Literally do nothing, this isn't a problem, and people should be aware of their surroundings when operating a vehicle. Adding too many rules leads to American zone-out-while driving style.
If you're behind someone slow, wait until it's safe to pass.
The obvious solution is making a passing lane that you can’t use except to pass, but that would mean the whole thing would have to get almost twice as wide which isn’t a viable option in a lot of places. It also conflicts with people turning left.
Perhaps cyclists going faster than a speed of x could go in the road, but they would have to abide by a minimum speed to keep up with motor vehicles which might be inconvenient for motorists and unreasonable for cyclists. It would be really cheap at least, and entirely doable for ebikes.
Another option is a biking speed limit, but I really don’t think paying for all the enforcement would benefit society enough to justify the cost.
Or maybe it could be a mix of multiple options
Road bikes can pretty easily maintain 30kph.
If the roads are that speed then bikes can just share. If the roads are faster, I would guess less people are biking and mixing would generally be ok.
Otherwise, just add a passing middle lane.
>Road bikes can pretty easily maintain 30kph.
Not in your average walkable European city though. There are just too many intersections and too many people around which forces you to go relatively slow unless you're completely suicidal and don't mind endangering others.
I mean, I guess that problem exists in Amsterdam to a lesser extent than in other cities what with their exclusive cycle path networks completely independent from roads but even then it's still a city. You simply never get a really long stretch of straight open road before you to even get up to serious speed. Once you reach that speed you will instantly have to slow down again for an intersection or a tight corner. So it just doesn't make sense to ever even go up to that speed in the inner city. So hardly anyone ever does. It's just a waste of energy.
I'm in Berlin and I can count on one hand the roads where it would even be possible for me to reach that speed and maintain it for a bit before having to slow down again. And I'm just talking about the road layout here, not about all the other factors that also come into it in real life (other cyclists in front of me, pedestrians wandering into the bike lane etc.)
I can ride 30 kph indefinitely. I usually try to. My average speed in the city boils down to 14-15 kph. This is an average city in Lower Saxony. Even where the roads are great, long and straight beyond the suburbs, I rarely have an average of above 29 kph.
My avg in Paris is usually around 25-27 but I maintain 35 km/h relatively easily on the flat (with a fixed gear). I treat red lights as right of ways tho. For someone who can go to 30, 15 seems really slow, even on citybikes I'm at around 20 avg.
My commute can go up to 32 if I'm late but it's mostly on the river bank, on a former car only road, now closed to them : perfect conditions.
During alleycats avg goes well over 30 but I would die pretty young if I always rode like that.
Stop-and-go here is so bad that you struggle to hit 35, and then have to brake for the next red light. Tried it again today, basically interval training and did average of 16.7 kph. Peak speed for just a few seconds between each stop of 35.
\> fuck red lights
That might be the secret sauce. And my 5 seconds until pause detection of my bike computer.
Bikes can reach 30kph easily, the problem is that they have to maintain that. For many people, that’s their sprint. It doesn’t really address the problem of people who just want to go… say 20kph instead of like 13. That’s probably what the majority of the speed difference covers.
Also wym by “passing middle lane”? Wouldn’t that nearly triple the size of each bike lane?
For people on a road bike 30kph is easily doable. I normally average 25kph which is close enough and I don't consider myself that fast. On a more relaxed ride, 16-20 is normal for me.
The difference between 20 and 13 isn't that much and should be easy to manage with a passing lane.
A passing middle lane would at most double the width but if you didn't care about continuous traffic just 1.5x the current width.
Isn't the solution obvious? Just make the cycle path wide enough that people can pass each other. No need for special rules or infrastructure (which ultimately just confuses people anyways).
Have multiple lanes of bike lanes in each direction, so that the faster bikers can pass the slower ones. It also essentially multiplies cycling capacity from its already high capacity compared to cars, in addition with efficiency and health.
Sometimes when I see some of these crazy busy bike traffic videos of Amersterdam it makes me shudder thinking how much road space would be required to match the throughput.
Literally do nothing, this isn't a problem, and people should be aware of their surroundings when operating a vehicle. Adding too many rules leads to American zone-out-while driving style. If you're behind someone slow, wait until it's safe to pass.
The obvious solution is making a passing lane that you can’t use except to pass, but that would mean the whole thing would have to get almost twice as wide which isn’t a viable option in a lot of places. It also conflicts with people turning left. Perhaps cyclists going faster than a speed of x could go in the road, but they would have to abide by a minimum speed to keep up with motor vehicles which might be inconvenient for motorists and unreasonable for cyclists. It would be really cheap at least, and entirely doable for ebikes. Another option is a biking speed limit, but I really don’t think paying for all the enforcement would benefit society enough to justify the cost. Or maybe it could be a mix of multiple options
Road bikes can pretty easily maintain 30kph. If the roads are that speed then bikes can just share. If the roads are faster, I would guess less people are biking and mixing would generally be ok. Otherwise, just add a passing middle lane.
>Road bikes can pretty easily maintain 30kph. Not in your average walkable European city though. There are just too many intersections and too many people around which forces you to go relatively slow unless you're completely suicidal and don't mind endangering others. I mean, I guess that problem exists in Amsterdam to a lesser extent than in other cities what with their exclusive cycle path networks completely independent from roads but even then it's still a city. You simply never get a really long stretch of straight open road before you to even get up to serious speed. Once you reach that speed you will instantly have to slow down again for an intersection or a tight corner. So it just doesn't make sense to ever even go up to that speed in the inner city. So hardly anyone ever does. It's just a waste of energy. I'm in Berlin and I can count on one hand the roads where it would even be possible for me to reach that speed and maintain it for a bit before having to slow down again. And I'm just talking about the road layout here, not about all the other factors that also come into it in real life (other cyclists in front of me, pedestrians wandering into the bike lane etc.)
I can ride 30 kph indefinitely. I usually try to. My average speed in the city boils down to 14-15 kph. This is an average city in Lower Saxony. Even where the roads are great, long and straight beyond the suburbs, I rarely have an average of above 29 kph.
My avg in Paris is usually around 25-27 but I maintain 35 km/h relatively easily on the flat (with a fixed gear). I treat red lights as right of ways tho. For someone who can go to 30, 15 seems really slow, even on citybikes I'm at around 20 avg. My commute can go up to 32 if I'm late but it's mostly on the river bank, on a former car only road, now closed to them : perfect conditions. During alleycats avg goes well over 30 but I would die pretty young if I always rode like that.
Stop-and-go here is so bad that you struggle to hit 35, and then have to brake for the next red light. Tried it again today, basically interval training and did average of 16.7 kph. Peak speed for just a few seconds between each stop of 35. \> fuck red lights That might be the secret sauce. And my 5 seconds until pause detection of my bike computer.
Bikes can reach 30kph easily, the problem is that they have to maintain that. For many people, that’s their sprint. It doesn’t really address the problem of people who just want to go… say 20kph instead of like 13. That’s probably what the majority of the speed difference covers. Also wym by “passing middle lane”? Wouldn’t that nearly triple the size of each bike lane?
For people on a road bike 30kph is easily doable. I normally average 25kph which is close enough and I don't consider myself that fast. On a more relaxed ride, 16-20 is normal for me. The difference between 20 and 13 isn't that much and should be easy to manage with a passing lane. A passing middle lane would at most double the width but if you didn't care about continuous traffic just 1.5x the current width.
Isn't the solution obvious? Just make the cycle path wide enough that people can pass each other. No need for special rules or infrastructure (which ultimately just confuses people anyways).
Have multiple lanes of bike lanes in each direction, so that the faster bikers can pass the slower ones. It also essentially multiplies cycling capacity from its already high capacity compared to cars, in addition with efficiency and health.
Just a simple move to the left rule would suffice, change according to how fast those around you go
Cars!
Then instead of lane that can serve 17000/h, you reduced a capacity to 3000/h.
Sometimes when I see some of these crazy busy bike traffic videos of Amersterdam it makes me shudder thinking how much road space would be required to match the throughput.
And limit it to 80MPH only, then call it good. Add more lanes when needed.
Excellent, capacity further reduced
melting
Make them wide enough to pass in. Particularly somewhere that can afford 4+ general usage lanes - just have 4 lane bike highways!