Wow. As a traffic guy who is wading through the politics/economics/engineering of getting transit and cycling lanes on major roads, this thread is quite interesting.
I don't even know where to start.
Lets try here... What is a cyclist? We see three (sometimes four) subsets of 'cyclist' that need to be served. Some of these work differently than others, and some have different interests.
Subset 1: kids - up to about 8 years old, a child on a bicycle will behave unpredictably, and need a load of guidance. We encourage these kids to ride on sidewalks and paths. We know they have a high probability of getting in trouble on the roads. Usually ride with parents or other kids.
Subset 2: Recreational cyclists - these are folks who have bikes in their garden shed and take them out a few times over the summer. They may go to the park or for an evening ride through the neighbourhood. These folks will mostly be on trails and roads, they will use bike paths if they are provided, but mostly they don't care as long as they feel safe. They will be nervous in heavy traffic and may or may not have good discipline with regards to rules of the road. Usually they ride alone or in pairs/families.
Subset 3: Utilitarian cyclists. These folks use their bike for errands and commuting. They include older kids and teens riding to school and most Mustachians. They use a bike the way most families use a car. They prefer to be on the road since foot traffic on sidewalks slows them down. They like bike lanes for safety. Their discipline is usually pretty good on the road. They are comfortable in traffic, but not fearless. Usually they ride alone.
Subset 4: Sport/training/courier cyclists. These guys prefer to be on the road with mixed traffic. They will often not use bike lanes even if they are available since the utilitarian cyclists slow them down. If they do use the bike lanes, they will leave them in order to pass other cyclists. Often they ride in large groups, sometimes very large. The groups will ride 1, 2, or 3 abreast (more on this later). They don't tend to have good discipline, although they will stop if a threat is percieved (ie. at a busy intersection they will stop for the red light, but then go as soon as traffic clears). They tend to be fearless in mixed traffic relying on the rules of the road for safety and disregarding the 'dead right' rule. Many have a disdain for cycling lanes considering them to be for newbies/casuals.
Since there is such huge disparity between the types of cyclists, its pretty hard to broad-brush label all cyclists as being of one behaviour or another. And even at that, within those 4 subsets there is pretty strong crossover between the groups. In most of our cycling design work here, we try to meet the needs of the utilitarian cyclist. When we do that, there is a lot of backlash and misunderstanding from the public - including cyclists.
At red lights -yeah - not all traffic signals go to sidestreet - many run on a rest-in-green timing which means mainstreet will stay green until something with enough metal in it rests on the induction loops to trip the signal to change. This doesn't give you the right to just roll through the light. There are 2 ways to trip the light. One is to hit the pedestrian button. This will force the light to enter a clearance phase (usually 10-15 seconds, then change. A second way is to trick the light into believing you are a car. To do this, tape a rare earth magnet to teh bottom of your bike at its lowest point (chainstay or bottom bracket, or even a pedal). Stop with the magnet right over the black line rectangular cutout at the intersections. The magnet will force teh loop to detect you, and the light will go through its clearance phase and then cycle to sidestreet.
What we build:
Cycling facilities designed into the upper tier (county/regional) road network are limited to on-road and off-road improvements. On road we have paved/widened shoulders and bike lanes. Off road we have Multi-use paths. All of these except shoulder hardening meet public disdain. Some of the more common complaints we get are that bikes don't contribute to road-building so why would we build roads/lanes/paths for them? We also hear about maintenance - cyclists like to see paths and shoulders in the same condition as roads, and sometimes we aren't able to sweep/plow/paint paths and bike lanes as regularly as we'd like. Roads have tires and fast vehicles rubbing the dirt away. Bike lanes don't always self-clean the same way. This results in an increased maintenance cost to the taxpayer. Widened shoulders tend to be favourable to everyone since both sides feel they are being served (all rural paving jobs in my jurisdiction now call for a minimum 2ft paved apron).
Our challenges with the bike lanes/paths are often related to topography (setting a multi-use path requires that we meet minimum grades and crossfalls) and property ownership. Very few landowners are willing to give up frontage for a bike lane or path. Cost to expropriate can create huge project budget overrides due to legal and real-estate values. Once we hash through the whole gammut of getting property then regrading for the bike lane, we are often stuck at structures (bridges) where we simply don't have space to fit a bike lane. It is also difficult to set up the lanes and paths to have destinations - especially in rural areas where we will incorporate a bike lane into a road project, only to have it lead to nothing until phase 4 or 5 of the project gets approval years later.
I am in the middle of a project now where I have managed to get bike lanes in phase 1 and 4 which have both been built, but phase 2, 3, and 5 have been shelved due to budget restraints. It may be 20 years before the middle piece of this project gets built. In the mean time, we have a busy road with bike lanes leading nowhere, and 100m (+/-) of bike lane at every crossing intersection.
Riding 1-2-3 abreast
In my jurisdiction, it is legal today for cyclists to ride 2 abreast. Most drivers aren't aware of this and get angry when they are held up by a peloton. Since they don't want to be run off the road, many riders will only go out single file. This is very considerate, and reduces the space needed for a car to pass. A number of cycling clubs are now petitioning for 3-abreast riding to be allowed in our highway traffic act, which is interesting to me to watch played out. I'm not sure which scenario I like best. Here's why.
Lets pretend a group of 12 racers go out for a training ride (common around here) in an area without bike lanes. By the books (Union Cyclise International), a single bike takes up about 1.85 m in length. For riders who aren't too aggressive, the bikes will be spaced about 2 feet (0.6 m) apart in a peloton. This puts your single unit length at 2.5 m. Considering that a standard lane width around here is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), read on...
If our 12 riders go in single file, a car will have a 100 ft (30 m) long line of cyclists one meter wide (3 ft) to pass. This may be difficult maintaining the additional 1m (3 ft) clearance between car and bike as required by the highway traffic act. Basically, the driver will have to straddle the centreline in order to pass. In fact, data has shown that the longer it takes a car to pass the cyclists, the closer they will come to the lead bikes in the pack since they feel threatened the longer they are shifted out of their normal driving position. Unfortunately, since the chain is so long, there is noplace for the driver to pull back in if an oncoming vehicle approaches. In fact, if an oncoming vehicle threatens the driver, he is most likely to drive into the peloton, injuring the cyclists.
Now if those cyclists were riding 2 abreast, the story would be different. Riding 2 abreast, the cyclists still take 1 m (3 ft) at the edge of the lane for the first file, plus another 60cm (2 ft) for the second file. We know that the cyclists on the edge will encroach less into the lane when they have other bikes beside them, pushing them over with less risk. So now we have a peloton width of 1.6 m plus 1 m clearance for a total of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) lane. The passing driver is still forced to straddle the centreline, although encroaching a little further into the oncoming lane, however now the peloton is only 15m long since the riders are side by side instead of strung out in a line. This means the driver only straddles the centreline for half the time, and is less likely to meet an oncoming vehicle. If he does though, he will pull into the peloton, risking contact with twice the cyclists.
Finally, if the cyclists are three-abreast. We now get a full lane of bikes. The car coming up on the peloton is forced to wait behind them until it is safe to pass. This is the same scenario as would happen with any slow moving vehicle (ie. farm tractor/tour bus/maintenance equipment) Once it is safe, the car will pass entirely in the oncoming lane. The advantage though is that our peloton is only 1/3 the length of riding single file, so the car only has 10 m (32.8 ft) to pass, which can be done very quickly once a gap in oncoming traffic presents itself.
Now I'm not condoning any one of these scenarios as best or better than the others, just giving another way to look at it. Really cyclists riding in a peloton should take a page from the motorcycle safety handbook and limit the size of their groups to prevent long pelotons that trap faster vehicles behind them for extended periods. Once your peloton is stretched out longer than truck, you are creating a safety risk for yourself. Also, pick routes that do offer paved shoulders and lighter/slower traffic wherever possible.
That's enough for now. Need to get back to what I'm supposed to be doing.
