Hacker News Reader

I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn lane on a road where cars go ~40mph - there's no way to do that without a significant risk of getting clobbered. That's to say nothing of the potential for someone hooking right through me when I go straight at an intersection as apparently no one checks their side mirror before turning.

Unfortunately even cities that consider biking infrastructure often seem to ignore how to connect bike lanes in a reasonably safe way. The only city I've seen that does this is Portland, OR and they make heavy use of separated paths to do so.

> no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection.

This is because they are designed by non-cyclists who are thinking purely of recreational use: someone casually dawdling their way to work on a sunny day three times a year.

"Oh, well, here of course they will dismount and then use the crosswalk ... that's what I'd do!"

The best practice that I'm aware of is:

    * AT AN INTERSECTION
    * Dismount and walk the bike across the cross-walk, as a pedestrian.

IMO we've engineered intersections all wrong to begin with. There shouldn't even be cross-walks there (they should be mid-block dedicated services, placed where pedestrians WANT to cross and __VERY CLEARLY__ marked as existing; not the dinky lights many cities go for (Seattle comes to mind)).

I don't know how to handle bikes and turns at an intersection, separation of level would be far more ideal.

If we actually want to encourage people to bike instead of driving, they need to be able to cover reasonable distances in a car-comparable amount of time. Expecting cyclists to dismount every block to cross on foot in a crosswalk is not the way to achieve this goal.

This is how to do it: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/junction-desig...

Requiring dismounting would be the way to discourage cycling.

Separation of levels can work, too, but is more expensive and takes more room. Examples at https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/tunnel/ and https://vimeo.com/71511991

This is what I was taught when I was a kid and it's really dumb.

1. Bikes can't go on sidewalks, so you're already screwed one way or another.

2. It's a huge hassle to get off and on at every intersection.

Of course there's a problem with the bike acting like a vehicle too, even if it can keep up with traffic. Stoplight sensors don't register bikes so you end up waiting for a car to show up so it can trigger the sensor and change the light.

> Stoplight sensors don't register bikes

If you're a cyclist and stopped on a red, waiting for it to change, you're seriously breaking ranks. :)

I mostly just bolt for it when the coast is clear.

There are places where I wait, but if it's keyed to a sensor coil, I'm definitely not waiting for a vehicle to arrive.

> Stoplight sensors don't register bikes so you end up waiting for a car to show up so it can trigger the sensor and change the light.

Camera based sensors are far better than the induction loops used on older installations in my experience. Replacing the traffic light with a roundabout is even better :)

I agree entirely on the crosswalks. Around here the pedestrian signal comes on at the same time as the left turn signal so that pedestrians and drivers get to fight for space on the crosswalk.

This makes crossing with the bike on the crosswalk even more inconvenient than it would otherwise be on the bike, which as the other poster pointed out, slows one down considerably. Maybe separation of level is the right answer. Bike boxes, painted areas that let cyclists cross lanes in front of stopped traffic, may work but only if the intersection is adapted for them, otherwise they're just yet more deceptive deathlures.

> I don't know how to handle bikes and turns at an intersection

With regard to right turns, the easiest situation, though not feasible everywhere, is a dedicated right turn bay. Cyclist going right sticks to the curb. Cyclist going straight goes between the right turn bay and the straight lane.

The best way to do left turns asa cyclist is a hook turn. Go straight across, stop at the corner, then turn. Effectively making the turn two straight lines. That's how we're taught to do it in most European countries, to avoid having to cross lanes of car traffic.

Bike paths used by pedestrians are "mixed use trails" that are basically for recreational use. Someone cycling with a purpose to get somewhere, and especially if they have good physical ability from doing a lot of cycling, will tend to stay away from such. Doing your regular 35-40 km/h on these is crazy, and if you can go fast, why would you use a path where you can't do that.

While these trails are nice (obviously, we need recreational spaces), they don't do anything for congestion or commuting.

Agreed -- many of the shared paths have low 10-15mph speed limits for pedestrian safety which is fine for a recreational cyclist, but for someone going to work, 20mph on the flats is doable by a reasonably fit cyclist.

When there's a road next to a mixed-use path, I'll usually take the road since it's safer and easier than sharing with the pedestrian traffic.

A sub 3 mile commute at 5-10 MPH is not that bad. You don't need a shower or change of clothes etc.

So it's more about commute distance than a pure question of speed.

Though a sub 3 mile commute is also easy to serve with transit.

I have a 12 mile bike commute. The bus is an option, but it only runs once an hour.

A sub-3-mile commute is walkable.

Barely -- that's an hour long walk for most people. Given the choice between walking and biking for 3 miles, I'd bike. I used to have a 2.5 mile commute that I did by bike. I'd occasionally walk, but didn't normally want to spend that much time.

I'd use a push scooter up to 5 miles if it's convenient. One can fold it and take it on a bus or train.

Runnable: 5 km ~ 25 mins

8 minute miles with a backpack with a laptop and a change of clothes? Perhaps for some people, but not everyone.

I think saying they don't do anything for commuting is a bit extreme. Not all bike commuters are also serious cyclists. For many commuters, a mix use trail is far better than a road.

I used to live off of a mix use trail and could ride my bike on it to work. I now have to ride on the street, and given the choice I'd take the trail any day.

For me it depends on which route is shorter and has less inconvenience. Where I live, there's a trail about 1.5 miles long that I can ride to get to work. When it was first paved, I started riding on it since it was a shorter route to work compared to taking the roads there.

After a while, they put up gates on the trail where it crossed an access road. These gates required that cyclists dismount, walk their bike around the offset bollards while crouching to go under the gate arms, cross the access road, and repeat the process when getting to the gate on the other side. After that, I just started riding on the road again.

I think the problem is Boston is that there aren't actual bike lanes-- they just painted some new symbols on the already existing roads that were designed for cars and called it a day. Everyone would benefit from separated bike lanes, either raised up or with the white cones. It never made sense to me that a whole line of traffic should have to slow down to 12-15mph because one person wants to ride their bike. Cars and bikes mixed into the same space just seems to create chaos.

Yeah that's the thing that annoys motorists (or at least what annoys me) -- bikes that you can't safely pass. Any time you have vehicles with greatly differing speeds sharing the same lane, it's unsafe.

What about lanes on interstate highways on upgrades that mix 40 mph truck traffic with 70 to 80 mph car traffic?

Those can be unsafe, but trucks almost always keep to the right lane if they can't maintain the speed limit. And long grades will often have an extra lane on the right for slow vehicles. Either way, it allows safe passing on the left, as all interstates are at least two lanes wide.

How does that differ from a city street with multiple lanes?

You're making the implicit assumption that people riding their bikes on the road are just doing it for recreation instead of doing it for transportation.

I'd cycle to work, and many other places, if there was a physical barrier in place for bike lanes. I have been hit driving often enough to not want to try my luck cycling.

The plastic white posts are better than nothing, but still not enough IMO.

Maybe I am just not getting it, but I don't love the physical barrier in bike lanes. When there is some obstruction (trash, a pothole, etc) in the bike lane I can't get out of the way.

I like the white posts for this reason. I can still get out, but cars will likely not get in (unless they're completely out of control in which case they'd probably hop a small curb as well).

If it's a true old school style moped (small engine/electric motor with pedals) that's probably fine, but something like a vespa or small motorcycle should be in a separate area.

Yeah. I meant something along the lines of a low powered scooter, than a proper Vespa.

I'd say anything above 50cc is probably off limits.

If the moped's engine is on, it's motorcycle.

2. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a common separated path way.

I don't agree -- skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes all travel at different speeds and have different styles of locomotion - in particular, skaters and boarders tend to swerve back and forth across the lane, making passing difficult, while a 30mph moped is a hazard to 15mph cyclists -- even 20mph eBikes can be a challenge.

In Minneapolis some of our streets have these white posts stuck inbetween the car lane and bike lane. They mostly solve the problem of cars drifting into the bike lane.

https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2015/09/minneapolis-break...

> Taking the side of the road causes cars to pass me too closely and taking a lane draws verbal abuse

Close passes are a safety issue; verbal abuse is not.

I agree that cycling in Boston is absolutely terrifying; I tried it for a few weeks and then gave up. Literally every single cyclist I know has gotten into at least one serious accident over the last 5 years in the city. While it is true that separated bike lanes would solve a lot of the alternative commuting problems in Boston, the problem is we simply don't have enough room for them across large swaths of the city and Cambridge / Somerville . I would suspect that the only way we could reasonably achieve separation across most of the city / outlying cities is if we totally banned on street parking which is a nonstarter to a majority of residents and commuters.