Hacker News Reader

Comment by jxcl | Hacker News Reader

As a commuting cyclist I usually prefer to ride in the street than in a bike lane. Protected cycle lanes are great only so long as nobody turns to the right directly in front of you. When there are cars parked in between the cycle lane and the car lane it's much easier for the driver to miss the cyclist, and few people check the cycle lane before turning right. I was definitely guilty of this until I started cycling.

Unprotected bike lanes between traffic and parking are the worst though. It's terrifying riding past cars any of which might open their door without looking and either cause me to crash into them or swerve into traffic and be run over. On these streets I will frequently ride in the car lanes as well.

View on HN

In NYC I think they're counterproductive to safety. Cars use them for temporary parking and pedestrians use them as a sidewalk.

When I visit Europe and Japan they seem to be far more effective.

I think it comes down to etiquette and that goes both ways - non cyclists need to respect bike lanes and cyclists need to obey traffic laws. Admittedly I don't obey traffic laws when cycling, but I would if they were enforced.

What factor do you believe explains the 78% drop in deaths and serious injuries per bicycle trip in NYC from 2000-2017?

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-cycling-risk...

I'm legitimately curious. I'm not a New Yorker, so it's very plausible that there are factors involved that I'm not aware of. E.g. if the additional 130 million trips in 2017 are all in Central Park, that could explain it.

I've only been biking here the last 6 years so it's hard to speculate, but I would guess that the number of people biking have forced cars to adjust.

It's pretty rare for me to feel like I'm at risk of being hit by a car and anytime they don't notice me it's because I'm in their blind spot, which I now know to be aware of.

Pedestrians are another story. They will cross streets and watch out for cars but not cyclists. I almost killed a small child when her mother directed her into the bike lane (without looking) in order to get around some obstacle on the side walk. Pedestrians do not pay attention and are frequently on their phones.

But what caused the number of people biking to increase?

Also - didn't the linked article explicitly rule out increased number of people biking as a factor in reducing fatalities?

There's some study that's popular to post around here (maybe someone has the link, I don't have it) but the gist of it is that in the past few years they identified the dangerous intersections and changed them up to make them less dangerous.

As a European I couldn't believe people cycled in the lanes I saw in NYC last year. I was there only a few days, but saw numerous close calls with drivers turning into the lanes. It's nuts. If you took away the parking inbetween the cycle lane and the road, you'd probably take away 50% of accidents also.

>Cars use them for temporary parking

How? If cars can get into the bike lane, then it's not protected.

Do a google search for NYC bike lane and you'll see there are varying levels of protection, many of which do not prevent temporary parking.

Yeah, and those don't apply for a discussion about "protected bike lanes". A line on the ground is not a protected bike lane.

"Protected" usually means thatbthere is a physical barrier, not just painted lines.

Frequently it's a physical barrier that springs back up when hit and does not prevent cars from parking. Here's an example: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/grand-...

The stats are quite clear that protected bicycle lanes improve bicyclist safety. The article literally cites such a study.

Maybe overall this is true, but in NYC there are very few lanes I’d consider truly protected - the rest are minefields and generally less safe

Yeah, which is why NYC needs more protected bike lanes, and we should call out DeBlasio when he uses garbage definitions for "protected" like "two lines of paint instead of one" like he did last year. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/12/20/fact-check-city-did-n...

The study supports safety for cyclists but i missed any reference to the safety for drivers that the article purports it found

There is a link to another article that states:

>“Bike facilities end up slowing cars down, even when a driver hits another driver, it’s less likely to be a fatality because it’s happening at a slower speed,” Marshall said.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-sepa...

Is collision with a cyclist really a safety risk for an automobile driver? A minor ding for a car is a fatality for a cyclist

As measured in a reduction of damage from accidents, yeah. If cars travel at lower speed, they're less likely to crash and when they do, it won't be as expensive to fix.

Hitting a cyclist hard enough to kill them is not a "minor ding", except in unusual circumstances.

>When there are cars parked in between the cycle lane and the car lane it's much easier for the driver to miss the cyclist, and few people check the cycle lane before turning right. I was definitely guilty of this until I started cycling.

Happened to me. I t-boned the car, flipped up and over it, landed on outstretched arms and damn near broke them. She drove off. Still haven't fully recovered after a few years.

Honestly you just have to be fast enough to keep up with cars or take roads where cars are sparse. I find that drivers get more aggressive and careless the more of them there are on the road. Anecdotally if you drive a car in a rural road, if you happen to see another car on your trip you're getting a smile and a wave. This does not happen in downtown Austin.

In SF at least, Ubers and Lyfts often treat unprotected bike lanes as drop-off and pick-up zones as well, which adds another dangerous wrinkle for bikers

> Protected cycle lanes are great only so long as nobody turns to the right directly in front of you.

Yes, many bike lane advocates seem to think bike lanes are some panacea, but the vast majority of them don't address this basic issue. I think this is because strong bike lane advocates tend to be less experienced cyclists if they are cyclists at all. The more experienced cyclists have more nuanced views in my experience.

In Austin there are several protected bike lanes that I simply don't use because drivers far too frequently turn across them without looking. I'm confident enough to ride in the normal travel lane there, but I recognize that many cyclists aren't.

I have seen several where there is a separate light for right turn (for cars) and straight/right (for bikes). It seems to address this problem, at least.

Still not as good as the dutch system, but easier to retrofit I suppose.

I agree. The biggest cause of issues between cars and bikes has got to be speed differential, so if I'm on the appropriate bike i always ride in traffic. The bike lanes always get the worst sections of road (the curb) with cracks, drains and debris, Plus cars right hooking you, a car door biting you or a jaywalker on their cellphone are not infrequent risks.

That said there is a big biking population who should not be riding in traffic so without separated bike lanes can't get to parts of my city

Speed is usually not an issue on city roads. Turns and blind spots are bad. Some people try to pass just so they can get to the next red light quicker. Usually if its congested enough that its not safe for a car to pass a cyclist the cyclist is usually able to go faster than traffic. Cars lose a lot of time decelerating and accelerating for frequent stops. Its even an annoyance to the biker because on car is hit about wanting to pass and then the biker keeps waiting at intersections for cars to get up to speed.

> biggest cause of issues between cars and bikes has got to be speed differential, so if I'm on the appropriate bike i always ride in traffic

>That said there is a big biking population who should not be riding in traffic so without separated bike lanes can't get to parts of my city

I was going to say - I've yet to see a biker keep up with commuter traffic, which would make the speed differential a problem.

At rush hour it can be easy to beat commuters in cars on your bike.

But that's due to the average velocity being low, not the maximum velocity. Also, bikes have the advantage of weaving past traffic in those circumstances.

In most cities, average velocity is always low. Where I live, I can beat driving time on my bike for any distance that takes less than an hour. (I can always beat public transit over these distances and further too.) It's basically pointless to drive if you could bike instead and yet so many do it anyway.

Dutch style intersections seem to be really good at making cyclists and pedestrians in protected lanes visible to turners.

I agree - I also find it safer in NYC to just ride with traffic. I have had several collisions with pedestrians who decided they would just step out right in front of me into my “lane” and nearly door’d on a couple of other occasions

That makes me feel even worse now.

The other day I stopped behind a cyclist at a red light on a major avenue in NYC. He was in the left lane and the bike lane is simply one more lane over.

When the light turned green he took forever to get going and even after 20 seconds he was still going dangerously slow so I honked him and felt like a jerk. I did not understand why he simply didn't use the bike lane.

The cross streets are a different story. The bike lanes there are basically non-existent and I have no problem sharing the road with cyclists there.

I would like to point out that honking at cyclists is really annoying as a cyclist and can even be quite dangerous. From inside your car, it doesn't sound so bad but, on the outside -- particularly when you are as close as bike lanes often are -- it's pretty extreme noise pollution and borderline deafening.

Drivers in NYC are constantly honking for no good reason other than their own self gratification. (And how good can it even feel?) It's completely normalised socially but is clearly a useless and negative act in almost all cases. I find it extremely selfish for people to choose to take up so much space and so much noise at the expense of others. If you really must choose to drive rather than bike/walk/subway, at least choose not to fill the air with more noise than needs to be there.

> When the light turned green he took forever to get going and even after 20 seconds he was still going dangerously slow so I honked him and felt like a jerk. I did not understand why he simply didn't use the bike lane.

Cyclist here. My experience suggests that when a cyclist takes the lane, they're doing so because they decided it was the best option for them. I wish more drivers would give them the benefit of the doubt.

There are many reasons not to use the bike lane: debris, drivers turning into the bike lane without looking, pedestrians walking into the bike lane without looking, cars illegally blocking the bike lane, needing to make a left turn (it's typically illegal to make a left turn from the far right), a cyclist keeping up with traffic, etc.

I concur the cyclist must have chosen that lane for a reason which is why I felt in the wrong but none of the reasons listed seem applicable in this case.

Also, are pedestrians walking into bike lanes a valid reason not to use bike lanes? For every pedestrian blindly walking into bike lanes staring at their phone I see an equal number of cyclists going at high speeds through pedestrian crossings (9 times out of 10 when they don't have the right of way). As a pedestrian I've almost been hit by cyclists four times (twice in Queens and twice in Manhattan). The one case in Queens was really bad as it was one of those powered food delivery bicycles and I was pushing a baby in a stroller.

> Also, are pedestrians walking into bike lanes a valid reason not to use bike lanes?

Depends on the location. Some places have high concentrations of bad pedestrians. In Austin there's one bike lane in particular where cyclists need to pay close attention to pedestrians, who often treat the bike lane there as an extension of the sidewalk.

> For every pedestrian blindly walking into bike lanes staring at their phone I see an equal number of cyclists going at high speeds through pedestrian crossings

Some cyclists are awful too. If the cyclists are bad enough then I might avoid the bike lane myself...

> he was still going dangerously slow

On a city street that's essentially an oxymoron. You have to deal with stopped and slow traffic, turning traffic, etc. A slow cyclist should not be any different.

The avenues in Manhattan actually flow really well and the lights are very well timed. You can get from downtown to uptown almost without stopping. Personally I don't think cyclists should be mixed with cars in Manhattan especially when there's already dedicated bike lanes. But I'll probably change my opinion once I start commuting via bike :)

The problem is that many of those bike lanes present significant problems to cyclists using them (illegally parked vehicles, lack of room to avoid bad surface conditions, intersection conflicts, dooring hazards caused by door zone bike lanes, etc.

Agreed. Bike lanes are where the most unpredictable stuff happens : the door zone, driveways, truck loading, tree-mulchers.

Also, bike lanes are actually a sinister public policy that deliberately puts drivers against cyclists and here's why.

Cities want to reduce traffic, but don't take the political risk to raise the costs of driving (fuel taxes, geofencing etc). Instead they build useless bike lanes with the deliberate side effect of slowing car traffic.

What this does is generate animosity toward cyclists instead of where is should be directed: city hall.

I'm a lifelong bike commuter in a city that's increased bike lanes over the years. I think bike lanes are bad for both cyclists and drivers.

> Also, bike lanes are actually a sinister public policy that deliberately puts drivers against cyclists

They're actually favored by motorists and facilities advocates since they get cyclists out of the way of cars. The unpredictable stuff you mention is just stuff that cyclists have to deal with for the convenience of motorists.

In fact, in New York the law for cyclists proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic states:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/bicycle/safety_laws/...

>> Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic

The last clause shows that it's not for safety; it's for the convenience of motorists.

This article is about protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes do not have issues with truck loading or most of the other problems you mention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com