West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

1. DBP
   Member Profile

   The [Seattle] road where [Michael Wang] was hit is the busiest cycling corridor in Seattle, and it has clearly marked bicycle lanes. But the lanes are protected from motor vehicles by a line of white paint -- a largely metaphorical barrier that many drivers ignore and police do not vigorously enforce.

   A few feet from the cycling lane traffic moves at speeds of between 30 miles per hour, the speed limit for arterials in Seattle, and 40 miles per hour, the speed at which many cars actually travel. This kind of speed kills.

   http://www.economist.com/node/21528302

   This is basically what I said in my "Road Diet Experience" article from last year, even though I was talking specifically about sharrows. Both sharrows and dedicated bike lanes are dangerous to cyclists, because they're based on the premise that bikes and cars can get along together.

   Nope. Never hoppen. Not in this town.

   Why do we need some magazine from England to tell us this?

   Posted 8 months ago #         

2. JayDee
   Member Profile

   Aside from the tragedy of this cyclist's death was the fact I ridden up Dexter for the first time a week before in the same direction with my friend and his children specifically because it was a bike corridor.
   -
   Dexter was better than Admiral or California...I always wonder why cyclists ride these streets when there are safer options, especially California...like 44th or 45th Ave. And before the bike crowd asserts their right: I follow my own advice and ride off California when I can. And besides, in a car vs. bike/ped accident being right is cold comfort in Harborview or Forest Lawn.
   -
   I will admit that the road diet on Fauntleroy seems to have helped speeds when I traverse it on the weekends, and riding in the uphill "bike lane" I feel safer, but perhaps that is illusory.
   -
   My two cents.

   Posted 8 months ago #         

3. Al
   Member Profile

   So what exactly is the point? That paint isn't a forcefield and doesn't protect anyone be they cyclists, drivers, pedestrians or motorcyclists? Or that "Golly gee people die every day on the streets and ergo cyclists and drivers just can't mix?" If that's the point, it's funny because drivers aren't getting along with each other on the streets in far greater numbers so maybe they need to be separated instead. I found it interesting that the article ended like this which is actually really good advice for everyone:

   "Nonstop ideological skirmishes haven't helped. Supporters pushed for whatever lane stripes they can get -- even in hazard zones like the left side of Second Avenue or low-priority routes like Northeast 125th Street -- with dreams of taking bicycles mainstream. U.S. culture trains drivers to be hyperconscious of their 'right' to road space, instead of adopting a more practical, Zenlike attitude that flows with all kinds of travelers. Especially on Dexter, there is no excuse for failing to perceive any lawfully riding cyclist.

   On the other hand, no amount of money can shield every cycling route.

   The Economist editors favor more traffic separation, but also offer some advice that's free: 'Calm down.' "

   Posted 8 months ago #         

4. DBP
   Member Profile

   I am calm, Al. (You should see me when I'm spazzed out, though.)

   Hey, I agree with pretty much everything you say above. I'm just coming at this thing from the perspective of better options for bicycles.

   Let's suppose that a philanthropist offered the people of Seattle $50 million to spend on bike improvements. With this money we could either get:

   (a) 100 miles of new sharrows and bike lanes along major commuter routes

   ~ or ~

   (b) 50 miles of new bike paths along the same routes

   I'm a bicyclist, but the road lanes do not appeal to me at all, since they offer me very little that I don't already have, namely, the chance to ride in scary Seattle traffic. If you give me bike paths, though, I'll ride them and ride them. To me, paths are a much better bang for the buck, even if we get much less mileage.

   Compare the bike ridership of Burke-Gilman with any stretch of the most heavily biked roadways in Seattle. Mile for mile, I'm sure you'd find much higher ridership on the B-G.

   I'm from Iowa, which is one of the most bike-hostile places you can imagine. Yet even there, they have hundreds of miles of first-class bike paths. Here in bike-loving Seattle, we have so few, and I never could understand that.

   So I guess this would be my point, Al . . .

   Bike paths = Gut.
   Bike lanes = Nicht so gut.

   Ja?

   Posted 8 months ago #         

5. Jeffro
   Member Profile

   Bike trails are nice, but most likely the trail won't be going directly from your house to your destination. You'll still need to connect the dots. I think on the whole cars and bike can and do get along together pretty well, and it's only gotten better in the years I've been riding.

   I love the B-G trail. It's funny you should mention that one, as for much of summer the trail has been out for repairs in Lake Forest Park, thereby knocking out a lot of regular commuters who don't have a viable alternative route (the detour is six miles). And as wonderful as the trail is, it still has to cross the same roads that the cars do.

   I ride to and from the U-District, and basically my two options to downtown are Eastlake or Dexter. As crummy as Eastlake is, I find Dexter to be worse, despite being a "bike corridor". It's too fast and there way too many side roads near the Mercer crossing where the cars don't even stop.

   As to the bike lane on second through downtown, I have ridden it exactly once and would gladly support its removal. It's too narrow, and it doubles as a left turn lane and a valet parking zone. Why even pretend that it's a safe option for bikers? First ave has no lane and it feels way safer.

   I'm not going to sit around waiting for bike trails to materialize. You could probably add 50 miles of bike lanes for the money it would take to build a mile of trail. I think there are cases where a separated trail makes sense, but we just don't have a bunch of spare right-of-way sitting around like we did when rails to trails was put together.

   Posted 8 months ago #         

6. austin
   Member Profile

   

   As I see it, the people operating large powertools in close proximity to other individuals in an irresponsible manner are the problem here. If I took my chainsaw to the WS farmers market to carve some stumps and a couple people got cut, it was because I wasn't controlling my chainsaw properly, not because those people got in my way. Same goes for car on bike and car on pedestrian crashes.

   If DOT made it more expensive to get a drivers license, made testing requirements more rigorous and revoked licenses at three moving violations, there would be a lot less car on bike, car on ped, and car on car "mishaps". Really the lazy entitled "one car one person" culture that pervades this country is the sole problem. Not bikes or sharrows or paths or taxes or sunny days or politicians. Of course many people will disagree because it seems that many people would rather eat glass than walk a couple of blocks and ride a bus with other people who are, naturally, beneath them.

   Posted 8 months ago #         

7. JoB
   Member Profile

   austin...

   "If DOT made it more expensive to get a drivers license, made testing requirements more rigorous and revoked licenses at three moving violations, there would be a lot less car on bike, car on ped, and car on car "mishaps". Really the lazy entitled "one car one person" culture that pervades this country is the sole problem. Not bikes or sharrows or paths or taxes or sunny days or politicians. Of course many people will disagree because it seems that many people would rather eat glass than walk a couple of blocks and ride a bus with other people who are, naturally, beneath them. "

   that sound you hear is the standing ovation from this quiet corner.

   Posted 8 months ago #         

8. Al
   Member Profile

   Everyone has great points! And this really exemplifies the diversity of bike-related infrastructure needs. While I would love to see separated bike paths in more places, there's not a lot of room to install them now...and much less onus to do so on the part of governments and the people (i.e. actual removal of roadways and/or parking would be, as I see it unfortunately, very unpopular right now). And then you have to problem that was also pointed out that you still have to have connector routes to get to/from the separated paths. If the gov't and people were more forward minded (think not only Amsterdam but Finland and Denmark as well...should I mention Portland OR?) maybe we could get more done but we are mired in car culture in Seattle.

   As for those scary bike lanes, yep, some are certainly installed poorly (think 2nd Ave, Western uphill) right next to parking increasing the dooring potential and hiding cyclists from vehicles turning from side streets, filled with deep water and debris, etc. and that's why some think bike lanes are bad. But they don't have to be. The best ones? Along E. Marginal Way (well, when not filled with water...).

   The best thing to do for getting better bike infrastructure is work with SDOT's "Walk and Bike Seattle" group and the "Seattle Bike Board." Get involved, give them feedback and suggestions. Even though you may not see immediate improvements, sometimes you do. And they, the city, will know you are out there.

   BTW: I ride to/from S. Lake Union. I use both Fairview Ave and Dexter regularly and Eastlake sometimes. Fairview = no bike lanes or Sharrows. Dexter, fairly wide bike lanes unfortunately in door zone. Eastlake has only Sharrows for my part of the ride by REI. I find that Fairview/Dexter are comparable rides, with or without bike lanes. I do get "pushed" by drivers more frequently on Fairview and have to 'jump' buses frequently, but overall it's a pretty good route. I usually take the right lane entirely with good results. Dexter I ride to the left in the bike lane, right on the white line. Every so often a driver doesn't wait for me to proceed before making a turn but I am very, very aware of that and watch traffic closely when I ride it. There's usually lots of cyclists out on Dexter at all times of year and that does serve for some visibility protection. Eastlake is the biggest problem. Even with Sharrows drivers do not want you in front of them. I have has many close calls and bad incidents with drivers on Eastlake even though I ride no differently than when I do on Fairview (with no Sharrows). I avoid Eastlake most of the time unless it's an early morning or mid-day trip.

   Paint is relative and doesn't do much unless both drivers and cyclists are aware of the meaning and WANT to comply with them. Overall I find riding in Seattle to be fairly safe. Drivers are mostly good and considerate, but I fear that the regular traffic backups, as they increase, are brigning out the worst in most drivers.

   Posted 8 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.