Separated bike lanes means you cant move out of the way quickly when there are slow newbie bikers (Ive had two accidents because of bikers like this who swerve unpredictably as a natural course of biking), pedestrians crossing over them, or garbage, or w/e in the way. I avoid them at any point where high speed is possible and Ive never seen a car complain because I know how to ride with traffic without slowing them down.
In my view separated bike lanes are for casuals, not serious commuters. I'd much prefer sharrows and marked mixed lanes personally. Just visual reminders to drivers to share the road is designate our area is sufficient IMO.
You are perhaps cycling more for sport than transport. Cycling infrastructure needs to be usable for the majority of people (age 6 to 86, fit, fat, bicycle, tricycle etc).
Segregated lanes in Denmark and the Netherlands work fine. Those using a bicycle for energetic exercise will choose quiet places and times, just like car drivers who want to drive fast can't use city streets.
No I commuted for years, I live close enough to walk to work now so I’m less invested in this debate these days.
But I just think the marked lanes and sharrows are a good enough compromise for the serious commuters and the casuals. I’m not an expert nor closer to the mean of the typical rider (I build my own bikes, ride fast but safe, like a bike messenger without the suicide wish) so I try not to get all holy about this.
I should also note I find Toronto’s more plentiful marked lanes to be pretty good but I avoid the separated one on Adelaide. it’s much improved over past years.
What are sharrows for? I already have the right to the road without the sharrows.
As far as I can tell, their only purpose is to let cities pretend that they have done something for bikers, while actually doing nothing.
perhaps less than nothing - if a sharrows implies anything, then the absence of a sharrows must imply the opposite, right? And there are a lot more streets without sharrows than with.
I'm pretty sure sharrows are for indicating to motorists that they should give you 20cm of margin when passing instead of the meter or so that would be customary on a street without them.
Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea and are probably the best compromise for the average rider. It’s just something me and a lot of people I know would avoid for safety and further push us into traffic while confused cars think we’re the dumb ones.
I’ve never been on a separated bike lane without it being jammed up and cluttered with people who don’t know what they are doing, unless it’s dead out I’m not using them or would avoid the street entirely.
I miss Montreal which built bike highways in neighborhoods adjacent to busy one way streets (another good idea). Riding there was always a joy. SF scared the shit out of me but mostly because the city is disgustingly dirty and the roads are weird.
'Speed differential' is a thing for any sort of traffic, be it cars, bicycles, and runners. 'Experience differential' is also a thing. It may be that one of the problems that you've experienced is due to the fact that you yourself "don't know what [you're] doing" and are riding far too aggressively amongst people who are learning or riding "casually" . . . as they have every right to.
That’s not a fair assessment of me nor the average biking commuter who does know what they are doing. There’s just always going to be a small minority who aren’t and are learning and I do not want to be forced into a tiny lane with them.
I’ve already said it’s probably the best compromise for tourist and casuals but I’m not using them unless as others mentioned they are wide enough for these people to be one side like a slow lane, others have mentioned Toronto has smaller ones than Copenhagen.
> probably the best compromise for the average rider
Isn't that a reason to support them?
> I’ve never been on a separated bike lane without it being jammed up and cluttered with people who don’t know what they are doing
Either:
a) It's busy. That happens in some places in Copenhagen during rush hour, and I have no right to go faster than anyone else. The city eventually widens the lanes, some are around 3-4m wide now [1], or people choose alternative routes, or allow 2 extra minutes for their journey. (I think some Dutch cities can be considerably worse, as there is less space due to all the canals.)
b) The people are children. Everyone gives them plenty of space.
c) They are tourists, or friends taking up the whole lane without realizing people want to pass. "Ping" them, the friends will move fairly quickly, the tourists... well, it's only the very centre of the city anyway. Treat them like young children, they have about that much experience on a bicycle.
> Like I said I’m not heavily invested in this argument but separated lanes aren’t a panacea
As mentioned, separated bike lines are way safer. Pedestrians won't suddenly step on bike lanes if you actually mark them properly and consistently, plus apply a height difference. Obviously there's exceptions to this but "right of way" goes in hand with "mistakes happen". Meaning, anticipate on what might happen. I cycle every day to work. There's something weird every single day. Sometimes a car, sometimes another bicycle, sometimes a pedestrian.
I live in The Netherlands btw, and those shared roads are _way_ more dangerous. What's way more likely is that the separated bike path was implemented in name, but missed out on the several bits that Netherlands has standard that other countries IMO completely mess up.
For the segregated cycle paths in Copenhagen, "legally, the minimum width is 1.7 metres"[1]. That cycle path on Adelaide Street, Toronto looks to be about as wide as the tram tracks (1.4m), but about ⅓ of it is wasted with rough asphalt at the edge, and for something like 80% of its length it's just paint, with the remaining 20% using poles and planters. There are also regular manholes.
One in Copenhagen [2] has a kerb most of the way, and is wider. It's still worse around the junctions than the standard design in the Netherlands [3] (somewhere in Rotterdam). (Note that both of these are typical, I clicked once on the map on a likely-looking medium-sized road.)
dmix praises Montreal, which looks to be approaching the Danish or Dutch quality, although still has a way to go -- there are gaps in the lanes, and they sometimes go traffic-side past parked cars.
I've only spent a few days of my life in the Netherlands, but my impression was that the secret ingredient that the Netherlands has and other places don't is nothing visible like infrastructure. It's that everyone generally understands how the system is supposed to work. I don't know if that's because of culture or formal education, but, in any case, it was really noteworthy. The etiquette was so clearly and consistently being followed by everyone that, even as a visitor, I was able to understand it well enough to not be in anyone's way (I think) within just an hour or two.
I mentioned way up above that I tend to avoid protected bike lanes in my city because pedestrians just walk into them without notice. The lanes in question do have a height difference. But, as far as I can tell, pedestrians aren't seeing the curb that separates the sidewalk from the bike lane and thinking, "Oh, the sidewalk ends here." They're looking a little bit further over, to the curb that separates the part of the street that's for cars from the part of the street that's for bikes, and thinking, "Oh, the street begins over there."
Around me in DC in roads with congested bike lanes the “serious” commuters tend to just ride with traffic. I think this works ok? The bike lane on 15th actually has two parallel lanes and you can overtake slower riders when there’s no oncoming traffic.
(Also I challenge the idea that relatively slow cyclists who nonetheless bike to work every day are somehow less serious)
Perhaps 1 in 500 cyclists in Copenhagen will use the road, even when it's congested. Even then, they usually do it only at the junctions, to get to the front or make an illegal turn on red.
Part of this will be cultural, Danes are relaxed and good at following rules, but it's also because it's less stressful just to wait until the next change of the lights, or go 20% slower and not have to pay attention to the cars.
This may be different in the US but all the separated bike lanes I have encountered in Europe are wide enough to pass other cyclists. There are also much fewer "slow newbie" bikers swerving around unpredictably than you seem to suggest.
Yes, sometimes you may need to slow down a bit because someone is already overtaking or the lane is too narrow but I will take that over having to share the road with cars any day of the week.
And FWIW I've been commuting by bike for about 20 years so I wouldn't consider myself a "casual".
Toronto doesn’t have that many separated and the ones I’ve been on have scared me more than riding on a street without any marking. I guess experiences my vary.
That's a complete opposite of how it is in The Netherlands. I don't think it's the experience though, it highly likely it's the implementation. In any other country they often completely mess up all of the bike infrastructure, including separated bike lanes only in name (loads of steps not done).
E.g. the width of the bike lane should be based on the amount of bikes they've estimated to ride on there. Bike traffic here is measured often. If needed the bike lane is expanded. Then height differences, consistent colouring, marking, etc. It should be obvious without thinking, something that's often not the case.
Bike lanes in the middle of a city are generally going to be interrupted by intersections every block or every few blocks anyway, so there's no reason to optimize for speed at the expense of the 'casuals' who make up most of the population.
In my view separated bike lanes are for casuals, not serious commuters. I'd much prefer sharrows and marked mixed lanes personally. Just visual reminders to drivers to share the road is designate our area is sufficient IMO.