains, etc. Never doing that again.

To cyclists that travel on roads without bike lanes: NEVER EVER stay hard right in the lanes, tempting drivers to pass you in the same lane. Ride smack dab in the middle of the lane like any other vehicle, so that the only way to pass you is to properly change lanes. On single lane roads, allow cars to pass you at red lights / stop signs when resuming from a stop, but otherwise own the lane like any other vehicle would.

A driver can (and must by law) pass a cyclist only in the same way that they would pass another car that is traveling slowly... change lanes into the left lane, pass, then change back into the right lane. Yes, it's frustrating to be behind someone going so much slower, but that is no reason to pass unsafely or illegally.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Bonam

[WestCoastRunner]

To cyclists that travel on roads without bike lanes: NEVER EVER stay hard right in the lanes, tempting drivers to pass you in the same lane. Ride smack dab in the middle of the lane like any other vehicle, so that the only way to pass you is to properly change lanes. On single lane roads, allow cars to pass you at red lights / stop signs when resuming from a stop, but otherwise own the lane like any other vehicle would.

What great advice!

[Boges]

You should absolutely never pass a bicyclist in the same lane. There is simply not enough room to safely do so. You are passing within inches of the cyclist to do so, and the slightest error either on your part or on the part of the cyclist, a bump in the road, a rock in front of the cyclist, etc, can result in death. Absolutely never ever do this. Shift into the left lane properly like you would if you were passing a slower car.

I don't even bike that often and I've been almost killed a half dozen times by idiot drivers passing within 1-3 inches of their mirrors clipping my bike, while I'm squeezed all the way over on the right against the curb, already riding over debris, leaves, sewer drains, etc. Never doing that again.

To cyclists that travel on roads without bike lanes: NEVER EVER stay hard right in the lanes, tempting drivers to pass you in the same lane. Ride smack dab in the middle of the lane like any other vehicle, so that the only way to pass you is to properly change lanes. On single lane roads, allow cars to pass you at red lights / stop signs when resuming from a stop, but otherwise own the lane like any other vehicle would.

A driver can (and must by law) pass a cyclist only in the same way that they would pass another car that is traveling slowly... change lanes into the left lane, pass, then change back into the right lane. Yes, it's frustrating to be behind someone going so much slower, but that is no reason to pass unsafely or illegally.

Yeah that's not practical on country roads with people playing Lance Armstrong. Especially when they're part of a group.

In the burbs lots of roads are getting bike lanes for this reason though.

[Black Dog]

I thought we were talking about you driving along the road, not turning. Slowing down for a driver to turn is fine. But those driving down busy roads, like the one I passed today on Heron (speed 60k), who was not hugging the curb too closely, I had to either slow down or move at least a little into the lane next to me. Now, I had room to do so, but that road is often busy. I grant you that I could have probably passed him without moving into the left, but like many car riders I'm a bit paranoid when passing bikes. There is no such thing as a fender bender with a bicycle.

Bikes are under no obligation to "hug the curb". Under the HTA, they're allowed a full metre away. Also, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it when the curb lane is too narrow or otherwise unsafe. The problem is a lot of drivers would rather risk someone else's life than be momentarily inconvenienced by having to wait until its safe to pass a bike. We're talking, what, a few seconds out of one's day?

And to be honest, I really don't get the insistence of police that people not drive on the sidewalk. We have bike paths in Ottawa along both sides of the rivers and canals which are used by bicycles, pedestrians, skateboarders, and whatever. I don't know why we couldn't do that, particularly along routes like, for example, Heron and Baseline, where the traffic is high volume, high speed, and there are practically no pedestrians anyway.

It's problematic when you have areas where there's high pedestrian traffic. In places like the one you mentioned, it could be practical to convert the sidewalks to shared paths (walk left, bike right).

Edited July 23, 2014 by Black Dog

[Argus]

To cyclists that travel on roads without bike lanes: NEVER EVER stay hard right in the lanes, tempting drivers to pass you in the same lane. Ride smack dab in the middle of the lane like any other vehicle, so that the only way to pass you is to properly change lanes.

Forming a slow moving roadblock for everyone behind you. What a good idea. I'm sure that won't impede the flow of traffic at all...

[Argus]

Bikes are under no obligation to "hug the curb". Under the HTA, they're allowed a full metre away. Also, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it when the curb lane is too narrow or otherwise unsafe. The problem is a lot of drivers would rather risk someone else's life than be momentarily inconvenienced by having to wait until its safe to pass a bike. We're talking, what, a few seconds out of one's day?

I don't know if you've seen our major roadways of late, but in most cities they seem to be at or beyond capacity. In fast moving, two lane roads such as the one I described, you won't, during rush hour, find many breaks in the flow of traffic. A bicyclist blocking one of the two lanes could back up traffic for a considerable distance as it effectively turns a two lane road into a one lane road.

[Black Dog]

I don't know if you've seen our major roadways of late, but in most cities they seem to be at or beyond capacity. In fast moving, two lane roads such as the one I described, you won't, during rush hour, find many breaks in the flow of traffic. A bicyclist blocking one of the two lanes could back up traffic for a considerable distance as it effectively turns a two lane road into a one lane road.

These two ideas don't square. If the road is at or beyond capacity, traffic is unlikely to be "fast-moving". A cyclist taking up the middle of the road is going to be no more of impediment to traffic flow than another car. Less so as they actually occupy less physical space and are more maneuverable.

[Argus]

These two ideas don't square. If the road is at or beyond capacity, traffic is unlikely to be "fast-moving". A cyclist taking up the middle of the road is going to be no more of impediment to traffic flow than another car. Less so as they actually occupy less physical space and are more maneuverable.

I'm talking about cars filling both lanes moving at a high rate of speed, not bumper to bumper traffic. Now under your scenario, all those cars have to now be forced into one lane for the convenience of the bicyclist.

[jacee]

Forming a slow moving roadblock for everyone behind you. What a good idea. I'm sure that won't impede the flow of traffic at all...

Ride in the middle of the lane to avoid getting jammed between passing cars and parked cars, to avoid collision with car doors opening, and to make it very clear to drivers that they cannot safely pass you.

There's a lot of impatient sugar-crashed drivers out there.

Protect yourself.

Ride in the middle.

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by jacee

[Black Dog]

I'm talking about cars filling both lanes moving at a high rate of speed, not bumper to bumper traffic.

Outside of highways, I can't expect that's a common occurrence. Fast moving rush hour traffic is an oxymoron. And I doubt those kinds of roads see a ton of cyclists anyway.

Now under your scenario, all those cars have to now be forced into one lane for the convenience of the bicyclist.

Not my scenario: the Highway Traffic Act. And not for the "convenience" of the cyclist, but their safety.

[Argus]

Outside of highways, I can't expect that's a common occurrence. Fast moving rush hour traffic is an oxymoron. And I doubt those kinds of roads see a ton of cyclists anyway.

All car traffic is fast moving compared to a bicycle.

Not my scenario: the Highway Traffic Act. And not for the "convenience" of the cyclist, but their safety.

Perhaps, but it does nothing to negate my statement that what you have is hundreds inconvenienced for the convenience of one.

[The_Squid]

All car traffic is fast moving compared to a bicycle. Perhaps, but it does nothing to negate my statement that what you have is hundreds inconvenienced for the convenience of one.

Seconds or minutes out of one's day is hardly an inconvenience. And these are all great reasons for more cycling infrastructure to separate cars and cyclists.

There are lots of arguments against cyclists (who aren't going away and you are legally required to share the road with), but not a single coherent argument against cycling infrastructure. In fact, all the whining about cyclists is more reasons for proper bike lanes.

[Black Dog]

All car traffic is fast moving compared to a bicycle.

Not in Toronto.

Perhaps, but it does nothing to negate my statement that what you have is hundreds inconvenienced for the convenience of one.

Again, it's not a question of convenience for the cyclists. That's a straw man.

[BubberMiley]

Perhaps, but it does nothing to negate my statement that what you have is hundreds inconvenienced for the convenience of one.

Again, you just finished describing how inconvenient it is for you to share the road with cyclists. If you want to put forth a persuasive argument, you should stop contradicting yourself.

[Argus]

Again, you just finished describing how inconvenient it is for you to share the road with cyclists. If you want to put forth a persuasive argument, you should stop contradicting yourself.

I haven't contradicted myself. As I explained the last time, I'm not against bike lanes. I'm against bike lanes taking space away from car lanes. If I was building Heron road anew I would think it a fine idea to add bike lanes next to the existing car lanes.

[Argus]

Again, it's not a question of convenience for the cyclists. That's a straw man.

Not, it's a question of making life less happy for hundreds in order to make life better for one. Same deal.

Bicycles are never going to be a means of mass movement for commuters or shoppers in Canada. It is always going to be for the very few. And it seems to me to make little sense to make life more difficult for the many to benefit the very few.

[The_Squid]

Not, it's a question of making life less happy for hundreds in order to make life better for one. Same deal.

Bicycles are never going to be a means of mass movement for commuters or shoppers in Canada. It is always going to be for the very few. And it seems to me to make little sense to make life more difficult for the many to benefit the very few.

Then get used to being "inconvenienced"....

[Black Dog]

Not, it's a question of making life less happy for hundreds in order to make life better for one. Same deal.

Technically you're right, I suppose, since a person who is injured or dead is likely "less happy" than one who is not. My right to personal safety trumps anyone else's expectation of a speedy commute.

Bicycles are never going to be a means of mass movement for commuters or shoppers in Canada. It is always going to be for the very few. And it seems to me to make little sense to make life more difficult for the many to benefit the very few.

If a few additional seconds or even minutes on a commute really makes life that much more difficult for people, that's some sad sad stuff.

As for the majority/minority stuff: meh. I'm honestly not that interested in the maintenance of a flawed and ultimately counterproductive status quo that privileges drivers at the expense of literally everyone not in a car. That model is obviously broken.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Black Dog

[Mighty AC]

Not, it's a question of making life less happy for hundreds in order to make life better for one. Same deal.

Bicycles are never going to be a means of mass movement for commuters or shoppers in Canada. It is always going to be for the very few. And it seems to me to make little sense to make life more difficult for the many to benefit the very few.

As for the majority/minority stuff: meh. I'm honestly not that interested in the maintenance of a flawed and ultimately counterproductive status quo that privileges drivers at the expense of literally everyone not in a car. That model is obviously broken.

Exactly! Car based design and culture is entirely flawed and currently changing; protecting a dying, wasteful model doesn't make sense. Beyond the old end of Gen X the desire to live in sprawling car based suburbs is minuscule; even among those with young families. The people who are our future are gravitating towards higher density, walkable communities. They want to bike, walk and use transit with cars being an occasional use vehicle better obtained through a rental agency or a share.

Fortunately, the percentage of people who own and rely on cars will drop going forward. In the meantime, we are stuck trying to improve the usability of our car based cities and towns. Bike lanes are one piece of this improvement puzzle. Other aspects could be bike and pedestrian trails, efficient transit, bike/car shares and renovating low density residential and commercial areas with higher density mixed use (residential, commercial, green space) developments, etc.

[Bonam]

Forming a slow moving roadblock for everyone behind you. What a good idea. I'm sure that won't impede the flow of traffic at all...

If traffic is moving quickly, then it's trivially easy to change lanes briefly to pass and causes minimal obstruction. If traffic is moving slowly, than the cyclist is likely no slower than the cars stuck in traffic. Regardless, even if it causes some level of obstruction, I'd much rather impede traffic than risk being killed by idiots who think it's a great idea to pass within 3 inches of a cyclist.

In fast moving traffic, it's really not hard to change lanes and pass properly. We all do it all the time to pass slow moving cars, buses, cars slowing down to turn or park, etc. There's no reason you can't do the same to pass cyclists, no reason at all.

If you're the kind of person that passes bikes in the same lane, you really should stop, because you are very likely to cause an incident resulting in serious injury or death. If this seems implausible to you, go try riding a bike on a busy street (just once) and observe how safe or unsafe you feel when drivers pass you in the same lane. Think about what the margin for error or unexpected events is and think about the potential consequences.

[jbg]

Separated bike lanes are a win-win and this infrastructure should be funded by all levels of government. We all pay for other infrastructure whether we use it or not, and this bike lane infrastructure should be no different.

I agree with painted and striped lanes. Not barriers.

Also, cyclists should have different rules when it comes to operating their bikes. Now, they are lumped in with motor vehicles and motorists get angry when a cyclist doesn't stop at a stop sign. This is despite the fact that it is safer and more efficient for the cyclist to operate differently than a motor vehicle.

Agreed in general. The first law should be that of common sense.

[Bonam]

Exactly! Car based design and culture is entirely flawed and currently changing; protecting a dying, wasteful model doesn't make sense. Beyond the old end of Gen X the desire to live in sprawling car based suburbs is minuscule; even among those with young families. The people who are our future are gravitating towards higher density, walkable communities. They want to bike, walk and use transit with cars being an occasional use vehicle better obtained through a rental agency or a share.

Fortunately, the percentage of people who own and rely on cars will drop going forward. In the meantime, we are stuck trying to improve the usability of our car based cities and towns. Bike lanes are one piece of this improvement puzzle. Other aspects could be bike and pedestrian trails, efficient transit, bike/car shares and renovating low density residential and commercial areas with higher density mixed use (residential, commercial, green space) developments, etc.

I don't know how valid these predictions are. As people age, they are less likely to commute by bike, and all demographics predict rising average population age. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with designing cities to accomodate a high volume of vehicle traffic. One of the reasons that being "against" cars is popular right now is the CO2 they produce and its role in climate change, but electric and other zero emission cars are likely to become much more prevalent in the coming years, removing that argument. Few communities are truly walkable (work, home, grocery store, entertainment, etc all within a few block radius) and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. So infrastructure will have to continue to be designed with high car throughput in mind.

Bike infrastructure has to come in parallel with that, not instead of it. Often, this can be achieved by turning low-use residential streets into bike commute arteries, developing bike trails with overpasses or underpasses, subdividing wide sidewalks, or removing parking lanes. Argus is right that converting traffic lanes to dedicated bike lanes has significant impacts on traffic and congestion, which are not desirable. Trying to "stick it" to the drivers by increasing congestion is no more intelligent than trying to "stick it" to cyclists by opposing bike infrastructure. Congestion results in increased pollution, increased stress, reduced economic activity, reduced leisure time, and poorer health, imposing high costs on society, and has furthermore been shown to not be effective in reducing car ridership.

Therefore taking a high traffic street and removing a lane of car traffic to add a bike lane is a bad idea. But that's rarely the only option, because there are almost always other ways to provide the needed bike infrastructure.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Bonam

[Bonam]

I agree with painted and striped lanes. Not barriers.

Why would you oppose barriers? Painted lines offer little protection to cyclists, with drivers routinely violating them to turn, park, stop and put on makeup, or whatever else. Barriers are more permanent, more clear, and provide a better level of separation between cyclists and drivers, which is frankly necessary to ensure safety for both parties.