If you are going to naively follow a system in America,* vehicular cycling is safer than naive use of car lanes, which is safer than bike lanes, but far better than these systems is to understand the source of the danger, to know when bike lanes help you and when they hurt you, to know when it’s important to draw attention to yourself and how to do it.
I think that there is some very important context missing from that critical article you cited. “Bicycle lanes” means something very different in the author’s Denmark than Forester’s America. Bike lanes in America are better than they used to be, but in the past their main effect was to kill cyclists. As a bicyclist or pedestrian, it is very important to learn to disobey traffic laws. They are of value to you only as they predict the actions of the cars. What is important it to pay attention to the cars and to know how the markings will affect them. The closest I have come to collisions, as a pedestrian, as a bicyclist, and even as driver, is by being distracted from the real danger of cars by the instructions of lane markings and traffic signals.
* and probably the vast majority of the world. The Netherlands and Denmark are obvious exceptions. Perhaps there are lots of countries where basic bike lanes are better than nothing.
You are right. It is important to recognize that the law and safety may not overlap, especially in states where use of bike infrastructure is required by law.
I think that there is some very important context missing from that critical article you cited. “Bicycle lanes” means something very different in the author’s Denmark than Forester’s America. Bike lanes in America are better than they used to be, but in the past their main effect was to kill cyclists.
Yes, this is a good point. There are other cultural differences in Denmark that are relevant as well, primarily that cyclists and drivers are more willing to follow the law. For example. I have read the cyclists running red lights is not a significant issue in continental Europe, while in North America and the UK it’s fairly common.
I highlighted that article mostly because its reasoning is very common for bike infrastructure proponents. Bike infrastructure proponents tend not to talk about safety directly. What they do talk about is increasing the number of cyclists, and they criticize vehicular cycling as unable to do this. The critical article’s author Mikael Colville-Andersen writes: “There is nowhere in the world where this theory [vehicular cycling] has become practice and caused great numbers of citizens to take to the roads on a daily basis.”
The cherry picked study I mention seems to have multiple issues, though I admit I have not looked closely at it. Some vehicular cyclists have said the cycletracks in the study had few intersections (I haven’t verified this). The study also suggests that intersections are slighter safer than straight segments of road. Basically all other research I’ve seen suggests that intersections are much more dangerous, which makes me not trust this study. I think this result might be due to their strange control strategy, though I’m not sure.
I have never seen a detailed analysis of all bike safety issues, combining the safety in numbers effect with the other known issues. My thinking was that cyclists on LessWrong would be more informed in these areas, and I’d be interested in hearing their reasoning. Perhaps I’ll have to do my own analysis of all the different effects in combination.
Infrastructure can work, but it’s good to know where it works best (probably higher speed areas), what is necessary for it to be and seem safe, and also what’s cost effective. I’ve discussed with a bike advocate before that they shouldn’t focus too much on expensive infrastructure projects, and they’d do better to lower speed limits and add speed control features to certain roads.
If you are going to naively follow a system in America,* vehicular cycling is safer than naive use of car lanes, which is safer than bike lanes, but far better than these systems is to understand the source of the danger, to know when bike lanes help you and when they hurt you, to know when it’s important to draw attention to yourself and how to do it.
I think that there is some very important context missing from that critical article you cited. “Bicycle lanes” means something very different in the author’s Denmark than Forester’s America. Bike lanes in America are better than they used to be, but in the past their main effect was to kill cyclists. As a bicyclist or pedestrian, it is very important to learn to disobey traffic laws. They are of value to you only as they predict the actions of the cars. What is important it to pay attention to the cars and to know how the markings will affect them. The closest I have come to collisions, as a pedestrian, as a bicyclist, and even as driver, is by being distracted from the real danger of cars by the instructions of lane markings and traffic signals.
* and probably the vast majority of the world. The Netherlands and Denmark are obvious exceptions. Perhaps there are lots of countries where basic bike lanes are better than nothing.
You are right. It is important to recognize that the law and safety may not overlap, especially in states where use of bike infrastructure is required by law.
Yes, this is a good point. There are other cultural differences in Denmark that are relevant as well, primarily that cyclists and drivers are more willing to follow the law. For example. I have read the cyclists running red lights is not a significant issue in continental Europe, while in North America and the UK it’s fairly common.
I highlighted that article mostly because its reasoning is very common for bike infrastructure proponents. Bike infrastructure proponents tend not to talk about safety directly. What they do talk about is increasing the number of cyclists, and they criticize vehicular cycling as unable to do this. The critical article’s author Mikael Colville-Andersen writes: “There is nowhere in the world where this theory [vehicular cycling] has become practice and caused great numbers of citizens to take to the roads on a daily basis.”
Vehicular cyclists tend to focus squarely on safely cycling and don’t seem to mind too much that few people cycle. When bike infrastructure advocates discuss safety, usually it’s in the form of a cherry picked study, the “safety in numbers” effect, or perhaps admitting “It doesn’t matter if bike lanes make you safer or not!” (this is a real quote!).
The cherry picked study I mention seems to have multiple issues, though I admit I have not looked closely at it. Some vehicular cyclists have said the cycletracks in the study had few intersections (I haven’t verified this). The study also suggests that intersections are slighter safer than straight segments of road. Basically all other research I’ve seen suggests that intersections are much more dangerous, which makes me not trust this study. I think this result might be due to their strange control strategy, though I’m not sure.
I have never seen a detailed analysis of all bike safety issues, combining the safety in numbers effect with the other known issues. My thinking was that cyclists on LessWrong would be more informed in these areas, and I’d be interested in hearing their reasoning. Perhaps I’ll have to do my own analysis of all the different effects in combination.
Infrastructure can work, but it’s good to know where it works best (probably higher speed areas), what is necessary for it to be and seem safe, and also what’s cost effective. I’ve discussed with a bike advocate before that they shouldn’t focus too much on expensive infrastructure projects, and they’d do better to lower speed limits and add speed control features to certain roads.