Copenhagen is an exception among cities because it is almost entirely flat, but nearly everyone bikes there, and a large reason is the separation from traffic.

I've never known why city planners will say that they're going to create all these bike lanes and then just paint a few yellow lines, it does nothing.

In Vancouver, Canada, we claim to be a bike friendly city but the reality is that there are only a few painted lines and biking downtown is like taking your life in your hands.

Janis Mara
www.ecotality.com

So how's that for a civilization?

Being the Italians they are, the Parmans-on-bikes tend to be stylish, well-dressed, and they are frequently chatting on their cell phones.  I don't recommend the latter, but they do appear to be enjoying themselves.  

Try that in the United States.  It would drive stressed-out motorists insane with rage.

Solves the emergency sidewalk access, and "running into open car doors" problem.

It also can involve some beefy physical barriers to protect bikers.  (And trees :P)

-David Ahlport

Folks arguing against separation remind me of Richard Pryor: "Who you going to believe, my table of statistics or your own lying eyes?"  Show me one case of large number of people being willing to do (what is, for now) an optional activity that they think is unsafe because "statistics show" that it's really not all that dangerous.

As for the message you think we should be sending, Sam Goldwyn said it best to a director working for him about the director's desire to make a "film" rather than a movie: "If you want to send a message, go see Western Union."  

Bottom line:  We've tried road sharing without barrier separation, it doesn't work, and it's a big reason why few people in cities (where bikes are best suited to being the workhorse of personal transport) will ride for everyday needs.  Not the only reason, certainly, but maybe the biggest.    

You can show someone all the statistics in the world about the safety of hang-gliding off cliffs or quail hunting with Dick Cheney, but statistics are NOT how people make personal safety decisions like that.  I have talked to people for years about why they drive everywhere when they could bike or walk; the #1 concern expressed about biking is personal safety.  Try telling someone that their apprehension is wrong as a means of eliciting behavior change--good luck with that.

Maybe if we had a year or two where we could summarily execute drivers who infringe on bike lanes -- on the spot -- it would be different.  But, meantime, you're arguing against the laws of physics and behavioral science:

In this corner, the 8,000 lb. Behemoth, piloted by a 135# woman or a 190# man, both on their cell phones with their coffee and with the radio playing.

In this corner, the 150# biker.  

Case 1:  Biker breaks rules, faces high risk of death or serious injury.  Case 2:  Behemoth driver breaks rules, biker faces high risk of death or serious injury.  Driver faces no consequences.  Once in a blue moon that occurs on Sundays driver may get ---gasp---a ticket for failing to observe the magical white stripe called a bike lane (when not covered by snow or debris mostly shoved into bike lane to clear the "real road").

Moreover, long observation has shown that this law holds without exception in every large American city:

             Driver IQ x [(vehicle hp) + (vehicle size)] = k

where k is a constant, and not a very high one.

What this means is that we have to STOP pretending that signs, stripes, exhortations or any other control measure that depends on driver intelligence is dooming bikers (and, thus, biking as a realistic option for most people).

Traffic engineers have long known that almost NOTHING about the way people drive is determined by signs and stripes.  Speed is determined almost entirely by road width and surface quality, for example.  Drifting into and parking in bike lanes (and sweeping glass and accident mess into them) is guaranteed when you only have a paint stripe lane.  The only way to keep cars out of the bike travel path is to use physical barriers, just like the only way to get people to slow down is to use physical traffic calming measures.  Signs and exhortations and all the BS just.don't.work.  

As for lefts being a nightmare, GreyFlcn had the right idea--put the bike lanes in the center, with barriers, and forbid cars from making lefts entirely on busy streets.  

Extreme?  Not at all, if we're serious about making cities work.  Besides, lefts are kilers for everyone, and they cause huge numbers of accidents and air pollution (idling vehicle).  J. Edgar Hoover, otherwise nuttier than a Planters cannery, was very smart about one thing:  herefused to allow his drivers to make ANY left turns.  

Hoover knew what all cops and cabbles know--lefts are the killers.  Banning autos from making lefts on busy streets (and it's the busy streets that most need separation between modes) would be a godsend to everyone but the organ banks and the nursing home industry.
 

The 5% Project

How much of those statistics are caused by overly cautious bikers, and a depressed number of bikers.

Just because there's hardly any bike accidents on the freeway doesn't mean it's safe to bicycle on the freeway ;D

-David Ahlport

The trouble with bike lanes as mostly practiced in the US has been already been touched on by JMG but I'll add to the list: they are never a coherent system, often disappearing completely when you most need them, and they are often perilously interrupted by curbside storm drains. This is a characteristic of implementation by engineers and politicians for whom they have no priority whatsoever. For this reason I like the spouse/offspring proposal in the original post!

I don't see how I'd be a fan of the median cycle track by the way: doesn't it present additional problems at intersections and require cyclists to cross high-speed lanes to reach it? How is that better protection? The cyclists would act as a jousting fence between the opposing lanes of fastest-moving traffic. The natural street cross-section surely runs from lowest to highest speed and back again across its width: ped-bike-motorvehicle to motorvehicle-bike-ped. Throw in on-street parking as additional separation between the bikes and the motor vehicles where there's space.

One last point. I'm not sure folks have any sense  of the huge scale of the infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to get to where Copenhagen or Parma are today, especially considering the vastly more dispersed communities we inhabit here. My fairly progressive small town, responsible in aggregate for many miles of streets, proudly announced in its annual report that it had added 800 feet of (conventional) bike lanes that year - representing a grand total of about 27 seconds of cycle time at 20 mph. And the result: the stripes are so inadequate and offer such a poor perception of safety that many cyclists don't use them and as a pedestrian I often have to battle bikes for space on the sidewalk when the lanes are right alongside.


The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Here in Paris, the city is gradually building up an interconnected network of (separated) bike lanes. But, as elsewhere, they often peter out, or merge with car traffic. Some are near the center of the roads, which reduces the interference with parked cars, pedestrains, dogs, etc., but it can be scary when vehicles pass you at speed.

One problem here, and when I lived in Rotterdam (23 years ago) is that motorbikers like to use the lanes, too, especially when traffic in the car lanes is snarled.

These are only my personal opinions.