Where do you ride mostly? Street or Sidewalk?

[Darrell Wesh]

10 minutes ago, Mono said:

They talk about both, AFAICS.

Also interesting:

Most fatal bicyclist crashes involving motor vehicles occur midblock, while cyclists in protected bike lanes in the study collided with vehicles most often at intersections or junctions with driveways and alleys. In such cases, vehicles are usually turning and traveling slowly.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Three widely noticed Canadian studies, led by Harvard’s Ann Lusk, the University of British Columbia’s Kay Teschke and Ryerson University’s Anne Harris, focused mostly on safety. And though all three concluded that protected bike lanes greatly improve bike safety...

and

 

Researchers at the University of Colorado Denver and the University of New Mexico discovered cities with protected and separated bike lanes had 44 percent fewer deaths than the average city.

“Protected separated bike facilities was one of our biggest factors associated with lower fatalities and lower injuries for all road users,” 

and (duhhh)

But a new IIHS study shows that protected bike lanes vary in terms of injury risk. Factors such as the number of driveways or alleys intersecting the lanes and whether the lanes are one- or two-direction affect the likelihood of a crash or fall.

Nah, your entire quote was about protected bike lanes. Even the quotes of researchers you use ONLY talked about protected bike lanes. 
 

Even the headlines of all three articles @dmethvin used solely talk about PROTECTED bike lanes. Physically separated bike lanes. 
 

this is a bike lane in America most people are used to. This is not a protected bike lane. This is dangerous to be in compared to just riding in the middle of a real lane.

[Mono]

8 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Nah, your entire quote was about protected bike lanes. Even the quotes of researchers you use ONLY talked about protected bike lanes. 

Yeah, this reading thing. I don't know what you read. I read, for example in one of the three articles: The study found that conventional bike lanes were less risky than street-level protected bike lanes, but that may be because they were located on safer roads.

In any case, so far I haven't seen any pointer to evidence that suggests that conventional bike lanes are more dangerous that streets.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Mono

[Darrell Wesh]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

Yeah, this reading thing. I don't know what you read. I read, for example in one of the tree articles: The study found that conventional bike lanes were less risky than street-level protected bike lanes, but that may be because they were located on safer roads.

And if you read correctly they acknowledge that the study is bias because the conventional lanes were located on safer roads. Not even data worth quoting from. 

My stance is that riding in the road at the speed of traffic is safer than riding in a bike lane. There are studies in those articles that found more injuries and casualties on streets with no bike lanes vs protected but that’s because bikers are riding close to the shoulder and not taking up the entire lane.

If you take up the entire lane, (hopefully going the speed limit) you are safer than being in the bike lane.

[seage]

15 hours ago, Justin Boivin said:

I feel a lot safer in painted bike lanes than on the road with cars. I at least have dedicated space and cars expect me there. I also try to stay visible (lights, reflector tape on my bag)

 

Yeah, unless its a physically blocked off bike lane, im not riding in it. Like what Darrell is talking about, its super dangerous. Even in Toronto, its nuts. Cars just shoot into it without looking. Ubers and taxi's dont give a damn that the line exists, and will literally speed past you, pull in and slam on the breaks. Sometimes they'll get out of your way, only to throw the door WIDE open, directly in your path. People getting in and out of cars also just throw them open. Pedestrians using it to walk around busy sidewalk traffic or to wait to cross the road and not paying attention. More trouble than its worth. On the road, im seen. But yo, to the OP, take your time, build your skill up. Pay attention to driving habits. Learn from cyclists (Both what to do do and what NOT to do, since some of them have death wishes). Be thinking ahead. Its like a fast paced game of chess. Dont rush to ride with city traffic or anything. If you're in a small town/village like me, you'll have no problem riding on the road tho. Its visiting the major cities that the game changes. 

[Mono]

2 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

And if you read correctly they acknowledge that the study is bias because the conventional lanes were located on safer roads.

puzzled, that's really not what was written. Anyway, we have to read and believe what you have to read and believe 

[Darrell Wesh]

14 minutes ago, Mono said:

puzzled, that's really not what was written. Anyway, we have to read and believe what you have to read and believe 

I’m sure you’re debating me on semantics here but what you really cant debate is that a bike lane is less safe for an EUC rider than just taking up a whole lane in the road

Bike lanes are not congested with bikes enough for most drivers to even check to see if a biker is coming when they need to turn. Cars notoriously always edge out INTO the bike lane when they’re trying to turn into traffic, leaving the bicyclist with having to veer into the road (and you better hope a car isn’t side by side with you at that point or you’ll have to slam the brakes). 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[Mono]

23 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

I’m sure you’re debating me on semantics here but what you really cant debate is that a bike lane is less safe for an EUC rider than just taking up a whole lane in the road

Bike lanes are not congested with bikes enough for most drivers to even check to see if a biker is coming when they need to turn. Cars notoriously always edge out INTO the bike lane when they’re trying to turn into traffic, leaving the bicyclist with having to veer into the road (and you better hope a car isn’t side by side with you at that point or you’ll have to slam the brakes). 

I understand your arguments, but arguments and personal experience only work in a very limited way to explain the world and make predictions of future outcomes of behavior, in particular if the outcome is probabilistic. That is why and what we have science and studies for, and why I was pointing out that no studies were referenced to begin with. You are right, I won't debate personal judgements and experiences. WIth all I learned so far I would still bet against the claim that riding bike lanes is less safe than riding on the street, if I would need to bet. I guess it's not one of those 99% winning bets, but I'd take it. When it comes to cycling, it's anyway needless: I think it is a safer bet to say that we already know the answer, if we just would bother to look up the science. Though reading, understanding, and correctly interpreting the scientific literature is not that simple and does take some time.

[MaxLinux]

10 minutes ago, Mono said:

I would still bet against the claim that riding bike lanes is less safe than riding on the street,

Hmm, where should I ride, with cars or bikes? I think I prefer riding with bikes! I always use the bike lane if one is available.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Bike lanes are not congested with bikes enough for most drivers to even check to see if a biker is coming when they need to turn. Cars notoriously always edge out INTO the bike lane when they’re trying to turn into traffic, leaving the bicyclist with having to veer into the road (and you better hope a car isn’t side by side with you at that point or you’ll have to slam the brakes). 

And you are not alone, obviously:

In his spring 2001 article, John Forester argues that separate facilities for cycling are unnecessary and dangerous.  He claims that cycling in mixed traffic on roadways is far safer than any sort of bike lane or bike path. Thus, he strongly opposes the current efforts at federal, state, and local government levels to construct systems of bike paths and lanes. Furthermore, Forester opposes special provisions of any kind for cyclists, such as turning lanes at intersections or priority traffic lights. His recommendation is that all cyclists be forced to cycle on the roadway and learn to operate their bikes as they would motor vehicles. Forester calls this concept “vehicular cycling.”

Although Forester makes a number of theoretical arguments why bikeways are unsafe...

http://bikeped.rutgers.edu/ImageFolio43_files/gallery/Bicycling/Documents/Pucher_2001_Safety_Bikeways_v_Roads.pdf

[MaxLinux]

I frequently ride on sidewalks, but my choice of where to ride depends on the situation. For example, in quiet neighborhoods, I ride in the street. In situations with more car traffic I tend to prefer the sidewalk or bike lane. However, if many pedestrians are on the sidewalk, I use the street even if car traffic is heavy. Whenever I encounter pedestrians while riding on the sidewalk, I go into the street. If I can't go into the street because of traffic or no convenient cutout, I slow down to walking speed and give the pedestrians as much room as possible. The scariest situation for me is a street with heavy traffic and no shoulder, bike lane, or sidewalk.

[MaxLinux]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:51 PM, Darrell Wesh said:

What fun is there riding slowly on the sidewalk??

I know many people love speed, but my typical speed is about 18 km/hr. I enjoy looking at the scenery while I ride. I call it "sightseeing speed"!

[giggidditygiggiddity]

I've witnessed several t-bone hits at crosswalks, both bicyclist/skater just zoomed into the crosswalk as a car zoomed either straight or turning into.  The lesson I see here is slow and pause IF u obviously see a vehicle nearing or wanting to drive into the lane, regardless knowing u have the right of way, they definitely do not see you, they see an empty crosswalk with no pedestrian at the curb. I'd only chance if you can judge their distance enough in the few seconds you still make it through before they do.

[Darrell Wesh]

3 hours ago, Mono said:

And you are not alone, obviously:

In his spring 2001 article, John Forester argues that separate facilities for cycling are unnecessary and dangerous.  He claims that cycling in mixed traffic on roadways is far safer than any sort of bike lane or bike path. Thus, he strongly opposes the current efforts at federal, state, and local government levels to construct systems of bike paths and lanes. Furthermore, Forester opposes special provisions of any kind for cyclists, such as turning lanes at intersections or priority traffic lights. His recommendation is that all cyclists be forced to cycle on the roadway and learn to operate their bikes as they would motor vehicles. Forester calls this concept “vehicular cycling.”

Although Forester makes a number of theoretical arguments why bikeways are unsafe...

http://bikeped.rutgers.edu/ImageFolio43_files/gallery/Bicycling/Documents/Pucher_2001_Safety_Bikeways_v_Roads.pdf

Yes, the article does show that other countries with intensive bike infrastructure are safer but somehow this pro cyclist traveling at road speeds felt “unsafe” in a bike lane. That pro cyclist traveling at road speeds is US. You’re so blinded by looking at the data and studies that you forget that none of them apply to US (EUC riders). 
 

You cannot extrapolate bicyclist data into EUC data without the addition of personal experience and conjecture.  EUC riders are going faster than bicyclists, with the average speed of a bicyclist in a bike lane being around a measly 10mph. This makes a significant difference, as I’m sure the studies were NOT done on bicyclists averaging 25+mph. 

Let’s take a 25mph road with two lanes going forward and a painted bike lane on the shoulder. An EUC rider or any bicyclist that can travel at 25+mph is safer being in one of the two lanes flowing like a car then in being in the conventional painted bike lane.
 

Bike lanes were invented for the average cyclist, going very slowly vs the flow of road traffic. No car is expecting a THIRD lane going as fast or faster than them on the bike lane/shoulder. This expectation in disparity of speed is why drivers don’t even afford to check bike lanes and just make turns. 
 

When I’m in a bike lane with car congestion, I either ride at a predictably slow average cyclist pace of 10mph (good time to start texting 😄) which is slow enough to be able to react to drivers cutting you off when making turns, drivers coming out of alleys or driveways, and cars that are edged out into the bike lane. If I’m not traveling at a snails pace i leave the bike lane and ride at road speeds. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[LanghamP]

3 hours ago, Mono said:

understand your arguments, but arguments and personal experience only work in a very limited way to explain the world and make predictions of future outcomes of behavior, in particular if the outcome is probabilistic.

I think the studies of painted bike lanes versus no bike lanes are fairly straightforward and the results quite predictable, and match up quite well to my personal and observed experience. I think this is why @Darrell WeshWesh and I agree on painted bike lanes while occasionally disagreeing on other things.

Painted bike lane are more dangerous the faster the road because drivers pass you closer, and are far more likely to take risky passes as they won't slow down. I've observed that at 35 mph and above, drivers will do almost anything not to slow down during the pass, and so the higher the speeds the closer the pass. And this study confirms it! By simply counting the number of close passes we can predict collision passes. 

If a driver opens the door into incoming traffic, who is at fault? Most drivers would say if the colliding vehicle the door opener is at fault, while also saying if the vehicle is a bicycle, the bicyclist is at fault for not safely passing. And car doors open wide, covering most of the bike lane.

And to me that's the major problem with painted bike lanes; all of them have parked cars to the right of them with opening doors. While each one has a tiny chance of opening on you, put a few hundred on a street and it's almost 100% you're dodging at least one opener.

This door problem means bicyclists ride closer to the left side of the painted bike lane. Putting in a painted bike lane is the worst of two situations; the guaranteed danger of being doored while being squeezed by impatient drivers.

Solve the parked car problem and you solve the painted bike lane problem. Protected bike lanes work so well because they stop cars from parking and dooring bicyclists while also stopping impatient drivers from making close passes. Painted bike lanes do none of these things while encouraging close passes.

[houseofjob]

This street vs bike path vs sidewalk debate is heavily dependent on the country/culture I think, ie the likelihood of bad actors.

In my neck of the world in NYC, no one is to be trusted, but the cars are much more predictable and restricted in movement than cyclists and pedestrians. And unfortunately, our bike lanes double for 1. delivery truck double parking, 2. pedestrians who cross without looking, 3. Cyclists going the wrong way, 4. Hotel car dropoff. Combine that with the fact that our bike lanes have no borders, sometimes disappear randomly, and for many stretches have some awful pavement/potholes, and this is why we in NYC stick more to the roads amongst the cars. Traffic jams are a blessing, restricting car movement even further so we can whiteline past them.

 

@Nitecrawler

I've found over my 4 year, nearing 20 wheels owned experience that my street/sidewalk ratio is heavily dependent on the max speed of the wheel.

22mph and below max speed means I'm seeking out sidewalks and bike paths as much as possible, avoiding the often 30mph moving car traffic.

25-31mph max means I'll start mixing in more street car traffic, but be more cautious, letting the car traffic pass me to avoid holding up traffic.

Above 31mph max means I'm maximizing street car traffic as much as possible (almost no sidewalks), often overtaking and passing cars.

Edited November 17, 2019 by houseofjob

[LanghamP]

10 hours ago, houseofjob said:

delivery truck double parking

Everyone complains about this in every city, especially since home delivery has increased by so much. Yet, is this really a bad thing? I've  noticed that streets with double parked vehicles (which is to say, many streets most of the time now), I feel a lot safer on my bicycle as I cruise past slow or parked cars.

Maybe we should simply encourage all delivery vehicles to double park whenever they want, as they serve many people per trip. In contrast autos which take up nearly the same space usually just serve one person for one trip. Every delivery is one less car on the road; a UPS truck with a mere 20 packages has removed 20 (!!) trips by autos off the road.

This is not to say I favor delivery trucks parking in the bike lane or even on empty parking spots, because then bicyclists need to swerve dangerously into the street. However, double parked delivery trucks seem to slow drivers down, making us safer, and while efficiently performing a service for many.

Edited November 17, 2019 by LanghamP

[houseofjob]

5 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Everyone complains about this in every city, especially since home delivery has increased by so much. Yet, is this really a bad thing? I've  noticed that streets with double parked vehicles (which is to say, many streets most of the time now), I feel a lot safer on my bicycle as I cruise past slow or parked cars.

Maybe we should simply encourage all delivery vehicles to double park whenever they want, as they serve many people per trip. In contrast autos which take up nearly the same space usually just serve one person for one trip. Every delivery is one less car on the road; a UPS truck with a mere 20 packages has removed 20 (!!) trips by autos off the road.

This is not to say I favor delivery trucks parking in the bike lane or even on empty parking spots, because then bicyclists need to swerve dangerously into the street. However, double parked delivery trucks seem to slow drivers down, making us safer, and while efficiently performing a service for many.

erm, they don't slow down anything, the NYC bike lanes are mostly "protected" between being nestled between the sidewalk on one side, and a row of park cars on the other. All the more reason to avoid bike lanes here altogether.

Edited November 17, 2019 by houseofjob

[RockyTop]

1 hour ago, houseofjob said:

erm, they don't slow down anything, the NYC bike lanes are mostly "protected" between being nestled between the sidewalk on one side, and a row of park cars on the other. All the more reason to avoid bike lanes here altogether.

We have a few of those here. The cars that are parked block the view of cars turning right. Cars that are aware of the blind spot end up getting rear ended by the people behind them because they pause the check the bike lane.

People, kids and luggage end up crossing the bike lane without looking for bikes. 

The protected bike lane as seen in the Netherlands would be a completely different thing. They have better view and are not interrupted every 50 feet.

 

[houseofjob]

5 hours ago, RockyTop said:

The protected bike lane as seen in the Netherlands would be a completely different thing. They have better view and are not interrupted every 50 feet.

Yes, I'm jealous of areas that have their own isolated bicycle highways! That is truly a protected highway, not just in name.

Edited November 17, 2019 by houseofjob

[LanghamP]

5 hours ago, RockyTop said:

We have a few of those here. The cars that are parked block the view of cars turning right. Cars that are aware of the blind spot end up getting rear ended by the people behind them because they pause the check the bike lane.

Drivers (not cars since cars don't drive themselves, and we rarely say "the man was killed by a gun") making a right turn will hook bicyclists if the parking spots go up to the intersection. In St Louis where they do have those weird protected lanes, there aren't any legal parking spots to block the view of drivers. However, I have seen cars parked illegally quite often right up to the intersection.

[brockj]

It seems like Seattle stopped building or maintaining sidewalks some time in the 1940s.  I use them from time to time when I feel like I want to work on my offroading skills 

[Nitecrawler]

Interesting discussion here, thanks all who participated. I am thinking that I will be getting into street riding as soon as I feel confident on my new Tesla but will still frequent sidewalks of course. That was my hope as sidewalk riding does not really excite me all that much. I suppose I have watched way too many of Chooch's videos...  Almost all of the roads in my area are 50km/hr zones so hopefully I will not slow drivers down too much. While I hope they build more bike lanes (especially protected ones) in my area I can see the dangers that they seem to pose. I hope to not gain too much attention from law enforcement however as EUC's are apparently not strictly legal in my area, but it seems that this is the case for most places in the world still. Hopefully legislation will soon follow which will legitimize our presence on the roadways.

[WIZARD]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:44 PM, LanghamP said:

It doesn't matter so long as you're not near an arterial road where the speed limit is at least 35 mph. Arterial roads are deadly regardless of where you stand, since crashed cars go onto the sidewalks.

Interestingly, Atlanta recently got the memo, and are now spending around $200,000,000 mostly on the 6% of roads that cause 72% of traffic deaths.

Painted bike lanes are more dangerous than no bike lanes, because of the danger of being squeezed, car doors, and vehicles blocking the bike lane forcing bikes into the street. If you decide to use them (I don't) then be aware that driveways crossing them are exceptionally dangerous.

Intersections are a Big part of city riding. They are a whole life and death study all by themselves.

Righthand turners encroaching into your sidewalk path. Wham! More than once.

Lefthand turners at lights. They watch forward for a gap and Floor It! Not looking for poor old us trying to get accross.

No signalers. Old farts. Cell phone killers. And the general Brain Dead public.

I've about gotten killed sooo many times that I treat busy intersections in a very special way.

I completely ignor the Green light and the Walk light. Well, actually, I dont GO when they say to. I wait for it to clear the intersection of all the turners and traffic.

I wait and only cross the intersection when the light is RED for ME.

Maybe you didn't, but I learned to cross a street when i was 6.

I wait for a substantial clear spot and go. Yes, against the light.

I am in control. I decide if my brains are going to be spread all down the street. ME. I go when its clear.

I ride residential streets 60%. Even if I have to go a little out of the way. Bike trail 10%. Sidewalk 20%. Parking and mall lots 10%.

I'm working on: Roofs, nudist colonies,  underwater, and the occational Police Pursuit 1%. 🙃

Busy regular streets... god dam it, are you nuts, absolutely never!!!!!!!!! 

[LanghamP]

6 hours ago, WIZARD said:

Intersections are a Big part of city riding. They are a whole life and death study all by themselves.

Righthand turners encroaching into your sidewalk path. Wham! More than once.

Lefthand turners at lights. They watch forward for a gap and Floor It! Not looking for poor old us trying to get accross.

I doubt others agree with me on this, but I believe crossing an intersectional crosswalk (as a pedestrian) is probably the worst place to cross, while crossing (illegally) mid-block is probably the safest place.

1. It's legal for the driver to enter the crosswalk even when the pedestrian has a green. As far as I can tell, at no time does a pedestrian get a green light for an entirely clear crosswalk.

2. At the crosswalk a pedestrian must look left, then right, then left, then right, for drivers legally making left turns and right on red turns. That is, the pedestrian crosses trusting that drivers yield, but since drivers aren't specifically trained in that area, and since there's no punishment to killing a pedestrian, then the yield is valueless.

3. If you cross midblock, you need only look in one direction at a time. This seems to be by far the favored way of veteran walkers crossing the street. When this doesn't work is when drivers are greatly exceeding the speed limit, and so such walkers are invariably killed by EMS and by police officers. For instance, NYC pays out about half a billion dollars per year due to EMS and police officers speeding and killing people (not necessarily pedestrians).

[RockyTop]

12 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

I doubt others agree with me on this, but I believe crossing an intersectional crosswalk (as a pedestrian) is probably the worst place to cross,

Nope! I got your back on this one. You are spot on. I agree 100%. I am a card carrying J walker. 

@LanghamP I cooked stake, chicken, rice and veggies last night and it was not only good but I enjoyed cooking .... So you were right about that too. I just don't know who to tip now. It feels unnatural.