Why I prefer open roads to incomplete cycling infra
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Ugh, another talking video.
Simply put, if I had to rank infrastructure from most dangerous to safest, I'd do so as follows:
3. Protected lanes without protected intersections
2. Nothing at all or "just paint"
1. Complete design (Dutch)
Yes, I am aware of John Forester and vehicular cycling but I only advocate its use in the absence of a complete design. Protect our intersections and eliminate the dangers of having cycling traffic pass on the inside of turning traffic and then it will be complete.
Looking at a map of cycling deaths in Toronto over the last few years, I noticed that they both occurred with cyclists at intersections along with turning trucks. I also note that most cyclists on Toronto's social media groups that post about getting hit always seem to be right hooked.
Seriously, the Dutch will laugh at this stuff that disappears where it's needed most.
Every dislike is someone that prefers to be right hooked I guess.
cyclist proving why cycle infrastructre is a waste of time money and effort
@@seansean9675Cyclist proving why bad cycling infrastructure is waste of time and money.
@@th5841 even your comment shows why cycling infrastructure is a waste
@@seansean9675 We already know how smart it is to build «just one more car lane».
@@th5841 complete waste of time/money for cycling infrastructure
I feel there are a few points getting mixed up here. Cycling in a congested core is fine, because traffic is moving slowly. Trams are especially good to cycle next to, because they are predictable and won’t suddenly leave their lane. Totally agree with this but, this kind of area just shouldn’t have cars at all and because of the low speeds doesn’t really compare to all the other examples.
On roads with cars at speeds of over 30kph, mixed traffic is a terrible idea. I get that you have a racing bike and like going faster then regular bikes, but your solution is much more dangerous and impractical on any other kind of bike. Going around right turning cars on the left requires merging left into a 50+kph travel lane on a bike at ~15-20kph or slowing way down until the car clears the lane. Both of these scenarios leave you open to being hit from behind at full speed.
Only having to care about people turning right is a huge improvement over having to trust every single driver behind me. Avoiding right turn hooks is really not that hard either. I look if a car could have a conflict with me, slow down, make eye contact and if they don’t look, they won’t stop either.
There are definitely infrastructure improvements you can make to reduce risks, but demanding perfect infrastructure or none is a useless standard, which will just result in no infrastructure being built at all. The Dutch didn’t start out building perfect infrastructure everywhere either, they started somewhere and have been slowly improving for around 60 year. And one of the most important safety features to this day is drivers knowing to watch out for bikes, because they could be in their place tomorrow.
Racing bikes weaving between lanes have the exact opposite effect. They only make people see bikes as a nuisance, because they would never do this themselves.
I like this. I'm not arguing for perfect vs. none, but I see how this comes across. What I really want is some recognition of the dangers that exist at intersections (IMO, the bulk of the danger) instead of base appealing to "feeling" safe.
I think we both can agree that safety treatment at intersections is required. Where I may stumble a bit is the progression hy which we get there. I think it's negligent to funnel inexperienced cyclists into hooks, but I appreciate that these may be "growing pains" until we get there.
Only time I've been hit by a driver is in a semi-protected bike lane. It was in one of those gaps, and we were both traveling northbound going about the same speed. I was right alongside of him. He turned, I had no time to react, I collided, and fell. Fortunately his insurance took my side, my medical bills and bike repairs paid, and got some extra on top.
As a Dutchman, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, we see the exact same happen here, albeit rather seldom as unprotected intersections where cyclists are allowed are becoming rare.
Now, I know that what I am going to say may not apply in North America. This is because the actual motor vehicle speeds are way higher in the North America due to wider and straighter lanes than in most of Europe. If I am not mistaken, the intersections is where most conflicts between traffic occur. Nevertheless, I firmly believe building protected intersections should be prioritised over protected lanes in terms of budget and time-constraints, as long as the cyclists keep right. This is a general rule of thumb, at least in the Netherlands.
The transition to the Dutch system took over 40 years is in still ongoing. I believe that in North America, a big bang or go-big-or-go-home approach is needed. That means, among other things, raised curb protected lanes - wide enough for cyclists to pass eachother safetly and curbs high enough to deflect SUVs and pick-up truck, and fences to keep pedestrians out in pedestrian-heavy locations. By the way, not a fan of bollards - anywhere. They look cheap and are suspiciously exactly at crotch height...
TLDR; protected intersections are MUST HAVE, protected lanes are SHOULD HAVE
Appreciate the insight! I've always felt our infrastructure was seriously lacking due to the absence of any protections whatsoever at intersections. I've seen great Dutch intersections... all designed to enhance lines of sight and prevent hooks. We have nothing like this.
I agree with you. The way they do it in Holland is much better. All roadways with speeds below 30 kph do not require separated infrastructure and right turns on red are not permitted (just like in Quebec). As they maintain roads they convert intersections into protected intersections. I grew up in Vancouver, lived in Holland for 15 years and am now living in Vancouver again. This half way approach of Canadian cities is lame. I've never been hit because I do as you do.
I've watched hundreds of cycling videos and you may have succinctly highlighted the right hook problem better than anyone. Agree, when riding in "protected" bike lanes, you have to be super vigilant when going through intersections since motorists may be completely oblivious to your presence. I find myself only coasting when I'm approaching the side of a car because every once in a while, someone will turn right without signaling, or they signal but only after you're already beside them so you have no time to react.
I love it when traffic is slow and congested because then I can cruise along without worrying about the sudden hooks.
Yeah, it bothers me when people respond to my concerns with "we'll ban rights on red" - which shows they don't understand. Having to gage your spacing coming up to each intersection (on green) isn't fun.
In traffic, hooks can still occur - just slower. A new problem in traffic is when drivers stop to allow an oncoming, left turning vehicle through - have to watch for gaos forming in traffic. Our drivers don't proceed "only when safe" but rather "only when I can't see any potential danger."
Intersections need to be not just protected, but convenient, there is a roundabout near me that IS protected and does connect to a decent cycle lane, but because the protection is a bunch of refuge islands where drivers are supposed to yield. I just use the gneral purpos lane! I do not want stuck on a traffic island for 10 minutes while drivers fail to yield! Crossings should be brought up to the height of the lane with ramps to make coasting easier for bikes but to make cars slow. The law here says I have priority over the cars, but the infrastructure screams the opposite!
I haven't ridden one roundabout that's safe for cyclists if you take the "prescribed" route - they want us to follow the pedestrian path which is blocked by signs everywhere and usually so far out of the roundabout that drivers aren't expecting anyone. I always use the regular traffic lane in roundabouts, but like @cycleyyz, I'm a strong and confident cyclist. If I'm out with my grandkids, I avoid riding anywhere like that. I like your idea of ramps at the exits/entrances to roundabouts - would certainly slow down cars more.
I think if anything, we should focus our dollars less on the actual bike lanes and more on making proper protected intersections first. Safety should always come first.
I understand where you are coming from, but this kind of riding only allows for strong riders. I think that the right hook is a problem that neither taking the lane nor bicycle lanes fully solve.
Taking the lane definitely solves for hooks, but introduces other problems especially for the inexperienced, I agree. Vehicular cycling is far from an ideal solution.
Check out cycling savvy. It’s a method to ride on roads with cars, but while still following the more predictable rules of movement on the road as well as traffic laws. They also teach how to use traffic patterns to find moments when the road has empty gaps because of red lights. They also do go into how to ride side paths safely and the kinds of common crashes to look out for.
@@cycleyyz Lol...no...no it does not.
Because drivers don't care....yes, fewer people will right hook you in the lane, but there's still plenty of assholes who will drive around you and turn right. Ask me how I know!
Proper bike lane design can fix this. In Montreal, protected bike lanes have a strong separation at the intersection (e.g. poured concrete curb), and phased green lights (bicycle phase, motor vehicle turn phase). Plus universal no-right-turn-on-red helps.
those flexible bollards can be dangerous, too. awaiting ORIF surgery for my shattered elbow after my wheel hit the base of one on a group ride. proper infrastructure is *so* important. Great vid!
Hope that elbow mends up!
Very good video. Intersections are the most dangerous to the bike-lane cyclists.
Part of what attracts me to riding on the roads is the rather enjoyable game of keeping myself safe, anticipating what other drivers will do, seeing hazards long before they occur, and planning and dealing with them.
Not being restricted to a small space and having greater lines of sight are definitely helpful.
@@cycleyyz Yes, you are much more visible and seen as part of the traffic flow. I find that working and negotiating with drivers is much better than fighting with them. I like what Ashley Niel says: fix bad driving with excellent cycling. Many of the incidents in bike vs. driver videos are self-inflicted and unnecessary. By that I mean the cyclist has plenty of advanced warning but puts him or herself in danger to prove a point.
@@kitchencarvings4621 I agree, although there is some argument behind many of the laws and infrastructure that inherently disadvantage vulnerable users such that I'm sympathetic to those that "put themselves in dangerous situations" - but you won't catch me passing on the inside of turning traffic just because the bike lane says so, for instance.
I think bike infrastructure needs to learn the lessons from vehicular cycling. Know what the real dangers are.
@@cycleyyz That's what I'm talking about. Never be beside someone in a turn or intersection. I realize that I'm part of the 10 percent of cyclists who are comfortable riding with traffic. It's the other 90% that I'm concerned with. I want a lot more people riding bikes for transportation and that's where protected lanes come into the picture. Make it safer to ride and they will show up and get to take part in the joy of riding to the grocery store, work etc.
Makes sense (great demonstration of the problem) but only like 2% of riders are comfortable with riding in traffic. There are lanes like that in Denver and if there’s a sign for “right turn yield to bikes and pedestrians” I take that as “watch out for turning cars”. So, I mostly take the MUP (multi use path) along a creek instead.
Well, ultimately the gold standard is full protected infrastructure starting with intersections. IMO, anything less than that may be more dangerous than nothing at all. This doesn't mean we can't have incomplete designs, Rome wasn't built in a day, but it does mean we need to be aware of the dangers incomplete designs represent.
MUPs are problematic here due to their overwhelming popularity. It's a good problem to have - it shows the appetite for more infra, but it does mean they're unsuitable for efficient traversal. This is beyond the fact that most MUPs lack decent connectivity as well - I can't commute via MUP for 100% of my commute - few can.
I love riding on open roads when I am on my own. Because I am fast and agile and can interact safely with other vehicles. But it is very different when I am riding a heavy cargo bike (I have a Nihola) or when I have a child with me on the bike (on a mike seat). In those cases, I have to ride much slower (my average speed drops from the high 20s to 16km/h), in an upright position, and I am not as agile. In those cases, I find that dedicated infrastructure is much more comfortable. Still, I hope that we never get a law that requires mandatory use of bike infrastructure.
I do appreciate the points that you make. I live in London Ontario (which is one of the more concentric places in Ontario), and we just got out first protected intersections and are starting to get better intersection infrastructure in general. It makes a huge difference.
I definitely support separated infra, especially for inner city, slow-speed commuting. The problem is that the protected infra is incomplete and completely ignores intersections.
Watching an 8-year old pass on the inside of a turning vehicle makes my stomach turn.
Just depends. If cars going 30-50, I want a bike lane and I'll be vigilant at intersections.
Other times like you said.
Good instructional video by a cyclist for cyclists.
I wonder if there are any instructional videos by drivers for drivers on what to do around bike lanes, sharrows or cyclists lacking bike infrastructure. I would bet there'd be a lot of nasty comments.
There likely would be a lot of vitriol in such a video!
Add to it: you are constatly getting punctures if you ride in those cycle lane, because they are full srapnell. If you ride where the cars are going, the road has no debris there.
Yeah, the protected lanes collect debris for sure.
3:12 i never did realize the con of a car blind spot on bike lanes sheltered by parked cars!
thanks CycleYYZ
- mico, a man part of gen z (: age 18 :)
You didn't mention those bike paths where you have to ride against direction of traffic.
In California, (and in a couple of places here in Canada) I have found smart intersections where there is sidewalk, right turn lane, bike nlne (arrow) and then 2 normal lanes. And that avoids the right hook problem. The other problem you didn'T mention is road conditions. Potholes and big cracks always happen on the side of the road, the place where cyclists need to go and that means being forced to ride in unpredictable zig zag so it is often safer to not ride on total side of road in order to be able to keep sraight line and be more predictable.
safest way is to have better protected infra. and for example no right turn on red etc
That segregation you were talking about is minimal due to that narrow buffer and merely having flex posts and them being spaced out so far. The buffer should be like a metre to a metre and a half honestly. The presence of flex posts and vertical delineation gives them the excuse to have a narrow buffer because they classify *that* as protection.
Great topic and I agree with your thoughts on this!
Great point - Also I find way too many obstacles on the bike path - Fallen post box- shifted cement curbs - snapped off plastic bike lane dividers ... You can NOT go fast on the bike lanes.
Also more debris = more likely to get punctures.
Well i suppose it's better for experienced bike riders with incomplete infrastructure, but if you're just taking your time then it's better not to mix with high speed traffic. I'm also including Dutch intersections under "complete infrastructure"
Yes, 100% agree here 0 the problem is that most of our infra is incomplete, funneling even slow cyclists into dangerous (right) hooks.
Agree so much. You can't really blame someone for not seeing you when you're popping out from behind a van as shown. I could rant on but solid analysis my dude.
Yup, but I'm not saying no to cycle-specific infra - just that we need to think things through and start from intersections, not the other way around
@@cycleyyz yeah completely agree. I was a Sf Bike messenger from 95 to 2010 or so. Got hurt and didn't really ride for about 10 years. Bike infrastructure wasn't really a thing back then.. coming back to ride for fun and transportation is great, but I can't really feel at all safe on the new bike lanes that now exist for the very reasons you outline. So I don't use them when l can avoid them. It's fine for me. when I do ride them I'm ridiculous slow to be safe, and I'm always seeing people riding who have an illusion of safety riding past me. I'm more scared for them
then myself. So yeah man build more bike lanes, just stop with the bullshit designs. People will get hurt. Peace ✌️
I mean, you can, because it is literally their job to see you. If they can't see because of the van it is their job to slow down and creep forward till they can see.
Why are we so unwilling to require drivers to drive safely?
@DanielBrotherston we have to require that drivers drive safely, we absolutely can not trust that they will - we need more complete infra to provide additional protection to get the point across.
@@DanielBrotherston I t doesn't really work that way. Drivers will drive in the ways that the road design allows. Check out strong towns or not just bikes for a great deal of good info on this topic. More specifically, would you stake your life on drivers seeing you? They get a dent, you go to the hospital or morgue. The difference in consequences is huge. That's the illusion of safety I was talking about. Keep the rubber side down friend
I like your approach to biking and making right turns. It sounds reasonable, practical, and safe. Most cyclists would take footage like yours and use it to rail against motorized vehicles and perhaps even internal combustion engines. I don't bike anymore but I understand your thoughts here. I wouldn't want to collide with a car, truck, or bus that is making a right turn, and I would not trust drivers to see me while making that turn.
Well, I do think that more of us need to consider driving far less - if able. This way, those that need to drive (be it due to physical inability or for work), will not have as much congestion to deal with.
There are two ways to handle dealing with drivers making a right turn - you can either put in traffic calming measures and protected curbs such that all drivers need to make a "two stage" right turn, giving lines of sight for pedestrians/cyclists, or you allow cyclists to pass them on the outside, rather than the inside.
In Toronto, we do neither of these things. This does no one any favors - drivers and cyclists alike.
I am wondering about one of the right hand turns in your video where a vehicle started to turn but stopped part of the way into it, I think because of pedestrians in the crosswalk. It looks to me like the vehicle had the right of way, at least if it could have proceeded through the turn. Your thoughts? This turn occurred at 1:50 in the video
@@bradbiesecker162 Here, drivers must yield to any cycling traffic on the inside before completing their turn, same as they would for any pedestrian. I do not think this is the safest way to do this and makes it more dangerous without the previously mentioned two-stage turn.
Without a complete design (two-stage turn) it is far safer for drivers to merge fully into the bike lane (when and if clear), and for cyclists to pass on the outside (when and if clear), otherwise waiting behind.
Outside, correct side - inside, suicide.
@@cycleyyz Right. Here in Pittsburgh I wonder if it's okay to drive into the biking lane to make a right hand turn. That to me seems like the safest & most practical way to do it, but if it is not legal then I expect to get a ticket if the police see me do it
@Brad Biesecker here if the bike lane lime is dashed, it's legal. However these lanes are rare and being replaced with solid lines and bollards. IMO, the new configuration is dangerous. It's very difficult for a driver to look left and right for traffic/pedestrians, and then also do a blind spot check for cyclists.
I believed Not Just Bikes channel mentioned once that North America is one of the few places where vehicles can turn right even in red light. Im from Mexico and I thought every country had that same rule... its amazing how cars are treated as the king of the road in America and in Europe they really try to make pedestrians and cyclists king of the road... as it should be.
Yep, right on red is pedal here. However, right hooks are problematic on green lights.
You'll sometimes find the opposite of that in Ottawa. They have protected intersections with setback crossings and corners and stuff, with either painted bike lanes or nothing around the intersection. Personally, I would take that over making bicycles stop right in the blind spot for cars & trucks.
Looking at you, York Region.
That's pretty wild. I think protected intersection with unprotected bike lanes is probably a bit better than protected lanes, but no protected intersections... that said, it should be possible to just build stuff properly from the start. lol
@@cycleyyz I'm guessing the lanes between the intersections are coming later? IDK when tho
Donald and St. Laurent is one such intersection.
That being said, we do have some pretty sweet protected bike lanes at quite a few roads, not to mention all the trails.
@@UsernameIncoming In an urban setting, I'd take that setup since that's where most incidents occur - not on the straights between intersections.
But isn't the map that shows cycling accidents occur mostly at intersections like looking at WW2 planes that made it back to the base to see where the bulletholes were? The accidents aren't happening in lanes because the lanes themselves have been made much safer. And the intersections, as you rightly pointed out, have not been. I would be convinced if the same pattern (accidents happen primarily at intersections) were true on streets without bike lanes well. (This may indeed be the case - let me know!)
I would argue putting protection everywhere but intersections is the survivorship bias strategy, not the other way around. Inexperienced cyclists ask for protected lanes because they don't like sharing the road with cars - they think of the close passes that were uncomfortable - but they survived.
It's the dead cyclists at intersections that we're not learning from - and that's where we need to put the "armor."
Although the analaogy isn't perfectly apt. I think it's fine to protect the lanes between intersections - but we need to focus on intersections first.
@@cycleyyz agree for sure! I appreciate you considering the nuances
Have you cycled in Montreal? Not many right hook situations. Arterial roads with bike lanes have separate green phases for bicycles and turning vehicles. Plus poured concrete curbs are placed to separate bikes and motor vehicles at intersections. Toronto isn’t there yet.
@GraemeMacDermid I haven't recently. Any treatment at intersections is better than what we have 99% of the time.
Our new Adelaide light configuration has it so drivers aren't to turn while cyclists proceed straight. The only thing stopping them is a "no turn" sign (a cyclist was recently struck on Bloor by a truck that had a "no turn" sign), but it's something.
@@cycleyyzI remember my last right hook, maybe 20 years ago, at Dundas and Mutual. After that, I just slowed down a bit and paid more attention to who was on my left, did a bit more signally, and stopped contesting right turns. But I understand that this slows one down a bit.
You have good point that the bike lane design on arterials is incomplete as it is now. Montreal is committed to safe intersections with clear separation (poured concrete) and phased green lights.
@GraemeMacDermid yep. Incomplete infra is the problem, not bike lanes in general. We need more, and better designed bike lanes. It's painful how slow we are to get it right considering it's been done right elsewhere.
GTA bike infra is an absolute mess. Most of it has been done just so they can claim to have spent the money the province or Feds gave them for "Vision Zero" or "Safe Streets" programs - whatever flavour of the day the sitting government has come up with. Very, very rarely do they invest money in thoughtful infra. My impression of our civil engineers in GTA municipalities is that the person in charge of cycling infra, hates cyclists and drives a pick up truck; the one in charge of driving doesn't own a car and the one in charge of transit takes Uber everywhere and never watches the roads.
Like you, I pass right turning vehicles on the left (which we're supposed to, according to the HTA). I don't expect less capable cyclists to do this, but if we have more two-stage right turns, they'll have to. But two-stage right turns require a LOT of trust in drivers not to right hook us in the open lane. Still better than the current norm.
If I'm at an intersection first and a car wants to turn right, I'll move left to let them. It's called "Sharing the Road". Unfortunately, many cyclists (especially in Toronto) feel that it's "THEIR" lane and they don't need to be courteous. What most of these cyclists don't understand is that their selfish behaviour is going to lead to that driver taking their frustrations out on the next cyclist they see. I've had that conversation with more than one driver in my many years of riding.
Keep up the great content - hope to see you on the road one day.
Yeah, pretty much agree throughout.
Yeah the problem is that protected infrastructure stops at intersections
Totally hear what you're saying about the right hook. Never lived in the city and honestly not interested in riding in this retrofitted infrastructure. Like your channel btw. Great local content. Cheers from the northwest corner of Brampton.
Nice, you're right on Caledon's doorstep. Great riding out there.
@@cycleyyz yup. Re-ignited my love for road/gravel 6 years ago. Got into cycling in the late 80's. Take care!
Your right!
He is
Nah, protected bike lanes are definitely better than none at all since they reduce the amount of car-on-bike collisions drastically, even with non-protected intersections. They are definitely better than nothing at all and show a city's commitment to proper bike lanes and infrastructure, even if it's not the absolute greatest.
I definitely appreciate this perspective, but my main point is that intersections need proper treatment for a protected bike lane to work properly well.
I definitely don't want protected bike lanes to be removed. The title is a little bit more hyperbole than anything else. I just want people to understand what right hooks are.
@@cycleyyz I was mostly commenting about your description.
@@cycleyyz You got valid points.
Flimsy plastic tubes (lane designators) aren’t bollards.
I am planning on getting a bike soon but I refuse to use my cities bike infrastructure. I will be riding on the sidewalk and getting off and walking next to pedestrians because I will not ride in the gutter. Drivers treat the bike lane like a turn lane and while some intersections have the bike lane swerve out of the turn lane and into the middle of the road like cycleyyz prefers I do not feel safe riding a bike in the road when I am still treated as something that shouldn’t be in the road
Just want to be clear, I only prefer the "pass on left paint" to incomplete designs. A complete design with a protected intersection is the gold standard.
So basically you'd rather be in control in dangerous no infrastructure, than out of control in dangerous shit cycling infrastructure. Makes sense to be honest.
@sirbillyclean that's a decent way to put it. I'd rather have options and no infra that no options and bad infra.
I'd love to have good infra and not need to worry as much about protecting myself, but good design is sorely lacking here and progress is too slow.
bikeways on sidewalks + traffick lights are much safer
but they are rare in NA
it is european new standart
Yes, but in Europe they do more treatment at intersections to make it safe (reliefs, raised sidewalks/cycle tracks, sharper turning radii, etc.) North American designs are incomplete, lacking all protection at intersections. Drivers can complete turns at speed thanks to old suburban-style design, making it very easy for cyclists to get hooked.
The European standard puts the human first. The North American standard just tries to keep cyclists and pedestrians "out of the way."
@@cycleyyz sad but true
when I see car propaganda in old american movies, I just can't... it's so cringe.
This car-centric vision ruined so many cities around the world, even here in Ukraine
id rather get right hooked than doored
If you don't pass on the inside and never ride in the door zone, neither will happen.
I know a cyclist that was doored by a passenger on the inside (parking protected bike lane.)
@@cycleyyzthat’s a problem with passengers, I guess. Without the experience of driving, you don’t really think to shoulder check.
What’s really stupid is how many drivers are also *constantly* forgetting to check. I had to remind my 60 year old aunt that shoulder checking is mandatory by law. Turns out, she’d been neglecting to for 40 years 😳
@@cycleyyz Another bike infra implementation oversight. In Montreal, there is always a buffer zone between the parked cars and the bike track. (Parking separated bike tracks.)
those bike lanes are meant to be temporary though. its cheap and easy to rollout over large distances. id rather have something than literally nothing. videos like this just serves as something anti-urbanists can point to for deflection. a good rule of thumb is that if you cant imagine people of all ages and abilities using it, then its not good infrastructure. you are the exception and not the rule
My point isn't that we need less infra. We need more complete infra. I do think that our current incomplete designs (with unprotected intersections) are more dangerous than nothing at all - but that doesn't mean I want fewer lanes.
I want more complete designs with treatment at intersections to keep cyclists safe from hooks.