A Carless culture: The bike, part 2: Bike lanes
A Carless culture’s a series of posts that examines how we can make de-car-ing a sexy and viable travel solution for Angelenos.
[Here's The Bike, part I]
Already, I’ve gotten to the point where I can’t believe I used to live without a bike.
To the left’s a pic of my old apartment near La Cienega and Pico. I’m so happy to be outta there, cuz now, I can go tool around Santa Monica sans car.
But even in Santa Monica, we have a ways to go. Look at Davis, Calif., for ex. The bike is queen there — 17% of Davis residents commute to work by bike!
So what can cities in LA county do to get as bike-friendly?
A top suggestion from the comments: “Petition your city to expand bike routes to make bicycle commuting safer,” sez Parge. “I think the biggest obstacle for people to start biking is the thought of ending up under the wheels of some hummer. A lot of people want to bike, but don’t feel safe. Once the streets are bike-friendly, the conscientious will run out of excuses.”
But then we have people who don’t think bike lanes’ll do much good. Sez Roger, gone green: “bike lanes are not a good solution, as they often create unseen dangers for cyclists….”
This I don’t quite understand, cuz I much prefer roads with bike lanes than roads without — despite the fact that I rammed into a car door while riding down a bike lane. Of course, you can’t just totally relax while riding in a bike lane — accidents can always happen. But aren’t bike lanes safer than no bike lanes?
Convince me either way –
Update, 8/22/06: Anna points us to an interesting link discussing the pros and cons of bike lanes. My take from it is that bike lanes seem to be a good option for big streets with lotsa cars, but not such great ideas for the residential streets. Which is to say that bike lane advocacy efforts may be best directed towards creating lanes on the major streets, as opposed to just putting them down anywhere. My vote’s for a bike lane on Pico, mainly cuz I use that street a lot…
Update, 8/26/06: And now a dude in the UK gets in trouble for NOT using the bike lane. Sami of Treehugger’s take: “On the one hand I do have some sympathy with motorists. If we campaign for more cycle paths , it seems rich to then complain when we are asked to use them. On the other hand, the reality is that many cycle paths in the UK are inadequate, and sometimes downright dangerous”
Update, 9/10/06: Here’s part 3, which’ll help you meet other biking enthusiasts –
I love cycling. But it you need the weather for it. Which you have. Check out Holland the dutch love their bikes. The fact that it is flat helps
Comment by simon — August 17, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Yes California-make room for bikes please. I don’t really like competing with car and bus traffic.I think that bike lanes do help. Davis is not LA and is much more rural , with room for bike lanes and bike paths. Bike lanes and bike paths do encourage more bike riding and commuting IMHO.
Comment by joebella — August 17, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Hmmmm….personally, I feel safer in bike lanes, but can’t say I’ve researched the matter thoroughly, may be just a false sense of security?
Found an interesting thread on the matter here…
For me, depends on what bike I’m on. On my skinny little road bike, I feel hesitant to get in there w/ cars - big steel machines vs. puny little road frame. On my Xtracycle, I feel alot safer riding in lanes w/ cars, I’m more visible….
Either way, drivers DO need to be better educated about sharing the road, I get annoyed looks and honks all the time for daring share space with them……
Comment by Anna — August 17, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
The thing about bike lanes is that, even though they may provide a false sense of security, they change the ratio of bikes to cars in the cyclist’s favour. Visibility is important. If drivers see more cyclists on a particular route, they may tend to be a bit more careful. Now, this may be too optimistic, but I think that it’s true in most cases.
One of the things that has occurred here in Vancouver is the combination of the creation of bike lanes/routes and the installation of traffic calming measures. This can take the shape of speed bumps/mounds, roundabouts, narrower intersections, bike-only intersections (cars have to turn rather than carry on straight through), and other bike-friendly/car-unfriendly diversions. Cyclist-controlled traffic signals are also a big help.
In most cases, our bike routes go through neighborhoods, off of the busy streets. One route, the Adanac bikeway, gets so much bike traffic, that only local car traffic seems to invade it. With the increase in bicycles, cars just get bogged down on these routes.
Comment by parge — August 18, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Off street bike paths often create unseen dangers for cyclists, but I don’t believe that bike lanes do. Paths that are separate but parallel to a roadway create dangerous intersections where the path traffic meets intersecting roads at a point at which motorists are not looking for crossing traffic. Bike lanes that are striped as part of a street do not present that same problem. They flow with traffic just like other vehicle lanes.
If you want to read arguments against lanes and paths from vehicular cyclists, check out http://probicycle.com/ and http://johnforester.com/
Comment by James — August 21, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Anna — The link on the pros & cons of bike lanes was super informative! Basically, it seems that bike lanes can be beneficial for major streets and wider lanes better for residential ones. And argumentative types seem to favor the “it doesn’t matter, it’s the people on the road that matter” retort — I’d agree that yes, people matter, obviously, but so do the roads…
Parge — Traffic calming measures sound brill! Might be a lil tough here in LA to get put into action, since the car’s king still, but maybe target a road at a time –
Comment by Siel — August 22, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Sorry to be slow to respond, seeing as I was mentioned by name. . . (grin).
As a former bike-lanes-at-all-costs kinda guy, let me list some of the dangers to be aware of, and make sure your city deals with those that can be dealt with.
1. Lanes in the door zone. It is dangerous to ride in the door zone. Period. You learned that the hard way, but a “dooring” has the potential to seriously injure or even kill a bike driver. (It is like hitting a low brick wall. If the hit doesn’t hurt you, flying off the bike at speed can.)
2. Bike lanes set bike drivers up for awkward maneuvers at intersections, where left and right turning cars more easily hit them. Even a bike lane safely outside of the door zone makes a bike creep up beside parked traffic and inside of right-turning cars.
3. Some bike lanes put both directions of travel on one side of the street.
There is more, but that is the gist of the argument.
The wider lanes theory is OK on a high-speed road, but on any street where the traffic is under 35 MPH (including a city street) it is still safer (and easier) to spend more time in the travel lane than you than you might think. This is especially true at intersections, where by occupying the lane in stopped traffic you create a cocoons of safety for yourself that does not exist when one slides up the side of a “car” lane.
I used to use the exact same comment that one of your poster’s did: That bike lanes raise car awareness, which they do to a degree, but are subject to all the problems noted. Instead, in Pasadena, we have gone to the use of Share the Road signage and edge-striping — to raise awareness and allow cyclists to better take-the-lane . . . seems to be working, too, as we have apparently a large increase in general cycling in the last five years. . .
As for Traffic Calming measures, they can and should be implemented one car-laden neighborhood at a time.
The biggest long term issue is changing attitudes — both the “what do you mean you didn’t ride here in a car?” attitude, and “it will never work here” one. It can, and does, one bicycle mile at a time. (grin).
Having said all that, may I strongly suggest, again, taking the Road Cycling course? You can contact the LA County Bicycle Coalition (website somewhere) as a start on that…
Roger
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — September 10, 2006 @ 8:42 am
Oh, P.S.
If there is a bike lane, under California law a cyclist MUST use it, and may only leave it to turn left or to avoid a danger . . . so just like the guy in the UK, if you skip the bike lane, you can be cited here.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — September 10, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Dude — WTF is the door zone? Pls explain for us ignorant ones :P
Maybe this is cuz I’m a cycling newbie, but I have to say those bike lanes really do make a diff for me.
I guess my point is — due to biking advocacy and such, Santa Monica has a good # of bikers, as well as a good # of bike lanes. And because of that, I feel pretty safe in the bike lane. I get the impression that drivers’re (if grudgingly) paying attention to the fact that bikers exist — and many of them’ll smile and wave you through if you wanna make a left.
And I want bikers in other cities to experience this same kinda courtesy –
Comment by Siel — September 11, 2006 @ 12:50 am