BICYCLE LANES 🤦‍♂️

[Different]

Why is it ok for them to waste our tax dollars on more bicycle infrastructure? There are so many red flags that accommodate this controversial issue. I understand that they want to make things more convenient for the bicyclists to ride their bikes without running into people. But, if they're not using the lanes, or some lame-brain designs the bicycle lanes just like the picture above, we're going to have some major problems. Let's go over the 5, red flags that I find wrong with bicycle lanes, especially ones like the picture above.

🚩1) Most bicycle lanes do a poor job of offering protection against drunk drivers and speeders.

🚩2) Bicyclists don't always use the bicycle lanes. They find the roads more appealing.

🚩3) Bicycle lanes limits parking areas, especially if you're looking for parking spots downtown.

🚩4) Someone is going to get sued because eventually a drunk driver is going to swerve and collide with a bicyclist.

🚩5) Drivers don't always pay attention to the road, thus potentially increasing the risk of bicyclists getting killed from biking in the streets.

Now knowing all of these facts, why the hell is it a good idea to waste our hard-earned tax dollars on bicycle infrastructure, especially since bicyclists are going to ride in the streets, regardless? It's all a liability nightmare that will potentially raise public awareness to this controversial issue because someone is going to get hit with a lawsuit. Why not use our tax dollars on something that makes sense - like health care, food for the homeless, stable roadways and highways, better transportation? Keep your ass on the sidewalk and we won't have to turn on the news and listen to a car colliding with a bicyclist! What's wrong with people? 🤦‍♂️

Whatever happened to bicyclists riding on the sidewalk? I mean, if you're so concerned with exercising everyone's safety (especially bicyclists), then why not create a solution where bicyclists (who have their backs turned from oncoming traffic) can ride their bikes without crazy maniac-drivers hitting them? Now don't get me wrong, I've seen some cities where they go above and beyond to make safety a #1 priority for bicyclists, by diving the road and bike lanes with hard barriers.

But not every city does this. Plus the bicycle lanes take up too much space. I'd much rather have the bicyclists ride on the sidewalk than to have them lose their lives over some idiot driver. Now obviously bicycle lanes have been around for years, so of course it's not a surprise that these lanes are becoming more popular, sadly. Below the sources description, you'll find out exactly who started participating in this nonsense.

Listen, we can't always predict every driver's behavior on the road, and it just baffles me how the law even thinks it's a good idea to have bicyclists share the roadway with cars and trucks. Car accidents happen every single day. Just look on YouTube where they have "car crash complications" every year. If you're going to make the driving laws apply to bicyclists in the same way as drivers, then why not do a better job of designing infrastructure for bicyclists?

Look at how large the bicycle lanes are. It's just preposterous. Also, exactly who do you think is smart enough to understand what these bicycle signs on the road, mean? Most people who get into their cars and drive to places are imbeciles. Every year the percentage for car accidents increases. Why put bicyclists through that same chaos? It's dangerous. Those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

SOURCES

Funding and financing transportation

The DEADLY problem with Bike Lanes
First Bicycle Lanes in Davis

[Overbeing]

I am very confused. Is this one satire?

[Different]

I am very confused. Is this one satire?

What? No, I'm dead serious. I'm trying to emphasize a problem that apparently some people are unaware of. Are you actually ok with bicycle lanes?

[SebastianPolak12]

I don't have these in my area so I've never seen them before

[Mia]

I think if there are ways to make them safer, then I am all for it.

[Different]

I think if there are ways to make them safer, then I am all for it.

Aren't you concerned with accidents? I just don't see how it's beneficial for them to share the road with cars.

[Mia]

Aren't you concerned with accidents? I just don't see how it's beneficial for them to share the road with cars.

Sure, but that's why we make it more safe for everyone. Biking is healthier, cheaper, and reduces carbon emissions.

[Different]

Sure, but that's why we make it more safe for everyone. Biking is healthier, cheaper, and reduces carbon emissions.

If safety is a big concern, then people should sign a petition to have them broaden the sidewalks and force the bicyclists to ride on those, instead. Some of them like to ride the streets in front of cars. I've had one do this to me before, and it was so annoying.

[Mia]

If safety is a big concern, then people should sign a petition to have them broaden the sidewalks and force the bicyclists to ride on those, instead. Some of them like to ride the streets in front of cars. I've had one do this to me before, and it was so annoying.

Because the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk would risk getting hit by bicyclists, especially in crowded/busy cities. That's why they keep bike lanes separate from sidewalks.

[Magniloquent]

Ok, wow.. the car industry's marketing/propaganda schemes over the past 100 years sure have been outrageously successful..

The overarching problem here is that personal vehicles have stolen the city streets away from the people-- from the pedestrians, cyclists, and the like. Take a look at old European cities like Amsterdam to see a model of a healthier, safer city plan.

[Uptight 534]

I know I am getting baited by Poe's Law, but whatever.

You obviously do not know anything about cycling laws and safety. It is significantly more dangerous to cycle on a sidewalk than it is to cycle in the street. Also, cyclists have every right to be in the roadway as much as cars. Having your back to traffic (cycling with traffic) is way safer because it allows passing vehicles to see you better and have more time to react, as opposed to cycling against traffic. Going with Magniloquent, you must really like huffing the fumes of gasoline and diesel.

Imagine thinking a one ton (2,000 lb, 907 kg) vehicle is at fault when it hits a cyclist (*when both are following the laws of the road*). Keep in mind, I only gave the bare minimum of a one ton vehicle. Just imagine these suburbanites and their massive pickup trucks/SUVs with giant blind spots whose only use is to haul weekly groceries and compensate for small things.

If safety is a big concern, then people should sign a petition to have them broaden the sidewalks and force the bicyclists to ride on those, instead. Some of them like to ride the streets in front of cars. I've had one do this to me before, and it was so annoying.

OMG, you had to slow down to a safer speed. How terrible!/s

You are correct, though. Cycling infrastructure in the United States is absolutely atrocious. However, your solution of doubling down on building infrastructure on cars is absolutely in the wrong direction. I would love to know your thoughts on passenger rail infrastructure.

EDIT from a day later: Look at this giant egg on my face from this atrocious response full of personal attacks. Holy Run-on sentence, Batman!

[Master Raiden]

🚩1) Most bicycle lanes do a poor job of offering protection against drunk drivers and speeders.

🚩2) Bicyclists don't always use the bicycle lanes. They find the roads more appealing.

🚩3) Bicycle lanes limits parking areas, especially if you're looking for parking spots downtown.

🚩4) Someone is going to get sued because eventually a drunk driver is going to swerve and collide with a bicyclist.

🚩5) Drivers don't always pay attention to the road, thus potentially increasing the risk of bicyclists getting killed from biking in the streets.

1. Drunk drivers and cars losing control can end up on sidewalks as well. Unless you have some bollards, it will continue to be somewhat dangerous.

2. If there is a bicycle lane, they should use it. You would probably get pulled over if you drove your car in a bicycle lane, so there should be similar deterrents for cyclists who do the wrong thing and endanger themselves.

3. Normally there are parking spaces next to the curb, and the bicycle lane runs to the left of the parking spaces

4. Drunk drivers have gone onto sidewalks before and hit pedestrians before. Some have even crashed into shops. Bollards would stop that from happening, but you would have to put them everywhere which is not exactly a small task

5. They should be paying attention. Pedestrians who cross the road or walk on the sidewalk right next to the road are also at risk.

I actually like bicycle lanes. It gives them their own lane to ride in so they don't have to share lanes with cars.
I think the main problem is that they are not separated from the road enough. If there was a physical divider between the bicycle lane and the road, it would be safer.

Or maybe the bicycle lane could be moved onto the sidewalk and there would be a separate pedestrian area and bicycle area.

[LCPD]

In terms of the idea of a bike lane, its great, however, in terms of North America, badly implemented. How I see it, in order for it to be successful, it should be separated from vehicle and pedestrian traffic. In my personal experience, a bike lane is just slapped into the road with no separation. Not only is this hazardous but deters usage. In Manhattan, in high traffic areas, it is used. However, a lot of bikers are reckless and disobey traffic laws.

In the city I work in, there are bike lanes but no one uses it. i rather these underused bike lanes are repurposed as bus lanes. It is a busy city in my county so if buses are able to move around faster, it would be better for riders like me.

[Different]

Because the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk would risk getting hit by bicyclists, especially in crowded/busy cities. That's why they keep bike lanes separate from sidewalks.

I just don't see the vision. There are just too many unknown variables when it comes to bicyclists sharing the road with drivers. It's too risky because most of them don't even have proper barriers to divide the bicyclists from the drivers. All this does is tell me that they're not concerned with bicyclists' safety because anybody can just nudge a little bit to the right and knock those bicyclists off the road and kill them.

Exposed lanes equals a lawsuit and it's all a liability nightmare.

The overarching problem here is that personal vehicles have stolen the city streets away from the people-- from the pedestrians, cyclists, and the like. Take a look at old European cities like Amsterdam to see a model of a healthier, safer city plan.

Personal vehicles have the right to travel towards downtown areas. We shouldn't have to adhere to one's own personal preference by taking advantage of bicycling downtown all the time and catching the bus. Time is money, and most of us don't always have it at our disposals to squander on public transportation. Also, nobody is "stealing" anything from anybody. What exactly is your definition of a healthier, safer plan, anyways?

It sounds like to me that you don't want cars to drive downtown at all. Now when it comes to bicycle lanes... there are numerous accidents that happen on a daily basis (especially intersections) because idiot drivers exist. Now why the hell would anyone want to risk a bicyclist getting caught into the middle of that by enforcing preposterous laws that allows them to share the roadways with drivers?

Eventually someone will get fed up with this nonsense and start handing out lawsuits on a silver platter because the city has failed to regulate safety precautions for bicyclists.

I know I am getting baited by Poe's Law, but whatever.

You obviously do not know anything about cycling laws and safety. It is significantly more dangerous to cycle on a sidewalk than it is to cycle in the street. Also, cyclists have every right to be in the roadway as much as cars. Having your back to traffic (cycling with traffic) is way safer because it allows passing vehicles to see you better and have more time to react, as opposed to cycling against traffic. Going with Magniloquent, you must really like huffing the fumes of gasoline and diesel.

Imagine thinking a one ton (2,000 lb, 907 kg) vehicle is at fault when it hits a cyclist (*when both are following the laws of the road*). Keep in mind, I only gave the bare minimum of a one ton vehicle. Just imagine these suburbanites and their massive pickup trucks/SUVs with giant blind spots whose only use is to haul weekly groceries and compensate for small things.

Obviously there's a logical fallacy in your statement, so now I'm going to hand you a nasty receipt for making that mistake. Listen, I don't recall a time where accidents that involved a bicyclist were reduced when they took advantage of the bike lanes. All you're doing is encouraging cyclists to lose their lives because you know damn good and well that a lot of them (especially from your generation) disregard the bike lanes thinking they're invincible. With semi-trucks on the road, I don't see how the hell anybody could possibly ride their bike on the street, especially in downtown areas where accidents are the most fatal.

Stop and think about the message that you're trying to emphasize to me. You cannot possibly tell me that "It is significantly more dangerous to cycle on a sidewalk than it is to cycle in the street." Where's the logic in this?... Please tell me. A semi-truck driver could easily lose control over the wheel (from sleepless nights) by swerving into the bike lanes. You're living in a fantasyland where you think that everybody is automatically going to obey the driving laws and lookout for your well-being. 

Do you realize how dangerous it is to have your back turned from oncoming traffic? Do you realize the stupidity in having bike lanes in between car lanes? It's just not logical thinking on anybody's part. People are emotional drivers... they do incredibly stupid things that cost other people their lives on the road. When they're speeding, you don't have time to react quickly and move off the road. Plus these dumbass kids aren't even paying attention to oncoming traffic. They're listening to their AirPods the entire time looking in one direction only. So yeah you're right... you have the right to participate into perhaps one of the dumbest laws I've ever heard of. I would advise people to adopt a better solution rather than giving into misguided worldviews that allow them to ride into the street.

As far as "huffing gasoline" goes, that's a different topic for another time, so don't even go there because it's a dark rabbit hole that involves the use of eliminating gas cars with electric ones.

OMG, you had to slow down to a safer speed. How terrible!/s

You are correct, though. Cycling infrastructure in the United States is absolutely atrocious. However, your solution of doubling down on building infrastructure on cars is absolutely in the wrong direction. I would love to know your thoughts on passenger rail infrastructure.

Do you even drive?? How the hell are you not bothered by a dumbass cyclist refusing to use the bike lane or sidewalk, and riding in front of you? How is it in the wrong direction? Please explain. I don't have a problem with passenger rail infrastructure, just as long as it takes people from point A to point B. On the other hand, it's tragic to hear the numerous deaths caused by trains. Unfortunately, the train cannot be stopped in time, so the best thing to do is to make sure that you're aware of your surroundings and make sure that your car is in good shape. If you happen to get stuck on the tracks, get out of the car and dip.

I actually like bicycle lanes. It gives them their own lane to ride in so they don't have to share lanes with cars.
I think the main problem is that they are not separated from the road enough. If there was a physical divider between the bicycle lane and the road, it would be safer.

Or maybe the bicycle lane could be moved onto the sidewalk and there would be a separate pedestrian area and bicycle area.

Yes, you're right. They're not separated from the roadways, which lead me to think that they don't care about making safety a priority for pedestrians. They just automatically expect everyone to drive safely and avoid driving off the side of the road. On the other hand, yes cars and trucks have ran into sidewalks before, too, but at least there's some sort of barrier. Those bollards aren't always incredibly stable, so any car or truck can just run those over. If they were made out of steel then things would probably be different. But, most of them are plastic.

If the majority of the bicycle lanes were designed just like the picture above, then there would hardly be any controversy towards bicyclists. This is how it should be. However, that is not the case over here in America. The picture that I have in the above portion of this thread, is exactly why I have a problem with bike lanes. It's rare that we even see bike lanes like your picture, above.

That's somebody who actually cares about regulating safety laws for pedestrians and cyclists. If there must be a bicycle lane, then yes, you're right. It should be moved onto the sidewalk with a separate pedestrian area.

In terms of the idea of a bike lane, its great, however, in terms of North America, badly implemented. How I see it, in order for it to be successful, it should be separated from vehicle and pedestrian traffic. In my personal experience, a bike lane is just slapped into the road with no separation. Not only is this hazardous but deters usage. In Manhattan, in high traffic areas, it is used. However, a lot of bikers are reckless and disobey traffic laws.

In the city I work in, there are bike lanes but no one uses it. i rather these underused bike lanes are repurposed as bus lanes. It is a busy city in my county so if buses are able to move around faster, it would be better for riders like me.

I agree, it is badly implemented. It's doing more harm than good because they know that these ludicrous laws will encourage kids and adults to ride their bikes in the middle of car lanes. Pretty soon, none of them will use them. So much for reducing roadway accidents (mostly caused at the intersection). I wish people would wake up and see that all this is purposely designed to work against them and not for them. If they really wanted to, then most bike lanes would look like the picture below.

When it comes to downtown areas, they make the bike lanes too wide which ends up narrowing the car lanes. Solution: if they don't wanna have them ride on sidewalks, then at least narrow the bike lanes and use steel bollards to divide them instead of those, pathetic-looking plastic ones. Either way, I don't like bike lanes.

[Mia]

You'd prefer the bicyclists are put in a much greater risk in order for you to drive places quicker? How often does this happen that you feel that your inconvenience outweighs their safety?

[Different]

You'd prefer the bicyclists are put in a much greater risk in order for you to drive places quicker? How often does this happen that you feel that your inconvenience outweighs their safety?

How are they at risk if they're not on the road? Think about it. What's the point of having parking decks and parking lanes downtown if you're not going to take advantage of them? If you ride that bicycle on the road, your safety is going to fly out the window because these people do not exercise safety precautions on a daily basis. DUIs, emotional drivers, idiot drivers. It's all a recipe for disaster.

[Master Raiden]

OMG, you had to slow down to a safer speed. How terrible!/s

Why can't cyclists just ride on the sidewalk and they slow down to a safe speed for the pedestrians walking?
A cyclist failing to slow down and hitting a pedestrian is probably less severe than if a car failed to slow down and hit a cyclist.

[Mia]

How are they at risk if they're not on the road? Think about it. What's the point of having parking decks and parking lanes downtown if you're not going to take advantage of them? If you ride that bicycle on the road, your safety is going to fly out the window because these people do not exercise safety precautions on a daily basis. DUIs, emotional drivers, idiot drivers. It's all a recipe for disaster.

Your solution makes no sense. You want to take away the existing infrastructure and put them on pedestrian walkways. Why not improve the bicycling infrastructure instead of putting pedestrians at risk?

[Uptight 534]

@Different
First off, I want to apologize to you and everyone else for my terrible response that was completely uncalled for. I saw a little of your reply this morning, and thought, "Yeah, I am stupid." I should not have attacked you personally, as well as not going with the ultra sarcasm route. Most of what I said were strawman's where I was going way overboard with the emotion in my responses. Essentially, I was accumulating a laundry list of fallacies that totally made me look like an idiot. To be fully transparent, I originally edited my post when I first posted it. The sentence, "You obviously do not know anything..." was originally, "You do not know shit..." which makes me look even worse. I definitely deserve all the ridicule from it. Yes, I disagree with you (reading some of this over and future responses, it seems we may be in some agreement about stuff, though), however my response was inappropriate.

I will get back to you and @Master Raiden later when I have more time to write a complete and competent response (hopefully by tomorrow, since tonight is not the best to sit down and form a response). I feel like this thread will turn into a tangent of city design in general and not just "Bike Lanes." For reporting bias, I am a cyclist (despite not cycling as much as I should, lol), so you know where my opinion comes from.

EDIT: Response posted below.

[Uptight 534]

@Different Here we go. A much better and respectful response to the OP:

Rereading this over a few times, I thought at first you were talking about cycling lanes in general, which include properly separated bike lanes that are protected from the road (Master Raiden's example picture and Magniloquent's example of Amsterdam). It looks like you are in agreement that those should be built and not the "painted only" lanes that is typical in American cities (my favorite are the ones in my city that have sewer grates, glass, and other collected debris). I definitely agree with that because it offers more protection for both the cyclist and motorist. It allows cycling to be an effective mode of transportation, without the risk of sharing the road with motorists. It looks like you want to get rid of the painted ones and build separated ones, which I agree with, so I will not argue that.

I disagree on (paraphrasing and let me know if I misconstrued you words), "Cyclists should just move to the sidewalk if there are no protected cycling lanes." (answering @Master Raiden, as well) First, you bring up motorists not paying attention and hitting the cyclist on the road. Distracted drivers (compounded by speeding) can easily drive onto the sidewalk (barring any Armco, concrete, or any other barrier). Just take a look at this "law-abiding" citizen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL3wDgTwND0. 

Large cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles or other cities/towns with densely populated areas (downtowns, as you say), have a bunch of pedestrians where riding on the sidewalk produces a risk of hitting them. Bikes (and motorcycles) are gyroscopic where going faster makes them more stable. Riding a bike (especially a road bike) very slow would have the cyclist weeble-wobble all over the place, while also avoiding pedestrians, trees, storefront doors, driveways, garage entrances, etc. 

Also cyclists travel way faster than pedestrians in relative speed (i.e., "bike vs pedestrian speed" is greater than "car vs bike" speed. Using the high end of the average walking speed of 4 MPH (6 KMH) and the low end of the average cycling speed of 12 MPH (19 KMH), we see that cycling is 3 times faster than walking. Let's take an average speed limit in a residential area of 35 mph (56 KMH) (chose this because from the table and personal experience, this seems to be the "average") and compare it to 12 MPH (19 KMH). The motorist is only 2.9 times faster than the cyclist, which is less than "Cyclist vs Pedestrian."

• Admittedly, these numbers are kind of cherry-picked. If I said 40 MPH (64 KMH) for the car speed than the bike speed, than there would have been a 3.3 times difference. Also, you can probably pick sources with different average speeds for bikes and walking.
  
•           This is why I chose the lowest end of bike speed and highest end of walking speed to try an not skew it.
  
• FWIW, a 45 MPH (72 KMH) and 15 MPH (24 KMH) difference is 3 times and 15 MPH (24 KMH) vs 3 MPH (5 KMH) is 5 times. Bringing that walking speed down by one value really shows cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous due to the "relative speed" difference (i.e., less time for people to react).
  
• Yes, I know... motorists drive above speed limits all the time (myself included).
  

It also looks like you are dismissing alternative modes of transport (bikes and trains in this case) because of safety reason. That is fairly odd considering driving far and away leads in fatalities by transportation fatalities in the United States. On the topic of riding a bike in a city being super dangerous, select the "Highway Graph" tab and look at the amount of deaths via "Passenger car occupants" and "Pedalcyclists." Again, this is for the United States where protected bike lanes are relatively uncommon. Yes, this is for total deaths and there are more cars than bikes, so no wonder cars are so high (flaw in my point here). This next graph does not have bikes, but goes along with not even bringing up the amount of fatalities by vehicles by normalizing the data, specifically, "On the other hand, it's tragic to hear the numerous deaths caused by trains." Link.

I find it weird you want more safety, but also advocating for removing painted bike lanes and making roads wider in downtowns for vehicles. Shouldn't we be keeping roads narrow to deter speeding, which will increase reaction time and decrease the severity of incidents? I am way more afraid of cycling (as well as walking) on stroads, instead of downtowns because vehicle speeds are way faster. The downtown photo is of Atlanta, which is arguably one of the most car-friendly cities in the United States

"What exactly is your definition of a healthier, safer plan, anyways?" Sorry, going into more urban design. Mass transit a much more effective way to transport people than personal vehicles because it carries more people at once and decongests the roads. Benefits are also there is less wasted space on parking lots and garages. Ecologically, there will be less pollutants and possible more greenspace (taken away via concrete parking lots). The reason why mass transit seems ineffective for you is because you live in the United States where mass transit has been neglected in many cities (to be consistent, I drive to work too (looking to change that soon). Personal experience here is I missed a bus from work once and had to wait 30 minutes for the next one for a commute that should take 10-15 minutes (not including waiting). For the safety aspect, see the US DOT's statistics above. Take a look at these two photos and see how ineffective personal vehicles are (trains are not included on the left graphic, but they carry more people than all three):

     

Sorry I am starting to get long-winded here. "Do you realize how dangerous it is to have your back turned from oncoming traffic?" Here is a link to an article to answer this. To summarize, I poorly mentioned some of it in the first post: easier to be seen, larger reaction times, and decreasing the severity of the accident (Cycling 15 MPH (24 KMH) against 35 MPH (56 KMH) has more net force than both speeds going with each other; i.e., head-on collisions are worse). Same reason why airplanes land with traffic during engine-out emergency landings.

"Do you even drive?? How the hell are you not bothered by a dumbass cyclist refusing to use the bike lane or sidewalk, and riding in front of you?" Yes, I drive. I am not bothered by cyclists because, A) I am a cyclists and know what it is like to be on my city's roads that have almost no protected lanes and B) I drive a ~3,000 lb (6614 kg) death trap that can easily kill them, so I remain patient and realize it is only about ten seconds of my life (sorry if this reply sounds condescending, but these are my honest opinions on this). It takes longer to sit at most stoplights in my city than it is to wait to pass a cyclist. About the point of us thinking we are invincible, I cannot speak for others, but I am on a higher alert cycling than driving due to knowing I am more vulnerable (reading forum posts, comment sections on videos related to this, other cyclists share the same thoughts).

I think that finishes everything that I have. Sorry this is long and a little all over the place. I wanted to make a quality post that refuted your points and not attack you personally (apologies for minor sarcasm in this. That is just how I usually speak). Please let me know what else you want to discuss here. Again, it looks like we agree on the overall solution for bike lanes, but you have some misconceptions about cycling and car-centric city design that I want to dispel. I am not trying to get rid of cars entirely because there are uses (e.g., way better at packing a week of groceries from the supermarket). I am 100% open to any rebuttals from you or anyone else.

Also with the "Your Generation" thing, I am pretty sure we are the same generation, lol. I know this is a reply to me being a jerk, so your response is totally justified.