Would commuters be more likely to ride a bike if they had the option to ride in a protected lane? New research led by a University of New Mexico faculty member says yes. Protected bike lanes are associated with nearly double the number of bike...
The paper, titled “The link between low-stress bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting,” reports that protected bike lanes see about 1.8 times the number of bike commuters than standard bike lanes do and 4.3 times as many as blocks without bike lanes.
So doing the math, even an unprotected bike lane is about a 2.4 times improvement over no bike lane at all.
I find that to be an interesting contrast compared to a survey done in my city as part of a trails planning process, where planners asked respondents whether they “would recommend” use of bike infrastructure based on type. In that, only 8% of respondents would recommend using an unprotected bike lane and 14% were unsure, while 56% would recommend a bike lane with flex posts and 20% were unsure. In other words, respondents were between 3.5 and 7 times more likely to “recommend” use of a protected bike lane than an unprotected one.
I had suspected that that disparity in perception was greatly inflated compared to the actual difference in amount of use, and I’m glad to now have actual science to point to to back up that hunch. Thanks!
8% of respondents would recommend using an unprotected bike lane and 14% were unsure, while 56% would recommend a bike lane with flex posts
Flex posts are certainly better than a painted bicycle gutter, but they don’t offer any real protection like concrete barriers or a curb that can stop cars from entering
Excellent examples of that all around me where they installed a bunch of flex posts around previously unprotected bike lanes.
It’s been about a year (I think. Time is hard), and there are significantly less flex posts, some stretches have none at all anymore, because people just run them over like they don’t exist. Even on a street where the bike lane was ALREADY separated from the lane of travel by a ~5 foot section of cross-hatched pavement, people still somehow find a way to run over and destroy the poles. It’s baffling.
what’s wild to me is that they use posts that are obviously flexible, like why can they not just use hard plastic poles? it’s not gonna make jackshit difference for drivers beyond maybe scratching their paint more, but will look solid and actually discourage crossing them.
It’s not (just) that; it’s that engineers incorrectly apply forgiving design and breakaway design principles for the benefit of drivers by default without really stopping to appreciate that a bike lane isn’t a valid space space for cars and needs to be unforgiving instead.
Also, flimsy plastic posts are way cheaper than proper bollards or curbs.
Ours had this till a great organization donated the parking curb concrete things that go in between the posts. So basically a concrete curb divider. It’s so much better and wasn’t too expensive compared.
So doing the math, even an unprotected bike lane is about a 2.4 times improvement over no bike lane at all.
I find that to be an interesting contrast compared to a survey done in my city as part of a trails planning process, where planners asked respondents whether they “would recommend” use of bike infrastructure based on type. In that, only 8% of respondents would recommend using an unprotected bike lane and 14% were unsure, while 56% would recommend a bike lane with flex posts and 20% were unsure. In other words, respondents were between 3.5 and 7 times more likely to “recommend” use of a protected bike lane than an unprotected one.
I had suspected that that disparity in perception was greatly inflated compared to the actual difference in amount of use, and I’m glad to now have actual science to point to to back up that hunch. Thanks!
Flex posts are certainly better than a painted bicycle gutter, but they don’t offer any real protection like concrete barriers or a curb that can stop cars from entering
Excellent examples of that all around me where they installed a bunch of flex posts around previously unprotected bike lanes.
It’s been about a year (I think. Time is hard), and there are significantly less flex posts, some stretches have none at all anymore, because people just run them over like they don’t exist. Even on a street where the bike lane was ALREADY separated from the lane of travel by a ~5 foot section of cross-hatched pavement, people still somehow find a way to run over and destroy the poles. It’s baffling.
what’s wild to me is that they use posts that are obviously flexible, like why can they not just use hard plastic poles? it’s not gonna make jackshit difference for drivers beyond maybe scratching their paint more, but will look solid and actually discourage crossing them.
For the exceedingly rare instances when an emergency vehicle needs to access that area
but surely they could just crush the hard plastic bollards?
They’re more resilient if they’re only hit like once a year
It’s not (just) that; it’s that engineers incorrectly apply forgiving design and breakaway design principles for the benefit of drivers by default without really stopping to appreciate that a bike lane isn’t a valid space space for cars and needs to be unforgiving instead.
Also, flimsy plastic posts are way cheaper than proper bollards or curbs.
Ours had this till a great organization donated the parking curb concrete things that go in between the posts. So basically a concrete curb divider. It’s so much better and wasn’t too expensive compared.
All the more reason to be suspicious of the difference in perception being that high.