Take a look at this picture published by BikePortland (Photo © J. Maus). Look familiar? That’s because we have several areas of bicycle lane just like this in Springfield. As I have said before, bicycle lanes that pass this close to parked cars are dangerous for cyclists.
Notice the vandalism? That orange warning paint wasn’t put there by the city of Portland. That’s homemade.
Can vandalism be justified if it helps warn cyclists of danger? Do the ends justify the means?
In this case I’m comfortable with this bit of civil disobedience. That orange paint is trying to keep people safe. Those white lines painted by the city put people in danger. Which is the greater moral failing? For me it’s creating a bicycle lane that puts people in danger and gives motorists the wrong idea about where bicycles belong.
Comments 8
The “vandalism” is remarkably public spirited in this instance.
The true criminals are those who thought this was good enough in the first place.
What’s wrong with a proper path on the other side of the cars ? Like this:
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/photos.html#fathers
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 1:18 am ¶I ride these type of lanes everyday and I am always on guard for dooring. You become accustom to checking car mirrors and side windows to see if someone is in the car to be ready possible door openings.
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 2:22 am ¶where can I buy more stensils?
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 7:53 am ¶Bob… Cyclists with experience do know how to negotiate these lanes. I’m worried about the people I’m encouraging to use a bicycle as basic transportation. The clear implication of that painted line is safety.
David… agreed.
Shek… Easily homemade. Hmmmmmm…
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 8:16 am ¶Text from David’s link: “Note that the path is straight, wide, smooth and has no junctions for over a kilometre.”
That’s why it works. And it does look quite pleasant. I also suspect it is not a shopping district with heavy pedestrian traffic needing to cross the bike lane. Add a steady stream of bike traffic and a lot of crossing peds and there will be undesirable conflict for both.
Add intersections every 200ft and the design quickly becomes untenable. Oh, not to mention the enormous amount of right-of-way it requires. The whole reason they shoe-horn bike lanes into the hazard zone is lack of roadway width to have a proper hazard zone between the bike lane and parked cars.
Bob wrote: “You become accustom to checking car mirrors…”
Checking for people in cars is not only unreliable (I live in a state where most cars have dark tinted windows), it diverts a cyclist’s attention away from where it should be – the road ahead. There are many other common potential conflicts on the road (for all vehicle drivers, not just cyclists), we should never ride in a position that requires any of our attention to be spent unnecessarily on completely avoidable hazards. There is only one way to be safe from car doors and it is 100% effective — don’t ride within reach of them!
And remember, it’s not striking the door that is most deadly. It is the almost-missed strike that kills people because they are thrown into the traffic lane. Here’s an animation of that.
Andy said: “I’m worried about the people I’m encouraging to use a bicycle as basic transportation. The clear implication of that painted line is safety.”
Amen! And I can’t thank you enough for your efforts to educate people about this!
The presence of those lines, by their very nature stimulate a cyclist to ride down the middle. And in MOST applications, the middle is within reach of doors. A lesser-acknowledged issue is that just beyond the door zone is a “startle zone” – people have been killed by swerving into traffic when they were startled by a swinging door.
I’ll give you an example that drove Andy’s point home for me: I was riding at the far left edge of a door zone bike lane, outside the reach of car doors, with my attention on an intersection ahead, when a motorist swung a door open just as I was passing. It startled me, but because I was deliberately riding where I was and knew I was safe, I did not swerve. At the exact same moment, a car was speeding past me on the left. I realized that if I did not know what I do about safe cycling, I would have been killed. It gave me pause to think the purpose of that lane is to encourage the very people who have NO IDEA the danger it lures them into.
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 10:55 am ¶Keri, the description is slightly misleading. I meant that there are no traffic light junctions for a kilometre. There are quite a few minor roads, entrances to businesses etc. However, they all give way to the cycle path. It is extremely good to cycle along. That comes as standard here. The cycle network is extremely well designed.
There are a few shops on that cycle path, but it’s not “the shopping district.” That part of the city was transformed back in the late 70s. It isn’t for cars any more. There are a couple of before and after pictures here:
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/assenverandert.html
And also a couple of photos of how it looks now here:
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/photos.html#koopmansplein
However, I know all about the door zone. I used to live in Cambridge in the UK where things were exactly as in the photo at the top of the article:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/8969/
All of the comments you make about avoiding problems are equally true in the UK on the road in that photo and many others.
However, these problems are not by any means inevitable, but simply come down to bad design. This country simply doesn’t have those problems. Seriously. I can’t think of a single example. Now, I can’t say that there isn’t an example of this somewhere that I’ve not been, but if there is it is probably overdue a makeover.
Creating safe conditions for cyclists is a solved problem. Unfortunately, much of the world is still taking no notice of the solution.
There are plenty examples of roads where in the UK there “isn’t room” while here on the same width road there magically is. I am sure the same thing would apply on comparisons with the US. This is an example that we measured:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/08/but-our-streets-are-narrow.html
Whether there is room for cycles is simply not in question – there always is. The problems arise because cyclists get squeezed when the planners want to make more room for cars.
Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶David,
One of the problems your country has solved (and possibly didn’t have to the degree that we do) is the disrespect for all non-motoring transportation. In that way, a well-designed cycle path is probably preceded by a well-designed society.
The fact that other modes are supported and respected, viewed as normal and legitimate, even preferential, makes for a whole different approach to planning, infrastructure spending, space-allocation, motorist behavior, etc.
We have problems here that need to be solved at the social and cultural level before we could even begin to make similar infrastructure functional… or design it properly without the terrible compromises that occur because cyclists don’t matter except when you can pat yourself on the back for pretending to accommodate them.
Posted 19 Nov 2008 at 8:31 pm ¶Keri, I agree with every word of the first two paragraphs, and nearly every one of the third !
I know what you’re up against. I wasn’t born in the Netherlands but in Britain, and it’s just the same in Britain as in the US.
There is hope. This country provides a precedent. In the 1950s and 60s, Dutch cities were removing cycle paths to make more space for cars. Planners in English speaking countries still seem to be stuck in the 1950s, while those here in the Netherlands changed their tune in the 1970s and have stuck with it since then. There are a couple of glimpses of how it used to be locally here:
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/assenverandert.html
And even of an alternative Amsterdam. A glimpse of how it looked in the 1970s, with rather fewer bikes and a lot less priority for bikes, here:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/10/van-der-valk.html
This country has not always been quite so cycle friendly as it is now.
I know it’s difficult. However, somehow you have to avoid your planners putting in bad quality facilities and instead get them to understand what is required. This is why we organise tours for planners and campaigners from the UK and US.
Posted 21 Nov 2008 at 2:19 am ¶