This is why I’d wish people would stop saying this:

“I would side with bicyclists more if they’d just follow the rules of the road!”

Aside from the fact that this logic (they can’t have it unless they’ll comply with the law 100% of the time) fails for all road users, people (whining drivers) don’t realize that if good, safe bike infrastrucutre is built, people will use it, and most people will follow the rules while using it! The newish Dearborn protected bike lane in downtown Chicago is a great example – I go out of my way to use it, and nearly everyone I see on it is obeying the light. It’s actually the drivers that are turning against their red-turn arrow and breaking the law more often (in my experience).

If our cities were more like Dutch cities, where the roads accommodate all users, then there’d be much, much higher compliance. The only reason I occasionally run a red light (after stopping and looking) is to get ahead of the car traffic, which would otherwise squeeze me out of the way if we all started going on green at the same time.

The only reason why there are traffic lights in the first place is because of cars. Look at the car-free zones of any major city – no traffic lights.

So let’s stop blaming the victim!

C’mon Shaun.

Every IDOT investment promises to “improve safety for all users.”

Maybe they mean all users that drive . . . after all, they can sort through the complexities of a major interchange reconfiguration in 12 months and push it through a regional planning process designed to be resistant to change (new major projects), but need a few years to collect data to evaluate PBLs.

Safety for all users? Really.

Correlation is not causation. It also makes sense that bike lanes would/should be placed on streets that already had more bike traffic.

I vaguely remember reading a study about New York City, where they compared the numbers of cyclists on 1st Ave and 3rd Ave (IIRC) before and after the installation of the 1st Ave bike lane. The results did show some “gravitation” and is more convincing that a simple correlation.

Personally, I do “gravitate” toward a protected lane if it’s one or two blocks away from the direct route, but usually no more than that.

So I believe there is _some_ “gravitation”, but implying that the bike lanes in the study you quote caused a 61% increase is likely an overestimation.

If they can install one in Washington, DC (15th St NW)…oh wait, they did!

Duh.

Agreed. When the city doesn’t provide any bike infrastructure, cyclists (made up mostly of the “strong and fearless” category) assume the city doesn’t care about them, and therefore have no motivation to follow the law. When protected bike lanes and cycle tracks are installed, it shows everyone (including those who are interested in cycling but are concerned for safety, and are much more likely to follow the law anyway) that the city is looking out for them. If you show people that you do actually have their safety in mind, then they are far more likely to follow the law.

Bottom line: if you want more cyclists to follow the law, build more top-quality separated bike facilities.

The people living in neighborhoods that would be affected by building massive highway flyovers aren’t technically users, so IDOT doesn’t care about them.

I dont understand all the hate on sharrows. I find them effective, maybe more so than regular striped lanes. There are sharrows on 2nd ave in the 50s. Cars pretty much stay out of that traffic lane and I have a whole car width lane to myself

In regards to the stop sign suggestion, it is known as an “Idaho Stop”

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/3/7/Origins-of-Idahos-Stop-as-Yield-Law

It has been on the books in Idaho for 20 years and it would be a great addition to any state traffic code.

Cyclists additionally do not need to stop when turning right at a stop light, but must stop before turning left under the the Idaho traffic code.

I’m a little undecided about making exceptions to certain traffic rules for certain users. I agree that the current system prioritizes motor vehicles and does not appropriately accommodate other traffic users. But, depending how these rule exceptions get handled, it could turn into an “use vs. them” kind of situation. Sure, the law may be the law, but people’s interpretation and, more importantly, their resulting reactions could have a negative ramification for the very minority of traffic users (cyclists) who they perceive as getting unfair, special treatment.

This maybe wouldn’t be a huge issue if the majority of traffic users were cyclists and motorist were a minority. As can be seen in countries like the Netherlands, where more people ride bikes than drive cars, cyclists do get some special treatment in the form of contraflow lanes, through-access where motorists don’t, etc. But even there, they don’t get a blanket exception to disregard stoplights or stop signs.

I just used the bike share in Chicago while on a business trip. Got the impression that drivers are bigger assholes there than in SF.

I tried reading the paper and must admit that I don’t fully understand their methodology. As far as I understand it, the finding about bike infrastructure is even less than a correlation, like you would get with before-after comparison. In addition, the fact that there’s more bike traffic on roads with bike infrastructure by itself doesn’t seem particularly desirable. If this only means that existing bike traffic gets channeled away from other route without infrastructure, then what’s the point?

So for a proper study, IMO, you’d need to have traffic counts of the route where bike infrastructure will be installed as well as all relevant alternative routes, before and after the infrastructure gets built. That will get you a little closer to making more causative statements.

I also wish people would stop saying “I would side with bicyclists more if they’d just follow the rules of the road!”. But the unfortunate fact is that they do say this — regardless of the fact that the rules of the road were not written with bikes in mind, and regardless of the fact that seeing rule-breaking drivers evidently does not erode these people’s support for car infrastructure.

I am glad to hear that your experience in Chicago is that most bicyclists stop at red lights. Mine in New York is the opposite. I ride to and from work every weekday; and I ride for pleasure during summer weekends and on any weekday that’s hot; and I can see a hundred bicyclists blowing red lights before I see one (apart from myself) who stops.

Pedestrians who see bicyclists coming up the street typically assume the bicyclist is going to blow the light; and so they tend to hesitate to cross, even when they have the light. I hate that we bicyclists are contributing to this fear amongst pedestrians, thereby making enemies out of our natural allies.

I recently had the experience on the Hudson River Greenway of stopping at a “Yield to Pedestrians” sign in order to let a couple cross, and noticing one of them gesture with his head towards me and saying to his partner “that’s rare”.

So uncommon is a bicycle stopping at a red light, that I occasionally get thanked when I stop — thanked for simply following the law, which is a sad state of affairs. One woman once actually said to me “you give bicyclists a good name”. That made me feel good, as I follow the law with precisely that goal in mind. But the problem, of course, is that there are thousands out there giving bicyclists a bad name, thereby effectively campaigning for the end of our bike infrastructure.

Ideally, bikes should be able to treat red lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs. But in order to get to that state where we’ll be afforded this special (and entirely logical) treatment under the law, we first have to quit behaving as though the laws as they exists today (even the stupid laws) don’t apply to us.

Why comparing Canada/Europe with the U.S.? Apples and oranges. What works in other countries are not even remotely welcomed in the U.S. let alone working here. The mindsets are vastly different on so many levels.

This is really not a problem inherent to protected facilities, but it is quite different.

Dutch experience shows that if you build it, they will come.

Perhaps this indicates that there are too many traffic lights in NYC, or that they are very poorly timed. I always look before executing a yield to stop (I don’t usually go on roads w/ red lights). I personally think that there are too many stop signs in the USA.