Bike Lanes are (Mostly) Useless.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Would you ride your bike in OKC?

[@patriot9487]

I do it often with my E-Bike. I wonder if I will ever bump into you.

[@dipdip7250]

Already do 😎

[@blackbacon08]

Yes, but I completely understand why most people wouldn't.

[@fantomx11]

I have ridden in OKC a few times. Rode from the Trek shop downtown with the group that rides on Wednesday evenings down to the airport and back. Live in Tulsa, and personally I have never felt unsafe on the streets that are sharrows. There have been times when I've just been on regular roads that have felt unsafe at times.

[@johnmyers8633]

Why not? Much of what was said would apply to most German cities, and that hasn’t stopped me or millions of other people yet :) That being said, we all need to do so much better.

[@baddriversofcolga]

My city is in the initial stages where they put in a few unprotected bike lanes that connect to nothing, have no intersection treatments, and then people wonder why no one rides on them. That's been going on for probably at least 10 years now.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Imagine if they were all connected, with protected intersections! It’s good that they’re starting, but sucks that they’re missing the mark.

[@baddriversofcolga]

@@eryngo.urbanism That would be a beautiful thing...

[@GrabASpriteB]

Exactly. Same thing with some actual protected/separated lanes. They're built in random commercial areas with no connections to or from, and they end up never being used.

[@MochiFam]

Same. It is super inexcusable for such a high pop city like LA. I don't even see it around universities qwq

[@wall007_]

It is like building a highway without any connection to it.

[@PhillipRPeck]

Be sure to wear the high viz vest even when indoors, you never know when a driver may come crashing into your room

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Blind them with pink, even though the walls

[@coryascott]

Remember, 70% of Amsterdam’s bike network is streets with cars with varying levels of protection. One reason it’s so much safer isn’t just the street layout, it’s the liability laws that treat cars like the weapon they are. Also most drivers in Amsterdam are also bike riders so they treat bikes with a lot more respect

[@eryngo.urbanism]

That’s the thing, in order to get most drivers to become bike riders here, we first need to provide them a safe and comfortable space to do so

[@gubruikertje]

While certainly true in residential (and historical) areas, what we would consider 'bike network' are usually dedicated bike lanes that can be completely independent of regular roads. In a city like Amsterdam this is in the city parks for example. I think we have a pretty clear distinction between car only roads and more mixed used roads. It's pretty easy to build cycle infrastructure if you just need to connect the 'safe' roads instead of having to build separate lanes on all existing roads.

[@evanr1940]

Amsterdam is working on a 30 km/h speed limit city wide. At low speeds you do not need separation from motor vehicles (the liability laws have been around for ages and definitely helped)

[@shraka]

Also the streets are narrower with way more obstacles and tighter radius turns, on top of the 30km/h speed limit. In Paris or Amsterdam you won't even get up to 30km/h a lot of the time on most streets Bikes are on. As soon as there's a road where people can cruise at 30+, it has a separated bike path.

[@greevar]

It doesn't matter if the speed limit is 15 mph. As long as drivers feel comfortable driving faster, they will. Streets where cyclists and cars share the lane, the lanes must be designed to make it scary to go over 15 mph. That means that streets need traffic calming measures such as speed bumps/raised crosswalks, narrower lanes, extended curbs creating chicanery, roundabouts, etc.

[@user-sx9hq7qwert]

Not scary. Impossible. Put up physical barriers that make it impossible 2 speed. Anything less will b ignored.

[@Mir_Teiwaz]

"As long as you trust a car to stay in the car lane" he says as a car goes past and wanders into the bike lane.

[@Hepad_]

A cheap way to make sharrows safer is to visually narrow the driving width. This is done in many ways (physically narrowing the road, in the Netherlands, different asphalt paint in vélorues in Paris, or hell, even a sawtooth pattern on each side with continuous lines) and it has been proven that it works. People feel less comfortable driving there and thus slow down.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

So true! Little things like this can actually make a difference if they’re applied thoughtfully

[@JiminyClarkson]

Where I am, sharrows are only used in areas where the road is already too narrow for bikes to have their own space, so you can't narrow any further. If you can narrow to make it safer, you may as well have a proper dedicated bike lane from the claimed space.

[@scopie49]

That's how it is in Japan. There isn't much dedicated bike infrastructure but their streets are already super narrow that it forces everyone to go slower so they feel significantly safer not just for biking but even walking. Part of that is their smaller vehicle sizes. US vehicle size emissions loopholes have been abused so naturally we have massive trucks being the most popular when 95% of people don't haul anything bigger than their groceries.

[@BalooUriza]

I honestly hope that providing protected bike lanes with protected intersections, prohibiting right turns on red, providing regional rail, and every city with 5 figures or more population having a transit system so good you don't need a schedule to use it become things that are mandatory must haves in order for states to receive federal highway funding.

[@shraka]

I was just in Europe. I saw a woman in Barcelona get very upset when she just missed her train and had to wait 4 minutes for the next one because it was off peak time where it's normally 2 minutes... I am now back in Australia where our headways off peak are 20-30 minutes and on peak are 7-15...

[@paxundpeace9970]

Core issue with bike lanes often is as soon as you getting closer to the city center they get parked up by delivery vans work trucks. Normals cars. More or less they feel like a dump. As soon as you hit a high traffic area with construction or road works or just end in new york everything is lost.

[@Crust_Monster]

I'm in Norman. I exclusively ride on sidewalks. There aren't many bike lanes, and the few we do have I don't trust--I'd rather have a curb between me and a car than a painted line.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

The one on Lindsey is definitely a death trap

[@therighteouswaytog0]

I'm in New Jersey. While we do have a fair amount of rail and canal trails in my general area. Even some protected bike lanes as well. I also try and ride on the sidewalks as well whenever I dont have a better option. Also try and stick to 25-35 mph speed limit streets even if it brings me out of the way.

[@mikeymullins5305]

My town has been adding more bike lanes, which is nice. My least favorite thing is when theres a random bike lane for like a block, and then theres a sign telling you it ends, as if you're going to be like shucks, i guess ill just get in the car i dont have. But generally i feel pretty safe even without bike lanes bc my town is pretty small and i can stick to residential streets for 90% of my commute.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Love the bike lanes to nowhere. Imagine if that’s how streets were designed for cars

[@ericwright8592]

My feeling is, just make the sidewalks 30ft (10m) wide. Have a 4 lane road? Make it 2 car lanes and a huge sidewalk/multi use path. Most bike lanes are barely wide enough for cyclists moving single file, forget riding side by side. Same for sidewalks with pedestrians. Yet cars, people always sit 2 side by side in each direction no questions asked. Give pedestrians and cyclists as much space as you give cars 🤷‍♂️ just take excessive space away from cars. If you want 50% of people walking and biking, give them 50% of the space.

[@mindstalk]

This is kind of the Japanese approach, though not 10 meters. Most streets are slow (18 MPH / 30 KPH) and shared, but the big streets tend to have 4 meter multi-use sidewalks. There's basically no bike-only infrastructure other than parking, but you can generally get around without interacting with fast cars, which is what you need for most people to want to bike in a city.

[@dnb5661]

We have both wide roads and wide sidewalks where I am, also the speed limit in residential areas is too high in my opinion.

[@povertyspec9651]

I'm a serious cyclist and shared use paths suck ass. Endless dodging of pedestrians, having to stop at every single intersection and acting like a pedestrian.

[@blisphul8084]

​@@povertyspec9651in a suburban environment, if you can find quiet residential areas that take you where you need to, those can be great for bikes. Though I think narrow curvy roads actually make things worse since it reduces visibility, so a car might not see you until they've gone around the corner at high speed. I found that the wider mostly straight ones are pretty safe given the low speed and high visibility.

[@blisphul8084]

I've seen numerous blind passes of bikes on narrow street curves. If a car were coming the other way, it would be a collision. To do so safely, you must patiently wait behind the bike until visibility clears up, then you can go around and gun it to catch up with traffic. I don't understand why bike and walking advocates say narrow curvy roads are safer.

[@LimitedWard]

I think we need to move away from the narrative that the danger of cars stems from bad drivers. Saying that biking is dangerous because of "crazy Oklahoma drivers" implies that the dangerous situations are caused by outliers. The reality is that human drivers are inherently fallible, and even the most vigilant and responsible drivers will encounter lapses in judgement and focus. To make matters worse, most car owners believe (illogically) that they are above average drivers. When you combine this sentiment with the narrative that bad drivers make cycling dangerous, the natural conclusion for many people is that better bike infrastructure isn't necessary, we just need better education, more stringent testing, and more proactive law enforcement. While such efforts would probably help in the long term, they're an expensive suboptimal workaround to just building better infrastructure.

[@mindstalk]

books: _Confessions of a Recovering Engineer_ and _Killed by a Traffic Engineer_. US traffic engineering is the fundamental problem. (And the politics that accept massive casualties as the price of speed.)

[@AnotherDuck]

Driver culture _is_ a difference between large parts of Europe and USA. But that's not just the outliers; It's the baseline. And it's still not an argument for not having better bike infrastructure, since even those European countries are better in that area as well.

[@mindstalk]

@@AnotherDuck US doesn't have uniform driving culture. I live just outside Berkeley, and drivers around me are very deferential to pedestrians. On many streets, if I'm even vaguely near the corner, not even looking like I want to cross, cars will stop. Biking hasn't been bad either, though I stay off the busy streets. Outside Boston, yield signs were reliably honored by drivers. I think environment shapes the 'culture' at least partially: I've read that slower drivers are more likely to yield as they're supposed to. And environment shapes speed...

[@AnotherDuck]

@@mindstalk It's not uniform in Europe either, even within specific countries, but there are tendencies.

[@shraka]

Agree. 100% agree.

[@pcongre]

09:25 Also, most bike infra is really car infra (They have made a lot of progress in the NL, especially on wide streets - but places like Japan, where in practice most alleys are practically car-free, are the least we should aspire to... as should the NL, imo)

[@GirtonOramsay]

My southern California city has painted a fair few bike lanes on arterial roads and stroads. You will see some people use them, but not many since one only lane offers any buffer (just some paint). But still, it's a starting point since the city has now claimed road space exclusively for bikes that can be improved upon for connectivity or better protection. It helps that my city is gridded and can hop on quiet residential streets if needed too.

[@NoNotThatPaul]

Paint is not bicycle infrastructure

[@burgerLLC]

god if we could figure out these intersections it'd actually be nice to bike around the city

[@jackbates7467]

Rode around downtown Austin to all 75 of the cities bikeshare stations. Enlightening experience of very good and very bad cycling infrastructure. Everything from sharrows, to dedicated cycle paths.

[@CanItAlready]

Where i live in Georgia, there's a very busy road that has unprotected bike lanes that start abruptly and end abruptly after a few miles and really go nowhere. And the speed limit on that road starts at 50mph and goes up to 55. I rarely see anyone using those bike lanes, for obvious reasons. I do sometimes see people riding on the sidewalk. There are also other spots where the are unprotected bike lanes that go nowhere.

[@timpekarek9159]

Madison County, IL ( suburban St. Louis) has about 130 miles of shared use trails, mostly rail to trail conversions. The trails mostly tunnel below major streets, and you can ride all day long and rarely have to be on the streets.

[@JustClaude13]

Sharrows aren't level 0. They're -1. Sharrows are the only "bike infrastructure" which is more dangerous than doing nothing. My sister in in Bartlesville. Outside of rush hour and a few main roads, traffic is light and not too fast. The roads in her neighborhood are too narrow for cars to pass when someone is parked on both sides, so cars have to take turns in the constriction. And they have a really impressive muti-use trail along the Caney River. It's a pretty good place to travel by bike. She doesn't have a car.

[@povertyspec9651]

Sharrows are there just to remind drivers that bicyclists can use roadways.

[@nikaiwolf]

My city just doesn’t give a flying f about cyclist. I am a cyclist who has been hit in a painted bike lane and have complained to city council. The most recent response is “we meet minimum safety requirements for bike lanes” after my recent complaint got sent to a city engineer. Oo and on top of that, I ride by several schools in my area when I’m commuting on my bike and the bike lanes disappear at schools. Gotta park those cars to pick up kids for an hour of the day.

[@Frostbiker]

Bike lanes around schools don't make sense because who wants children to bike to school? It is not safe! ... Because of all the bloody cars dropping kids off.

[@shraka]

Good point. Riding between traffic and parking looks pretty scary too. I'd be comfortable riding on painted bike lanes if the speed limit wasn't above 40km/h and the intersections had proper separation and protection.

[@davidbee9563]

Your point at the end is well explained. That the most dangerous place is intersections. When a bike lane keeps to the right and the bike wants to go straight through or turn left, it creates a potentially dangerous interaction with cars that want to turn right. I like the idea in Michigan and other states you cannot turn left between stop lights and use a median to reverse direction. This reduces congestion and the need to go around the person turning left.

[@ianm1894]

Hit all the right notes. Protected intersections are the most lacking part of the improvements most cities are making. Shoutout to Fremont, CA for having built over a dozen protected intersections and building more every year.

[@tatertotbot]

Stop sign intersections are the worst. There have been countless times where while I am going through the intersection, a car both stops and then goes forward, causing them to nearly run into me. They are just stopping to stop, not to look around and check for obstacles.

[@justintherriault3464]

Thanks! Would love to make it out to OKC to check out your infrastructure sometime!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Thanks! And if you watched the video, you pretty much saw it lol

[@BuildNewTowns]

Good video. It was nice to see the Dutch design as a viable solution for intersections.

[@jamesphillips2285]

Yes bike lanes are real frustrating when they end after a few blocks, dump you onto a sketchy stroad just ahead of a major intersection as if it say: "figure it out!"

[@oldbrokenhands]

Thanks for sharing your POV, give me food for thought in a fellow Dirty South state.

[@timv6715]

As a cyclist in Chicago who commutes by bike and does not own a car, I'm very thankful for our bike lane infrastructure. I've lived here in the 1990's when there were no bike lanes. The difference today in safety and ease of travel is significant. We still have a long way to go, but the bike lanes here are far from useless.

[@greenhawk6839]

Where I live, I find the best intersections for a cyclist are the Barnes' Dances (aka. pedestrian scramble) because I can go in whichever direction I need to at the same time as the pedestrians cross. It's usually easy enough to thread between them and we have safety in numbers against cars. We even have one place where the protected bike changes being on the left side of the road to being on the right side for some reason, but thanks to the Barnes' dance I don't feel unsafe at all making the crossing.

[@yqz251]

Here in Europe, bikes and pedestrians have the priority on the roads. If you are a car driver and you hit a pedestrian or a biker, then it is your fault, no arguments. That is the reason why even if there are no bike lanes here, bikers are always safe. That is the opposite there in the US. There, the roads are dominated by cars that is why even painted bike lanes are still not safe for bikers. Car drivers have no respect for bikers and pedestrians. I guess that is the first thing to change...the car drivers mentality.

[@jezzarisky]

I do agree with a lot of you said, but a couple things people often overlook is that one of the biggest causes of injury and death is when someone in a car is overtaking someone on a bicycle. A painted bike lane is not comfortable on streets with cars going over speeds 25MPH, but they do a fair amount to increase actual safety(when they aren't otherwise blocked or in a car's door zone that pushes a bike back into conflict with cars). Utah's Department of Transportation did a study of a number of streets in the state and found that even painted bike lanes had a significant positive impact on a bicyclists safety. And even a state DOT highlights the next major hurdle, as you mention, which is bad intersection design. While a separated bike path would be great everywhere and should be standard, given the little money cities put towards cycling, I would much prefer well thought out protected intersections and painted bike lanes to start.

[@amadeosendiulo2137]

It's so strange for me that none of the levels directly coresponds to the ‘bicycle road’ concept we have in the Polish traffic code. Though the bicycle track seems to be the closest.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

You’re right, this should be level 5! Although Oklahoma doesn’t have any examples of this yet

[@PromenadeMTL]

Looks like there are a lot of challenges to figure this out in Oklahoma. Intersections are tricky. I have seen some modified in Montreal to make sure that the intersection provides a lot of visibility of cyclist for drivers.

[@th5841]

To get people into bike riding, you need to get them out of their cars. If car driving is easy, fast with plentiful and cheap/free parking, people will not leave behind their cars at home. The same goes for bus riding. Buses are too slow and infrequent to be a competition for car driving.

[@jamesstephens6941]

Moved to an Oklahoma small town with zero bike infrastructure. I really miss Albuquerque, NM, where it is possible to ride dozens of miles multi use trails without ever crossing a road. On the more popular trails where there are more pedestrians out for a walk it does create some conflict. But that is negligible and easily handled by generous amounts of courtesy.

[@paxundpeace9970]

Great and glad that you pointing out those issue with road conditions those mater a lot for a cyclist.

[@mindstalk]

You didn't mention an important difference within painted bike lanes: bike gutters against the curb, and door zone lanes to the left of parked cars. Your video showed gutters, which aren't good (can get full of trash, including illegally parked cars), but better than get killed by someone opening their door...

[@eryngo.urbanism]

You’re totally right, my worst fear is getting door’d

[@grahamturner2640]

The door zone is also a visibility problem. The first time I remember riding in a door zone lane, I had a somewhat close call due to someone pulling out from a parking garage, not from anyone accessing the on-street parking.

[@clark-w4g]

Tulsa's new pedestrian bridge across the Arkansas River opens this weekend - unfortunately it's really narrow and no bike lane.

[@SonnyDarvish]

Sadly, most of these apply to Germany, too. In recent years, streets have been painted, but we rarely see dedicated lanes. These white lines actually make drivers bold and they think it allows to break the minimum 1,5 meter distance (inside cities, but at all times) rule. When these lines don't exist, drivers are actually more careful and treat you as another vehicle in front of them, but when they exist, they claim some nonesense they create on the spot. I visited the Ntherlands a few times (Amsterdam and Venlo) and every time I come back home, it feels like I have visited a first world country and now I'm back in the developing country.

[@trickster1833]

They just built a little more cycle track near Kelly and 23rd st, so now we're up to two small sections!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

That’s great! When you get to the end of the first one, now you can load your bike up into your car and drive it over to go and ride down the other one!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

In all seriousness, it’s great to see continued progress, even if we’re far from an ideal spot

[@trickster1833]

I misremembered, its not a cycle track, just a curb protected 2 way lane. it was built as part of the bike rt 66 program

[@jamesstephens6941]

Another thing that Oklahoma needs are intercity bike trails, like rail-trails. These are super popular around the world and bring a lot of benefits such as tourism economics. Just ask Pennsylvania about the GAP.

[@ttopero]

It’s funny how easily I was able to identify B roll from Denver without seeing the details LOL I guess it’s the most distinctive part of our homogenizing built environment!

[@erinrising2799]

I live in a suburb in Pacific Northwest, and I just ride on the sidewalks, because I don't feel safe on the street.

[@stphinkle]

The problem is even more complicated. A lot of housing infastructure segregates people by income level which increases commute distances for drivers, if they cannot afford the housing close to where they work. This is the reason why I think so many people still rely on cars (not that cars are evil, they still have legitimate uses). Many US Cities don't have the public transit infastructure (good bus systems, trolleys, light rail, etc) needed to serve all their neighborhoods. US infrastructure is a lot more sprawled out compared to cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and London for example. Also it is hard to create bike infastructure without a loss of parking which makes it hard for people who need to get around or whose work location is too far to cycle to. In my opinion, the solution is not to deprive people in multifamily units parking, nor tear up all the street parking. I think that many cities need to invest in public transit infrastructure (trolleys, light rail, bus systems, shuttles, gondolas, etc). Get that in place so that one can get all the key places in town, and then expand the infastructure. If needed, build some parking structures as a temporary solution to handle the loss of parking until enough people get used to public transit or cycling places. This change does not happen overnight. In addition, cities need to build, affordabl housing the POOREST can afford. This includes people with no rental history, bad rental history, bad credit, charge offs, collection accounts, evictions, owe back utility debts, owe a previous landlord, etc. If you keep pricing out portions of the population from accessing housing close to where they live, the cycling shift will never happen.

[@ttopero]

When creating an algorithm for factoring quality of infrastructure for ‪bicyclist‬s in the city, I actually multiply -1 by those lane miles for sharrow- only paths, to reflect the reduced safety as evidenced in multiple research reports. 0 for no infrastructure; 1/2 for bike lanes squeezed onto a narrow collector, but 1 for a local street that has no additional infrastructure but is narrow & safe enough to bike with cars slowing down to pass ‪bicyclist‬s in the opposite direction.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

This sounds reminiscent of Shifter’s Plus 1 Minus 2 game. I like it

[@ttopero]

@@eryngo.urbanism Didn’t think about it that way, but a version, sure. I think about it more as a way to weight the quality of the bicycle infrastructure to bring accountability to the politicians that claim so many miles/km of new bike ____, but since most isn’t actually safe or comfortable, this shines light on real conditions.

[@ellenowlin]

i would love to see more of okc be put on a road diet. most of the places i go barely have traffic and they have 2 lanes on either side. on the topic of the shared pedestrian and biking paths, something i notice frequently in oklahoma and texas is that bikers don't engage in proper biking etiquette when passing others from behind. there's a large park near me where there are signs posted on the path asking for people to call out which side they're passing on or to indicate it in some way. people still don't do it.

[@Jackofafewtrades]

7:00 oh yeah. I ride around town on the multi-use path and use the sidewalk (slowly) when I'm in the parts of town where there are no bike paths, and the number of times I've been yelled at by pedestrians on both, but especially the mixed use pathway, is pretty shocking. I blame car-centrism for creating a hostile environment towards cyclists.

[@TheRealE.B.]

Sharrows don't provide any protection, but they can be used to signal to cyclists WHERE they're supposed to be positioned in the lane (which a lot of cyclists get wrong), and they can provide wayfinding between disconnected segments of better infrastructure.

[@icelaenl]

Here in Chicago I've been honked at, tailgated, harassed, and had people stop their vehicle and try to physically fight me for using clearly marked sharrows (which many to most of our northern residential streets are). I don't want to share the streets with lunatic drivers anymore, man. Dedicated cycling infrastructure can't come fast enough.

[@jasperli]

Appreciate the conversions from imperial to metric.

[@GurHaenouasHazourem]

The problem with your reasoning is that, unconsciously, you still prioritize cars on intersections. That's how much we've been conditioned by propaganda: we're are not aware that we still think that interfering with car space is not an option! Local intersections have to simply shift the priority to people. The solution that I employ in my system of urbanism is that local intersections don't look like, and operate like, car tracks. Upon arriving on an intersection, cars will see an ambient dominated by pedestrian activity, not arterial activity. Obviously the space distribution has to be redefined, which can be started by simple lines, and later consolidated with sidewalk surface taking over asphalt. The intersection has to look more like a place than an autodrome. Behavior is induced by the environment.

[@hydrolien]

Thanks for the translation in metrics units.

[@mindstalk]

on sidewalk vs. track: I think available width matters. Like if you can get 16 feet, then sure, 8 feet sidewalk and 8 feet bike path is probably good. But 10-12 feet? Think I'd prefer that as one big space, rather than 5-6 feet each. (Then there's the common Tokyo local street, which might be 16 feet building to building...)

[@maumor2]

If I'm going to stop at every intersection totally unprotected might as well ride in the road all time Like your example @ 10:35, that thing is so bad

[@highway2heaven91]

This is a great video! However I’m disappointed that this video focused on OKC and not on Tulsa. While I loved the bike lanes showed in the video, I was hoping to hear your opinion of the bike lanes along the river, in Brookside and through the outskirts of Jenks near the new outlet.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Stay tuned, we will be talking about Tulsa’s bike infrastructure one of these days

[@iLightTricks]

There’s this road on Long Island called Nugent Drive. It has an unprotected bike lane (literally just a shoulder with biking symbols on it). It’s incredibly dangerous as the road curves a ton, and it has a 55 MPH speed limit. Like, do they expect people to cycle there? We need REAL bike infrastructure, not glorified shoulders.

[@eliasjessop1883]

I feel like bicycles are only really successfully integrated if the cities have a very large amount of walkable pedestrian centers with shops and markets and even office buildings that have a reasonable amount of options within walking distance. Look at places like Japan that don't have very many bike Lanes but a high amount of bikers. Convenience plays a much bigger factor than bike lanes do. If the destination you're going to has a large amount of pedestrian convenience, it makes the part of your trip where you're not passing by anything convenient. Much more worth it because you're destination has a large amount of convenience. But nobody wants to talk about this unfortunately.

[@katzazi664]

I'm from Germany, living close to the netherlands and have cycled in multiple other European countries. I dont own a car anymore, I commute by bike and walking, biking are what i mostly use for transport. We dont have sharrows over here, so I cannot directly speak about those. Normal speeds in town over here are 50 km/h. Towns need special reasons to reduce it to 30 km/h, but you find that often enough. Where there is 30 km/h you very often dont have specific bike infra as it's often residential streets or the like. Below 30 km/h, a town is even forbidden to add specific bike infra, as its considered safe enough for bikes to mix with cars. You only will find those lower speeds at places where the mayor trafic is likely not cars. While there are separated bike lines mostly on the sude walk, they are now often moved on to the normal pavement with a line of paint. It is mostly safer than hiding bikes behind a row of parked cars. As most collisions happen at intersections. You want drivers to realise that bikes are there long before they concentrate on turning. But if there is a red light (which we dont have so many) and there is a bike line on the pavement, bikes get a special place to wait in front of the cars. As tgat is the safest way to avoid said collisions with right turning cars. So inside towns we have a lot of bike infra that is just paint. Is it optimal? It probably depends on the specific place. And also how wide they are. Do they work? At the moment while it is very warm outside, my city is full of cyclists. But even in the winter, a lot of people use them. Sure, its not the bike infra that you mostly have in the Netherlands. But they also explicitly dont hide bikes behind parked cars but put them just beside cars. With only a small curb. But placing bike infra on the curb with the sidewalk usually steals space from pedestrians while cars keep all the wide space. Which discourages boty walking and biking and enourages faster driving for cars. Which isnt the goal. I believe I understand what you are saying. And I cannot experience the streets that you are showing. But over here I would feel safe to ride those bike lines (those who are not broken) beside of cars driving the speeds that you mentioned. And I guess it's the same for others from Europe. I myself feel much more uneasy if I would have to bike on the other side of parked cars. Dooring included. Dont get me wrong, I hear what you and others are saying. But I feel that there is more behind it that keeps people from using those lines. Some of them ade much better than the bike infra in the street of my city, that gets the most usage by bikers in tge whole city. Shared paths with pedestrians are something bikers dont want to have over here. At least when they are as narrow and have printed directions as the one you showed. They very quickly become unpleasant both forvbikers and for pedestrians when both start to use them. If I want to get somewhere, I would prefer a bike line on the pavements over such a shared path where I would always have to curve around pedestrians or to even stop for them. They are mostly good on longer stretches or within a park where they are wide enough and highly connected with other paths so people are distributed well enough. Else, it's better to separate pedestrians and cyclists instead of the directions. Btw over here, and especially in the Netherlands, people usually don't wear high vis for biking. High vis sends the message, that you do something dangerous. But biking and walking is a normal activity. Wearing high vis could be understood as "I know I shouldn't be here". I dont say its wrong to wear them. But its usually not helping, if you just do normal stuff. I have one myself, but I havecit for emergencies but mostly for when I'm blocking off cars at Critical Mass or bike demonstrations or the like. Which isn't normal behaviour.

[@thomaswill37]

Most multiuse paths are too narrow. Few can accommodate two strollers in each direction. Much less two strollers in each direction with room for a cyclist to pass safely. These are social spaces as well as exercise and commuting spaces. Neglecting the width allow to riding/ walking alongside your friends is a big problem if you want people to get out of their cars where it’s easy to talk with friends.

[@povertyspec9651]

Shared use paths are glorified sidewalks with constant dodging of pedestrians and their effing dogs, and countless stop signs at intersections and driveways.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

02:25 - where I live the speed limit on most residential streets is 30km/h and mixed traffic still works well there. I suppose 15 is better than 20, if a sign has to be in miles. Do you have personal experience in mixed traffic at various speeds? I'm not sure how one would get that, other than living in such places, and I don't know who has a 15/25 speed limit. OK's 25/40 speed limit sounds too fast for mixed traffic. As for the point thereafter on bike lanes and road diets, this is the first time I heard someone advocate in favour of suicide lanes. ^^

[@eryngo.urbanism]

The state of Oklahoma has a standard minimum speed limit of 25 MPH, so if no speed is posted, it’s 25M/40K. Would love to see that reduced given that many people actually drive much faster than that in neighborhoods/downtown, but people would probably riot if it went down to 15 or even 20

[@rothn2]

_Unprotected_ bike lanes are mostly useless

[@paxundpeace9970]

They are not that bad if they are done well. They do need to fit the purpose. 1.Road speed at or lower then 50 kmph or 30 miles better 25 miles or less. 2. They should be wide enough at least 1.1-1.4 Meters better 1.6-2 Meters in each direction and be on both sides of the road. Width depending on traffic volume. 3. They do need a buffer 30cm/one foot towards the curb and towards the driving lane. 3.They need to be clearly market red or green depending on your country. The lane has to continue through the intersection. 4. Parking alongside is not optimal. 5. If the lane allows for passing easily 1.8m+ you can have a hard curb between the driving lane and the cycle lane.

[@povertyspec9651]

I ride on state highways which have 5' paved shoulders all the time. They are not marked as bike lanes but they act as one.

[@rothn2]

@@povertyspec9651 Watch out-- weird stuff can happen with the high-speed vehicles. That's really unsafe.

[@UmbralEpoch]

I live near Riverside in Tulsa and work downtown. I would absolutely bike to work if I felt like there was a safe way to navigate the weird junction at 21st and Riverside on a bike.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Riverside is such a great bike path, but you’re so right! There’s so much improvement needed anywhere that it connects to another city street

[@nimeshinlosangeles]

Protected intersections may as well be roundabouts at that point.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

After watching your most recent video, agreed! Roundabouts are far better for cyclists than most other intersection types, and they’re a big improvement for cars, too. Here’s to hoping we see better intersection designs get implemented sooner rather than later!

[@Sugar3Glider]

Yeah, I pull off and park on the side of the road at an intersection, just tell the cars to go ahead. Not worth it to try and merge with traffic, so I take the sidewalk once I'm certain no one needs to turn.

[@armandox7]

I wonder how the arguments go between having enough space to add a second lane for traffic vs deciding to designate it as a bike lane.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Probably depends on whether the city would prefer to encourage more driving or more cycling in that area

[@mindstalk]

If you mean real debates, I don't know. If you mean logical ones... A typical city lane can ideally carry about 900 cars an hour. (2 second following distance, and losing half your time to intersections: 3600/2/2 = 900. Roundabouts can be more efficient than lights, but also need non-maximal traffic flow.) An _extra_ lane is probably less than an extra 900: left turns, and drivers weaving between lanes for speed, get in each other's way, though I guess an extra can mean less blockage from curb parking. Estimates of bike lane capacity are noisy, but ~2000 per hour per meter of width is common. I'm not sure that scales linearly with width, but it seems very safe to say that a bike track can carry many more bikes than cars, and serve people (like kids) who can't drive at all. All of which is to say: rational urban planners would add a bike track before adding a second lane of car traffic, as it would increase people-moving capacity more.

[@texaswunderkind]

Painted lanes are the worst. There is no physical barrier between you and the distracted drivers barreling their 5,000-pound behemoth down the road at 50 mph. I sure hope that faded paint line stops the car when they drift into my lane. We have a lot of those in my area, and I still make the kids bike on the sidewalks. Riders have been hit and killed, which proves they don't work.

[@oskarsyren]

A painted bike lane on a 40 mph/60kph street should just not be legal. Anywhere that a proper bike path can’t be fitted should be limited to 20mph/30kph and I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t implement this immediately.

[@dipdip7250]

09:50 AMTRAK SPOTTED!!!!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Oklahoma’s one and only train!

[@AllenMorris3]

I would think driveways are worse than intersections. As for intersections, to me the largest problem is the huge size of US intersections that is a the problem.

[@smeggysmeg]

I prefer a well-planned sharrow (slow speeds, not major arterial) over a bike gutter. A bike gutter, just a line of paint next to the gutter, is a guaranteed way to get clipped. Sharrows allow the cyclist to be directly in the car's expected field of view - and it makes drivers COMMIT to passing instead of trying to squeeze by. The bike lanes in your video at least have some plastic bollards. I don't mind the little armadillos, either. Here in Northwest Arkansas, they love to put in dedicated bike trails that don't connect... anywhere. Yay bikes! But completely useless besides recreation. The biggest problem is the lack of comprehensive connectivity. A bike lane here and there, and little to nothing connecting them together.

[@mindstalk]

I think the painted sharrow isn't doing any work there; the benefit comes entirely from having a slow and low-traffic street.

[@AnotherDuck]

@@mindstalk Yeah, when traffic becomes slow enough, cycling on the street becomes much safer.

[@dipdip7250]

Oklahoma City mentioned!!!!

[@alexclifford2485]

Essentially it needs a well planned out, segregated network. Bikes are ultra efficient in many ways for short urban trips, and more if there was infrastructure. But the car centric mentality of America and racing down a stroad at 60mph to a traffic light and sit there for 4 minutes in a $100,000 3 ton metal cuboid - is hideously normal. The average speed becomes not a huge amount more than a bike or ebike when you do the sums. There is so much wasted land for parking, extreme width roadways, driveways, setback from roadways, not to mention the costs of vehicles, gas, mechanics, insurance, deaths and injuries from excess car dependency. There isn't much appetite in America for more better or efficient infrastructure. But where bike infrastructure isbdone well, it does improve quality of life immensely, health, wellbeing, local shop spending, rejuvenating neighbourhoods. And often increases land values too. Cars aren't necessarily evil or bad. They are necessary in rural areas or where people need to travel further. But cars and the roads have been extremely subsidized at the expense or bike and public transit.

[@Bretkane]

I don't hate bike lanes. It gives me some space when I have to get on a main road, then I get back on a neighborhood street as soon as possible

[@ankereisenman4824]

Finally, a cyclist who agrees that paint is not protection! All too often I see drivers get shouted down by Boulder cyclists for pointing out this simple physics rule. Sidewalks are perfectly fine for cyclists because you’re rarely, if ever, dealing with NYC levels of foot traffic, where people are shoulder to shoulder.

[@mindstalk]

"a cyclist who agrees that paint is not protection!" ? we're hardly obscure. "paint is not infrastructure" is one of the slogans of Not Just Bikes.

[@leafdaleaudiovideoengineer4763]

As a cyclist in the Los Angeles area, it is (1) illegal in many cities to ride on the sidewalk, and (2) safer to ride with traffic in the street I am more visible in the street to drivers, whereas drivers at intersections are not generally looking for cyclists riding on and off ramped curbs. Remember, I also drive & often drivers have to look in up to three directions at once (make right at an intersection: look left for oncoming traffic, look ahead for left-turners, look right to verify your intended area is clear, look for pedestrians in crosswalks). Now consider a cyclist zipping along the sidewalk at 10 MPH from behind you on the right. Trust me, drivers are not looking there. In the street I do not have to avoid pedestrians, fire hydrants, driveways with cars on them, trees, sign posts, bus stops, trash cans, intersection signal control boxes, and more. On the street I generally ride between where the right side car tires track and the road's edge. Not in the gutter! Yes, I know I'm in the way of motor vehicles. If I force you to actively change lanes to go around me, great. It means you've seen me. This dynamic creates more space between us. If I am too far to the right, drivers are tempted to pass me with very little space between us. I ride as predictably as possible, which seems to help. No weaving in the lane, except for road hazards like potholes, tree branches, palm tree leaves, cans & bottles, delivery vans, and more. Parked cars I leave room for since a suddenly opened door is potentially fatal to me. I make left turns in left turn lanes; I can make it across intersections from a stop about the same time as most motor vehicles, then I move over. Most drivers are fairly courteous to me as far as I can tell (no yelling at me that I can hear). And I do all of this JUST TO GET TO the bike lane or bike route. I know I am not all cyclists. Lots of cyclists don't, won't, or can't ride in traffic at sustained 15 MPH in traffic. I would use protected lanes if they were there, but they're not. I use the "magic paint" lanes because it's better than nothing, but those aren't everywhere either. So, paint isn't protection. For the cyclists who read this, invite the city planners, city council members, your police department personnel, and decision makers on a bike ride so they get a feel for what cyclists get to deal with. Videos are fine, but personal experience is better.

[@mindstalk]

@@leafdaleaudiovideoengineer4763 Worldwide, I suspect most city bikers are more like

[@EndlessConfusion]

3:28 Hah, I work at fire admin! Funny to see it here!

[@woesiohans]

Hold up. OKC bike share is called "This Machine"? That's fucking amazing

[@eryngo.urbanism]

That’s Tulsa! But yes!

[@raymondrambert]

This Machine Kills Cars

[@clark-w4g]

@@eryngo.urbanismUnfortunately they went out of business and closed up shop this week.

[@Victor-kh5rh]

The best way to drive change is to move to a place with infrastructure and sane politicians. Good luck changing Oklahoma City, buts it’s a lot easier to move somewhere better and take your tax dollars with you than live in an abusive relationship.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

“Sane politicians” is a bit of an oxymoron no matter what city you’re in

[@UlyKansas]

I mean there’s sidewalks for a reason but even then, you see people walking in the streets when there is a nice sidewalk for them to use.

[@Rotwold]

My hometown branded themselves as "... - the bike town". Do you know how many bike lanes they have? One. How many share the road with motor vehicles? Zero. The city has instead built bike pathways (or bike highways) on the side of the road. Every large road that interconnect with the city's neighborhoods have a bike pathway running along side it, with connections to smaller bike pathways. Bike lanes are terrible for cars and bikes. It only add more complexity and things drivers need to pay attention to. I'd rather cycle on roads without bike lanes, it doesn't create a false sense of security and allow the cyclist to ride in the middle of the road.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Yes!!!

[@jiffyb333]

Fantastic breakdown of the situation!

[@iO-Sci]

Cycle tracks can be I guess serene and important. 사이클 트랙은 조용하고 중요할 수 있습니다.

[@Sugar3Glider]

7:45 eBikes are limited by the manufacturer (by law) to 28MPH, so yeah it should be much safer.

[@snoopyloopy]

Level zero should be every street that's open to bikes (i.e. not restricted-access expressways/freeways).

[@yeeyee-py3nb]

What's up neighbor !

[@PlanetToaster]

RIP Johnny Gaudreau

[@mmrw]

Less than ideal intersections can definitely be a barrier to people starting cycling when they’re not familiar with it, but I really don’t think it’s fair to say they should prevent anyone from using a bike to get around. An experienced cyclist could use caution and handle any of those intersections just fine. If you know what you’re doing, any danger is still there but also greatly limited.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

This infrastructure shouldn’t be intended for “experienced cyclists.” It’s for kids, older folks, and really anyone who’s interested in getting around by bike.

[@AnotherDuck]

But you need to get from starting out to being an experienced cyclist. Which means you have to navigate those things without much experience. To get any decent cycling population, it is essential to make the less experienced ones feel safe.

[@mmrw]

@@eryngo.urbanism it certainly should be, but you seemed to imply it was for literally no one when that's just not accurate

[@jayziac]

"Perfect is the enemy of good". Cities have budgets and having a plan to move incrementally to more bike-friendly designs, every small step is welcome. We can't all have the best, newest, safe designs everywhere right away. Some areas in the U.S. are putting simple plant barriers and removing a street lane to dedicate to 2 way cycle lane. This is very cheap for taxpayer dollars. Adding cycle lanes also has a benefit of slowing down traffic. Nothing encourages fast driving than wide lanes with no objects/trees/buildings next to the roads. Also since you seem safety conscious, I recommend you get a brighter green vest, the pink does not stand out in daylight, the reflective part is useful at night, but daytime not so much. Also your helmet straps are too loose, and if you're actually involved in a crash, that helmet could come off easily.

[@Glen_lastname]

Nobody's going to drive at 25kmph, I'm not going to cycle that slow, people don't slow down to 40 for a school zone, and a sign kindly asking them to isn't going to slow people down. Left turns on a bike are also kinda garbo

[@BrianThrives]

Your Level 4 example had no visible barriers preventing cars from swerving into the bike lane. That's not top-tier design by any means. Just an isolated bad example, I hope?

[@eryngo.urbanism]

It is curb separated with an additional painted buffer, but it’s hard to tell from the angle of the camera in the video.

[@BrianThrives]

@@eryngo.urbanism ah, thanks for clarifying.

[@thomaswill37]

E bikes and other micromobility are important for disabled people

[@velohench]

On street two way cycle tracks like the one in your video is not the best, even when grade separated. It's ass. So much so that Denmark has been removing them for the past 15-20 years.

[@mindstalk]

Removing them in favor of what, though?

[@eryngo.urbanism]

A curb provides more protection than paint!

[@antsa-r9z]

@@mindstalk In favour of one way cycle tracks - they're simply safer in intersections.

[@velohench]

@@eryngo.urbanism Except for every place that the two way track is intersected. One way separated cycle tracks exist and are superior.

[@kehlery]

fuck cars, RIP johnny gaudreau

[@alexbr550]

They are pointless when people on bikes don't follow the markings on the ground. Riding their bikes in the wrong lane, going the opposite direction or not waiting behind the limit lines.

[@eryngo.urbanism]

Eh drivers are usually worse at following rules

[@alexbr550]

@@eryngo.urbanism The video focuses on biking infrastructure and two wrongs don't make a right.

[@mindstalk]

@@alexbr550 "Traffic lights are pointless when people in cars don't follow the lights. Blowing through red lights..." Your claiming something is pointless because _some_ people don't obey the rules is simply bad logic.

[@zidoot]

OKC ruined Classen Blvd by doing this recently

[@eryngo.urbanism]

The bike lanes on Classen aren’t great, but it’s certainly an improvement over the old 6 car lane layout.

[@patriot9487]

Classen is fine

[@ThePhosee]

7:13 Demonizing electric scooters and bikes is playing on cars side. Well done!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

No demonization, just pointing out that they probably shouldn’t be forced to share space with pedestrians in busy places

[@newmobile1455]

it's sad that in America you have to have a car in order to ride a bicycle because you have to drive to a park to ride Im one of a few that uses a bicycle as their main mod of transportation in Alabama and no offence their are more black people riding bike than white people and we get along believe it or not