« Grand New Party | Main | No Contradiction »

Traffic Hierarchy

25 Jun 2008 11:42 am

14th3.jpg

As Tom Lee points out any discussion of a project like My Bike Lane aimed at getting motorists to stop practices that endanger the lives of motorists inevitably cycles back to someone pointing out that cyclists sometimes misbehave as well. And that's true enough. However, from a policy perspective you need to consider the costs and benefits to different weightings of priorities. A measure like stricter bike lane enforcement that makes life easier for bike riders and harder for car drivers has some clear environmental and public health benefits in terms of at the margin encouraging drivers to shift to walking, transit, or biking.

By contrast, a measure that would be convenient for drivers of private cars but inconvenient for cyclists doesn't seem to have much to recommend it. By contrast, in a conflict between a bike and a bus the policy merits seem to lie with the bus. Buses loading and unloading passengers are constantly interfering with the bike lanes on 7th Street and 14th Street which is annoying if you're on a bike but probably not A Bad Thing in a broader sense since clearly many more people fit on a bus than fit on my bike. The problem here is that the city has seen fit to put its two biggest north-south bike lanes on two of the top three north-south routes for bus frequency. A smarter idea would be to reduce the volume of space on those roads given to private cars and make wider bus/bike lanes (but unlike the alleged bus/bike only lane on 9th street and a part of 7th street north of the mall you'd actually need to enforce it) which would remove the problem of buses needing to cross back-and-forth past the bike lane.

Bike/pedestrian conflicts are, similarly, to be lamented. But the problem here is less evil cyclists encroaching on the sidewalk than the simple fact that such a huge proportion of public space in dense, walkable areas is nonetheless given over to cars. If bikes had more space specifically dedicated to them, then they wouldn't be in the way of people trying to walk around. Go to Amsterdam and you'll almost certainly have a near-collision experience if you stand around in a bike lane, but not otherwise because the bikes are in the bike lanes which are plentiful and well-marked.

Photo by me used under a Creative Commons license

Share This

Comments (62)

While I'm all for encouraging biking, I do think it's reasonable to expect stricter enforcement against bikers who violate road rules.

Living in NYC, I've had my share of run-ins with bikers. The fly the wrong way down one-way streets, run lights, weave through traffic...

The city's adding bike lanes, which is nice, but I'll often see bikers recklessly endangering themselves and pedestrians and completely ignoring the perfectly good, clear bike lane.

Sure, you need both carrots and sticks, and you should go heavy on the carrots, but you need some stick. Bad bikers ought to feel the pain of getting on the wrong side of traffic law more often.

As Tom Lee points out any discussion of a project like My Bike Lane aimed at getting motorists to stop practices that endanger the lives of motorists inevitably cycles back to someone pointing out that cyclists sometimes misbehave as well. And that's true enough.

Indeed. Of course, the solution is for everybody to stop misbehaving--not to use other people's misbehavior to justify your own.

As for bike lanes--Traffic planners need to be serious about them, not just stick them where it's convenient or where it serves another purpose. My home street had bike lanes put in a few years ago, and at the neighborhood hearing the traffic planners indicated that the big attraction for them was that it narrowed the street and would thus calm traffic [They were, I might add, popular with my neighborhood-activist next-door-neighbors, who have two young children and saw the lanes as making the street safer for them]. But here, as in a lot of places, the lanes begin and end arbitrarily, and don't get enforced. Thus we still have people biking on the sidewalks; when I've asked why they don't use the bike lanes, they say "I'm scared to."

"Buses loading and unloading passengers are constantly interfering with the bike lanes on 7th Street and 14th Street which is annoying if you're on a bike but probably not A Bad Thing in a broader sense since clearly many more people fit on a bus than fit on my bike."

Yes, but not everyone rides on your bike. If making bike lanes safer and easier to use would take more people out of cars and increase the total number of bikers, then in a bus vs. bike, the bike should win.

Either way, I agree it would be nice if we could make room for both buses and bikes.

While I'm all for encouraging biking, I do think it's reasonable to expect stricter enforcement against bikers who violate road rules.

Living in NYC, I've had my share of run-ins with bikers. The fly the wrong way down one-way streets, run lights, weave through traffic...

The city's adding bike lanes, which is nice, but I'll often see bikers recklessly endangering themselves and pedestrians and completely ignoring the perfectly good, clear bike lane.

Sure, you need both carrots and sticks, and you should go heavy on the carrots, but you need some stick. Bad bikers ought to feel the pain of getting on the wrong side of traffic law more often.

"Buses loading and unloading passengers are constantly interfering with the bike lanes on 7th Street and 14th Street which is annoying if you're on a bike but probably not A Bad Thing in a broader sense since clearly many more people fit on a bus than fit on my bike."

Yes, but not everyone rides on your bike. If making bike lanes safer and easier to use would take more people out of cars and increase the total number of bikers, then in a bus vs. bike, the bike should win.

Either way, I agree it would be nice if we could make room for both buses and bikes.

Matt, not all life is urban. I live in a canyon, and fully 26% of our road traffic is bikes (not commuters, of course, but bikes still). We spent millions of dollars to put in a bike lane. The result? Bikers ride 2, 3, and even 4 abreast, yell at those of us that drive to and from our homes, yell at themselves as they ride up and down the canyon without regard to those of us that moved there for peace and quiet.

It's not always the bad evil drivers, in my experience, the bikers are a bunch of rude and inconsiderate people that feel they're entitled to the full road, even though they essentially have their own lane (which they steadfastly refuse to stay in).

If you park in a bike lane and find gum on your hood, roof, or window, I put it there. Stay out of my bike lane. Delivery trucks have it worse. I spray-mount a note to their door.

Wouldn't a similiar improvement of increasing the odds of unimpeded access along a bike lane simply involve shifting the location of a bike lane? The present circumstance where a cyclist is sandwiched between driving cars and parked cars seems like it is prone to abuse simply because it is competing for space on an uneven footing and props itself up against the engrained car culture of our country. If, rather than widening the streets city planners would widen the sidewalk for a bike lane, as they do in Munich, that wouldn't be the case.

The cyclists would then be physically sheltered from motorists by parked cars, street furniture, and trees. Rather than serving as the buffer between a driving and parked car. It would also give the perception of widening the sidewalk and giving pedestrians more right of way, and as a conscious decision to that end. Rather than having the appearance of painting a few lines in the gutter to appease the greens.

People love to complain about bikers behaving recklessly. It is true, sometimes they do. Of course, I saw a car a few weeks ago in San Francisco run a red light while driving on the sidewalk on Market St. It was 1 in the morning, and I assume alcohol was involved, but the point is that people tend to single out misbehavior that reinforces their beliefs. People who drive cars think bikers are idiots, not because they see bikers make errors more often than they see people in cars make mistakes, but because bikers inconvenience them so they hold them to a higher standard. It's also worth pointing out that when a person on a bike darts out in front of on-coming traffic, they're mostly endangering themselves. This is not true of someone in a car, who can cause a good deal of damage to other people or property.

In San Francisco, bikers are routinely snotty, obnoxious, and aggressive, which is basically fine with me, since I ride my bike a lot.

The bike lane becomes a problem however, when a car is making a right turn at an intersection. The CA motor law states that the driver must pull INTO the bike lane when making a right turn.

No biker on Earth seems aware of this, however, and doing so will result in an angry exchange of words (and toe clip scraped paint) at best. At worst, an injury or fatality.

So cars swing wide of the bike lane, and riders try to squirt through on the right as fast as possible. Nerve-wracking.

Buses loading and unloading passengers are constantly interfering with the bike lanes on 7th Street and 14th Street which is annoying if you're on a bike but probably not A Bad Thing in a broader sense since clearly many more people fit on a bus than fit on my bike."

There's a factor missing from this analysis. Is someone on a bike in more danger from a bus? Or is someone on a bus in more danger from a bike?

A measure like stricter bike lane enforcement that makes life easier for bike riders and harder for car drivers has some clear environmental and public health benefits in terms of at the margin encouraging drivers to shift to walking, transit, or biking.

i don't think it's a clear-cut case at all that greater designation and enforcement of bike lanes would increase bike ridership. Americans are fat and lazy and bike lanes won't magically change that. and even if by "at the margin" you're talking about some fraction of a percent of drivers, in the meantime, you've reduced traffic flow, congested main streets, increased incidents of road rage, and slowed people's work commute as well as a host of other detrimental effects. from a policy perspective, making driving a lot more difficult is 1) a do-not-get-reelected card and 2) a sure-fire way to shrink your city's budget that could've been used to shore up mass transit.

I tire of the whole "who violates traffic rules more" debate. I am at various times a pedestrian, a cyclist, and a driver, and I see people in each three categories break the rules all the time. Rather than seeing the problem as "pedestrians break rules", "cyclists break rules", or "drivers break rules", we need to see the problem as "people break rules".

I am especially annoyed when someone takes rule-breaking by some members of a group as an excuse to disrespect all members of the group. Just because some cyclists are reckless doesn't mean you should refuse to yield to cyclists when you are required. Just because some drivers disrespect cyclists doesn't mean you can ignore stop signs when riding your bike.

That having been said, it's a more severe problem when drivers break the rules, because their rule-breaking has more potential to injure others.

Peter, I ride a bike in NYC. I never ride on the sidewalk, as it's plainly illegal and dangerous. However I would like to know where these clear bike lanes you're talking about are, as most on my route home are filled with pedestrians who have decided since there's no cars in them they must be sidewalks, or a perfect place to hail a cab.

It's often safer all around for bikers to ignore some traffic laws, e.g. crossing red lights. Riding a bike in Philly traffic, I found it much safer to be 180 degrees out of phase with traffic on my street -- keeping space between me and cars in front of / behind me at all times. And as someone else noted on an earlier thread, bikers are perched considerably higher above the pavement than drivers and consequently do not need to rely as heavily on traffic indicators (signs and traffic lights) as motorists do.

In some places bike lanes don't really make much sense when there are sidewalks. Guess what? In most places no one walks on them anyways. So why build an unused bike lane when there is a perfectly unused sidewalk? I understand people still walk in places like New York and San Francisco, but out in the suburbs? Just saying.

It makes me laugh and shiver at the same time when drivers complain about bikers not obeying all the rules and behaving recklessly. Really? I almost never see bikers do anything too terrible, but every time I drive I see tons of people not paying attention, not signaling, slamming on the gas/breaks, nearly giving bikers the right hook, etc etc. And who, exactly, is the one in danger in a car vs bike matchup?

Car drivers get pissed at bikers for minor inconveniences. Bikers get pissed at drivers for NEARLY KILLING THEM.

Now, pedestrians have more leeway to complain about bikers.

Go to Amsterdam and you'll shake your fist in rage because America is so far behind in bike planning.

Biking is the fastest, easiest, and most fun way to get around a city, but it requires that the design of the city acknowledge this fact. Cars only seem to make sense because there are roads everywhere already.

Matt, since you're new to biking, maybe you don't know that the whole biker vs. driver thing is super touchy. You'd be better off debating abortion or Hitler. Having said that, city biking is pretty stressful. (After about five years of riding in Seattle and too many close calls I completely lost my nerve. Now I drive.) So I think there's a selective process: in the end only insane cyclists can put up with the drivers.

Based on my experience with Chicago and DC, Washington definitely has ruder bikers. Walking on the paved trails through Rock Creek Park is pretty much asking to get clipped by some lycra-wearing jerk. The people who treat park paths like their own personal bike expressways are every bit as annoying and frustrating as bad drivers, especially since the trails don't have that many places to get out of the way easily without walking into underbrush or mud. And I've gotten flipped off by a biker on the sidewalk on 16th Street for not moving fast enough when he blew past me at full speed.

Maybe it's because Chicago has more bike capacity (especially in its parks, where there are more separate pedestrian trails and open space around the trails making it easier to step off for a second). Or maybe it's because Chicago cops give tickets to bikers on the sidewalk (as happened to a friend of mine). But I never experienced that kind of behavior there.

Of course none of this argues against better infrastructure for bikes. If anything, more bike lanes = less need to try to swerve around pedestrians. But culture matters, and there's definitely a more noticeable culture of two-wheeled assholery out here that will very likely persist no matter how much infrastructure there is.

To add to Jason's points:

There are reckless bicyclists--I've nearly been the victim of several while crossing the light when it was my turn to do so. I do not condone riding the wrong way or assume that drivers can read your mind when you are weaving in & out of cars.

But, as a cyclist in New York City, I can say that there is a reason why I, at least, run red lights (incidentally not as justification by way of pedestrians jaywalking) and find a way to get ahead of traffic at stoplights, even if it means crossing in front of cars to get to the middle to ride in between the two lanes: safety, believe it or not. When you're on two wheels you quickly realize how important it is to be in front of traffic so that cars and trucks can see you and so that you're not taking in lungfuls of exhaust.

And to the pedestrians out there who like to complain about the cyclists of the world: unless you jaywalk, unseen from between parked cars, I see you and I'm not going to hit you. I assure you of this. Cyclists, especially urban cyclists *have* to develop quick instincts for their own & others' safety. Pedestrians are often startled because they're not paying attention.

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to get the idea that Matthew Yglesias really, really hates cars. Maybe it's because he makes a blog entry every single day about how much he hates cars.

HeavyJ has kind of described the situation here in spread-out San Diego too, with slightly different demographics. Bike lanes are everywhere (well, almost everywhere) and most motorists go out of their way to be courteous. The big problem is right turns, especially when traffic's backed up during rush hour. I usually just pull into the regular lane at that point since it opens a car-size space to my right. Chicago (and Del Mar, CA) are even worse, with the parking and the simply unsafe bike lanes. Parking plus right turns plus sewer grates plus bike lanes simply can't coexist; one has to give.

The German solution has its benefits and drawbacks. Benefits are that bike routes are continuous and given their own signals. Drawbacks are that they're less visible from traffic and much slower--I just can't picture safely going my usual 20mph on an uneven sidewalk with everyone else going 8mph. Any advice on how to work this one out?

I do think it's reasonable to expect stricter enforcement against bikers who violate road rules.

Absolutely. Bike riders who think they're cool by breaking road traffic laws are just dicks.

But that has to be accompanied by strict enforcement against motorists who treat bikes as either a threat to their manhood or invisible. Knocking someone off a bike is generally treated less seriously than hitting a pedestrian, because there's a cultural presumption that cyclists are asking for it.

Re Peter Bautista

Real men run red signal indications and stop signs.

in berlin, germany and other european cities, the bike lane is on the sidewalk.

pedestrians are much more likely to be aware of where that bike lane is and stay out of it, and cars are unlikey to get up on the sidewalk.

of course for that to work in most american cities you need wider sidewalks.

The key here is danger. The faster, more powerful vehicle should always be liable if something goes wrong. Therefore, when walkers walk, bikers should watch out for them and cars and buses should watch out for both walkers and bikers. People who walk will jaywalk and bikers will break the rules also, but they aren't going to kill anybody, nor will they harm the environment which can hurt everybody. Cars and buses can kill people and, therefore, should be held to a higher standard. It is rather simple.

So why build an unused bike lane when there is a perfectly unused sidewalk? I understand people still walk in places like New York and San Francisco, but out in the suburbs? Just saying.

The closest I've ever come to getting hit by a car was as a kid, when I was riding my bicycle on a sidewalk that was devoid of pedestrians, out in the suburbs.

The problem with riding the sidewalk is that when riding there you have to slow down and scope things out at nearly every little side road or driveway. If you don't, you'll eventually get hit by someone turning onto or off of the main road who doesn't expect someone moving faster than walking speed on the sidewalk. And if you do slow down at every little intersection, then the frequent stops and starts make cycling far too slow to be a significant improvement over walking. Ride on the main road, and you've got right-of-way at most intersections, and you're exactly where motorists will be looking for faster-moving vehicles.

There are times I'll use the sidewalk -- when it's long and unbroken by side roads, and adjacent to a road that is too narrow or fast to be comfortable for bicycling. But those tend to be really rare.

Go to Amsterdam and you'll shake your fist in rage because America is so far behind in bike planning.

Biking is the fastest, easiest, and most fun way to get around a city, but it requires that the design of the city acknowledge this fact.

Amsterdam also has the natural advantage of being almost completely flat.

Bike riders who think they're cool by breaking road traffic laws are just dicks.

Absolutely, but bikers who break laws or ignore bike lanes because it's safer are... still alive!

In most cases when bikers ride in traffic and there appears to be a perfectly good bike lane, there is a good reason. Usually this has to do with the lack of continuity or the lack of rights for the bike lane

Bike lanes that're only one block long (or open for one block, blocked for the rest of the route) is useless and requires merging into traffic which is dangerous.

Bike lanes that ride with sidewalks along main roads require a yield at each cross street-- these are not just slower than riding on the road but are dangerous.

Bike lanes that don't have a box at a traffic light require bikers to ride in the outside lane while cars are turning through them. This is dangerous-- often more so than breaking the law and jumping a light.

Most bikers don't relish breaking the law, and they don't do something because it's more dangerous. Usually when it looks like bikers are doing something stupid it's because the traffic 'engineers' are asking them to do something even more dangerous.

While I'm all for encouraging biking, I do think it's reasonable to expect stricter enforcement against bikers who violate road rules.

Living in NYC, I've had my share of run-ins with bikers. The fly the wrong way down one-way streets, run lights, weave through traffic...

The city's adding bike lanes, which is nice, but I'll often see bikers recklessly endangering themselves and pedestrians and completely ignoring the perfectly good, clear bike lane.

Sure, you need both carrots and sticks, and you should go heavy on the carrots, but you need some stick. Bad bikers ought to feel the pain of getting on the wrong side of traffic law more often.

If, rather than widening the streets city planners would widen the sidewalk for a bike lane, as they do in Munich, that wouldn't be the case.

This is what we're doing here in Indianapolis. Remove a lane of traffic and turn it into a very wide sidewalk marked with space for both bikers and pedestrians. We're getting lots of good press for it.

Sorry about the multiple posts - as if often the case, I get a message saying that the post didn't go through and that there's been a server error - might want to get that looked into by your tech guys...

As far as NYC bike lanes, an example is the new bike lane on 9th Ave in Chelsea. Brand new, very nice looking, but last time I walked past there, there were bikes all over the place except in the bike lane.

The key here is danger. The faster, more powerful vehicle should always be liable if something goes wrong. Therefore, when walkers walk, bikers should watch out for them and cars and buses should watch out for both walkers and bikers. People who walk will jaywalk and bikers will break the rules also, but they aren't going to kill anybody, nor will they harm the environment which can hurt everybody. Cars and buses can kill people and, therefore, should be held to a higher standard. It is rather simple.

That's absurd and it's not that simple and for good reason. The law says something completely different: when pedestrians jaywalk and are hit by a bus, the bus driver is not generally held liable. The person who broke the law is at fault. Of course we should do whatever we can to protect life and limb--our own and others'--but traffic laws (whether in the sky, at sea, or on roads) exist in part to assign responsibility and that assigning of responsibility is not usually based on the relative weight of the vehicle. Nor should it be.

Actually, research shows that sidewalk-based bike facilities are more hazardous than using the road, including the facilities in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. that people tend to admire.

http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

They are also far slower than using the road, because you effectively lose priority at every single junction, including private driveways.

At least in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Denmark the bike paths generally join up in to a coherent network, but they are very slow if you're used to using the road.

On-road facilities are not as bad on the whole, but they do encourage cyclists taking up positions on the extreme kerbside as they approach junctions, which is the best possible position if you want turning cars to hook you. So they also have surprisingly poor safety records.

Actually, research shows that sidewalk-based bike facilities are more hazardous than using the road, including the facilities in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. that people tend to admire.

http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

They are also far slower than using the road, because you effectively lose priority at every single junction, including private driveways.

At least in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Denmark the bike paths generally join up in to a coherent network, but they are very slow if you're used to using the road.

On-road facilities are not as bad on the whole, but they do encourage cyclists taking up positions on the extreme kerbside as they approach junctions, which is the best possible position if you want turning cars to hook you. So they also have surprisingly poor safety records.

I have to think a lot of bad biker behavior is explained by selection bias.

In a lot of cities, biking is spectacularly dangerous, mostly because as Matt put it, private cars come first in planning.

So, the kind of people who ride bikes are kind of a wild bunch. Of course they're reckless--you have to be kind of reckless to decide to do something so dangerous!

Also, you have to think that almost getting killed on a daily basis in spite of following the rules while doing something that's supposedly perfectly legal is going to breed a certain contempt for the rules.

I think the way to get cyclists to behave better is to make cyclng a thing normal people do, not just reckless adventurers. And to do that, we need make it safe to cycle. And that means putting them before private cars.

But really, when you have to kind of be a suicidal anarchist to choose to cycle, why are we surprised so many cyclists are?

To lfv:

It may surprise you to hear this, because as someone who drives to work, I'm obviously a carbon-spewing sociopath, but the main reason I get annoyed at bikes in the road is that I actually don't want to kill anyone. Bikers are often difficult to see, and because they move at a speed quite different from car traffic, slamming on the brakes is sometimes the only way to avoid a collision. I know it's scary for you - it scares the hell out of me, too.

Some of the close calls that happen on the road between cars and bikes are results of car drivers being careless. Some (especially in NYC, as some have mentioned) are a result of bikers not respecting cars. But many are just a consequence of the fact that having two vehicles moving at very different speeds on the same road is going to cause problems. The solution, as I see it, is more, and more separate, bike lanes.

Given that bike lanes are more likely to get cyclists killed than sharing the road with cars, since the main danger from cars is not cars slamming into our back when we are in the lane but when the car is turning and the bike is not ... why the focus on bike lanes?

Even if cycle commuting is only going to make a modest contribution to reducing gasoline use, traffic congestion and parking congestion ... wouldn't having the modest contribution from living cyclists be better than killing us off?

How about invert the parking lane/bike lane relationship, with perhaps a raised curb between the two? Then the bike lane is in the same location as the German model, but not actually on the sidewalk. This does not solve the storm drain aspect, but I would suggest that could be resolved with proper engineering -- say, recess the storm drain underneath the sidewalk. Cars would take right turns from the parking lane, as they would on streets without a dedicated bike lane. There must be a reason why this isn't common.

Given that bike lanes are more likely to get cyclists killed than sharing the road with cars, since the main danger from cars is not cars slamming into our back when we are in the lane but when the car is turning and the bike is not ... why the focus on bike lanes?

Even if cycle commuting is only going to make a modest contribution to reducing gasoline use, traffic congestion and parking congestion ... wouldn't having the modest contribution from living cyclists be better than killing us off?

having two vehicles moving at very different speeds on the same road is going to cause problems. The solution, as I see it, is more, and more separate, bike lanes.

Or the solution could be to decrease the difference in speed--have the cars slow down and the bikes speed up.

The problem as I see it is that some cyclists are faster than others. Faster, more experience cyclists are probably safer in traffic, where they're more visible and less likely to have a door opened in their faces. Slower, more timid cyclists would be more comfortable on a bike path/lane, and won't mind the extra caution required at intersections.

The problem with that dual solution is the same as the problem with bike lanes: they reinforce drivers' perceptions that bikes shouldn't be allowed to mix with "real" traffic. If you're going to paint bike lanes, paint them with dotted lines. A better solution is just a wider outside lane.

HeavyJ: ... The bike lane becomes a problem however, when a car is making a right turn at an intersection. The CA motor law states that the driver must pull INTO the bike lane when making a right turn.

No biker on Earth seems aware of this, however, and doing so will result in an angry exchange of words (and toe clip scraped paint) at best. At worst, an injury or fatality.

So cars swing wide of the bike lane, and riders try to squirt through on the right as fast as possible. Nerve-wracking.

A case in point why bike lanes are so unsafe to cycle commuters. And cyclists trying to respect cars when they follow the rules for using the inherently unsafe design would not do very much to improve the safety.

The only design for a bike lane that is in general as safe as riding on the street is when a one way street has a bike lane making it into a two way street for cyclists.

But placing right turning cars to the left of through traffic is a recipe for accidents. And where bike lanes are placed next to parallel parked cars ... whether on the sidewalk side or the traffic side ... there is no way to ride safely in the bike lane ... no matter how carefully you watch for occupied vehicles, there is always a way for a motorist to hide while opening the car door.

A bikeway can be a benefit, if it provides a car-free, well graded path with limited intersections with motorways ... but for local transport and for accessing those dedicated bikeways, by far the best system of cycle lanes is the street itself.

And if cyclists flout the law ... ticket them. If motorists refuse to respect cyclists rights to use the public right of way ... ticket them.

So while well-intentioned, this public education campaign is investing public money in a dead end. Investing the same effort into public education on the rights and responsibilities of motorists and cyclists sharing the public right of way would be a far wiser use of public resources.

I am a carless bus commuting graduate student in a college town who lived n DC before moving here. Like someone else said, not all bike lanes are in urban areas. Here in Gainesville we have tons of bike lanes that are used on occasion if rarely correctly. Just a few observations:

One thing I have noticed in these debates is one of perceptions of populations. I have been struggling with how to approach this so bear with me. I think this is easiest to illustrate with cyclists, though it is true across the board. When cyclists defend themselves against charges of unsafe driving by saying it is safer (as many do here) they typically are thinking of people like them. Serious cyclists who are experienced riders, mostly with helmets, bells, reflectors, and other safety equipment, and likely keeps his/her bike in good repair. When pedestrians and drivers complain about cyclists, they are talking about every asshat on a bicycle. That includes the fat kid on his little sisters huffy that is too small for him, the drunk that is dangling a sixpack in his left hand while steering, the three kids balancing on a bike built for one, and, especially in college towns, students who ride while listing to music or, worse, talking on cell phones. And for every serious CYCLIST on the road, there are probably 50 who are just people on a bicycle. That ratio is much much lower in urban areas, but in suburban areas and in small towns people on bikes way outnumber cyclists on the road.

The same is true with pedestrians and drivers. As a pedestrian, when I vent about people on bikes, I forget that not everyone has logged thousands of miles of DC sidewalks and paths training for marathons and is hyper vigilant in danger areas. Many (MOST!) are goggle-eyes tourists who spend more time gawking at the Washington Monument and taking pictures than they do watching where they are going.

So when I, personally, complain about cyclists running red lights and riding on the wrong side, I really don't mean the serious cyclist, because cognitively I understand you know what you are doing. I am talking about the girl who darted out in front of me on her bicycle that had broken pedals, talking on a cell phone, riding in the bike lane in the wrong direction.

And of course everyone at Matt's blog is above average riders/walkers/cyclists, we all must admit that for everyone one of us, there are 50 asshats. Laws are written for everyone and calling for stricter enforcement means for EVERYONE, whether you think you know what you are doing or not.

And for those of you who say that breaking small laws as a serious cyclist keep you safer for the many reasons you cite you are mostly right. You are also right to point out that if you get hit, you will bear the consequences in injuries and possibly death. But remember that if a motorist sees you in time, they will attempt to NOT hit you. You may be willing to take your knocks for your own law-breaking, but are you willing to bear the guilt for the injury and death of an innocent third party who gets hit when a driver tries to miss you. That may not be an issue in cities where speeds don't get very high, but for the rest of us, it is a real issue.

As a biker guy living in Europe, I always enjoy this discussion ... makes me appreciate again how damn lucky I am!

I'd be interested in comments from bike commuters in London. I'm always struck by the number of bike commuters there. And from a traffic perspective, it seems like a very challenging place to ride.

As noted, Amsterdam is quite bike friendly ... and it is flat, dense, compact and basically devoid of cars. If you want to move around in Amsterdam, you walk, cycle or take the tram. I don't think any American cities have similar attributes.

If you want to see how to successfully integrate bikes into all different types of environments -- urban, suburban, rural -- I suggest Switzerland.

z.B. People learning to drive in Switzerland have to affix a big letter "L" to the back of their cars. I always notice that student drivers are super careful around cyclists, which makes me conclude that "sharing the road" is emphasized quite heavily in the instruction. Small thing, but seems to have a big impact -- hostility towards cyclists here is extremely rare, and I've got to believe that it starts with how people are taught to drive.

But then, as also noted, experience matters a lot, and the experience level here is quite high.

lackluster | June 25, 2008 2:01 PM: ... Bikers are often difficult to see, and because they move at a speed quite different from car traffic, slamming on the brakes is sometimes the only way to avoid a collision.

Yes, cyclists should be trained to ride further to the left in the lane when there is not enough space for a car to safely pass. Riding where the motorist by reflex is looking for traffic is far safer than hugging the curb, as so many cyclists do by mistake.

Cycle lanes won't help that problem, though ... by reinforcing the bad habits of cyclists ... many of whom ride on the road like they rode their bikes when they first learned to ride at 10 years old ... they make the problem worse.

Hmmm, I don't live in Chelsea so I haven't seen that. I commute everyday by bike from Brooklyn to midtown though, and I can tell you that most of the problems I've seen between pedestrians and bikes have been pedestrian instigated.

I know it's every New Yorker's god given right to jaywalk, but they need to realize that bikes are vehicles, and currently most people seem to think that they're not. Bikes can take longer to break than a car, and the phrase "I can and will hit you" is not a threat, it's a reality that we don't always have a choice over. Especially when there's a taxi right behind a bike (yes, in the bike lane) or a car on a non-laned street a bike doesn't always have the option of stopping easily.

Investing the same effort into public education on the rights and responsibilities of motorists and cyclists sharing the public right of way would be a far wiser use of public resources.

Hear hear. Other possibilities: build more bike parking, make sure commuter rail trains have accomodations for bikes, maybe even build some public showers downtown.

rea aked: "There's a factor missing from this analysis. Is someone on a bike in more danger from a bus? Or is someone on a bus in more danger from a bike?"

It depends

If a bike and bus collide, the bike is definitely going to lose and get hurt if not killed. But if the bus has to break short or swerve even slightly to miss you, everyone on that bus can potentially get hurt, though probably not seriously depending on the speed.

Or, as is the case here in Gainesville when buses stop at a bus stop to let people off, and they don't block the bike lane, which most of them don't, the exiting bus riders, who must cross the bike lane to reach the sidewalk, are in real danger of being clipped by a cyclist who does not yield. And the exiting rider must look BOTH ways before exiting, because a person on a bike is as likely to come from the wrong direction as the right one.

Again, serious cyclists who are vigilant can add two and two. A stopped bus at a designated bus stop will likely disgorge pedestrians in mere seconds. I should slow or stop accordingly much as I would were this a school bus. But as I mentioned above, most people on bikes are not vigilant, serious cyclists.

Hmmm, I don't live in Chelsea so I haven't seen that. I commute everyday by bike from Brooklyn to midtown though, and I can tell you that most of the problems I've seen between pedestrians and bikes have been pedestrian instigated.

I know it's every New Yorker's god given right to jaywalk, but they need to realize that bikes are vehicles, and currently most people seem to think that they're not. Bikes can take longer to break than a car, and the phrase "I can and will hit you" is not a threat, it's a reality that we don't always have a choice over. Especially when there's a taxi right behind a bike (yes, in the bike lane) or a car on a non-laned street a bike doesn't always have the option of stopping easily.

Missy: "When you're on two wheels you quickly realize how important it is to be in front of traffic so that cars and trucks can see you and so that you're not taking in lungfuls of exhaust."

Maybe it is different in New York, but your solution is my problem with bikes on the street. Cyclists break laws to get in front of me when I'm stopped at a light. Then, the light turns green and I'm stuck behind a cyclist doing 10 miles an hour (or worse if there is a big hill and I live in very hilly country). I'm willing to share the road, but when I'm behind an adult who ran a red light to get ahead of me, I will find a way to get by them if there is open road ahead.

I should slow or stop accordingly much as I would were this a school bus.

You don't just pass on the left?

In Tokyo there are staggered stop lines at traffic stops. The first is for cars and trucks, the second for scooters and bikes. This puts the two wheelers in front and gives them a head start to get up to speed. The result is the slower vehicles are easier to see and are safer when overtaken. Allowing bicycles to treat red lights as stop or yield signs when no opposing traffic is present is being
studied in California. Pedal bikes will be more attractive to more
traveling and commuting people if they are able to sustain their
momentum and not stop if able to safely continue through intersections. Public information is necessary to help drivers
understand the laws. Cyclists need to end the assumed superiority
of their actions and cool it. Critical Mass is a mess.

@Peter Bautista: I absolutely hate that 9th avenue bike lane (I mean as a biker, on foot I don't care). It serves to remove the bicyclist from the traffic flow so thoroughly that since you have no interaction with the traffic you essentially have to come to a complete stop at each intersection to establish that visual relationship anew. Also I find it usually full of oblivious pedestrians wandering every which way.

Adolphus | June 25, 2008 2:45 PM
Again, serious cyclists who are vigilant can add two and two. A stopped bus at a designated bus stop will likely disgorge pedestrians in mere seconds. I should slow or stop accordingly much as I would were this a school bus. But as I mentioned above, most people on bikes are not vigilant, serious cyclists.

Just so we could design the road so that only the serious, vigilant motorists would have a prayer of driving safely ... but somehow that is frowned on, and the fad in safety engineering is to design for the actual motorist rather than an ideal one.

The same thing with cyclists. Training a cyclist to drive safely in traffic is a lot less work than training a cyclist to be able to manage the unecessary hazards created by putting a through lane on the right edge of the street.

When I was living in Newcastle, Australia, which had a system a bike lanes downtown, buses were a serious hazard when cycling (though one I could not curse severely, since I was also a frequent bus rider). Now I am living in a small town in Ohio without the hazard of bike lanes, and its far easier to cope with buses.

MH: To be clear, I generally don't STAY directly in front of traffic. Most city streets are wide enough for me to ride along side of traffic or in a bike lane. (If not, tough--technically I'm allowed there, too, and it's usually a slower-moving street anyway). It's at the stop light that I pull in front of the lanes of traffic so nobody, say, guns like a bat out of hell to make a turn once the light turns green, not realizing that they're about to cut me off or worse.

NYC has a lot of one-way streets, so I try to stay on the side of the street that poses the least danger at the next intersection with turning traffic, which means, yes, I move back & forth across traffic from one intersection to the next. But I always look behind me and hand signal, I swear! I don't want to die.

Incidentally, twice now I have turned left on red in front of a traffic cop and not been stopped. The reason is I would be caught in between four lanes of opposing traffic, middle lanes either turning or going straight, while I sit there helpless yet obeying the laws. It's much safer for me to turn while nothing more powerful than me is moving (assuming nothing coming from the cross street, natch).

The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe) mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads; if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly.

One other thing to keep in mind: almost all cyclists are also drivers. This gives them the benefit of actually knowing what they're talking about when speaking about this issue.

Most drivers, on the other hand, are not cyclists. You can see this from some of the comments above (i.e. "cyclists run stop signs", yes they do, usually at around ~5mph. Which is the same speed that *all* cars run stop signs when there's no waiting traffic. You just don't notice it. etc...)

I cycle every day in Victoria, BC. It's a very cycling-friendly city, for the record, the best in Canada.

1. As long as buses have to pull over to the right to get to their stops, it's going to interfere with bike lanes. And car lanes too, for that matter, so it's not like we're the only ones with problems. Everyone in Vic basically learns to yield and watch out for each other.

2. Many cyclists behave inconsiderately, including myself, and I couch it this way to rule out the objections based on rules that don't make sense or self-preservation. Those situations happen, but in my experience they represent 20-30% of the incidents in which cyclists disregard traffic laws. The other 70-80% are, from personal experience, laziness mixed with a feeling of being beyond the reach of the law. This feeling is caused by the total lack of an enforcement mechanism (license plates, for example) to report cyclists who are behaving in an unsafe manner.


I bike commute from Brooklyn to the LES. I try to abide by the Idaho law, stop signs are yields, red lights are stop signs. That provides, IMO, the best combination of personal safety and efficiency of effort on the bike.

That said, the truly dangerous thing that I see other riders doing on a daily basis is riding the wrong way, especially in the bike lanes. Bike salmon get on you as fast as an oncoming car with less predictability (these are usually not the world's greatest riders) and less space.

For those advocating bike lane arrangements that put bikers and peds in closer proximity, it's a terrible idea. I have far more close calls with pedestrians who aimlessly step off the curb into the bike lane or wander into the bike lane on the Brooklyn Bridge (I know, I know, ride the Manhattan, but it adds about a mile onto my commute). I'm far less likely to get into a crash when in traffic than when close to pedestrians, runners, and rollerbladers (the worst).

"Photo by me used under a Creative Commons license".
How does this work? Did you send a letter to yourself?

London is very far from being a cyclist's paradise, but it has a couple of very good, forward-thinking innovations that I've not seen elsewhere, and they basically institutionalize the idea that several cyclists here have advocated, i.e., that it is safer for cyclists to get a jump start on car traffic. What you see throughout London are bike lanes that extend beyond the vehicle stop line, and traffic lights specifically directed to cyclists, which actually allow cyclists a head start when the light changes. It's a pretty simple innovation, but it makes urban riding immensely less stressful and dangerous.

Less traffic laws, not more.

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=1998

In an urban environment--say the city center--there should be *one* law: bikes yield to peds, cars yield to bikes. And if you're in a car and you hit a cyclist or a ped, you're at fault. This "obey the laws of traffic" is a fig-leaf for auto hegemony.

I think that would make folks drive a little more slowly and carefully.


Comments closed July 09, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.