Are there 1099 cyclists a day? Or 1099 trips a day? Now that it's a two-way bike lane, I would expect the number to have at least doubled automatically.

And are these trips exclusive to the bike lane, or do they take into account cyclists who take the "car" lane? I'm guessing it's the former.

My anecdotal stats: I used to ride 2nd southbound in the "car" lane, and ride 1st northbound. Now I ride 1st southbound and 2nd northbound. So I'm thinking my "number" as a cyclist went from 0 to 1, which reflects a better northbound route and a worse southbound route (for me, at least).

Too long? I'm happy people are using it, but the bike lane still kind of sucks.

I'm very glad to say the sign in that picture has been changed. In response to a flood of comments, the signal on the right is now an arrow. Much clearer!

Misleading headline (and I am bikier than thou) traffic triples on one particular road, maybe; we have no evidence that those people weren't already cycling but on another road.

It'll all get shut down when some rich banker's husband crosses to where the Valet has brought the car without looking and gets knocked over by a cyclist.

If only we had some kind of city agency whose job it was to cite drivers who make illegal turns, or other similar traffic violations. If there were somebody on the city payroll who could do that kind of thing, we could identify repeat offenders and revoke their driving privileges.

Of course then you'd need somebody "policing" the streets for anyone driving with a suspended license. But there's no room in the budget to pay hundreds and hundreds of these "policer persons" to do that. We'd have to cut something to fund it.

What about that city department who doesn't do anything but beat up brown people and sue the city for Constitutionalism. Take some money from there and hire some traffic "policers."

Let's have a contest to name the new department! It'll be fun.

@3, we have no evidence that the counter wasn't just detecting more people in the bike lanes as opposed to the general traffic lanes.

BI-CY-CLO-DYTE! AAAAAHHH!!!!

@1) The city says "an average of 1,099 bicyclists a day."

@2) Agreed!

@3) Perhaps you're correct--the city didn't provide that info. But just based on my experience: given the steep grade of downtown's slope, cyclists are reluctant to take a different avenue than the one they need to be on (say, descending from Fourth Avenue to Second), because it can involve riding back up a steep hill later to get back onto the road they need to reach.

#4

And maybe one of them could someday write the allowable $5000 fine for threatening a Vulnerable User...something they've been able to do since the last Gregoire term.

Missing the word "both" for both directions in last para, 1st sentence.

We would have five times the bicyclists in the Rainier Valley, on existing, traffic-separated bike infra-structure, if we didn't need to worry about being hit by 1/4 once projectiles, traveling at 1,000 feet, EVERY SECOND.

But you won't see Dominic calling for more public safety spending to deter, and as a last resort, arrest those that prey on cyclists with guns in the Rainier Valley.

It's not about the greatest good for the greatest number with Dominic, it is about protecting people who look like him and think like him that don't live south of I-90 and east of I-5.

So much for social justice.

@4 Yes, they should have done that when that bicyclist buzzed down that old man in the crosswalk near Madison Park.

@4

I would be happy if we had some sort of city agency who would cite bicyclists who disobey traffic laws.

@4 Get the motorcycle cop who haunts 3rd Ave in the mornings, to expand his route?

@9-Fixed! Thanks for noticing!

I used the cycletrack over the weekend after a bike camping trip. I enjoyed my pleasant pace. In the past I would have fought my way up 1st.

Love all the people who love to harp on law-breaking cyclists. I see at least 2-3 cars run stop signs and lights a day, not to mention the folks driving 50mph on Seattle streets. At least cyclists rarely kill bystanders, right?

I also gotta love "@4 Yes, they should have done that when that bicyclist buzzed down that old man in the crosswalk near Madison Park"

I'm actually afraid of stepping into the street on a "walk" signal because overzealous drivers making right turns without looking. I've actually been hit by such cars.

The problem is not cyclists. It's people who operate their method of travel unsafely on our streets.

@17,
Yes, which is why it would be a great thing to have a state-operated training and certification for all users of the public streets.... bikes included.

@17: I think the percentage of cyclists I encounter blowing through stop signs is higher than the percentage of cars I see doing the same. Granted, there's probably some sampling bias, as the careful cyclists might try to avoid being on the arterials during rush hour.

One traffic signal I'd like some clarification on is the West entrance to the UW, where they have a separate light for pedestrians, and prohibit turning right on red. It's a great system for avoiding pedestrian injuries (though some motorists still turn right anyway), but there's no indication as to when the cyclists on the separated path are supposed to go. When I'm driving, I'm super paranoid about turning right on green, because I just don't know whether the bikes will go on green, or if they'll wait for the pedestrian signal.

I am on Second every day in a car. (I know, I know, for shame!)

It's a huge improvement. They should do the same thing on Fourth.

@10- While I'm not saying that the Rainier Valley is paradise, it's not a fucking war zone. It's barely even a bad neighborhood by any objective standard.

@18- So the fact drivers (who have had such training) constantly break the rules leads you to think that training will cause cyclists to be more obedient?

You better watch out, Mudede gets really pissed off when people measure traffic rates.

"Although new traffic signals on Second Avenue instruct drivers not to turn left when cyclists have right-of-way, many drivers have failed to obey the rules." {and an equal number of cyclists have ignored their red light for going straight}

@8 @11 @12

The dumbest motherfuckers on Slog agree: crack down on cyclists!

Wait, where's Collectivism Sucks?

If only cyclists obeyed the law 100% of the time like motorists do the world would be a better place. GMAFB! Give me my 3 feet. Wait your turn at a 4 way stop. Respect my right to take the lane. Don't honk unless it's an emergency or you're exiting a blind alley. I rode just over 17 miles today and witnessed drivers violate every one of these laws. On the same ride I saw 2 cyclists blow stop signs (after *nearly* stopping, you know, like motorists do) and there wasn't an occupied car in sight.

@21, could it hurt ? Maybe we should give out concealed carry permits, driver's licenses, and anesthesiologists' licenses with every cup of coffee out here... because only sometimes do things go wrong when you do everything right. Better give everyone the opportunity without question.

I'm so glad to see the city finally starting to get their act together on cycling infrastructure. Seattle is so far behind.

This is a baby step, really, but a great start nonetheless.

@27- "...could it hurt ?"

Most people only want to create more government bureaucracy when it could help. Since it clearly isn't going to achieve what you stated before you want it to achieve, is there some other thing you'd like it to achieve?

@30,
I'm hoping it will result in a count of the bicyclists who use the roadways enough to wish to continue to do so, money for bike infrastructure, a level of "rules of the road" competency that you can presume all cyclists in the road have, and a way in which truly incompetent users of the road can be identified specifically, reported, and their licenses revoked until retraining.

You know, like we have for cars.

@30- A count of cyclists? We're commenting on a story about a count of cyclists. Licensing wouldn't tell you much about the number of cyclists. Like most cyclists I have a driver's license. I drive about once a month at most, which may be less than most cyclists.

Money for bike infrastructure? From a licensing program? That isn't like what we do for cars.

Competency? We know it doesn't work for cars.

Bikes and crosswalks. You have to act like a car too...stop for pedestrians.
My last crosswalk adventure was great...dude actually sped up (20+ mph) to try to fit in the 2 foot gap between me and the curb...even though he had clear line of sight to see me. Look of horror was 'special' as he realized he didn't estimate the gap right. If I take one more step, we collide. I outweighed him by ~50 lbs, I probably 'win' that collision and his landing area of bike rack, sign post and staple filled telephone pole looked like a collection of medieval torture devices.

Aside from this being irritating. The cars also time your crossing. When you get to the point of crossing past them, they start moving again...IF you're stopping in the crosswalk unexpectedly, because the bike isn't, you risk being hit by the car. If you make me choose...the bike is going down.

Fuck you dorki munson. The bike lanes work. You are a has been , better yet, you never were much of a news guy, not even a good sports dude. Too much ego, not enough smarts.. Once again, fuck yourself.

I live on 2nd and i'm all for bike lanes but it would be awesome if the bike light would only be green if bikes were present. Not sure how they could do this but it would be awesome. Every morning I sit there waiting to turn while no bikes come from either direction. Just sitting. Sitting. Sitting. Dreaming of being late to work.