Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Bicycle Facilities: What do YOU want?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Bicycle Facilities: What do YOU want?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #515074

    leftovers
    Member

    If you look at 0:22 you see that there are also cars in the bike lane (weird). I guess that bike lane turns into a turn only (0:19 you can see the arrow) mixed traffic lane (?) and some of the cars behind the cyclist were cutting into it anticipating the change (other vehicles now passing on the right).

    If a cyclist was going straight I would assume they would have to merge to the left before the bike lane becomes a turn lane, that would be at the curb cut area. That looks like a mess.

    #515075

    MRipley
    Participant

    JeepGirl said:
    Would I say the same if that situation was a car vs car scenario? Huh, yeah.

    Your video doesn’t prove that the infrastructure design was good or bad. All it does is demonstrate what can happen when two unattentive vehicle operators get together.

    While it’s very clear that the bicyclist wasn’t paying attention to the road in front of him as he was speeding along in heavy traffic, (looks like he keeps looking down at his speedometer or something) not sure if I would agree that the driver wasn’t looking though. The driver could very well have been scanning in front and in back of the black SUV but it would have entirely blocked the veiw of the bicyclist as they approached each other. Also, as there are no bike lane pavement markings in the driveway area where the collision occured so it’s also possible that the car driver didn’t know there was a bike lane.

    This is a great example of horrible riding skills by another two-wheeled warrior.

    #515076

    melikecheese
    Participant

    And another bike thread falls into the exact same never ending argument…

    #515077

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    leftovers said:
    Actually I do have a question from all of this. When biking without bike lanes I usually stop behind the car that was in front of me when coming up to a red light, this can sometimes be 10 to 20 yards from the intersection. I often see bikes inching their way along the curb passing cars stopped at the light to get as close to the intersection as possible. A lot of times the cars in the queue are planning on turning right. Those bikers moving along the curb when traffic is slowed or stopped can be stealthy.

    To me it seems dangerous, but is it ok for bikes to be moving like this at stoplights?

    Correct, filtering is illegal. It’s also legal to become a pedestrian and walk the bike on the adjacent sidewalk to get past stopped traffic, say if you are planning a right or left turn three blocks.

    #515078
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    melikecheese said:
    And another bike thread falls into the exact same never ending argument…

    Bear has a really good report form for these threads.

    #515079

    We seem to have gotten away from the discussion of bicycle facilities, but there have been some good inputs.

    Jeep Girl, the cyclist who ran the red light Downtown should have been cited by police. It was unfortunate there were none around. The cyclist WAS betting his life that he could get away with running the light. With respect to the accident, while the cyclist contributed to the accident by not using proper caution, especially in a situation where he was coming up on stopped traffic, the motorist was in the wrong, making a left turn without safety (failure to observe oncoming traffic). While the law is not clear on this, I believe that the bike lane constitutes another lane of traffic and motorists need to observe the same caution as if they were crossing a lane of automobile traffic (Incidentally, I was involved in a similar accident about a year ago on North High Street when a motorist coming out of a side street thought he had the “OK” to cross a stopped lane of traffic. I was in the right hand lane, he pulled out in front of me, and I hit him because I didn’t have time to stop or an escape route. I was the one who spent four days in hospital with three fractured ribs and blood in my right lung). This is one of several reasons I dislike bike lanes on major arteries, another being they tend to fill up with debris.
    I would again say that I believe in side streets (Class 3 bikeways) connected up with bikepaths. I may decide to expand on this topic later.

    #515080

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    rodrudinger said:
    I would again say that I believe in side streets (Class 3 bikeways) connected up with bikepaths. I may decide to expand on this topic later.

    I agree with this, except for two things.
    1. Often, side streets don’t cross major barriers like freeways, waterways, and railroad tracks. So short connections on or adjacent to major streets will be necessary at a minimum.
    2. Most destinations are on arterials. If it’s a street like High Street, with a good connected street grid, you can probably get to the grocery store by connecting to High from a side street and walking a short distance. However, that might not be practical everywhere.

    #515081

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    I bet that SUV driver in the video was being waved over by the driver in front of the driveway. That’s why I don’t wave people over unless I really really know it’s totally safe for everyone. Too much chance of waving someone to their doom. And I also worry about potential liability.

    #515082

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    GCrites80s said:
    I bet that SUV driver in the video was being waved over by the driver in front of the driveway. That’s why I don’t wave people over unless I really really know it’s totally safe for everyone. Too much chance of waving someone to their doom. And I also worry about potential liability.

    Probably what happened to me in Bexley when a driver almost clipped my car when I was using the right lane.

    John I think to your point #2 where I think you have that issue the bike facility will end up on the arterial. See the bike lane on Morse or the planned projects on 161.

    #515083

    John, you make some good points. In some cases (and we have that problem here in Columbus), it will be necessary to use bike lanes on arterials to connect across freeways, waterways, railroad tracks, etc. There is also the need to use short stretches of arterials to connect to shopping, etc. The only point I would like to make is that necessary use of bike lanes on arterials or use of arterials should be minimized by availability of alternatives such as side streets and bikepaths. In a couple of cases, we also have bike paths crossing freeways on bridges, although this is an expensive alternative.

    In the case of using sidewalks and converting sidewalks to multi-use paths, I am generally against this. Not only do you have the problem of dodging pedestrians and fixed objects such as utility poles, light standards, and fire hydrants, you also have the problem of entering the traffic stream at driveways and intersections. It is probable that motorists will not be looking for you and that you will be involved in a collision with motorists making turns at intersections or entering or leaving driveways. You have the same problem with cycletracks. Since you are separated from the traffic flow, motorists do not perceive you as being in the traffic flow and are not looking for you at intersections. I believe there was a study in Copenhagen, Denmark where cycletracks have been installed that showed that while collisions were down along most of the cycletrack, there was an increase in collisions at intersections.

    #515084

    JB05
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels said:
    Correct, filtering is illegal. It’s also legal to become a pedestrian and walk the bike on the adjacent sidewalk to get past stopped traffic, say if you are planning a right or left turn three blocks.

    Yet intersections with “green boxes” or “bicycle boxes” as they exist throughout the country encourage this behavior. It’s thought to be safest for a cyclist to ride to the front of the line, where they’re most visible and safest from right-hook collisions. But when a green box doesn’t exist, it’s probably safest to wait behind traffic. It’s an odd, grey area for safety IMO and it’s something there should be better education about.

    #515085

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    rodrudinger said:
    John, you make some good points. In some cases (and we have that problem here in Columbus), it will be necessary to use bike lanes on arterials to connect across freeways, waterways, railroad tracks, etc. There is also the need to use short stretches of arterials to connect to shopping, etc. The only point I would like to make is that necessary use of bike lanes on arterials or use of arterials should be minimized by availability of alternatives such as side streets and bikepaths. In a couple of cases, we also have bike paths crossing freeways on bridges, although this is an expensive alternative.

    In the case of using sidewalks and converting sidewalks to multi-use paths, I am generally against this. Not only do you have the problem of dodging pedestrians and fixed objects such as utility poles, light standards, and fire hydrants, you also have the problem of entering the traffic stream at driveways and intersections. It is probable that motorists will not be looking for you and that you will be involved in a collision with motorists making turns at intersections or entering or leaving driveways. You have the same problem with cycletracks. Since you are separated from the traffic flow, motorists do not perceive you as being in the traffic flow and are not looking for you at intersections. I believe there was a study in Copenhagen, Denmark where cycletracks have been installed that showed that while collisions were down along most of the cycletrack, there was an increase in collisions at intersections.

    There is a study from Copenhagen that found more collisions at intersections with cycle tracks. However, they also increase bicycling in general, which seems to create a safety in numbers effect. The overall crash rate in Copenhagen and most of Europe is much lower than here. Regardless, I’m interested in seeing the crash data from Chicago as it becomes available.

    #515086

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    JB05 said:
    Yet intersections with “green boxes” or “bicycle boxes” as they exist throughout the country encourage this behavior. It’s thought to be safest for a cyclist to ride to the front of the line, where they’re most visible and safest from right-hook collisions. But when a green box doesn’t exist, it’s probably safest to wait behind traffic. It’s an odd, grey area for safety IMO and it’s something there should be better education about.

    Some cities use green or cycle boxes in combination with a cycle specific traffic signal, allowing cylists at all points of the intersection to shotgun and clear the intersection before motorized traffic.

    Boxes like Columbus are pretty pointless and, as you said, only encourage risky behavior.

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)

The forum ‘Transportation’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: