The investigators seem to be unaware that the bike lane behind them in the staged photo is substandard width. One would think that the stencil that doesn’t fit would be a sufficient clue.
Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facilities Added to Existing Roadways is a monograph by the Center for Transportation Research at The University of Texas at Austin. It reports on research entitled Operational and Safety Impacts When Retrofitting Bicycle Lanes. That project was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
Critique of Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facilities Added to Existing Roadways explains why this “research” is more accurately described as junk science.
Advertisements
August 18, 2009 at 11:11 am
Ha, I’m glad to see someone pointing out this bogus “study”. I also immediately noticed the irony of choosing a location which depicts an improperly designed lane to tout the virtues of same.
Another irony is that they point out that bikes ride closer to the travel lane (when in a striped bike lane) and cars driver closer to the bike lane edge stripe which results in decreased passing space in an overtaking maneuver. And they say this is a good thing since it reduces encroachments into adjacent lanes (over reaction they call it). I didn’t notice if they looked at whether this holds true for commercial vehicles (read trucks) as well.
August 18, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Sometimes it takes a little insight to realize many bicycling “research” studies are bogus, while for others it’s abundantly clear that they aren’t worth the paper/electrons they are written on!
Wayne
September 9, 2010 at 11:08 am
I love your comment about cyclist experience. They mention it but don’t explore the implications. That one jumped off the page when I read the report and I spent time anticipating their discussion. I was disappointed.
CTR is also doing a study on some experients with bike boxes and painted bike lanes in Austin. Since I’m an alternate member of the Austin BAC, I look forward to reading their research. Now with a skeptical eye.
September 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Thanks for the kind words Tim. Since you are in Austin, you might be interested in another critique of a CTR effort I wrote. It’s my “Parking and Bicyclists” paper.
This CTR report/slideshow may not be accessible at the website shown in my critique, but you can definitely access it at:
It is also embedded in a much larger CTR report called “The Effects of On-Street Parking on Cyclist Route Choice and the Operational Behavior of Cyclists and Motorists” located at: http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/index.html. My quick glance at that report shows me that the CTR continues to do terrible work.
You might also like a collision study I did that compares Austin to two other cities: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/TaleOfThree.htm
September 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I stumbled on the tale of three cities while exploring your site. I like it. It’s funny, I wrote a post with the same title awhile ago.
http://oldguy2wheels.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/a-tale-of-three-cities/
The CTR parking study concludes with a couple blinding flashes of the obvious. Not sure what all the measuring and statistics was all about.
CTR seems to be focused on encroachment of motorist into adjacent on-coming lane or into middle two way turn lane. Saw reference to conclusion that bike lanes reduce this activity by decreasing lateral passing distance between car and bike.
I have seen the same behavior. When there is a bike lane, some motorists seem to pass me with less lateral separation and they don’t usually encroach the other lane. The behavior is highly variable and some factors seem to be linked to number of lanes, speed limit, presence of on-street parking etc. Just my perceptions. I don’t have any data.
Again, I look forward to their report of bike boxes (which I dislike) and painted bike lanes (ambivalent).
August 21, 2011 at 8:01 pm
— But I don’t line the use of the word “encroach”. It assumes a rigid allocation of space which fits with the researchers’ premises, but is unrealistic and often unsafe. In any other context involving overtaking, it would be called “merging into the adjacent lane.” If it requires crossing a dashed lin,e it is perfectly normal and legal. If it requires crossing a double yellow line, then there is a legal concern, but on the other hand, Maine has recently made a partial merge across a double yellow line to overtake bicyclists legal, and it happens routinely here in Massachusetts as well without any particular problems that I have noticed. I just went out for a bicycle club ride today and was overtaken this way dozens of times — no problem…comments on this?
August 21, 2011 at 9:05 pm
I agree that “encroach” can have multiple interpretations. How is it that if a motorist partially crosses a line, dotted or solid, to pass a bicyclist is it often called an “encroach” into the adjacent lane, but passing wholly or partially within the lane is not thought of as encroaching onto the bicyclist’s lane?
February 1, 2012 at 9:19 am
This is a standard width bike lane in Austin. Worst “Bicycle Friendly City” I’ve ever ridden in. Thank you for keeping these folks honest…
August 2, 2012 at 11:44 pm
[…] as less “encroachment” into the other lane. IOW, they don’t move over! Here are 2 examples: Bicycle Facilities Added and Red […]