by John Williams
What about bike lanes? Since the mid-1970s, there's been lots of pro and
con discussion of the topic. As usual, the more heat, the less light but
let's look at a few questions.
My answer is "probably not." That is they probably don't make
much difference either way. As Pete Lagerwey, bike coordinator of Seattle,
says: in terms of car/bike crashes, they're probably "a wash."
If you're looking for solutions to crash problems, it's best to understand
how crashes happen and, from that knowledge, determine what solutions work
best. In America's "bicycle towns," adults ride a lot and some
of their basic problems include riding at night without lights, failing
to yield when required, and being unable to avoid motorist errors (like
motorist failure to yield).
Have we seen any dramatic reductions in crash problems when bike lanes have
been installed?
Generally, the record is uninspiringly vague. A few studies suggest a bit
of an improvement but there's nothing we can really hang our hats on. And,
logically, there seems little reason to believe that the number of crashes
resulting from cyclists riding without lights, for example, will go down
when we apply paint to pavement.
On the other hand, it must be said that installing bike lanes has certainly
not led to anything like the bloodbath one might predict if they were horribly
dangerous. Rather, people have learned to ride on them. And many prefer
them to riding on un-striped roads.
All in all, I don't think you can either sell bike lanes or oppose bike
lanes on the basis of data showing their effects on bike crash problems.
One confounding aspect of collecting such data is that installations seldom
involve simply striping existing available "bike space." As often
as not, bike lane installation requires some level of reconfiguration of
a road's cross section. This may mean parking removal, alteration to the
widths of adjacent travel lanes, and, possibly, removal of travel lanes.
Thus, the difference between "before" and "after" is
more than just paint.
To my mind, it's never been proven one way or the other. Of course, we
haven't seen any real studies, either. I, personally, believe that rather
than inducing a "False Sense of Security," bike lanes may fit
with some individuals' views of potential dangers. Depending on where you
think the risks are coming from, lanes will or will not make you feel more
secure.
Some people are most concerned about the motorist coming from behind; others
worry more about the driver coming from side streets or the oncoming driver
coming from up ahead. How does one decide which motorist to worry about?
Probably the best approach is to look into the crash literature, something
that, admittedly, few are wont to do.
Recently, I heard someone say he'd ridden in City A for three years without
any crashes and was hit in City B shortly after he moved there. The difference,
in his mind, was that City A had bike lanes and City B didn't. Therefore,
in order to save lives and avoid needless injuries, City B should adopt
bike lanes.
Of course, anyone who's looked into bike crashes knows that anecdotal information
like this is a dangerous basis for developing a balanced perspective on
safety issues. One of my own bike crashes involved hitting a pin-down curb
in a parking lot; I haven't, however, started a campaign to eliminate these
handy barriers.
Perhaps. Clearly, cities like Davis, California, Eugene, Oregon, and
Boulder, Colorado, have many bicyclists and they have bike lanes. On the
other hand, Missoula, Montana, has a lot of bicyclists but no lanes.
It would be nice if we had good empirical data on use-especially use before
and after implementation of various program options. As it is, there's no
really good way to figure out whether the lanes or the riders came first.
One study from Davis suggested that a new bike lane attracted riders from
nearby roads but didn't really add new bicyclists to the scene. However,
this doesn't answer the question of whether a network could draw bikes out
of garages. It's probably true that bike lanes are one popular means of
encouraging less experienced riders to ride more than they do.
Some may. I suspect it depends in part on your definition of "experienced."
If a person grew up riding in bike lanes, he or she may have a different
view from someone who grew up in a community without them. Given that few
Americans are taught how to ride, few "experienced" riders have
anything to go on, save what they've learned on their own. If, however,
by "experienced" we mean someone who practices the cycling principles
and techniques espoused in John Forester's Effective Cycling, then the following
comments are probably close to the mark. I believe most experienced riders'
comfort level in bike lanes would vary and would depend on several things:
Turning conflicts: Typically, an experienced rider will
ride farther from the curb in situations where they expect lots of turning
and crossing conflicts. They've found that this strategy reduces the likelihood
of three primary types of conflicts: motorists pulling up on their left
and making a right turn; on-coming motorists turning left in front of them;
and motorists on side streets pulling out in front of them.
The more possibilities for such conflicts a road has, the more discomfort
an experienced rider would likely feel in a restrictive bike lane. The worst
examples would be roads with lots of strip development, cross streets and
high-volume commercial driveways. In my view, less experienced riders would
not worry about riding in bike lanes in such circumstances. I suspect they
see crossing and turning conflicts as phenomena over which they have no
power and could not even imagine adopting what they would view as an "aggressive"
riding style to counteract it.
Surface conditions: Experienced riders often ride farther
from the right edge when they encounter surface problems like gravel, glass,
or potholes. As a result, experienced riders would typically not enjoy riding
in a bike lane with such problems.
Geometrics: There are bike lanes and there are bike lanes.
If a bike lane is striped to the right of a right turn lane or if cyclists
must exit the roadway and use a pedestrian crossing, experienced riders
would probably abandon the facility and ride in traffic, moving left of
right turn lanes and, if necessary, taking command of a through lane. Naturally,
motorists may find this approach offensive but an experienced rider would
see little option.
Destination: One factor an experienced rider bases his
or her road position on is destination. Someone turning left would merge
to a proper "motor vehicle style left turn" position. This may
be a left turn lane or it may be a position relatively close to the centerline,
depending on the road's geometrics. This merge maneuver, by the way, may
take some distance, depending on the amount of traffic and the number of
lanes to be crossed.
The typical bike lane design approach of dashing the stripe for 50 or so
feet before an intersection would probably not accommodate an experienced
cyclist making a left turn. It is simply too little, too late for a safe
merging maneuver. He or she would probably leave the bike lane earlier than
the designers would anticipate.
Speed: At high speeds (e.g., on downhills), experienced
riders move away from the curb. The distance varies with speed and, to some
extent, the speed of other travelers. A striped bike lane would become narrower
and narrower in the eyes of an experienced rider as his or her speed increased.
Frankly, I suspect it boils down to a political decision, rather than
one based on objective criteria or data. None of the studies I've seen so
far do more than lend a pseudoscience air to the decision-making process.
Here's the bottom line: If there's the political will to do it, it will
be done. If not, it won't.
Current designs (e.g., those found in the 1991 AASHTO Guide for Bicycle
Facilities) reflect an attempt to create lanes that work for the more experienced
riders while giving comfort and guidance to the less experienced. In the
next installment of this series, I'll give some examples and consider possible
implications for the future. Stay tuned!