BIKE: fact sheet on bike lanes

[Librik or Babich]

Mr. Wechsler's posting was interesting, but I would encourage anyone who is
transferring a document from some other software to simplify the formatting.
What made it onto my email reader was an ungainly chunk of text with a lot
of weird tabulation (see below). I find it works much better to avoid
tabulation and indentation and to define paragraphs with 2 line breaks. Many
short paragraphs tends to work better than a few long ones.

This is purely technical "netiquette" criticism, though.

The unsatisfying thing about this summary is that it seems to regard all
bike lanes as the same, when they are not. It does mention "well-designed
facilities" but never analyzes poorly-designed ones. The simplest
distinction between different bike lanes is their width in feet. BLs that
are wide enough, put on a street wide enough to accommodate them, work fine.
BLs that are "shoe horned" onto too narrow streets are not fine.

I suppose that the popular facilities described in the article are more like
the 6-foot lanes on Duval through Hyde Park, and not the 2-foot thing on
Shoal Creek north of Anderson, or the 1-foot thing 29th Street east of
Lamar. (Exchange: "Get in the bike lane." "That's not a bike lane.")
Austin's bike plan specifies that BLs be at least 5 feet wide, and many are
not up to this code. Perhaps the writers just assumed that all bike lanes
are built to proper specifications, though the political realities of bike
lanes are a bit different.

I am probably more put off by overly narrow bike lanes than most cyclists
because I have a fairly high standard for how much road space I will occupy
and how much passing clearance I expect to get. The presence of a 2-foot
bike lane may (I feel) make it more difficult for me to occupy the 8 feet of
roadway width that I typically can (2 feet for the bike, 3 feet from the
edge, 3 feet from passing traffic). While the BL stripe reminds motorists of
bikes' presence on the street (even the absence of a bike), poorly laid ones
can suggest that bikes can safely make do with almost no space, making a
proper position appear illegitimate.

My simple criterion for the usability of the bike lane is whether there
would be enough space for a bike and car to travel side-by-side without the
bike lane. Roads like Duval, that could just as well accommodate two full
traffic lanes per direction of travel, work fine. Roads like 29th, that have
just one do not, nor Shoal Creek (north of Anderson) that have room for two
lanes but try to add a bike lane as a third lane.

While bike lanes can help a cyclist's situation, the best advice on using
them and positioning oneself on the roadway is to behave as it the bike lane
did not exist at all. When a cyclist positions purely off of the roadway
edges and the automobile lane markings, then a properly sized bike lane will
have the BL stripe to the cyclist's left.

In sum, the cyclist's assessment of how much space he/she needs, both to the
left and right, should determine lane position. Properly striped bike lanes
will support this choice. Improper bike lanes will not, and should not be
allowed to induce the cyclist into a dangerously narrow space.

Stephen Wechsler wrote:

> http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/envirotrans/bicycle/lanes/bikelane-
> safety.html#5
>
> Safety Benefits  of Bike Lanes
>
> Bike lanes help define road space, decrease the stress  level of
> bicyclists riding in traffic, encourage bicyclists to ride in the
> correct direction of travel, and signal motorists that cyclists have a
> right to  the road. Bike lanes help to better organize the flow of
> traffic and reduce the  chance that motorists will stray into cyclists’
> path of travel. 1, 2Bicyclists have stated their preference for marked
> on-street bicycle lanes in numerous surveys. 3   In addition, several
> real-time studies (where cyclists of varying abilities and  backgrounds
> ride and assess actual routes and street conditions) have found that
> cyclists are more comfortable and assess a street as having a better
> level of  service for them where there are marked bike lanes present. 4
>
> In summary, bike lanes do the following:
> support and encourage bicycling as a means of transportation
> help define road space
> promote a more orderly flow of traffic
> encourage bicyclists to ride in the correct direction, with the flow of
> traffic
> give bicyclists a clear place to be so they are not tempted to ride on
> the sidewalk
> remind motorists to look for cyclists when turning or opening car doors
> signal motorists that cyclists have a right to the road
> reduce the chance that motorists will stray into cyclists’ path of
> travel
> make it less likely that passing motorists swerve toward opposing
> traffic
> decrease the stress level of bicyclists riding in traffic
>
> Well-designed facilities encourage proper behavior and  decrease the
> likelihood of crashes. Numerous studies have shown that bicycle  lanes
> improve safety and promote proper riding behavior. .5
> In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed
> about the crashes          (accidents) they were involved in over the
> course of the previous year. From the          information, a relative
> danger index was calculated which shows that streets          with bike
> lanes were the safest places to ride, having a significantly lower
>      crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle
> facilities;          moreover, they are safer than trails and sidewalks
> as well. 6
> The addition of bicycle lanes in Davis, California reduced crashes by
> 31 percent .7
> Bicycle lanes on a major avenue in Eugene, Oregon resulted in an
> increase in bicycle use          and a substantial reduction in the
> bicycle crash rate. The crash rate per          100,000 bike miles fell
> by almost half and the motor vehicle crash          rate also fell
> significantly .8
> When the city of Corvallis, OR installed 13 miles of bicycle lanes in
> one year, the          number of bicycle crashes fel l from 40 in the
> year prior to the installation          to just 16 in the year
> afterwards, and of the 5 crashes that occurred on streets          with
> bike lanes, all involved bicyclists riding at night with no lights. 9
> In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of
> marking bike lanes          in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike
> lanes were marked next to 7 foot          parking lanes. 10
> In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35
> percent .11  Some of the bike lanes reached risk reductions of 70 to 80
> percent .12
> A comparison of crash rates of all types in major cities has shown that
> cities with higher          bicycle use have lower traffic crash rates
> of all types than cities with          lower bicycle use. 13
> In a national study comparing streets with bike lanes and those
> without, several          important observations were made: 14
> Wrong-way riding was significantly lower on the streets with bike lanes
> .
> In approaching intersections, 15% of cyclists on streets without bike
> lanes rode          on the sidewalks, vs. 3% on the streets with bike
> lanes.
> On streets with bike lanes, 81% of cyclists obeyed stop signs, vs. 55%
>          on streets without .
> In Cambridge, sidewalk bicycling was cut in half after the installation
> of bicycle lanes on Mass. Ave. in Central Square. 15
> Corvallis and Eugene, Oregon, cities with good bikeway networks, have
> the          highest number of riders and rider behavior is the best:
> wrong-way riding is          minimal, fewer ride on the sidewalk than
> in other Oregon cities.
> In looking at comparable streets with and without bicycle lanes in
> Davis and Santa Barbara,          California, the number of cyclists
> riding on the wrong side of the street was one third as much on streets
> with bicycle lanes .
>
> Footnotes
> David L. Harkey and J. Richard Stewart, “Evaluation of Shared-Use
> Facilities for      Bicycles and Motor Vehicles in Florida,” Florida
> Department of      Transportation, March 1996.
> Cyclists are still permitted to travel in the regular vehicle travel
> lanes even when a      bike lane is present. Cyclists should signal and
> make sure they have the      attention of the people behind them before
> moving into the vehicle travel      lane from a bike lane. Motorists
> should be aware that cyclists may merge      into their lanes in front
> of them, e.g., to avoid an obstacle or to make a      left turn.
> Monique Stimson, “Analysis of Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice Using
> Stated      Preference Study,” TRB, 2003.; FHWA, Development of the
> Bicycle      Compatibility Index , December 1998.
> Bruce Landis et al., “Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle
> Level of Service,” T ransportation      Research Record 1578; FHWA,
> Development of the Bicycle Compatibility      Index , December 1998.
> Federal Highway Administration, Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design
> Features,      Volume VI, Pedestrians and Bicyclists , FHWA-RD-91-049,
> 1991.
> William E. Moritz, Ph.D., “Adult Bicyclists In The United States
> Characteristics And      Riding Experience In 1996,” TRB Preprint Paper
> , 1998.
> Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle Safety-Related Research
> Synthesis ,      1995.
> Ibid .
> Ibid .
> Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Bike Lane Design Guide ,
> 2002.
> Danish Road Directorate, Safety of Cyclists in Urban Areas , 1994./li>
> Jan Grubb Laursen, Nordic Experience with the Safety of Bicycling ,
> 1993.
> Peter Newman, Lecture presented at the Conservation Law Foundation,
> Boston, MA, January 9, 1997.
> Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle Lanes versus Wide Curb Lanes:
> Operational      and Safety Findings , May 1998.
> City of Cambridge data, unpublished.

--
Mike Librik, LCI #929
Easy Street Recumbents
512-453-0438
45th and Red River St., thereabouts
Central Austin
info
www.easystreetrecumbents.com
www.urbancycling.com

"Is it about a bicycle?"