Why Do Bicycle Lanes Have To Be In Major Roadways? (insurance, 2012)

[louie0406]

I don't mind bicycle lanes so long as police enforce bike laws which they don't seem to be doing!

I live in NYC and bicyclists here have to be the absolute worst! They ride in your lane, their lane, against traffic, and don't obey the traffic lights. Then when they end up roadkill the family wants to sue the driver.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux

ie: You can't do 45 in a 35 any more. You know when a bike is going to slow you down? When it's in front of you. Not off to the side.

Not true. Any really safe driver is going to slow down when passing a bicycle that is off to the side. Too many things that could happen to put that bicyclist in front of your vehicle unexpectedly. Just like you slow down (and here you'll get a hefty fine if you don't) or change lanes when passing an emergency vehicle on the side of the road with its lights flashing.

[Checkered24]

Urbanized areas are putting in bike lanes to make the neighborhoods more user friendly to the people who live in those neighborhoods and wish to get around by bike as opposed to other means.

Buffalo has seen a huge push in becoming a more bicycle friendly city as well, which is also coinciding with a downtown renaissance of sorts being fueled by people moving into newly renovated apartments, condos, etc.

With it being a downtown area, parking is at a premium and pricey. If your living in that area, being able to safely and easily get around by bicycle is a huge advantage.

[nei]

Ideally, a minor street would be better for bicycles. However, often there isn't a parallel minor street that that keeps going and destinations are more aligned with the main street.

[jtur88]

Same reason they put the major roadways there--to efficiently connect the places people are likely to want to go.

Any more, urban planning has impassable obstructions to prevent any kind of movement except on dedicated connector routes. Try walking across a suburb sometime, without ever having to walk on a major throughfare. It's all cul-de-sacs and chain link fences. Try to walk to a shopping mall, see what happens.

If a back street exists from point A to B, just ride your bike on it. Why would it need a bike lane?

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by Sayantsi

The OP makes no sense - providing a lane for bicycles allows cars to move along without being held up and reduces congestion by separating 'slow' and 'fast' vehicles. Safer for everyone, and the last I checked, bike lanes are on the sides of the roads, not in the middle.

The OP makes perfect sense, where do you think those bike lanes come from? At the expense of lanes for cars. Seattle has a history of "road diets" where they remove both parking and driving lanes for the tiny number of bike riders and then seem amazed when congestion is worse. Only to bike riders does it make sense to sacrifice 25% of road capacity to support 2% of commuters who use bicycles.

[veuvegirl]

Depending on where you live, many people bike to work, the store etc. In Colorado, people bike everywhere. More bikes, less cars.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by lunetunelover

The Bike trails on old rail lines are a very specific program called "Rails to Trails". They are not generally meant for day to day bicycle commuter traffic.

That really varies depending on where you are. In the Boston metro most of the rails to trails paths are commuter paths. Rural MN? Sure, most of those trails are for recreation.

For the OP, while you may bristle at how you perceive the bikers slowing you down, keep in mind that if they were all commuting solo in cars there would likely be even more congestion on the roadway.

While road design matters, and I've seen some bike lanes I personally feel were ill-planned, on the whole shifting people out of cars and onto bikes should actually make your commute smoother, whether or not you perceive it that way.

Ideally I favor off-street 'bike paths' as much as possible over on-street 'bike lanes' but in many areas that's simply not possible or practical.

[johnd393]

We have bike lanes on streets where I have never seen a bicycle. I get the need for bike lanes where people do ride bikes. One has to remind ones self that that paint stripe on the road is a bike path. This bike path I'm refering to is between the parallel parked cars and the passing traffic which exposes the cyclist to the possibility of a opening car door that he either crashes into or swerves into traffic to avoid. I still don't see bikes there, but this bike lane looks a dumb idea.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by Haakon

The OP makes perfect sense, where do you think those bike lanes come from? At the expense of lanes for cars. Seattle has a history of "road diets" where they remove both parking and driving lanes for the tiny number of bike riders and then seem amazed when congestion is worse. Only to bike riders does it make sense to sacrifice 25% of road capacity to support 2% of commuters who use bicycles.

I think your numbers are a bit exaggerated. Seattle's ridership is estimated at 3.5%, and on a typical 4-lane road (or a 2 lane road with parallel parking) 2 bike lines would occupy something closer to 16% of space. Less in other road configurations.

In any case Seattle's major congestion problem is population growth in a space highly constrained by geography. The city itself has grown over 25% since 1990, and there's a limit to how many cars the roads could contain even if you did away with bikes altogether. Seattle needs to solve problems one way or another that Detroit simply doesn't have.

While I'm not an expert on Seattle politics, it isn't unheard of for cities to stop finding stop-gap congestion solutions in order to try and accelerate changes in behavior, since if you assume even continued moderate population growth and personal vehicle use, you hit a pretty hard ceiling sooner or later anyway. By some's reckoning you might as well make the choice and try and transition while it is still a choice.