There are new bicycle lanes on parts of Fremont and Jefferson. Here’s a look at the new section on Fremont:
There are two problems in an otherwise acceptable section of bicycle lane (although I fail to understand what traffic problem this lane solves). First, there are several yards of door-zone lane near the intersection of Fremont and St. Louis. Why couldn’t a sharrow have been used instead?
The second problem is minor given how well the city has handled the placement of sharrows at intersections so far. I think what the video shows is simply an isolated error.
Comments 15
Andy, those storm water drains don’t look pleasant. Looks like you rode around them.
Posted 06 Aug 2012 at 8:40 pm ¶Looks like they put those bike lanes in to narrow the street to keep cars from speeding too badly. Bike wise it was fine without them.
Posted 06 Aug 2012 at 8:55 pm ¶Danc… I tend to ride very far left in a bicycle lane anyway. The drains have proper covers, so it really isn’t a problem.
Michael… It’s a mystery to me why they put a lanes there.
Posted 06 Aug 2012 at 9:20 pm ¶Three comments:
1. A complete lack of intersection protection. For KSI crashes, intersections are the #1 danger. #2 is dooring which brings us to comment #2…
2 Unprotected bike lane in door zone.
3. I’ve been called a “dickhead” a few times in my life, but the cyclist in the pavement symbol really does appear to have a penis for a head. What’s up with that?
Compare that with the treatment of parked cars in this video. No door zone bike lane here!
Also note the intersection protections at major signalized intersections. And how cyclists have right-of-way at minor unsignaled intersections.
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 5:00 am ¶
Sorry, the wrong video copied. Try this one:
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 5:02 am ¶
OK, so the wrong video copied again. I’m off to work. I’ll figure it out this evening.
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 5:02 am ¶Kevin … Thanks for trying. Looking forward to it.
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 7:21 am ¶I like how the bike lane is NOT painted within certain range of intersections, rather than the local (Louisville KY) practice of changing to skip-lines. My observation has been that many motorists have no idea whatsoever what the line/skip line difference is with regard to bike lanes.
Like you, I wonder what problem was there that the bike lanes solved, other than perhaps a vendor had a surplus of lane paint and his cousin on the road department wanted to help him out a bit. /snark
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 8:30 am ¶Tom… Based on a chamber-sponsored survey of young, local professionals, the top desire to make Springfield more livable was more bicycle facilities. Now that’s hardly surprising given two things (among many):
1. The millennial generation is losing its connection to the typical American love affair with the automobile.
2. Most people don’t know what to ask for regarding making a city more bicycle friendly. They’ve been taught to ask for bicycle lanes without really understanding what that means. they’ve been taught by advocates whose primary goal is increasing participation by any means.
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 9:15 am ¶Andy,
Are those bike lanes *really* too narrow and therefore require someone to ride in the bike lane or are you trying to make a point?
Remember, one could drive so far to the right in a regular traffic lane that they would run their tires against the curb but most people don’t.
Most people reserve the term “door zone bike lane” for those that are so narrow that it forces someone to ride in the door zone.
I know, Kari has a term called “startle zone” which extends far beyond the physical danger point…..
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 2:55 pm ¶Let’s see if this video posts properly:
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 6:44 pm ¶
Robert… Will the city have someone stand out by these lanes and instruct people to stay away from the doors? How are they to know otherwise? The lane sure doesn’t tell them. Wait until you see the video I take on Benton when school starts. I’ve already witnessed where students ride in that door-zone lane. It ain’t pretty.
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 9:18 pm ¶OK, I give up. Here’s another one, from the suburbs to the city centre of Utrecht.
Important points:
1. Look at where cars are parked. Bicycles are never directed into the door zone, and parked cars are usually kept well away.
The exception is in the medieval city centre. The route shown is not car-free, but the roads are not through roads for cars. They can only come and park, usually for loading/unloading only.
2. The bicycle path lighting through the park. Very important for social safety.
3. The intersections. Intersection protections at major intersections, and bicycles have right of way at minor intersections. Note the places with raised cycle crossings at minor intersections. The cycle crossing is essentially across a large “sleeping policeman” style speed bump.
4. The great reduction in traffic control devices in the medieval city centre. As soon as we cross the moat into the old city, I did not see a single traffic light. We do not need traffic lights if there are very few or no cars.
5. Bike parking! There are a gazillion bikes parked all over.
See:
Posted 07 Aug 2012 at 10:09 pm ¶
Andy, it seems clear to me that you were just trying to make a point. If the bike lane is wide enough then no one *has* to ride in the door zone.
Besides, you know as well as I do that most students in Springfield ride in the door zone on streets without a bike lane! Why? Because they don’t know any better. If they did know better, they would avoid the door zone even on streets with a bike lane like the one that you show.
The video proof is worthless. Had you bothered to video students riding that street before bike lanes you would have also videotaped students riding in the door zone, right?
Maybe you should do less blogging and more educatin’ to prevent door zone bicycling.
Posted 08 Aug 2012 at 8:24 am ¶Robert… I like to think of my entire output on CT as an education
And you are correct, they ride in the door-zone anyway. And now they have a lane to reinforce the idea.
Posted 08 Aug 2012 at 9:47 am ¶