As mentioned repeatedly, they make intersections much more dangerous. So they are OK were there are very few intersections, say along a riverfront or other natural barrier. But they are horrible in urban areas with many intersections.

That's why they have been dropped by most bicycling infrastructure advocates.

Even the Danish study showed this, and they've been doing these things non-stop since the 60s.

Oh, does anybody have news on those Class 1 bike lanes they're doing on 9th Avenue? Haven't been reading up on that, are they up? Pictures?

Perhaps true for some cyclists, but don't sidewalks and curbs also increase complexity and make autos more dangerous since they create a false sense of security for pedestrians and drivers too? If that's the criteria then let's eliminate all stop and speed limit signs also.

At least NYers are willing to experiment and learn while most of America blissfully cruises in SUVs while listening to their favorite iPod tunes and text-messaging.

Good luck and keep us informed.

I've nearly been killed many times by idiots who park in the bike lanes (bad enough) and then suddenly open doors (deadly)!

Also, that would require moving all of the crosswalks backwards, which would be a you-know-what.

http://tinyurl.com/ywhs52
(the spam filter apparently doesn't like the full url)

As to why they decided to continue these things despite the safety concerns, here's the summary:
" Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from
the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety."

I would say that a 25% increase in injuries is not insignificant. But in any case, what they are saying is that the facilities give a false "perception" of safety and thus attracts bicyclists and this is a good thing because bicycling is so healthy that the gains outweigh the risks. I have some strong ethical concerns about this way of thinking. Why not design facilities that are actually safe, rather than just give the perception of safety?

As to Xue's statements about "jocks" and 2nd generation facilities:
I am a middle-aged transportational cyclist with health problems that keeps me fairly slow. I basically tootle along. Certainly not a high-speed "jock". And I find that vehicular bicycling is the easiest and safest way for me to get around by bike.

2nd Generation facilities. What a laugh. I've been analyzing these things since the early 70s. By now they must be in their 10th generation. From the beginning it has been obvious that most of these things have, from a traffic safety point of view, fundamental problems. Side paths in urban areas with many street crossings, for instance, were pointed out early on as being incredibly dangerous. They were built anyway and found, surprise, to be incredibly dangerous. So dangerous that the AASHTO - which has the "industry standard" for bike facilities - strongly recommends against them. Yet I see them being built yet again by groups who have no idea of the history of these things. They say, "we'll work the bugs out in the next generation". Ha!

or
http://tinyurl.com/ywhs52

As to why they decided to continue these things despite the safety concerns, here's the summary:
" Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from
the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety."

I would say that a 25% increase in injuries is not insignificant. But in any case, what they are saying is that the facilities give a false "perception" of safety and thus attracts bicyclists and this is a good thing because bicycling is so healthy that the gains outweigh the risks. I have some strong ethical concerns about this way of thinking. Why not design facilities that are actually safe, rather than just give the perception of safety?

As to Xue's statements about "jocks" and 2nd generation facilities:
I am a middle-aged transportational cyclist with health problems that keeps me fairly slow. I basically tootle along. Certainly not a high-speed "jock". And I find that vehicular bicycling is the easiest and safest way for me to get around by bike.

2nd Generation facilities. What a laugh. I've been analyzing these things since the early 70s. By now they must be in their 10th generation. From the beginning it has been obvious that most of these things have, from a traffic safety point of view, fundamental problems. Side paths in urban areas with many street crossings, for instance, were pointed out early on as being incredibly dangerous. They were built anyway and found, surprise, to be incredibly dangerous. So dangerous that the AASHTO - which has the "industry standard" for bike facilities - strongly recommends against them. Yet I see them being built yet again by groups who have no idea of the history of these things. They say, "we'll work the bugs out in the next generation". Ha!