My main point is that you can protect intersections enough so that at worst a cyclist only really has to learn the same basics as a pedestrian when it comes to traffic (e.g. stop at a crossing and look both ways).
Yes, but IF the claim in OP article is correct: "Bike lanes in the US are dangerous, or more dangerous" than a proposed remedy that is rarely used in the US does not debunk the claim. If anything, the need for bike lanes with protected intersections would suggest that the current lanes are in fact, dangerous.
Again, the article may be incorrect. Something you seem to have already decided:
I am a bit pressed on time, so I can't yet give this a good debunking.
Maybe you find the source,
Forbes, dubious to begin with, therefor it's assumed to be false on the face of it.
The main source for bike lane danger in the OP article seems to be here in this paragraph:
External Quote:
Although the U.S. Department of Transportation
recommends bike lanes, other studies have reached similar conclusions to Forester and Heine, such as
a 2019 analysis of bike lanes and crashes in Colorado (which includes a literature review). The author concluded that separated bike lanes raise the number of crashes by 117 percent compared with shared roadway. Separated bike tracks, which are separated from cars by a median strip, parking lane, or row of plantings, increased crashes 400 percent more than a bike lane.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianaf...lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/?sh=69fa2c1e4ca8
This provides a hyperlink to a paper by Wansun Chang, a Master's Thesis in Community and Regional Planning. All External Content below:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=arch_crp_theses
He gives us a number of studies that say cyclists want separate bike lanes:
External Quote:
Caulfield, Brick, & McCarthy (2012) determined bicycle infrastructure preferences by conducting a survey of 1,941 people employed in businesses participating in "Smarter Travel Workplaces." Caulfield, Brick, & McCarthy (2012) showed that facilities that were segregated from traffic are the preferred form of cycling infrastructure, regardless of cycling confidence. The research by Duthie, Brady, Mills, & Machemehl (2010) reviewed variety of bicycle facility types and configurations. They discovered that creating buffer space between the outer edge of the bicycle lane and the driver side of parked cars is the most effective way of ensuring that bicyclists are protected from parked motor vehicle door zones. Cyclists prefer separated bicycle facilities because they provide cyclists with the confidence that there will not be a collision with other traffic, and no accidental door opening of a car. Plus, individuals, especially women, children and the elderly, prefer to bike separately from motor traffic (Lusk et al., 2011). Moreover, there was similar result from Monsere, Mcneil, & Dill (2012). They evaluated different user perception of two types of separate on-road bicycle facilities (e.g. cycle tracks and buffered bike lanes) in Portland, Oregon. They found that 5 most cyclists believed that the separated facilities improved safety and reduced dooring concerns compared to a regular bike lane
Then gives his hypothesis:
External Quote:
This study hypothesizes that separated bicycle facilities are actually more dangerous than the shared road.
External Quote:
The first objective of this study is to discover the impact of shared bicycle roads and separated bicycle facilities on bicycle crashes. This paper hypothesizes that separated bicycle facilities are more dangerous than the shared road. Forsyth & Krizek (2010) wrote that improving safety is the primary reason for the proposed separated bicycle facility. However, Forsyth & Krizek (2010) also wrote that the argument that separated bicycle facilities improve the safety of cyclists is a controversial one in the field of transportation. This thesis shows how a separated bicycle lane, which is designed for the safety and comfort of the cyclist, actually increases the probability of bicycle accidents
He uses the stats from the city of Denver from 2013-2019:
As well as showing the percentage of the different types of bike facilities:
So, the most accidents occurred on the 30% of facilities that were bike lanes.
He then goes on to use a lot of math to, as I understood it, extrapolate how many bike miles are being traveled on the various bike facilities given the percentage of each. My understanding was that he tried to compare the different facilities if they all had the same amount of bike miles traveled on them.
So, if there were 91 accidents on a Cycle Track, but the Cycle Track facility only accounted for 2% of the total facilities and therefore had a much smaller amount of bike miles traveled compared to a Bike Lane or Shared Roadway, what would the accident number be if the bike miles traveled were all equal. I think. If so (bold by me):
External Quote:
Table 6.7 shows the percentage change information discussed above. A cycle track facility is estimated to increase the average number of crashes by 401% compared to bike lane facility. Then, with 95% confidence, a cycle track facility increases the true average number of crashes by anywhere between 324% to 492% compared to a bike lane facility. Next is a cycle track versus buffered bike lane. A cycle track facility is estimated to increase the average number of responses by 289% compared to buffered bike lane facility. The third one is buffered bike lane versus bike lane. A buffered bike lane is estimated to increase the average number of responses by 29% compared to bike lane facility. Overwhelming, the data shows that crashes occur more often in the, the cycle track compared to the other facilities. It can also be seen that the more physical the protected method is, the more accidents seem to occur
And (bold by me):
External Quote:
This study used a Poisson Rate Regression analysis method, incorporating crash data with current bicycle facilities, to observe the impact of separated bicycle facilities in Denver, Colorado. The first objective of this study aimed to find the impact of shared bicycle roads and separated bicycle facilities on bicycle crashes. The second goal of this study was to identify which of the various types of separate bike facilities is safest. The findings of this study suggested that a separated bike lane is estimated to increase the average number of crashes by 117% compared to shared road. This study also found that cycle track facilities are estimated to have increased the average number of collisions by 401% compared to the bicycle lane. Compared to the buffer bike lane facility, the cycle track facility is estimated to have increased the average number of collisions by 289%. Plus, a buffered bike lane leads to an estimated 29% increase in the mean number of crashes when compared to a bike lane. This result shows that there are more bicycle crashes in the separated bike lane than in shared roads. Among separated bicycle facilities, the cycle track, where physically separated facilities were installed, was most likely to cause bicycle crashes.
Now someone much smarter than my may be able to completely debunk this guy's statistics and therefore his paper. Or it may be that this was some sort of anomaly and not indicative of other studies of similar situations. If that's the case, then one could take the author of the OP article to task for not doing the same before writing the article. But if this paper is ligit, it would seem to provide some evidence for the claim in the OP article.
They don't "choke traffic" because the outer lanes are already used for parking, a common design in Europe.
Agreed, I didn't notice them as parking lanes at first look. We have the same situation here.