In California Cities, Drivers Want More Bike Lanes. Here’s Why.

Whenever street space is allocated for bicycling, someone will inevitably level the accusation that the city is waging a “war on cars.” But it turns out the people in those cars want separate space for bicycles too, according to surveys conducted in two major California metropolitan areas. Bike lanes make everyone feel safer — even drivers.

Far from constituting a war on cars, protected bike lanes are a big relief for drivers. ##http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/12/03/sf-gets-first-protected-bike-lane-drivers-already-violating-it/##Streetsblog SF##

Rebecca Sanders is a doctoral candidate in transportation planning and urban design at the University of California-Berkeley. She’s spent a lot of time asking people — drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians — what kinds of street treatments would make them feel safer, giving them a list of safety improvements to choose from. Most drivers said their top priority was bike lanes. (In the Los Angeles area, the top choice was for improved pedestrian crossings, but bike lanes were a close second.)

Sanders began this research with Jill Cooper of Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, under the sponsorship of the state department of transportation (Caltrans). They interviewed drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists on major corridors in and around San Francisco and Los Angeles, asking drivers why they picked the mode they did, and asking everyone how they perceived safety issues, especially for biking. Then they asked what kinds of street treatments would make the street safer for them.

“What was interesting about that study was that in the San Francisco Bay Area, the most requested item, across the board, was a bicycle lane on the corridor,” Sanders told Streetsblog. “It was the most requested item by drivers, it was the most requested item by pedestrians, and it was the most requested item by bicyclists. That was quite surprising to us.”

It’s no shock that cyclists asked for dedicated street space in overwhelming numbers, and it stands to reason that pedestrians want bicycles off the sidewalk. Perhaps it should be just as obvious that drivers would welcome dedicated bike infrastructure, too. They find that bike lanes help them be aware of cyclists and make cyclists’ behavior more predictable, according to Sanders’ research. In general, there’s less potential for conflict between drivers and cyclists when they each have their own space.

“We have not done a good job of recognizing and validating the concerns of drivers about predictability,” Sanders said. “For a long time, cyclists have been defensive; they’ve been fighting for space, and legitimately so. But in the process, some areas where we could really work together, I think, have fallen to the wayside. Everybody wants predictability on the roadway. Nobody wants to feel like they’re going to get hit or hit someone else and it’s going to be beyond their control.”

The results of Sanders’ San Francisco-area research are due to be published soon in the Transportation Research Record and are available now on the Berkeley website. Meanwhile, Sanders has continued to look into drivers’ attitudes toward bike lanes, making it the topic of her (as yet unpublished) dissertation. She has conducted focus groups and internet surveys to shed light on what drivers and cyclists need to feel safe.

The more protected bicyclists are, the more comfortable drivers feel. Here, drivers were asked how comfortable they feel driving with various kinds of infrastructure, and their answers are categorized by how often they bike. Image courtesy of Rebecca Sanders.

In her surveys, Sanders distinguished between drivers who also often ride bicycles and those who ride infrequently or not at all. Drivers who bike can better predict other cyclists’ actions when they are behind the wheel. But drivers who don’t ride find cyclist behavior erratic and unpredictable, and prefer not to share road space with them. That doesn’t mean they just want cyclists to go away — many want cyclists to have their own dedicated space, separated from motorized traffic.

Sanders also distinguished between various types of cycling infrastructure. She found that motorists felt most comfortable driving on streets with a higher level of separation between bicycles and cars.

Drivers who don’t bike said they would rather have no treatment at all than sharrows, which they find confusing, while drivers who bike daily would rather have something than nothing, but only narrowly prefer sharrows over nothing at all.

By and large, support grows with increased separation. Drivers prefer protected bike lanes to painted bike lanes, and painted bike lanes to sharrows. And they don’t want those bike lanes to be in the door zone of a line of parked cars.

“They would rather drive on a street with just a bicycle lane and no parking than on a street with a bicycle lane and parking,” Sanders said. “Because they know that if someone opens their car door that could send the bicyclist into their lane.”

Of course, drivers have other concerns about removing parking, but they do acknowledge that placing cyclists in the door zone makes bike lanes less effective.

“I don’t claim my study solved that [tension] at all,” Sanders said. “I’m just saying the debate should be broader. When we focus on tradeoffs only, and we talk about taking away parking to put in a bike lane for bicyclists, people perceive it as a war on cars. What we haven’t done is talk about how that also actually benefits drivers, because it improves predictability for them. Which is huge, because everybody wants to be safe.”

  • Since you are responding to my post, please show me where I mention “awareness, education, and so on” . All I said was that was the comment above mine was the comment of the month. I think you are putting a few too many words in my mouth.

    Education and awareness don’t amount to a hill of beans if, as you point out, the built infrastructure says the opposite. I don’t think we disagree on this.

    VA Bicycling Fed, from my read, is suggesting that the overriding issue is accountability. Apparently a lot of people agree. I’ve never seen 24 up arrows agreeing with any post on Streetsblog, even one offering free beer, motherhood, and apple pie.

    I did just read a study out of the Univ of Buffalo** (presented at the 2013 Society of Academic Emergency Medicine) that asserts that although bike infrastructure may reduce the number of crashes, these do not decrease the severity of those that occur. Crashes on bike facilities occur where the facility breaks down, such as at uncontrolled crossing of intersections. Here, speed is a critical factor, as one might suspect.

    **Influence of Riding in Bike Lanes vs. Traffic
    Lanes on Injury Severity of Bicyclists
    Involved in Crashes with Motor Vehicles
    Kelsey Helak, Dietrich Jehle, Juliana Wilson,
    and Joseph Consiglio
    SUNY@Buffalo, Buffalo, NY

  • The built infrastructure of the last half century is by all means atrocious for even the “strong and confident”. I don’t think most reasonable cyclists, even many of those who call themselves VC (myself included), would oppose revisiting the suburban, arterial and cul-de-sac model that has made the car an unfortunate but indispensable tool to modern America. This stuff sometimes intimidates me and if it intimidates me, it will intimidate most.

    Back in 2005 I wrote an article published in a Calgary, Alberta outdoors magazine comparing the bike-ability of the old city (traditional grid layout) with the new developments (fast arterials connecting cul de sacs). The new development style is hell on cycling, regardless of age, gender, or experience level. The new development style almost requires separated facilities to be attractive.

  • Fred

    Education, awareness, accountability are all those used for things we don’t care about. Where is the education and PSAs to control congestion? We have an infrastructure change.

    How do we measure “accountability” so we know we have it? Where’s a plan to make this happen? What’s the time table for this? Where’s the budget. Where’s the study that coorelates “accountability” with safety?

    Please, let’s use facts and data to support our points, and clearly define our terms so we can all follow the conversation.

  • My aren’t we Mr. Cranky-pants??

    Perhaps you don’t know what a Vehicular Cyclist is?

    I comprehended the article and approve of your summary.

    I don’t understand why you’re spoiling for a fight, though.

  • Brian Ferguson

    I was mistaken. I had never heard that term before. I had thought he meant drivers of automobiles who also cycle.
    To me, it’s just a given that cyclists obey the rules of the road. After all, it is in the Highway Traffic Act.
    Maybe it’s a Canadian/American difference. I spent years in Toronto and 98% of cyclists are “vehicular cyclists.” It’s not the case in all our cities though. In small cities, much to my frustration, practically NO ONE knows the rules of the road. Cyclists on the sidewalk, cyclists on the wrong side of the road, PEDESTRIANS in the middle of the road… It’s kind of nutty in Belleville, ON.
    In Toronto, the “vehicular cyclist” was generally referred to as a “bike commuter” and rode accordingly.
    My apologies.

  • Brian Ferguson

    Okay, now that that’s cleared up, my take on separated bikeways would be “when it’s called for.” If automobile traffic is heavy and there’s room for separated lanes then I’m all for it PROVIDED they are designed properly. (We’ve been calling them “segregated lanes” in Toronto and that always sits funny with me… it sort of hearkens back to “segregated schools” which might be a little more contentious in the US given your past.)
    Montreal and Gatineau, QC have done amazing jobs of designing separated/segregated bike lanes by utilizing parks and other available spaces or, as is the case of Le P’tit Train du Nord trail, 260 km of physically separated bikeway along an old railway line.
    Toronto is working on the same thing with their “West Toronto Railpath” which parallels an existing railway but it pales in comparison to what Montreal has done.
    http://goo.gl/maps/ydUzR

  • Andy

    I think the term is “Get them out of my way”

  • There is no study showing properly placed sharrows to be more dangerous than nothing at all. You are just plain lying. I’ve seen some of these studies and they always use badly placed sharrows and bad metrics.

    I am not impervious to facts. Vehicular cyclists are generally the most open minded people when it comes to safety techniques and infrastructure. It’s the segregated advocates who are impervious to facts and refuse to learn anything.

    I notice that you have still not said that you have got the education. Why do people who haven’t studied vehicular cycling always consider it an insult when someone suggests that they don’t understand vehicular cycling? I sure didn’t understand vector calculus before I studied it.

    Classes have not been tried. You’re making excuses and lying. Not everyone wants the same infrastructure that you advocate. People who don’t understand how to ride safely in traffic want those facilities.

    Apparently the Danes like to lie about your magic infrastructure too:

    http://www.sikkertrafik.dk/Raad-og-viden/Paa-cykel/Undgaa-hoejresvingsulykker.aspx

    Google translate does a good job for those that don’t read Danish. They still have problems with crossing conflicts. Big surprise.

  • I do hate high speed transitions on surface roads. They really shouldn’t exist.

  • That vote might not go the way you think. Ignorant bigots like you tend to think that your little circle of friends and family represents the majority. Not so much.

  • Please provide an example of my ignorance and/or bigotry. I suspect that the Bicycle Coalition is the most unpopular special interest group in SF, but there’s only one way to find out if I’m right: put this stuff on the ballot for the people of the city to decide, instead of forcing the neighborhoods to constantly fight off the MTA’s “improvements.”

  • Fred

    I don’t read Danish. Can you please sum it up.

    Also, since you are not “impervious to data” where’s your study which proves that Vehicular Cycling classes for cyclist who ride on high speed roads are safer than riding on infrastructure? We have census level data which suggests that in places like San Diego, where the advocates overwhelmingly have spoken against infrastructure and in favor of classes, is more dangerous than places with infrastructure.

    Do you have any study which contradicts this? I’ll gladly read it.

    And when I say that “classes don’t work” you misunderstand me.

    What I mean is that we have advocated in San Diego, for forty years for no infrastructure and in favor of classes. I know this b/c I have spoken to the advocates, I read their mailing lists, and I have read the history of advocacy in San Diego. It’s a fact that “classes have been advocated, in San Diego with no infrastructure for 40 years.” This is true. In fact, they are proud of this. Ask Dan who doesn’t even live here, but he’s pestering us b/c he’s a zealot just like you.

    I did not say that they have succeeded in getting people to take classes. I don’t care whether people take or do not take classes. If you advocate for something and fail to implement it then you lose.

    These advocates let them build the I-15 and many cloverleaves which have killed many, many cyclists in San Diego. This is fact. Riding on high speed roads is the most deadly place to be. Advocates have not stopped these roads, but they have fought, hard, just like Judy is fighting now, to let cyclist “mix it up with high speed traffic.” This is leading for cyclists to die in San Diego. All factually true.

    I have seen advocates, who have advocated for infrastructure in the past 10 years in the US. They have purged the VC element from their midst. The result is increased safety and increased mode share. Again, there’s no debate on this, Bill, this too is established fact.

    I ask that you, and your VC evangelists to continue teaching your classes to 1% of the 1% of people who choose to ride bicycles in San Diego, while not bothering those who are making safer for the 60% or so for people who would like to ride a bicycle w/o taking a class, for days, designed by a rocket scientist.

    To each to his own, you to classes, and to the vast majority of us to infrastructure. Can’t we all get along?

  • Google Translate makes it pretty understandable. Basically, even with their facilities, they still have a problem with crossing conflicts. That’s because facilities still depend upon drivers doing the right thing when crossing the line that a bicyclist is travelling on — and there are always going to be places where they can. They’re still having collisions. People are still getting hurt.

    Not all VC riders are anti-facility. However, most of us are against bad facilities. Quite frankly, I haven’t been too impressed with the new facilities in San Diego. I don’t see how a little buffer on a bike lane makes much difference, except maybe if it’s a buffer for the door zone.

    Give me a bike freeway, where I don’t have crossing conflicts and don’t have to share with pedestrians and I’ll be very happy. You can’t give me that.

    I used to think I understood vehicular cycling before I actually studied it. I had some vague descriptions and knew that VC riders took the lane. I was also highly experienced. I used to ride 300 miles a week and before I studied VC I had been riding on the road for around 36 years. I didn’t understand vehicular cycling at all. Even after I studied it, it made sense to me logically but I still didn’t truly get it until after a few thousand miles of practicing it. Over 30,000 miles later, I don’t have accidental close calls — at all. I just don’t. You don’t truly get it until you start to consistently ride through spots that you used to think were scary and find that they are no longer scary because you’ve eliminated or nearly eliminated the circumstances that made them risky.

    My lifetime mileage is into six figures now. I know what it’s like to ride in fear on the edge and I know what it’s like to feel safe and in control. My stress level while riding is very low. It used to be very high most of the time.

    Dan is a rocket scientist (really) but the only bicycle class that I am aware of that he designed is not for riders. It’s for traffic engineers. He also taught LAB classes but he didn’t design those. He’s about to start teaching Cycling Savvy classes but he didn’t design those either. One of the main designers of CS classes is an artist (not sure what the other one does).

    Vehicular cycling is not difficult to learn. Almost anyone who can ride can learn it.

    I would love to get along but I keep getting attacked whenever I suggest that there’s anything other than segregation for bicyclists, or suggesting that it’s actually possible to ride safely in traffic.

  • Fred

    First of all, Bill, does that paper that shows that Vehicular Cycling is safer than infrastructure? I’m guessing it does not exist or perhaps it’s written in Greek. 🙂

    What about 23 papers which show that infrastructure works?

    Also, about classes IF YOU KNOW THAT NOBODY WILL TAKE CLASSES BUT YOU PUSH FOR THEM AS A SOLUTION YOU ARE PUSHING FOR A SOLUTION WHICH YOU KNOW WILL NOT BE TAKEN. THUS TO ACT AS IF YOU HAVE “SOLVED” A PROBLEM BY ADVOCATING SOMETHING NOBODY WILL DO YOU ARE DECEPTIVE. You were the one who admitted that nobody wants to take classes.

    I believe the parent article shows that people want infrastructure.

    So basically, you admit that facilities are safer than Vehicular Cycling? Good.

    Nobody thinks that facilities are 100% safe. I don’t even care if they are safer because they are more fun. However, they happen to WAY, WAY, WAY SAFER THAN VEHICULAR CYCLING.

    And the solution to the collisions that occur with facilities is EDUCATION REMEMBER? If EDUCATION is so great, it can teach you to ride safely in facilities. Or is education highly limited to the point of being useless for safety and countr-productive to advocacy? With or without education, facilities win.

    You don’t see that facilities matter, but statistically they do. Motor vehicle collisions are rare for an individual, but they are HUGE public health problem. So what you see doesn’t really change the bigger picture.

    Whoa, are you in favor of a bike freeway? Me, too. Why the whole anti-facility noise?

    You had to ride your bike for thousands of miles before you thought you were doing so safely? Wow, that really sucks. VC is even MORE useless than I thought.

    In fact, for every argument, you make, I feel that VC is more and more useless.

    How is it possible to ride your bicycle on a high speed road when you have no close calls at all? In every single pro-VC video, I see a series of motorists, many of them who could be drunk and asleep, jerking their wheels to barely miss someone who’s dumb enough to ride a bicycle in a place where many motorists die each year, the travel lane. Do you do something massively different? If so, can you post a video? Recall, MANY MOTORISTS IN SUVS DIE EACH YEAR. This is a fact that can’t be refuted. MVA is #1 for the < 34 YO set. One of the biggest things that protects them is their cage of steel. Literally millions of motorists are rear ended each year. VC == DANGEROUS AND STUPID.

    Do you realize how many times you contradict yourself? Is VC hard to learn or do you have to ride for thousands of miles before you "get it". Did I lie about a paper which shows that sharrows are twice as dangerous or did you read the paper that I "made up"? Do you realize how both sets of sentances do not match? You are truly a fascinating creature.

    How would you know if and how I ride my bicycle? Perhaps my ride is blissful. You assume a lot of things while I post tons of facts. VC == MAKING SHIT UP!

    If you think that you are attacked, you aren't. If you feel that way then perhaps you are doing something wrong. Here's some tips:

    1. Don't post things that contradict normal experience. Riding in traffic sucks to a normal person. If you think otherwise, your not normal.

    2. Post some facts. I'm still waiting for the data that you promised. Each time you fail to provide a paper which compares VC and infrastructure for safety, you make me realize more and more that you are impervious to facts and reason and that you merely make things up.

    3. Don't get personal. Whether or not I ride my bicycle one hundred or no miles a week does not make your goofy way of riding any or less safer. In fact, if you are talking safety, refer to normal safety standards such as OSHA guidelines, sustainable safety, and other safety literature such as the work by Haddon, for example.

    4. If an article says something like "people want infrstructure" don't waste people's time saying, "I don't want it." The point of the article is that there is overwhelming support for infrastructure by EVERYONE. It's not polite to come to a party where we are all getting along and say LOOK AT ME, I DON'T AGREE WITH ANYONE BY ADVOCATING A SOLUTION WHICH YOU KNOW IS A FAILURE AND IGNORING ALL THE DATA WHICH SHOWS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS AS EXPECTED.

    Finally, still waiting to read the paper or are you imprevious to data, logic, and reason?

  • You keep saying that I’m anti-facility. I’m not. I’m anti-bad facility. You’ll take any facility, regardless. The paper only shows that their facilities are not perfect.

    Your “infrastructure” quite frequently does NOT work as expected.

    I love how having bad experiences because you don’t know what you are doing is considered “normal” and having good experiences because you know what you are doing is considered “not normal”. Weird.

    I don’t see those “close calls” you mention in VC videos. I see drivers moving over to pass, just as I see when I ride. The closest I get to a close call these days usually tends to be in bike lanes at driveways though I’ve gotten pretty good at avoiding even those, so still, not that close. Occasionally someone will try to scare me but I’ve gotten good at defusing those as well. I haven’t been in a situation that actually scared me in quite a while. I used to get scared almost every time before VC.

    I know that VC is safe because it has completely changed my experience on the road. I also know quite a few vehicular cyclists who share the same experience.

    I notice that you still haven’t mentioned that you’ve actually studied VC for real. That is telling.

    Rear end collisions don’t happen because of slow traffic. They happen because of unpredictable behavior of the traffic in front in combination with driving too fast and/or following too close from the traffic behind. Slow predictable traffic tends to not get rear ended all that often. Even buses, which often change speed don’t get rear ended all that often, and neither do vehicular cyclists who are far more predictable and consistent with their speed.

    I am a vehicular cyclist because I do NOT trust motorists to do the right thing. I take control and responsibility for my own safety by making sure that other road users always see me and always easily know how to avoid colliding with me.

    You trust motorists to not turn in front of you at a driveway. I don’t.

  • Fred

    WHERE’S THE PAPER YOU PROMISED WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT VC IS SAFER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE? WHERE’S THE HARD EVIDENCE THAT VC IS “SAFE”?

    I was wrong, you were right. “BillD is NOT anti-facility.” There, I admitted I was wrong, pubically. Didn’t hurt. That is an example to the VCers who NEVER admit that they are wrong. Ever. Even when caught in a lie.

    Whether or not facilities work is the job of engineers who need to collect data. No facilities, no data. I do know for a fact, that there’s been a movement to replace all infrastructure with classes. This is to discourage cycling and to promote a suburban lifestyle. I’m sorry that you have cycled for so many years under the VC banner not knowing that your reps do NOT have your best interests at heart.

    You had no close calls or bad experiences?

    I know a completely different BillD who has close calls and bad experiences ALL THE TIME:

    “I had one this morning in fact. It was an old car with giant doors and the guy threw the door out fast. Fortunately for me, I was already 5 feet out because if I hadn’t been, the timing was perfect for a door collision with zero time for braking. I would have hit it at full speed. It still startled me and freaked me out a little.”

    http://sdbikecommuter.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=235

    Breaks the law and rides recklessly:

    “Crap. Got a ticket for rolling a stop sign a block from work…. I was flying this morning. I even got past Laurel at full speed and then this.”

    And can’t see to ride anywhere without getting into arguments with motorists:

    “What is it with this phenomena? About 50% of the time I get into a heated verbal discussion regarding road rights with a motorist they claim they are or used to be a cyclist. ”

    This is all a nonsense distraction. WHERE’S THE PAPER, BILLD? You got nothing but your own limited experience.

    So you don’t see close calls when a motorist is forced to act? You think you are safe when the default thing for a motorist to do is to go straight? I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Motorists struggling not to hit you is not a close call. Fair enough. But you speak for yourself. There’s a paper which shows that “taking the lane” gets closer calls. You get the furtherst calls when there are no cars around. There’s a paper I read last night that said that the vast majority of head injuries occur from getting hit by a car. Wearing a helmet doesn’t seem to be a factor just being around cars.

    And yes, having a good experience while being subjected to large dangerous machines, noxious fumes, and loud noises is not normal. There should be no debate here. Jeez, you guys really do like argue each and every shitty point ad nauseum. How irritating.

    What do you mean “study VC”? Is there some magic kind of VC that I have to pay money for that is totally different than what people say on forums? Why does my taking a class change whether or not cycling infrastructure is safe or not? WHERE’S THE PAPER BILL? (In English, please?)

    I’ll take your class. First give me a thousand dollars and take MY CLASS. If you don’t you can’t say that I’m wrong because you don’t know my REAL arguments. You need to pay me money to do that. The fact that you haven’t taken MY class is telling.

    Nobody ever got rear ended due to slow traffic ahead? Is this taught in your expensive class?

    I’m not denying that you are comfortable “mixing it up with traffic”. You are so self-absorbed. MOST PEOPLE DON’T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. They want a safe environment away from cars which is what the parent article has said. You seem to miss this obvious point. YOU HAD 40 YEARS TO TEACH US CLASES AND YOU FAILED. Now you say you are pro-infrastructure. Good. Talk to the other VCers especially those from out of town and tell them that CYCLISTS OF SD DON’T NEED VCERS COMING FROM OUT OF TOWN TO HURT OUR CYCLING COMMUNITY. STOP BITCHING ABOUT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

    If you ever “take the lane” in front of a drunk or texter on a high speed road you’re dead. There is no magic skill that can make our roads safer. To think otherwise is delusional and superstitious.

    BTW, the founder of the Effective Cycling got his data from Ken Cross. Have you read the part about the Cross study where it said that you should avoid certain roads because they are too dangerous and that fear of taking the lane is justified? Now that you have seen the data since you are not “impervious to data” you will mend your ways, be the bigger person, admit your wrong (like I did) and shut up about this VC nonsense which is confusing new cyclists and those who want to build safe, afforadable, and comforatble infrastrucure. Or are you going to be “impervious to data”, ignore this post, and continue to spout nonsense about bike lanes and door zones?

    WHERE’S THE PAPER YOU PROMISED WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT VC IS SAFER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE? I don’t have a lot to read right now and I’m looking for the first paper, ever, which tests the relative safety of vehicular cycling. Each time you fail to post it, I feel more and more that I am hearing BillD’s opinions and not the knowledge of a well read and well educated cyclist.

  • SafeTREC

    Thanks for the thorough and thoughtful writeup.

  • Anonymous

    This isn’t about REWARDING people for riding bicycles — though I know that’s on your mind. It’s about keeping bicyclists and drivers safer.

  • Anonymous

    Ain’t happening. Transit up in the air ruins views and creates the kind of cover that breeds darkness and crime — every time transit or roads have been moved from elevated to or below ground, neighborhoods have improved. As for eliminating cars… dream on. Many of us don’t, won’t, and will never opt for bicycling.

  • Joe R.

    Bike lanes below grade are fine in my book but they cost a heck of a lot more than going above grade. Besides, an elevated bike lane is similar to a pedestrian bridge. It’s relatively unobtrusive. Certainly it’s not going to blight a neighborhood. There’s not much darkness under a 10 foot wide dual bike elevated about 20 feet above street level.

  • Joe R.

    It’s not about rewarding cyclists, it’s about incentivizing cycling by making it faster. If you can make the trip at twice the speed because you never have to stop, suddenly the potential radius for bike use is doubled. If most people will consider biking for up to 3 mile trips on regular streets with stoplights, they might consider up to 6 mile trips if they had bike “highways”. The same thing happened when we built highways for cars. Prior to that, a 50 mile trip on local roads only appealed to a hard core few as this was a 3 hour ordeal. When you could do it in one hour on a highway, 50 mile car trips became commonplace.

  • disqus_1pvtRUVrlr

    @disqus_nWNb2ipokF:disqus , your comment regarding not requiring more space is absolutely false. That kind of Dutch design requires a lot of space to provide the setback that creates the separation. Look at locations where the Dutch employ that kind of design and you will see that it eats up a lot of space (and remember that you have to work that into the space between pedestrians and motorists). That is why they still use mixing zones or standard bike lanes in a lot of the urban core.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Bike Lanes Don’t Lead to Congestion, But Some of Them Should

|
Gretchen Johnson and Aaron Johnson have posted a nice debunking of typical “war on cars” rhetoric over at fivethirtyeight. Johnson and Johnson gathered before-and-after traffic data from 45 miles of streets where Minneapolis installed bike lanes. They also looked at how Brooklyn’s Prospect Park West bike lane affected traffic conditions. They found, in short, that after the installation of […]

AAA Revives Offensive Against Safer D.C. Streets

|
AAA has been known, at times, to take positions in direct opposition to cyclists’ safety. Then when cyclists call AAA out on it, AAA starts backpedalingfast, assuring us all how much they love people who bike. But the organization is sticking with its ongoing battle against  safer streets for cycling in Washington, D.C. As David Alpert […]