rethinking bike lanes

zebee
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:37 am

rethinking bike lanes

Postby zebee » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:55 am

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/is-it-time-to-rethink-what-a-bike-lane-is/568483/

Instead of classifying road space for specific vehicles, what if you classify it by size and speed?

The two urbanists came up with pretty simple way to sort out how to allocate space, creating a few categories designating a few different vehicles based on three different speed ranges and wide, mid-width, and narrow lanes. It’s a way of rethinking how planners in the U.S. especially have allowed different modes to share the road when they don’t really fit together.

“We were working out what kinds of modes should be mixing and how much space you’ll need,” she says. “If you’re a faster vehicle, like a car or a faster cyclist, you need more wiggle room. But a slower lane with scooters, more mellow-paced cyclists, skateboarders, and even joggers could share a whole auto lane.”


Recently in the NSW subforum someone asked about ideas to take to their local council. I thought then that the issue with active transport is that it is really wide ranging. Kids on BMX and someone trundling along with the shopping and commuters on e-skateboards... they are not going to happily co-exist on a 3 foot bike lane.

human909
Posts: 9065
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby human909 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:20 am

Speed, weight, size, maneuverability, ability of the person, reliability of vehicle.....

There are too many appropriate ways to split up road users for it to be broadly applied. We currently endeavour for separation of trains, motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Other forms such as electric scooters can fit into footpaths or bike paths. That is one of the big advantages of allowing riding on footpaths. It allows slower cyclists choice according to their needs.

Overall though I the conflict between vulnerable road users and other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, electric scooters) is massively overstated. The nature of MUTUAL VULNERABILITY keeps most thing in control and safe. The conversation really shouldn't be distracted from the real killers on the roads....


Oh and zero separation also turns out pretty well too, for quiet low speed urban areas. This approach should never be ignored as it is quite successful overseas.

zebee
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:37 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby zebee » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:11 pm

The issue with zero separation is... it is fine if you can see well and are reasonably mobile.

Vision being the most important. The "no guiding infra, let them all work it out" is fine if everyone can see what is going on, and can locate themselves properly in the space. VIsion impaired use the infra - curbs, road texture, crossing lights, and so on - to locate themselves and to safely navigate.

It may be possible to make zero separation both safe and not scary for blind and vision impaired. If there is enough will and imagination. But it isn't likely to be free and easy for anyone going faster than a walk.

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby Scintilla » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:59 pm

From Streets-Alive Yarra recently:

https://www.streets-alive-yarra.org/pro ... rsections/


This is a US poster set, so right-side driving/riding and feet rather than metres, but the concept is pretty clear:

Image

Image

zebee
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:37 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby zebee » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:33 pm

I read a lot of dislike of sharrows, as they really don't seem to be read by drivers as "bikes can take full lane".

I thought that in NSW riders must keep "as far left as practicable" which is what drivers must do, but " driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle)."

So " A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road." does not seem to apply.

Pity that is not more well known. I have been lectured by someone at the lights for not keeping well left as he wanted to pass me in the same lane and I wasn't having it.... Part of my reason was the parked cars, not a reason he was interested in.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby Jmuzz » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:03 pm

zebee wrote:I thought that in NSW riders must keep "as far left as practicable" which is what drivers must do, but " driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle)."

So " A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road." does not seem to apply.


Yes the rule 129 uses "Driver" which is clearly defined as excluding "Riders". The catch all term is "Road user".
Also 129.2 explicitly excludes motorcycles from the rule so motorcycles are free to use any part of the lane even if the usage of "driver" is debated.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13217
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby trailgumby » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:52 pm

Jmuzz wrote:
zebee wrote:I thought that in NSW riders must keep "as far left as practicable" which is what drivers must do, but " driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle)."

So " A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road." does not seem to apply.


Yes the rule 129 uses "Driver" which is clearly defined as excluding "Riders". The catch all term is "Road user".
Also 129.2 explicitly excludes motorcycles from the rule so motorcycles are free to use any part of the lane even if the usage of "driver" is debated.

Road Rules 14 and 15 include cyclist and bicycle as drivers and vehicles, so we are caught by rule 129 it seems to me, unless another rule exempts us.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:08 pm

trailgumby wrote:
Jmuzz wrote:
zebee wrote:I thought that in NSW riders must keep "as far left as practicable" which is what drivers must do, but " driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motor bike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle)."

So " A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road." does not seem to apply.


Yes the rule 129 uses "Driver" which is clearly defined as excluding "Riders". The catch all term is "Road user".
Also 129.2 explicitly excludes motorcycles from the rule so motorcycles are free to use any part of the lane even if the usage of "driver" is debated.

Road Rules 14 and 15 include cyclist and bicycle as drivers and vehicles, so we are caught by rule 129 it seems to me, unless another rule exempts us.


I agree. More to the point, ARR 19: "Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Australian Road Rules, each reference in the Rules (except in this Division) to a driver includes a reference to a rider, and each reference in the Rules (except in this Division) to driving includes a reference to riding."

Sharrows appear to be an exception to Rule 129, though.

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby Scintilla » Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:16 pm

trailgumby wrote:Road Rules 14 and 15 include cyclist and bicycle as drivers and vehicles, so we are caught by rule 129 it seems to me, unless another rule exempts us.

Yep.

That certainly IS the law. Unless specifcally stated otherwise 'driver' = 'rider'.

As for the sharrows, under the Ausyttralian Road Rules model, and every state road rules as far as I am aware, sharrows have NO legal status. They are just a random, unauthorised road symbol. There IS definitely a beneficial psychological response from drivers, much like the equally misunderstood widened kerbside lane symbols that are used on some roads in my area.

Here in Nicholson Street, not even a widened lane!!

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:37 pm

Scintilla wrote:
trailgumby wrote:Road Rules 14 and 15 include cyclist and bicycle as drivers and vehicles, so we are caught by rule 129 it seems to me, unless another rule exempts us.

Yep.

That certainly IS the law. Unless specifcally stated otherwise 'driver' = 'rider'.

As for the sharrows, under the Ausyttralian Road Rules model, and every state road rules as far as I am aware, sharrows have NO legal status. They are just a random, unauthorised road symbol. There IS definitely a beneficial psychological response from drivers, much like the equally misunderstood widened kerbside lane symbols that are used on some roads in my area.


I was thinking of this SA government site endorsing sharrows http://dpti.sa.gov.au/news?a=174031 , but since it uses words like "guidance" and "advise", you're probably right.

Mind you, except for places where it's necessary to claim the lane (which I've never seen on a road with sharrows, because they tend to be flat suburban roads, at least here in Adelaide), there's no reason not to obey rule 129 anyway. It's better for everyone if I make it easy for cars to pass, whether or not there are sharrows. Although I take the interpretation that "as far left as practicable" does not include "not in the door zone", because it's not safe there.

human909
Posts: 9065
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby human909 » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:30 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:Mind you, except for places where it's necessary to claim the lane

Which in my opinion is significant number if not the majority of urban roads..... (Though road widths vary significantly from different suburbs and states.)

Most of my riding I'm either in a bike lane or claiming a lane.

AdelaidePeter wrote:there's no reason not to obey rule 129 anyway. It's better for everyone if I make it easy for cars to pass, whether or not there are sharrows.

Plenty of reasons not to keep far left. Being killed or seriously injured is not particularly practicable. Taking the lane can help avoid that. In most cases car can overtake by moving onto the right side of the road.


It is important to remember that a significant proportion of cyclist deaths are from motorists clipping cyclists at the edge of the road. I have no desire to be part of that statistic.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:10 pm

human909 wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:there's no reason not to obey rule 129 anyway. It's better for everyone if I make it easy for cars to pass, whether or not there are sharrows.

Plenty of reasons not to keep far left. Being killed or seriously injured is not particularly practicable. Taking the lane can help avoid that. In most cases car can overtake by moving onto the right side of the road.


It is important to remember that a significant proportion of cyclist deaths are from motorists clipping cyclists at the edge of the road. I have no desire to be part of that statistic.


Yes, on high speed roads or windy country roads. But I keep left (ish) and have no problem on suburban roads, the sorts which have sharrows here. Perhaps it's because Adelaide is mostly flat with straight roads.

BJL
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: rethinking bike lanes

Postby BJL » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:37 am

I only skipped over the article the OP linked to but the fundamental issue with any ideas about allocating road space for various forms of transport, particularly in a country like Australia where 'car is king' and our major cities aren't so much set up for cars as such, but more set up to discourage other forms of transport like cycling, road space is finite and any allocation of road space that reduces the amount of space for the self proclaimed kings of the road is met with howls of protest from the motoring lobby, the selfish and the ignorant.

One sentence! :mrgreen:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Calvin27, march83, queequeg