If we’re going to make bicycling safer in the U.S., we need to be honest about what needs to be done.

The primary safety solution from many groups is to wear a helmet. But, according to research, wearing helmets is not the best way to improve bicycling safety. Creating safe bicycle facilities, increasing bicycle use, and educating users are the best means for improving safety. The results from the Netherlands support this. It’s one of the safest places to bike in the world yet almost no one wears helmets.

What do you call a cyclist wearing a helmet in the Netherlands? A tourist.

One study summarizes the six priorities that Germany and the Netherlands use to make biking so safe:

• Better Facilities for Walking and Cycling
• Traffic Calming of Residential Neighborhoods
• Urban Design Oriented to People and Not Cars
• Restrictions on Motor Vehicle Use
• Traffic Education
• Traffic Regulations and Enforcement

The big challenge in Metro Detroit is many road agencies and municipalities don’t know what better bicycling facilities are. For example, the Road Commission of Oakland County refuses to acknowledge much less use best practices for bicycling facilities. They ignore the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) guidelines for bicycling facilities. They ignore Federal Highway Administration guidance. They ignore bicycling safety studies that show their policies have been consistently found to be unsafe.

And similarly, many cities have followed the Road Commission’s lead. Rochester Hills and West Bloomfield have pursued wide sidewalks (ironically called “safety” paths) despite the overwhelming evidence that these are not safe options for cyclists.

If we truly want safe cycling, we need to start by forcing our local road agencies and municipalities to use best practices and provide safe non-motorized transportation options for cyclists. This should be our primary campaign. And that message needs to come from cyclists, citizens, AAA, medical professionals, health experts, the Traffic Improvement Association (TIA), and others.

This doesn’t mean helmet use should be discouraged. Helmets can lessen injuries when cyclists are hit. But it’s much better to prevent those “hits” in the first place.

An article ran in this week’s Free Press, “Engineer pushes for biking, walking paths”

[Scott] Clein, an associate with Giffels-Webster Engineers in Detroit, helped chart out nearly 400 miles of potential routes ideal for walking and biking — with a few changes implemented by city officials.

Though his recommendations were adopted in the city’s Master Plan in 2007, Detroit’s movers and shakers have been sluggish in making the necessary changes to encourage more foot and pedal traffic, he said.

With few government officials willing to take the plunge, community groups and individuals will have to take charge if they want to see more bike and walking lanes, he said.

Clein also was a Metromode guest blogger last fall where he’s covered more details on road diets, zoning, planning, and more.  Scott’s entry below clearly represents the struggle cycle advocates face in Royal Oak and other nearby communities:

Many traffic engineers are stuck in old-school thinking. The old-school way of thought, for those of you not tuned in to the inner workings of transportation planning, can be summed up as follows:   more is better. The more vehicles we can get through a road segment, the better off we are. And a larger number of travel lanes mean more vehicles per hour.

We tip our collective m-bike helmet to Scott and look forward to working with him down the reduced-width road.

Yesterday was the public announcement regarding DTOGS, the Detroit Transit Options for Growth Study.

We had concerns about the study’s proposed Woodward renderings. They appeared to remove the wide curb lane that makes Woodward more bike friendly. On other streets they removed the traffic lanes altogether.

On a positive note, they did have bike racks at the light rail stations.

During Monday’s announcement we learned that the light rail trains would allow bike roll-ons. This is a major benefit. It means cyclists could bring their bikes right on the train without the hassle of external racks like those currently on SMART buses. It also eliminates the two-bike limit those SMART racks currently face.

We also spoke with the planners afterwards to discuss wide curb lanes and in some cases bike lanes depending on the available road right-of-way constraints. Fortunately the planners are from Minneapolis and are familiar with light rail/cycling issues.

For further reading, the DTOGS announcement was covered by the Detroit News and Free Press.

University of Michigan urban planning graduate students are completing a couple studies in conjunction with the Eight Mile Boulevard Association and Macomb County Planning.

One study examined how to improve non-motorized transportation along Eight Mile. Different solutions were proposed for portions of Eight Mile due to its changing density, traffic speeds, and service levels. Some suggestions included bike lanes, bike parking, improved crossings, and more. With Eight Mile being reconstructed in upcoming years, it’s hoped that some of these suggestions could be integrated with those efforts.

The second study was to connect Detroit’s Conner Creek Greenway to Warren’s Red Run Rec Center. There were two suggested routes, either or both could be implemented. The first crossed east of the Eight Mile/Van Dyke (V-8) intersection and continued north along MacArthur Boulevard and the ITC power line corridor. The other route included on-road bike lanes along Van Dyke, which like Eight Mile will be reconstructed in the near future.

Both routes look good. ?The ITC route offered more greenspace, while the Van Dyke route provide better business access. Also, the Van Dyke route isn’t too far from Sherwood Avenue which provides excellent access between Warren, Centerline, and Detroit. That makes it a tad bit redundant.

The study’s proposed Eight Mile crossing does not include a pedestrian bridge for many of the reasons we cited earlier. MDOT agreed. And there was one additional reason not to build a large steel raised bridge over Eight Mile. It would have to run just under the high-power lines which run down the center boulevard. Doh!

The alternative provides a highly-visible signalized crossing, which really seems to make the most sense for both pedestrians and cyclists. The group proposed a HAWK signalized crossing, which would require some changes to Michigan’s current road laws.

The importance of this cross-county trail link is immense from both the non-motorized and political perspectives. Starting from the Detroit River, one could eventually take the Connor Creek Greenway north to Warren, along the proposed Red Run trail into Madison Heights or Sterling Heights, with connections to the Metro Parkway and Clinton River pathway.

I was recently asked by an urban planning study group about pedestrian bridge solutions for cyclists when crossing Eight Mile.  Would it work?  Is it a good solution?

It’s my opinion that pedestrian bridges can work for cyclists in some circumstances, but I’m not sure how well they’d work on Eight Mile.

I think pedestrian bridges can work for cyclists when:

• There isn’t a faster at-grade crossing
• The approaches are not too high (e.g. the road is below grade or the approaches are long and gradual)
• The approaches are easy to ride
• When not located at an intersection, routes to the bridge are signed so cyclists know they exist
• The pedestrian bridge is cleared of snow in the winter and otherwise well-maintained

One bridge that does work is the Clinton River Trail bridge over I-75 in Auburn Hills.  It meets all the above criteria.  However, most pedestrian bridges in the Metro Detroit area don’t work for cyclists.

There is a pedestrian bridge over I-696 west of Greenfield that is almost acceptable.  However, the approaches include very sharp 180 degree turns that force most cyclists to dismount; one approach ramp blindly delivers speeding cyclists to the middle of a road; it’s never plowed of snow; it’s often choked with weeds; and very few cyclists know it even exists due to a lack of signage.

The pedestrian bridges over I-75 have steep approaches, are unsigned, and have obstacles at the end of the approach ramps.  They are almost never used by regular cyclists.  They seemed to have been designed primarily for school children.

Pedestrian bridges are not cheap solutions and so it is all the more important that they are employed effectively.  Sometimes it may make more sense (and save more cents) using at-grade intersection improvements.