Anti-bike lanes
2026-01-07 → 2026-09-11
You were riding in a narrow, no-protection “bike lane” between parked cars and high-speed traffic, when a car door swung open. Well, the door made you fly into the oncoming traffic and you are dead.
Oh, actually it was just a bad dream. To avoid such a fate, you are riding in the car lane, safe from the “door-zone”. But a driver behind you come dangerously close to you honking and yell at you, “fxxxing CYCLISTS!”
Now, you avoid the street altogether. Time passes. During a city council meeting, you listen to many residents complaining to the city: “Why do we keep creating these expensive bike lanes that no one uses and that make traffic worse?”
Anti-bike lanes#
When a bike lane is not well designed or built, they can become an anti-bike lane.
- Anti-bike lanes provide almost no protection or even put cyclists in more danger.
- Anti-bike lanes create conflicts between people on bikes and others (drivers and pedestrians).
- Anti-bike lanes are thus not well used, thereby making next bike infrastructure harder to build.
See Painted bike lane for the evidence on whether paint is safer than nothing.
Types of anti-bike lanes#
Door-zone bike lanes#
Narrow, painted bike lanes sandwiched between parked cars and moving traffic. A fully opened car door covers most of the lane. Cyclists must choose between riding in the door zone, risking a sudden, violent collision that can throw you into an oncoming traffic, or riding outside the lane in the car lane—which creates conflicts with drivers, who will not understand why you’re riding in the car lane although there is a “perfectly fine bike lane”. There is no winning solution.
Painted gutter on high-speed roads#
A stripe of paint beside cars traveling 40–50 mph leaves cyclists without physical protection from moving traffic. NACTO’s guidance for unprotected lanes limits their use on faster, busier streets and calls for traffic calming and volume reduction where physical protection cannot be provided. A painted lane on a fast road should not count as a route suitable for all ages and abilities.
Lanes that disappear at intersections#
Some bike lanes end before an intersection, leaving cyclists to merge into motor traffic just as drivers prepare to turn. NACTO warns against dropping lanes or placing cyclists between motor-vehicle lanes: these designs increase crash risk, particularly where higher speeds put cyclists in drivers’ blind spots. That is a reason to carry protection through the junction; it does not establish that the entire route would be safer without a bike lane.
NACTO’s safe-intersection guidance calls for reorganizing the junction instead: restrict difficult turns, remove unnecessary turn lanes and slip lanes, and reallocate space to bikeways, protection islands, or wider sidewalks. Protection should continue through the conflict rather than stop at it.
“Right-hook” bike lanes with right-turn lanes#
A through bike lane placed between a through lane and a right-turn lane forces turning drivers to cross the bike lane, then leaves cyclists riding between motor vehicles. Bike lanes at intersections documents why this weaving geometry creates blind-spot conflicts and how protected geometry or signal separation avoids them.
Two-way lanes with poorly designed crossings#
Two-way bike lanes require turning drivers to look for cyclists approaching from both directions. NACTO’s two-way protected-lane guidance recognizes the additional conflicts at intersections and driveways, while stating that well-designed and maintained two-way lanes can serve all ages and abilities. The failure is leaving those conflicts untreated: crossings need clear sightlines, slow vehicle turns, and, where needed, separate signal phases. Protection must continue through the crossing.
Bike lanes with too many stop signs#
You stop at one block, build up speed, and stop again at the next. Repeat for the whole route. Following every sign makes the ride slow and exhausting. If you roll through a stop sign to keep your momentum, you’re one of “those damn cyclists” who ignore traffic rules. The route makes cycling difficult, then riders get blamed for how they use it.
The harm#
Bad bike lanes can cause harm beyond their direct crash risk:
- They create a false sense of safety for both cyclists and drivers
- They give cities credit for “having bike infrastructure” without actually providing it
- They can discourage cycling when people try the lane, feel unsafe, and conclude that cycling itself is dangerous (rather than that the lane is bad)
- They provide political cover to avoid investing in real protected infrastructure
Video#
“Are these bike lanes worse than nothing?“—a short asking exactly this page’s question: