Bike Lane Separation
Quite often, we see cars using bike lanes for parking, and sometimes even with the bike lanes, we still don't feel safe on the road because of the crazy drivers who put everyones life in danger. So, I have thought of a way to make life for cyclists much easier.
Why not have bike lanes separated from the road by small concrete barriers? I mean putting a separation concrete barrier probably the size of a curb on the white line currently separating the bike lane and the traffic lane. For example:
Traffic Lane Barrier Bike Lane
^ ^ ^
---------------------[][][]----------------
The benefits I see from doing this are:
1). The bike lane will no longer be a parking lot and motorists/cops would have to find other places to park their cars.
2). More safety sense, since cyclists are more protected from traffic than just by a painted white line.
3). No more motorists using bike lanes to make right turns.
Feedback welcome on this idea.
physically isolating sounds like a good idea but recent studies are showing that doing this actually causes an increase in bicycle accidents, the major problem is that the bike lanes (cycle tracks) are not isolated at intersections where the majority of accidents occur.
check out these links:
the study:
http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copen...
about bike infrastructure:
http://www.labreform.org/blunders/index.html
http://www.labreform.org/bestpractice.html
less infrastructure:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=removing-roads-and-tra...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,...
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2143663,00.html
Nothing like enforcement to make the riding, and the driving, in this city as safe as it should be. The laws are on the books, but the cops aren't enforcing them, because the politicians won't take the flak, because the voters... You get the picture.
I only skimmed through the first report, but it sounds to me as though they're talking about an increase in raw numbers of accidents and injuries, and not a rate. Because cycle tracks resulted in an increase in cycling traffic, they would appear to have improved relative safety for cyclists (can't say the same for pedestrians, though, unless cycling tracks also increased pedestrian traffic on those streets).
I followed the links to the original report to see if it gave more information on the methodology, but, ahem... I couldn't read a word of it.
Brightly coloured posts at regular intervals would be a nice compromise, placed close enough to prevent cars from entering the cycling lane but far enough apart to allow cyclists to enter and exit the non-cyclist lane as needed (to pass other cyclists, avoid debris or potholes, change lanes to turn left, etc.). Matching posts along the sidewalk would provide eye pleasing symmetry and could double up as bike parking posts. Ooooooh - make the posts really tall and put a sloped roof over top!!! :)
No need to reinvent the wheel. We can benchmark cities of cycling excellence and use their successful ideas.
One of which is the Copenhagen Bike Lane. Also known as a "real bike lane," physically separated by curbs to keep the cars out and with bicycle protection through intersections. Take a look at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/06/copenhagen-lanes-cele...
Safety, know how & education for cyclists will do wonders to reduce accidents. Be seen, be safe, be aware.
Remember, we still need to implement a Bike Plan that is behind schedule - and that's just paint.
Regarding enforcement - why not have Bike Cops police Bike Lanes?
First of all, cars are supposed to use bike lanes to make right hand turns. This of course means merging into the lane safely rather than cutting off a cyclist. The alternative, turning wide from the next-to-bike lane is much more error prone, and much more likely to result in a cyclist and a car not seeing each other.
Problems I can see with barriers:
1. Bike lanes need to be cleared of snow and swept separately (yes there are good effects to cars sometimes driving in the bike lane, as they do to make turns etc.)
2. Bikes cannot leave the bike lane easily to go around another cyclist, go around debris, or prepare for a left-hand turn
3. Cyclists are much less likely to be in a motorists field of vision, and this is especially a problem when they are making turns at intersections where the motorist and cyclist paths must cross (solvable only with separate light phases)
4. Further to point 3, cyclists cannot move to the left of a right turning vehicle to facilitate both his/her own travel AND the motorists travel (lane positioning)
it is true cycling increased and therefore injuries should be expected to increase, but you overlooked that car traffic also decreased, and less cars should mean a decrease in accidents. i didn't do the math to see if these things cancel out but at best it means isolated lanes are no safer than other infrastructure.
furthermore, some of the other links i provided point out that education and enforcement are far more effective at increasing safety on the streets than any kind of bike lane, path or special infrastructure.
John Forrester http://www.johnforester.com has written extensively on this, and has discredited the "science" behind many widely cited pro bike lane documents.
Apparently, the sidewalk level is used on Carrall St. new bike lane. Dtls on Momentum?..
Most problems with bike lanes, separated or not, could be solved by roundabouts.
http://insidetoronto.com/article/63346
If cars or trucks need to pull over and there isn't any parking space they'll just pull up on the sidewalk.
Why wouldn't they do this with a separated or raised bike lane?
John Forrester http://www.johnforester.com has written extensively on this, and has discredited the "science" behind many widely cited pro bike lane documents.
Did he also not write a 1200 page book on the failings of his father?
Oh, they do that in Ottawa all the time:
http://vic.gedris.org/pics/2002-10-26/MD-2002-10-26-034.jpg
That separated Percy St. bike lane in the photo is a total joke.
I encounter cars & trucks in Bike Lanes all of the time......and I go around them - often without slapping their back parts......but not always.
Educate and enforce, this is not complicated.
You know, the sort who just plain walk over top of cars stuck in traffic, and sometimes make a point of denting them in the process. Just get some of those folk to immigrate, give them a few crowbars, hammers, and other minor implements of destruction, and let motorists park in bike lanes at their own peril. Failing the importation of German activists, we might also have luck with frustrated teenaged boys looking for an ideological outlet for all that extra testosterone (and associated lust for violence) that they're carrying around.
Personally, I like having some flexibility in when I can change my position on the road to overtake other cyclists, prepare for a left turn, not get clobbered by a right-turning car, and other such joys. Let's keep the barriers that we erect to keep cars out of bike lanes purely psychological.
The safety benefit a cyclist receives from being physically seperated from traffic doesn't start to outweight the safety benefit a cyclist receives from being able to move relatively freely within traffic, as a part of it, until the modal share for cycling hit's something on the order of 10%.
Additionally, I can't remember the specific study, but there was one that observed that benefits for cyclists have only managed to get the modal share for cycling up to about 3-4% where they've been the sole policy instrument, and that in order to get the modal share higher, it's necessary to introduce obstacles/penalties to motorists (e.g. start eliminating car parking spaces, heavily tax car sales and gasoline, introduce congestion charges).
Both Denmark and the Netherlands made deliberate policy decisions a few decades back to promote cycling at the expense of motoring and most of my Danish friends/colleagues who have discussed the matter with me, tend to attribute a very large part of Copenhagen's high cycling participation to their 300% sales tax on cars.
"...made deliberate policy decisions a few decades back to promote cycling at the expense of motoring..."
I agree with you completely in that use of public space is a zero-sum game. Toronto seems to only be interested in putting in infrastructure that causes no inconvenience to cars, which I guess is why progress is so slow. If there was someone on city councli with the guts to remove parking spots, or to get rid of a lane of car traffic here or there, I'm sure we'd see much greater progress.
Better cycling infrastructure is going to come at the expense of space for cars - there is no way around it.
This came to me through the Tour d"afrique website. Worth sharing.
I was biking home along College Street one winter evening last year.
Snowflakes filled the air and cars and delivery vans filled the bike lanes.
I came across one of Toronto's fine Parking Enforcement Officers and, in the spirit of the season, asked him if he was going to ticket the vehicles that were populating my right of way. He replied that the parking spaces on the other side of the bike lane were filled with ice and snow and "cars have to park somewhere". So, no, he was not going to ticket anyone. But did I know that I was supposed to have a bell on my bike and that he could ticket me for that? Merry Christmas to you too, sir!
I decided to check with the city and the police about this 'exemption' that cars have, allowing them to park on the street, no matter what. Was this 'right' in the Charter of Freedoms? I should check that out.
After a long involved process, I finally got back an answer. Toronto Police Parking Enforcement Supervisor Louis Issacs - "The answer to your question is no!"
So this winter, as I rode to work down Runnymede Ave I was (ok, not completely) surprised to find a good 1km stretch of bike lane filled to overflowing with cars and vans Remembering my good friend
Louis' advice, I emailed the Parking Enforcement Office and my City Councilor on January 5th to advise them of the problem and even offered to send them photos from my cell phone. Over 6 (yes, that is not a typo) weekslater the Acting Area Supervisor for Parking Enforcement, Susana Noel, sent me this:
We apologize for the delayed response to your concerns for the bike lane obstructs on Runnymede Rd. Although there is no Parking Enforcement Notices that can be administered for obstruct bike lane a Station detail has been generated for Parking Enforcement Officers to enforce the no stopping, no standing, obstruct sidewalk and any other applicable offences which can be enforced on Runnymede Rd. between Dundas St. W. and Bloor St.
W. in which you have expressed concerns.
I hope this is being of some assistance to your concerns.
No, Susana, that is of no assistance at all. I don't speak Bureaucrat. But
maybe I can help you!? Have your parking enforcement officers check out this
link
http://tourdafrique.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0550103b...
Heaven...
I had a thread about this very issue recently, remarking how surprised I was to discover that there is not a parking prohibition for bike lanes. I met and spoke with both the Parking Enforcement Supervisor of 12 and 13 Divisions and Dan Egan of Transportation Services.
While it is true that there is no parking prohibition, there is a no stopping prohibition which is better in some ways. As Dan Egan explained: for bike lanes that are adjacent to curbs, there is signage announcing stopping is prohibited and stopping is defined as a vehicle not moving whether it is occupied or not. For lanes adjacent to parking spaces, there are no signs---and this is why Parking Enforcement will not ticket cars in those lanes---but according to the HTA, any lane adjacent to parking, bike lane or otherwise, is always designated no stopping (to prevent double parking and blocking parked vehicles in).
Parking Enforcement considers stopped vehicles a moving violation and outside of their jurisdiction because motorists are stopped, not parked. Furthermore, motorists are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in a bike lane and can be charged by police. Motorists can also be charged with failure to park within 1 meter of the curb. So, to sum it up, cars parked in bike lanes---regardless of the reason---can face three separate charges, but it appears only police can lay the charges.
The city's website, however, recommends we call Parking Enforcement if we see cars in bike lanes. I have asked Dan Egan and Councillor Heaps to have that info corrected.
Debris is defined as: The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage.
So it would reason that if you flip an obstructing vehicle and set it on fire you could call the city's 'Report road debris' number at 416-39-CLEAN and have it removed.
Although this is a more complex approach, it does effectively circumvent Parking Enforcement.
Seriously - Is this getting addressed at the next TCAC meeting?
Let's park a car in a live lane of traffic and see how quickly things get done. It would be interesting to see if we can notice when the first complaint is called in to police/parking enforcement, who responds first and how long it takes before it is towed.
In January I asked a Parking Enforcement officer to ticket the cars parked in the bike lane on Davenport and this is how the conversation went, verbatim to the best of my recollection:
PEO "The snow and ice are in their spot. Where're they supposed to park?"
Me: "In a legal parking space, not a live lane."
PEO: "It's a bike lane. if they were blocking traffic, I'd have them towed."
Me: "They are blocking traffic, bike traffic. The lane cannot have cars in it at any time under any circumstances, snow or ice or anything else, no exceptions." (which I later learned is not true: taxi's are allowed to stop and pick-up/drop-off passengers in a bike lane, couriers and emergency vehicles are allowed in them too)
PEO: "It's up to the city to clear the snow. If the guy can't park in his spot because the city didn't clear the snow, it's not his fault."
Me: "It's up to the driver to either park legally and fully in his parking spot or not use it. He can take it up with the city, but he can't just invent spots and park where he feels like it because his space is blocked."
PEO: "We're not gonna ticket the guy."
Me: "It's up to you to enforce the rules, not interpret them or unilaterally decide what rules you're going to enforce and what ones you're not. Do your job. Let the courts worry about theirs, let the city worry about theirs."
He waved his hand in dismissal and walked away.
Maybe what we should do is on Critical Mass, instead of riding, everyone just stop in the lane and 'park.'
Y, y gys r clwns, whmprng chldrn wth slf-wrth sss. gt hlp. n rl rdrs cmpln nrl s mch s y d...th jst kp rdng pst th prkd crs, n whtvr ln th nd t, tkng rspnsblt fr thmslvs. Stp blmng thrs fr yr ndqcs. rgng wth cps ds nthng. tllng thm t d thr jb ffnds thm. tht's th stpdst thng 'v vr hrd, tllng cp t d thr jb & rgng smntcs wth thm. nd thn pstng yr stpdt "vrbtm" n ths wbst n th bckwtr f th ntrnt ds bsltl nthng xcpt wst bndwdth nd mk y fl bttr bt yrslvs. Slfsh, stpd dts. 'm nt rdng n mr f yr whn, sck psts bt prkng n bk lns. G rd (f y rd t ll whn y'r nt cmplnng n th ntrnt) n plcs tht dn't hv bk lns - g thr. Y'll lrn. f y dn't lk tht, g b tckt nd mv t mstrdm. Yr tp s t thr, (prfrbl t th nd f dmptrck's bmpr.) Pc t lst. Whnrs. whtvrmn
[this comment has been disemvoweled because it's offensive]
Dear whateverman,
So there's no use trying to make a case for better utilization of cycling infrastructure? Should we all just keep our opinions to ourselves?
We would all be better off if the people who used this forum showed respect for each other.
Maybe I'm not a "real" rider, but I ride everyday regardless of the weather, regardless of bike lanes; and I'm certainly not afraid to put my name behind the things I say.
Your shameless post here is just a cowardly act, easily concealed behind a false identity, it's a lot like clown make-up, no?
touchee!... and may a plague of horny lapdogs invade your pants whateverman!
Please, people do not feed the troll.
Whateverman is one of the many lovable jerks in our comment threads, helping to raise the blood pressure of cyclists and our page views as well. He may claim to stop reading any more "whiny, sucky posts", but don't you fret: he'll come back like that cat, if only to insult you.
Herb,
There is a lot of good work being done by people in this forum (yourself included) but I think that the attention being given to fringe issues such as winter bike lane parking enforcement and public bike parking in front of private homes is putting off of readers and reducing interest in this site. If this isn't true why have the number of comments being posted dropped off so sharply?
Derek.
...most cyclists are not winter cyclists. I even know of a number of committed cyclists who think winter cycling is crazy and dangerous. They can't comment on what they don't know, aren't involved in and have no experience with.
I would venture to say that it is hardly a fringe issue when lives are unnecessarily endangered, when laws are arbitrarily ignored at the expense of one segment of society.
There must be voices for ALL aspects of cycling in the city. Focusing on just a few of the big issues should not be the sole direction for advocacy. What good are bike lanes, after all, if they are abused, circumvented, ignored and disrespected? We must work had to achieve the bike lanes and even harder to maintain their integrity.