Google sponsored links
One example: cyclist traveling 20 mph in bike lane, motorist traveling at 35 mph, passes the cyclist, then slows to turn right into a mall entrance... 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5... Cyclist catches up with motorist and starts to pass on the right side... Motorist turns right... Who has the right-of-way?
Sounds like the classic right hook -- not really that hard to avoid in practice.
Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure.
Now imagine the same situation with a WOL. Who has right of way there, and more importantly, how is that right of way enforced? Are you going to tell me that this can NEVER happen in a WOL?
BR
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
"Cyclist may take a full lane" is much better, but such a sign should be posted on every road everywhere, for there is no road where it does not apply at least sometimes...
Exactly... not about posting the sign per se, but about the fact that cyclists can take the lane when needed. But this simple fact seems to be missing in the brains of many motorists... and added to that are the issues of motorists "pushing the limits..." Not looking, not stopping, not merging, speeding, going beyond red lights... etc, not fulfilling their end of the "ROW agreement" that we are supposed to be working under.
Too many motorists do not believe that cyclists belong on the roads... and that they, the motorists, can do what they please as long as they can get away with it.
This is why I stated before that they are NOT treating you like a peer... an "operator of a vehicle," but as an obstacle (with no rights).
Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure.
BR
And written into CA law as well... but do the motorists know it? That is the issue...
.... They come at you in intersections even when you have the ok for a pedesterian cross walk and from every direction.... Bright yellow jerseys and all..That ok to walk signal means nothing to them..
anyone thinks urban commuting is race oriented is heading for injuries...
ubran riding...you gotta slow down and look for the unexpected at every intersection,
Drivers will generally follow all intersection rules. By generally I mean:
-They run warm red lights, rush to make them and enter intersection as they turn red. But after the red is red for a good pause, the red light running generally stops, except for the very rare and out of control driver.
-Slow substantially for right turns on red. Many do stop, but many do not look at the x-walk they are crossing, but do in the opposite directoin toward the lane of traffic they are entering.
While these behaviors push (and break) the legal rules, they are fairly predictable and easy to watch out for.
I do ride my commute like a race, but I am hyper aware for safety concerns and have never broken a traffic rule. Right hooks are actually the least of my concern as I rarely position myself where one could occur. Left hooks are my biggest concern and keep a constant watch on any car than may cut across my path and am prepared to stop and take evasive movement to avoid collision. On straight aways where there are no intersections, even minor ones, no parked cars, is where I push hard. It is on these straight no intersection areas where I find the faster I go the better I flow with traffic, espcially if there is a narrow outside lane.
Al
Actually you need a "Cyclist may take full lane" on that road... "Share the Road" only works where there is road to share.
While I agreed in a separate post, there is also the interpretation that 'share' does not mean side by side in the same lane. 'share the road' means that both cars and cyclist use the road and does not imply a specific cyclist position in the lane, like 'share the lane' might. The share sign I like has a bike icon on top of a car icon. Share means you are both using it.
Al
While I agreed in a separate post, there is also the interpretation that 'share' does not mean side by side in the same lane. 'share the road' means that both cars and cyclist use the road and does not imply a specific cyclist position in the lane, like 'share the lane' might. The share sign I like has a bike icon on top of a car icon. Share means you are both using it.
Al
I just don't think it is clear to motorists though... especially since they can't seem to share the roads with each other well... (watch the actions at any merge.... oh that's right you did... the Mustang incident... just a tip of the iceburg)
One example: cyclist traveling 20 mph in bike lane, motorist traveling at 35 mph, passes the cyclist, then slows to turn right into a mall entrance... 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5... Cyclist catches up with motorist and starts to pass on the right side... Motorist turns right... Who has the right-of-way?
Do the same thinking in your head with two autos and two lanes (hey... think like a vehicle driver).
The vehicle in front is actually changing lanes before a turn and "as the vehicle in front" must signal and check for clearance before changing lanes to then excecute the turn. If it is clear, and the motorist can then change lanes, the cyclist now as "the vehicle behind" has the duty to watch for the motorist.
The problems arise when the motorist decides to either try to "beat the train" and does not allocate enough clearance, or does not check for clearance first before changing lanes. This latter problem is due to either lack of training or bad driving habits.
Sounds like the classic right hook -- not really that hard to avoid in practice.
Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure.
Now imagine the same situation with a WOL. Who has right of way there, and more importantly, how is that right of way enforced? Are you going to tell me that this can NEVER happen in a WOL?
Two substantially different answers from two different experienced cyclists. How many more do you think we need to make my point that there is no right answer?
In the case of a WOL motorists are not inhibited by the (non-existent) BL stripe from doing what they normally do when they make right turn: merge right and establish their ROW "as close as practicable to" the right edge of the roadway before turning right. At the same time, the cyclist is not inhibited from leaving the right side by the (non-existent) BL stripe, and so is more likely to understand that he should merge left and pass the slowing motorist on the left.
Yes, sharing lanes adds some complexity to traffic cycling in situations like this, requiring cyclists to know when and where they should be moving laterally in the shared lane, which is why cyclists need special training arguably more than motorcyclists do, but bike lanes make these situations much worse.
Serge
[quote=Brian]Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure.
BR
And written into CA law as well... but do the motorists know it? That is the issue...
It is NOT written into CA law. On the contrary, CA law requires the motorist to merge into the bike lane prior to making his right turn, and if he can't do that safely after passing the cyclist, then he should slow and do it behind the cyclist. Under no circumstances should he end up at the turn stopped in a position outside of the bike lane - the exact situation that happens when motorists follow normal vehicular rules and treat the BL stripe the edge stripe it seems to be.
That's the problem.... is the BL stripe a roadway edge stripe, or not? When is it, and when is it not? It's very confusing, and the CA law writers have made a valiant effort to sort it all out, but the result is a mess that not only most cyclists and motorists don't understand, but also most law enforcement officers and judges don't.
Two substantially different answers from two different experienced cyclists. How many more do you think we need to make my point that there is no right answer?
Serge
NOPE sorry, we said the same thing in two different ways... you do not have to use the exact same words to express the same concepts.
Let's compare:
The vehicle in front is actually changing lanes before a turn and "as the vehicle in front" must signal and check for clearance before changing lanes to then excecute the turn. If it is clear, and the motorist can then change lanes, the cyclist now as "the vehicle behind" has the duty to watch for the motorist.
Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure.
not really that hard to avoid in practice.
The problems arise when the motorist decides to either try to "beat the train"
Sounds like the classic right hook
You want us to use the exact same wording... Ha! Various states do not even use the same wording in their traffic laws for the same situations.
It is NOT written into CA law. On the contrary, CA law requires the motorist to merge into the bike lane prior to making his right turn, and if he can't do that safely after passing the cyclist, then he should slow and do it behind the cyclist.
And that is NOT yielding to a cyclist? Excuse me what exactly is it?
Under no circumstances should he end up at the turn stopped in a position outside of the bike lane - the exact situation that happens when motorists follow normal vehicular rules and treat the BL stripe the edge stripe it seems to be.
No that happens because the motorist did not look and yield... they suddenly became aware of the situation and then stopped... because they are practicing poor driving habits... This is the same kind of action that motorists do on the freeways when they don't merge into long exit lines but blindly drive up and then stop in the lane parallel to the line (and hold up traffic in the second lane) and then beg to merge.
That's the problem.... is the BL stripe a roadway edge stripe, or not? When is it, and when is it not? It's very confusing, and the CA law writers have made a valiant effort to sort it all out, but the result is a mess that not only most cyclists and motorists don't understand, but also most law enforcement officers and judges don't.
It is a lane... simple enough... you make it complicated in your mind. (could explain a lot though, as you also believe the line makes cyclists "disappear... " magic paint perhaps??? )
Now perhaps it might be more clear if it were stripped all the way like a narrow travel lane... or if motorists were actually taught what a BL is and were tested regarding a BL. But a 1/2 page in a manual (part of page 24 of the PDF verision) of 85 pages hardly is "training." There is more information on the tests (all of page 11.)
Gene I know the difference between a difference in words and difference in concept. Here I will describe using different words from those used by you and Brian to describe the same concepts each of you originally conveyed.
What you described with the car "actually changing lanes" had the motorist merging into the bike lane prior to the turn. You recognized that the motorist had the ROW if he was sufficiently in front of the cyclist to safely merge into the BL prior to the right turn, but that he had to yield to the cyclist and merge in behind him if it wasn't clear.
In Brian's "car is turning and crossing the bike lane" description the motorist never merges into the bike lane, he only crosses it. In Brian's paradigm (which seems to be commonly held), the motorist must yield not only to the cyclist, but effectively to the bike lane itself, by never entering it, and only crossing it with due care.
Gene I know the difference between a difference in words and difference in concept. Here I will describe using different words from those used by you and Brian to describe the same concepts each of you originally conveyed.
What you described with the car "actually changing lanes" had the motorist merging into the bike lane prior to the turn. You recognized that the motorist had the ROW if he was sufficiently in front of the cyclist to safely merge into the BL prior to the right turn, but that he had to yield to the cyclist and merge in behind him if it wasn't clear.
In Brian's "car is turning and crossing the bike lane" description the motorist never merges into the bike lane, he only crosses it. In Brian's paradigm (which seems to be commonly held), the motorist must yield not only to the cyclist, but effectively to the bike lane itself, by never entering it, and only crossing it with due care.
Or was Brian simply writing quicky... Let's see what Brian has to say. He said it in half as many words as I did... was trying to be verbose... to make sure you got the whole concept... although I never did use the word "yield."
Gene, when I wrote, "It is NOT written into law", by it I did not mean, "motorists must yield to cyclists in bike lanes" as you seemed to interpret when you wrote, "And that is NOT yielding to a cyclist? "
Let's go back.
Brian: "Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure."
Gene: "And written into CA law as well"
Serge: "It is NOT written into CA law."
More specifically, it is NOT written into CA law that a car turning and crossing the bike lane must yield to cyclists. In fact, it says specifically that a car should never turn right (which is what we are talking about) and cross a bike lane without a merge.
What IS written is that a car turning right must first MERGE into the bike lane. Yes, of course, in the process of MERGING it must yield to any cyclists in the bike lane, but my objection was to the depicition of the law allowing for "turning (right) and crossing" without first merging. I know that CA does not allow that, but OR might.
21717 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21717.htm). Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm).
Forester comments on Al's and John Ratliff's incidents
I again shared some of the public posts on this board with the VC advocacy list I'm on, and John Forester had this to offer:
Serge quoted from a posting by John C. Ratliff, which appears to be
addressed to Serge by name. Here are the significant parts of the posting,
the first part by "Al", the second part by John Ratliff.
And finally another example yesterday of aggressive drivers. At one point
further up this road it changes from 3 lanes to 2. I prepare in advance and
as I ride from the center, to the left of the right lane. I stick out arm
assertively during this merge, I give a steely look over my shoulder to the
driver of the car behind to my left in the next lane. I keep my arm out and
keep the look as I merge into the next lane. So, yesterday the driver did
slow down per my request and let me merge, but just as I was merging the
car (a white Mustang) directly behind me (who also had to merge) hit the
accelerator hard and slipped into the gap that the slowing car had created,
this mustang brushed me in the process as we were both merging to the same
spot. It was not pleasant and would glady like to know, Serge, what I could
have done differently. As far as I know it was a by the book VC maneuver.
Al
I have stayed away from these discussions over the last two weeks as it has
been very busy at work and at home, and I have not had the time to devote
to reading through all these entries. Serge, I especially will not spend
the enormous amount of time it takes to follow some of your posts, as they
quote a line then comment a paragraph, over and over again. It is one thing
to present coherent thoughts, and quite another to present attacks on
someone's post out of context (which is what quoting line by line is). I
made this comment in another forum, one with Vietnam Veterans and
Protestors discussing issues of the Vietnam War. A common technique is to
quote out of context, then attack the pieces of a thought, and not the
entire thought. I have decided long ago simple not to read through all that
mess.
Concerning the quote above, I do have some comments about the technique of
riding. It is the technique Al uses of giving the "steely look" over the
shoulder at the car behind and to the left. This technique landed me in the
hospital here in Beaverton, on a similar road but one with good bike lanes.
I was doing exactly what the Vehicular Cyclist (VC) would do, signaling a
left turn about a block and a half from the stop light so I could move into
the left side of the middle lane (three lanes here, plus the bike lane) for
a left turn at a signal light (two lanes turning). I was looking over my
shoulder, behind me as I signaled, ensuring that it was safe to make the
transition out of the bike lane into the traffic lane. The next thing I
know it's an hour later, and I'm in the ER on a gerny just out of an MRI.
What happened? The best I can tell (no memory of the event) is that a car
entered the traffic in front of me from my right (a parking lot with a
"road" to a stop sign), where I was blind. I apparently saw this, as I
tried to brake (sprained left thumb doing it), probably touched the
vehicle's tire with my front tire, and was thrown violently into the air
and onto my head.
The VC approach failed me for this situation, and failed miserably. It is
similar to the situation Al has above, but with a cross street entering
traffic thrown in. I now advocate using mirrors to see those people behind
me, so I can nearly simultaniously keep track of traffic in front and to
the left (there are focusing problems with helmet and glasses mirrors, but
at least there is an image on the retina). The VC approach does not
advocate mirrors, yet there are mirrors on every motor vehicle and it is
illegal for them to operate without mirrors. If you want to be a vehicle
with equal rights to other vehicles, you need to equip yourselves with the
same types of equipment the other vehicles take for granted. Because they
will drive assuming that you see like they do, but you don't without
mirrors. In this case, it would have made no difference whether I started
out in a bike lane or roadway. The driver would have pulled out in front of
me anyway, and since I did not see that driver in time, there was no way to
negotiate. I had an e-mail exchange with John Forrester about this, and he
continued to advocate not using mirrors. He basically dismissed my
complaint against this aspect of VC. This I found disturbing, and has led
me to look at all the assumptions about VC, and come to my own conclusions
about paths around congested areas, about riding on sidewalks (see the
other thread on this), as well as how to cycle in traffic.
John
In the case of Al's incident, mirror vision would not have helped. The
driver of the Mustang was clearly in the wrong, because Al was first in
line to make the lateral move and had clearly made that intention known, at
least to the driver in the next lane over. One would suppose that the
Mustang driver just wasn't going to let Al get in front of him and slow him
down. Had there been a collision, the Mustang driver would probably be
found to have been at fault, for overtaking without regard to the safety of
the slower vehicle.
I don't recall the discussion with Ratliff, and his name as addressee
doesn't appear on my sent list (I don't know his email name). He may have
discussed the use of mirrors in general, or with respect to this particular
accident, or in terms of the accident itself. However, consider Ratliff's
own description of his behavior: " I was doing exactly what the Vehicular
Cyclist (VC) would do, signaling a left turn about a block and a half from
the stop light so I could move into the left side of the middle lane (three
lanes here, plus the bike lane) for a left turn at a signal light (two
lanes turning). I was looking over my shoulder, behind me as I signaled,
ensuring that it was safe to make the transition out of the bike lane into
the traffic lane. The next thing I know it's an hour later, and I'm in the
ER on a gerny just out of an MRI." The account is very unsatisfactory.
Ratliff thinks, on what basis he doesn't say, that a car entered the
roadway from a driveway "where I was blind". But he adds "I apparently saw
this, as I tried to brake." Well, did such a car enter the roadway from the
driveway? If it did, did the driver run away, or remain on scene? Or did
the evidence about this car come only from an uninvolved witness? The
accident could have occurred even without the presence of such a car, as I
will discuss later. Of course, evidence that such a car had been present
and had moved as assumed would determine that question.
Notice that Ratliff stated that he was following exact VC doctrine. Was he?
According to his words he was: "signaling a left turn about a block and a
half from the stop light so I could move into the [appropriate position for
a left turn]. I was looking over my shoulder, behind me as I signaled,
ensuring that it was safe to make the transition out of the bike lane into
the traffic lane." The account reads as though Ratliff was signaling and
looking behind for quite some time; that is not according to my
instructions. My instructions ignore the signaling aspect unless necessary
as a negotiating tool, because it is better to keep both hands on the
handlebars when maneuvering. My instructions are to keep changing your
direction of vision from behind to ahead, so you are continuously updated
as to the conditions in each direction.
There is no doubt but that the driver exiting the driveway was wrong; that
is if he existed. Some mistakes by other drivers are not avoidable, while
some are. The mirror question is whether the use of a mirror would have
prevented Ratliff's collision. Ratliff asserts that he believes that he saw
that car, because he tried to brake. Well, consider the effect of braking
hard with only one hand on the handlebars. We all know what happens then, a
fall that matches Ratliff's description. But Ratliff also says that the car
moved into the area in which Ratliff was not looking, the direction "where
I was blind". If so, then how did Ratliff see it? All in all, whether or
not a car did enter the roadway in front of Ratliff, he made several
mistakes and has convinced himself of other acts that turned out to be
mistakes. Yet he concludes that the use of a mirror would have prevented
this accident. I think that that is dubious; collisions between cyclists
and motorists who enter roadways without yielding to traffic are frequent
enough as it is, even when the cyclist is looking ahead.
I suspect that I would have written to Ratliff just about what appears
here. And he thinks that I provided bad advice that justifies denigrating
vehicular cycling. And some of you are too ready to think that his
unhappiness is caused by my recalcitrance.
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
Gene, when I wrote, "It is NOT written into law", by it I did not mean, "motorists must yield to cyclists in bike lanes" as you seemed to interpret when you wrote, "And that is NOT yielding to a cyclist? "
Let's go back.
Brian: "Of course, the car is turning and crossing the bike lane, so has to yield right of way. This really should go without saying and it is actually written explicitly into Oregon traffic law just to be sure."
Gene: "And written into CA law as well"
Serge: "It is NOT written into CA law."
More specifically, it is NOT written into CA law that a car turning and crossing the bike lane must yield to cyclists. In fact, it says specifically that a car should never turn right (which is what we are talking about) and cross a bike lane without a merge.
What IS written is that a car turning right must first MERGE into the bike lane. Yes, of course, in the process of MERGING it must yield to any cyclists in the bike lane, but my objection was to the depicition of the law allowing for "turning (right) and crossing" without first merging. I know that CA does not allow that, but OR might.
Gee oddly enough, I agreed with Brian because we knew the meaning... but I spelled it out step by step for you... because you insist on "beyond conversational" use of language.
So let's see exactly what the Oregon law says...
811.050 Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.
Oregon law does not seem to specify that a motorist must merge into (or using their language "onto") a bike lane first, but the motorist must yield to cyclists, not just "the lane." I also did not find any specific law that indicated that motorists are supposed to be to the far right prior to a turn... but they do have laws that govern driving on the right. 811.295. I suppose one may assume that you should be on the far right prior to making a turn... but then that is an assumption.
So once again we are dealing with the various laws of other states... which in themselves are not consistent for other actions of motorists, much less motorists interactons with cyclists or the lanes therein or "on."
Now you want to compare apples to apples... best talk to folks within a single state, because laws vary from state to state. If motorists are confused about BL, perhaps it has to do with widely varying laws... and implementation, and even color... Portland has blue lanes, some with diamonds.
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/images/Morr7bl.jpg
So perhaps the ambiguity of which you spoke earlier is due simply to the revision and updating of laws and practices in order to achieve a suitable working model of a good bike lane. That is hardly the reason to "demolish all bikelanes now and in the future." After all, it did take from 1804 to 1899 before the first automotive accident occured in the US... and air bags are still being perfected since their introduction in the 1980's and mandate in 1998. It may take a while to get the laws and structures of bike lanes just right, and to have consistent laws on the books of all states.
Of course, this is not the only situation of widely varying state laws... a friend pointed out to me just a while back how different the laws are governing firearms for different states... CA has 60+ pages of laws, AZ has 4.
However, just for the record, I find nothing ambiguous about the laws and use of the BL within the state I currently reside. Fortunately, the law is well written and easy to understand... now get the word out to the motorists.
We all know what happens then, a fall that matches Ratliff's description. But Ratliff also says that the car moved into the area in which Ratliff was not looking, the direction "where I was blind". If so, then how did Ratliff see it? All in all, whether or not a car did enter the roadway in front of Ratliff, he made several mistakes and has convinced himself of other acts that turned out to be mistakes. Yet he concludes that the use of a mirror would have prevented this accident. I think that that is dubious; collisions between cyclists and motorists who enter roadways without yielding to traffic are frequent enough as it is, even when the cyclist is looking ahead.
Ah yes another "blame the cyclist" situation.
Ah funny how others read it a different way... the "blind spot" Brian spoke of was behind his head (forward) as he looked back.
In the look back move, one has to look ahead first to ensure that you have X moments of clearance before looking back. If while you are looking back the conditions change... how can one respond. Hence the advantage of mirrors.
You would not believe how happy I would be if this road was widened to create a WOL...
Al
With only 3 extra feet I would be ok on that street.
I road on Highway 101 recently (it has a bike lane.) The way traffic sucks you along is kind of fun. But I get a bit nervous a big semi will shed a retread tire or someone will break loose a Botts dot and fling it into my face. Or throw a rock. Anyway, I was glad for the bike lane.
Or was Brian simply writing quicky... Let's see what Brian has to say. He said it in half as many words as I did... was trying to be verbose... to make sure you got the whole concept... although I never did use the word "yield."
We said essentially the same thing. In Oregon, cars are not allowed to merge with the bike lane unless near intersections and the bike lane line is dashed. Thus, they cross the bike lane when turning into a minor intersection such as a parking lot. However, the principle of right of way still applies. The cars are still required to yield to cyclists and are at fault if they don't.
I should note that the same situation could easily occur with a WOL. Right hooks in my experience are not because the driver does not see the cyclist, they occur because they under-estimate the speed of the cyclist and try to pass before making the turn. In other words, it is the desire to avoid motoring behind a slow cyclist for 20 seconds which creates the situation of a right hook, not the presense or non-presense of a painted line on the road.
How do you avoid it? Well, you move out of the bike lane or away from the right edge in a WOL as the intersection comes up. Again, painted line... no difference.
I am tending to agree with genec. Serge is overstating the confusion caused by a bike lane and understating the ROW confusion of a WOL in a way which is slightly intellectually dishonest.
BR
And written into CA law as well... but do the motorists know it? That is the issue...
California law says that cars are not supposed to cross a bike lane, they are supposed to get into it, and then make the right turn.
Ah yes another "blame the cyclist" situation.
Ah funny how others read it a different way... the "blind spot" Brian spoke of was behind his head (forward) as he looked back.
In the look back move, one has to look ahead first to ensure that you have X moments of clearance before looking back. If while you are looking back the conditions change... how can one respond. Hence the advantage of mirrors.
Before confusion develops, this article was regarding my father, who also posts here, under the name of "John Ratliff." I have not been in a serious accident (knock on wood).
To the point, the intersection where he had this accident is very odd. It is a four lane road terminating at another four lane road and going down hill at a good slope. To get home, we turn left at this intersection, thus the need to get into the left turn lane. On this downslope, there are several malls which have driveways which intersect the road very near the intersection. It is a reasonably busy street and drivers coming out of those driveways are pretty desperate to get onto the road. I almost got hit there several years ago by a car who shot out of a driveway and did a left turn completely across the road. I was all set up to roll across the car's trunk. Fortunately, but bracing myself, I let go of the brakes enough to swerve around it.
In any case, he went down HARD, and landed on his head. I have lost lots of respect for Forester because of the post below and the way he attacked how my father was operating. The post is full of inferences and assumptions as to my father's behavior (since there were no witnesses and my father does not remember the few minutes before and after), and the way that Forester posted up the straw man and proceeded to beat the crap out of it shows that he is less of a man than I thought. There is no request for additional information or any attempt at understanding the situation as it was presented. If he would have asked (through Serge or otherwise) he would have found that the accident was not reconstructed by memory or by witnesses, but by bike location, damage, and the location of injuries to his body.
I am not even sure why Serge entered the opinion of John Forester here. If Mr. Forester wishes to join the conversation, then he can, but inviting him to comment about a situation he did not witness and did not have all the details to, without talking to the actual person who the accident happened to and in a different forum besides, is akin to talking behind people's back and just as disgraceful, particularly when such an injury is incurred.
Serge, John Forester's comments are welcome here, but they have to come from him and he has to meet your high standards of reading what the conversation is all about. Otherwise, his opinions are irrelevant, just as you write off other's posts as being irrelevant to the conversation when they do not read the entire way through.
BR
I suspect that I would have written to Ratliff just about what appears
here. And he thinks that I provided bad advice that justifies denigrating
vehicular cycling. And some of you are too ready to think that his
unhappiness is caused by my recalcitrance.
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
He has further lost my respect by listing his Professional Engineering (PE) designation next to an "engineering" field which is not recognized by the PE licensing authority(whether it should be or not is a separate issue) and for which his PE license does not apply.
This smacks of a guy who is not genuine, egotistical and tries to bolster his credentials by listing designations (MS in Production Management, and PE in Industrial Engineering) which have nothing to do with traffic engineering. If you read the ethics guidelines for professional engineers, the PE designation in one field is not to be used to promote any qualifications in a different field.
I do not know if he is these things, but the way his website tries to interweave his expertise in industrial engineering and project management with his credentials in "bicycle transportation engineering" leads me to believe he is not what he says he is. I now have a hard time trusting what he recommends beyond my experience and my expertise in cycling.
Just a thought,
BR
Does Serge work for John Forester? Where does he find the time to spend so many hours carefully writing all these posts, plus research answers with other people in the background?
I do not know if [Forester] is these things, but the way his website tries to interweave his expertise in industrial engineering and project management with his credentials in "bicycle transportation engineering" leads me to believe he is not what he says he is. I now have a hard time trusting what he recommends beyond my experience and my expertise in cycling.
Forester is considered an expert witness in bicycle-related crashes, which means he gives expert testimony in court about bicycle crashes in which he was not an eyewitness. His testimony is based upon after-the-fact assessment of all factors related to such crashes.
Sadly, cycling as it relates to transportation is not widely considered an area of expertise by our society. We choose to believe people who have limited experience with cycling and more experience motor traffic. This leads more to "cyclist blame" than possibly any other factor.
I suspect the Wright brothers' credentials as bicycle repairmen would have been considered insufficient by most as they embarked upon designing a flying machine. But the Wrights were certainly not the only designers of flying machines in those days. There was a fever to design and test airplanes. But there existed no "experts" then as there are today in the field of aviation. Yet the "experts" of today would not exist without the early contributions of people like the Wrights.
Before we go further in this discussion, let me say that I sent the letter under my own name to John Forester, and that he did reply. I did this from work, where I am a Senior Environmental Health and Safety Engineer. I will let you judge about the letter, and the response. Here they are (beginning with my e-mail to John Forester; I am leaving my company name off this as they had nothing to do with the discussion):
John,
I thought you might be interested in my experience using your technique of looking at traffic while signaling, without using a mirror system. *
Several years ago, I had a fairly bad accident when an SUV overtook my bicycle on a straight, four-lane road then turned in front of me. *We had just come off a hill, and I had gone through the intersection at ~25 mph. *I checked my speed just after going through the intersection, and I was still at over 20 mph, with is good for me (I'm now 57 years old). *When I looked up, all I saw was the SUV dead-center in front of me. *I was in the drops, and pushed the bicycle into the side of the red SUV, then bailed out. *I remember kicking away from the back wheel as I went down feet-firsh. *The result, a huge bruise on my right thigh, road rash, and a shattered ego; not too bad for that kind of an accident. *I also received your book, Effective Cycling, for my Christmas present from my son.
I went to work putting your methodologies to work over the next year. *We had moved, and I was much closer to my work. *I used a route that took me through a shopping center to return from work to home. *I used this route for over a year, and one day in May of 2002, I decided to go through the shopping area, only this time I didn't make it. *The area has numerous side roads going onto a four-lane road (Evergreen Parkway, near the Cornell Road intersection in Tannesborne Center, Beaverton/Hillsboro area). *They come from both sides of the road, but there is a nice bicycle lane on the side. *However, I needed to go to the inside lane to make the left turn at the intersection. *I signaled for the left turn, and looked back to clear myself...the next memory I have is about one-hour later in the hospital ER. *
What happened? *I've put a lot of investigation and thinking into this, and have pretty much determined the following:
--From my injuries, I know that I tried to brake with my left hand. *I had a sprained left thumb. *I also know that I tucked my head, as I had road rash on the outside of my right elbow and right shoulder. *My helmet was shattered, and the impact was on the right temple area of the helmet. *
--One witness said that a car tried to come in front of me, and I tried to dodge it. *Another two witnesses said that I simple lost control of my bicycle (I discount this story). *
--My bicycle was undamaged, other than some handlebar tape damage on the outside right area of the drop.
My feeling, after putting all this together, is that one of two things happened. *Either the braking caused me to flip the bicycle, or my front tire actually touched the car. *In any case, the result was that I was thrown violently upside down, and came down on my helmet/shoulder/elbow/hip, probably in that order. *My right hip suffered a large bruise and hemotoma. *The skin was separated from underlying tissue, and for weeks afterward my right hip needed to be drained of accumulated fluid. *Eventually, that went away, and my body healed (I'm now getting some feeling into that area). *
I've gone through this long description to ask you to take another look at the use of helmet/eyeglass mirrors. *In your book, you come out pretty much against mirrors, and I feel that if I had used a mirror that day, I would not have ended up in the ER. *I would have seen that car coming at me from the right while there was still time to do something about it. *I can never be sure, as I still have no memory whatsoever of that event. *Everything after my signaling is erased from my memory bank. *But I wanted to relate this to you because, after this accident, I have deep feelings that effective use of mirrors can prevent some kinds of accidents, such as mine described above. *I still do look when the occasion makes that feasible and advisable, but now I have the option of keeping my eyes straight ahead too.
Thanks for listening, and enjoy your cycling.
John
Okay, that was my letter to Mr. Forester. I received the following reply:
Yours is an interesting account. There are some inconsistencies. You
signalled for a left lane change. Presumably with your left arm. Then you
applied the brake with your left hand? That is your guess, but maybe is not
substantiated very well; might be incorrect. Now consider the sequence. You
signalled, then looked left to see if traffic was clear, then something
occurred. Wrong sequence. Look first, very early, long before reaching the
intersection and the point at which side-coming traffic might reach you, to
see whether traffic is clear, so you know whether or not you will move
left. Then adjust your speed to match whatever gap there is in the
overtaking traffic, look again, and merge left. That means that you merged
left long before the traffic coming from the right at that intersection
could get to you. As you recognize, that might not be what happened; you
might just have lost control, maybe by trying to brake with only one hand
on handlebars.
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com
Please note that Mr. Forester did not mention mirrors at all, and simply stated without much investigation that it is most probably my breaking that made me loose control. I stated that I dismissed two witnesses; my reasoning was that what they describe is inconsistent with how I ride. I believe I wrote Mr. Forester back, explaining that in this area I was going downhill, and that the particular intersection was out-of-sight until about 5 seconds before getting there due to the terraine blocking the view (the road turned right slightly, enough to obscure the line of sight). I do not believe I receive a reply to my second e-mail.
It's late tonight, and I will put more onto this thread later in the weekend. You can judge for yourself about the reply, and whether it is as I stated above. You might also think about what he said, and how you would feel if you had received the same response that I got (now twice) when outlining ideas that are counter to the VC approach.
John
Well the only comment I have about mirrors is this... motorists are now required to have two of them... for me to function in this auto-centric environment that the public streets are today, I feel that I need at least one mirror.
I understand the reason for the look behind: it does two things, it verifies what is actually behind you, and it signals motorists as to your intentions.
When I commute, I use a mirror, and when I feel it is safe, I also look back.
In high density, high speed traffic, with some motorists generally disregarding the ROW of cyclists and other motorists, it is up to me to determine how to best handle the situation.
Motorcyclists are also required to have mirrors. And on a recumbent, since you can't turn your head and body quite as far, mirrors are a necessity. How can regular upright bikes be the only wheeled vehicles that wouldn't benefit from mirrors?
As for John's accident, don't you know that unless you are a hardline John Forester follower any accident is automatically your fault?
Forester is considered an expert witness in bicycle-related crashes, which means he gives expert testimony in court about bicycle crashes in which he was not an eyewitness. His testimony is based upon after-the-fact assessment of all factors related to such crashes.
Sadly, cycling as it relates to transportation is not widely considered an area of expertise by our society. We choose to believe people who have limited experience with cycling and more experience motor traffic. This leads more to "cyclist blame" than possibly any other factor.
I suspect the Wright brothers' credentials as bicycle repairmen would have been considered insufficient by most as they embarked upon designing a flying machine. But the Wrights were certainly not the only designers of flying machines in those days. There was a fever to design and test airplanes. But there existed no "experts" then as there are today in the field of aviation. Yet the "experts" of today would not exist without the early contributions of people like the Wrights.
I am merely commenting on his use of irrelevant credentials. From his signature line, one gets the impression he has an MS and a PE license in the field of "bicycle transportation engineering." Maybe he is a credible expert witness for cycling accidents, but if he is, his MS in production management and his PE license for Industrial Engineering do not bolster this credibility. In fact, because he uses the titles in a decieving way, it actually lowers his credibility. The fast and loose analysis of my father's accident with far too little information further lowers his credibility in my eyes. Maybe his was simply responding quickly and did not have time or interest to probe further, but his response was a knee jerk defense to what he viewed as an attack on his views about mirrors and was unprofessional.
As for the Wright brother's analogy, they did not rely on their qualifications as bicycle repairmen to bolster their credentials in the field of aeronautical study. They relied on their successful experiments with the gliders they built, the Wright Flier and successive moterized aircraft, and the success of the ideas in their patent. That they were bicycle repairmen was incidental.
BR
He has further lost my respect by listing his Professional Engineering (PE) designation next to an "engineering" field which is not recognized by the PE licensing authority(whether it should be or not is a separate issue) and for which his PE license does not apply. . . .
He did not list is "PE" description "next to" the bicycle transportation engineer description. They are on different lines. Nothing indicates that "PE" refers to the transportation engineer description. I had assumed that they were multiple--but different--credentials. It looks like I was right.
He did not list is "PE" description "next to" the bicycle transportation engineer description. They are on different lines. Nothing indicates that "PE" refers to the transportation engineer description. I had assumed that they were multiple--but different--credentials. It looks like I was right.
The MS and PE designations are not credentials in the field of traffic engineering. In other words, they are irrelevant to any expertise he has as a cycling activist. If they do anything to bolster his credentials in the field of "bicycle transportation engineering" to anybody, then he is using the designations in an unethical way.
Of course, John Forester has name recognition separate from his MS and PE designations because he wrote a good book. All I am saying is that if he feels he has to list his credentials from completely separate and irrelevant fields of study next to his name, then he comes off sounding like he is not the expert in "bicycle transportation engineering" he clearly labels himself as being. In fact, maybe he is not. I have read articles from his website and I have read his book. While they are a good compendium of information regarding cycling issues, studies, and science, there is nothing really ground-breaking in his work. He should be lauded for creating the effective cycling program which has made many people better riders, and for doing the leg work for assembling a body of knowledge based on his experience, but he is not at the forefront of traffic engineering research. He has some ideas which he has assembled under the title "vehicular cycling," but relies on other's research and his own experience to bolster his case, not original research or studies.
In other words, he is just like any other cycling advocate. He has his ideas and his experiences. He reads and mostly criticises other studies for which he does not like the conclusions. He has credentials in accident reconstruction and actually does pretty good work in this area, but his trademark "Effective Cycling," is nothing more than a course for teaching people to do what most experienced commuters do anyway. It speeds up the learning process for a beginner cyclist.
Overall, his philosophy on traffic cycling and especially his psychological analysis of cyclists and moterists overreach his academic training by far, and strain even what he could have learned from his own experience. I think he knows this, and puts the academic and professional titles from irrelevant fields next to his name to try to offset his lack of formal expertise.
BR
Being someone that doesn't have fancy initials to put after my name, I'm frequently suspicious of the insecurity of people that always do. My niece has a PHD, but doesn't like it if people call her "Doctor".
Brian,
Some of the stuff Foster writes about does have to do with mechanics and the technical aspects of bike construction and maintenance. I don't think he needs to change his signature line depending on what he's writing about. At worst, the signature line is pompous (I've accused Foster of that myself), but it's not dishonest, which is what you suggested.
I don't care whether someone flunked out of 3rd grade, or if he achieved doctorates in ten different fields all relevant to cycling. I don't care if he's a self-made man, or living in a mental institution. When it comes to advice in matters of cycling, all that matters to me is what he has to say, and whether it makes sense to me, and whether it works.
Whether it's Treespeed, Forester, one of the Ratliffs, Gene, Franklin, Hurst, Diane, Al, Daily Commute, Stanley, or anyone else, what matters to me are the ideas and concepts that are conveyed by their words. These are to be evaluated independent of who said them. I certainly hope that is how my posts are evaluated as well.
Take this post as an example. Does it make sense to you? Do you understand it? Does it matter that "Helmet Head" wrote these words? What if it was Hitler, the Pope, George Bush, Bill Gates, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackon, OJ Simpson, Penelope Cruz? Would that affect your evaluation of them? Would who wrote those words change whether you agreed with them, or not? Should it?
What is all this nonsense about "he offended me once so I question everything he says"? Wouldn't you question everything someone says whether they offended you or not? Wouldn't you question everything anyone says whether their creditials are bonafide or not? I certainly hope so. We're not talking about brain surgery advice here, folks. We're talking about whether bike lanes are a good idea or not, and why. Surely no one here needs an authority to look to in order to evaluate the issues relevant to the bike lane debate.
Serge
One of the main vehicular rules of the road that cyclists in particular are affected by is that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles defer to drivers of faster vehicles, when safe and reasonable to do so.
Cyclists have to do this so often, that deferring to other drivers can easily become an automatic unconscious attitude that creeps into a cyclist's decision-making process in traffic even when deferring is not safe or reasonable. My newest hypothesis is that this is the main issue that vehicular cycling addresses.
Bike lanes facilitate deferential cycling in traffic. When cyclists defer to faster traffic, they typically ride to the side, yielding to faster traffic the right-of-way to the remainder of the lane they are not using. Because the exact point where the cyclist's right-of-way ends and the yielding begins is not necessarily clear, many people, including many cyclists, support bike lanes which delineate a specific right-of-way portion of the lane, albeit a very narrow one, to cyclists.
The argument against bike lanes ultimately boils down to the contention that the delineation function of bike lanes solves a very small and insignificant problem -- imprecise same-direction right-of-way determination within a wide shared lane -- at a very big price... by introducing many more significant problems for cyclists, not the least of which is encouraging deferential cycling when it is either not safe, not appropriate, or both.
I don't care whether someone flunked out of 3rd grade, or if he achieved doctorates in ten different fields all relevant to cycling. I don't care if he's a self-made man, or living in a mental institution. When it comes to advice in matters of cycling, all that matters to me is what he has to say, and whether it makes sense to me, and whether it works.
Whether it's Treespeed, Forester, one of the Ratliffs, Gene, Franklin, Hurst, Diane, Al, Daily Commute, Stanley, or anyone else, what matters to me are the ideas and concepts that are conveyed by their words. These are to be evaluated independent of who said them. I certainly hope that is how my posts are evaluated as well.
Take this post as an example. Does it make sense to you? Do you understand it? Does it matter that "Helmet Head" wrote these words? What if it was Hitler, the Pope, George Bush, Bill Gates, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackon, OJ Simpson, Penelope Cruz? Would that affect your evaluation of them? Would who wrote those words change whether you agreed with them, or not? Should it?
What is all this nonsense about "he offended me once so I question everything he says"? Wouldn't you question everything someone says whether they offended you or not? Wouldn't you question everything anyone says whether their creditials are bonafide or not? I certainly hope so. We're not talking about brain surgery advice here, folks. We're talking about whether bike lanes are a good idea or not, and why. Surely no one here needs an authority to look to in order to evaluate the issues relevant to the bike lane debate.
Serge
You are right, it doesn't matter what credentials a person has. I was pointing out how you, Serge, tend to treat people who are just entering the conversation rudely, particularly if they have not spent several hours reading all the threads, yet make way for Forester's opinion without the same standard.
Forster made a fly-by "professional" opinion about something that had nothing to do with ideas about bike lanes, or mirrors for that matter. The relevance of the professional opinion of this person is directly related to his experience and credentials in this matter. After all, you wouldn't trust me (a mechanical engineer) to give you advice on brain surgery, since I don't have the credentials to establish your trust in my opinion. However, if you listened and followed my bad advice based on my mis-use of irrelevant credentials from other fields of study, then you would, quite rightly, be upset.
You posted Forster's opinion as if he had some authority. While this may be the case, his mis-use of professional titles leaves me wondering about who he is and what experience he really has to make his opinion worth listening too.
BR
One of the main vehicular rules of the road that cyclists in particular are affected by is that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles defer to drivers of faster vehicles, when safe and reasonable to do so.
Cyclists have to do this so often, that deferring to other drivers can easily become an automatic unconscious attitude that creeps into a cyclist's decision-making process in traffic even when deferring is not safe or reasonable. My newest hypothesis is that this is the main issue that vehicular cycling addresses.
Bike lanes facilitate deferential cycling in traffic. When cyclists defer to faster traffic, they typically ride to the side, yielding to faster traffic the right-of-way to the remainder of the lane they are not using. Because the exact point where the cyclist's right-of-way ends and the yielding begins is not necessarily clear, many people, including many cyclists, support bike lanes which delineate a specific right-of-way portion of the lane, albeit a very narrow one, to cyclists.
The argument against bike lanes ultimately boils down to the contention that the delineation function of bike lanes solves a very small and insignificant problem -- imprecise same-direction right-of-way determination within a wide shared lane -- at a very big price... by introducing many more significant problems for cyclists, not the least of which is encouraging deferential cycling when it is either not safe, not appropriate, or both.
Sounds like this could also be a problem with WOL's.
BR
Have I been rude, lately? I've really tried to improve... Are you referring to my response to Diane (sbhikes)? I might have slipped there, but we do have a history, and she has been rude to me too. Not that that justifies my being rude to her, but I think it allows for certain "gray" statements to be made that could easily be construed as rude to a newbie, but "okay" to someone with whom you have a certain history.
Diane asked about something I just spend 4-5 long posts explaining.
Forester did not ask about anything that had already been answered. He only commented on what had been posted, to this best of his ability. Not the same thing.
"You posted Forster's opinion as if he had some authority. " I did? Sounds like that was your take on it. Your Dad posted something to do with Mr X. I forwarded that to Mr X., got his response, then shared that response here. Mr X happened to be Forester in this case. The only relevant authority he had was to speak for the man your Dad referenced, for which he is uniquely qualified.
Serge
I'll allow that things may have been interpreted wrongly. My airing of feelings about John Forester may have been misplaced here. He himself is a controversial figure and did more to defend his views than to explain and teach what he knows with his reply, but I guess that is his right. It only makes him come off as being over-bearing and dogmatic.
Now, rant over. We will return to the topic of bike lanes.
==============================================================
One of the main vehicular rules of the road that cyclists in particular are affected by is that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles defer to drivers of faster vehicles, when safe and reasonable to do so.
Cyclists have to do this so often, that deferring to other drivers can easily become an automatic unconscious attitude that creeps into a cyclist's decision-making process in traffic even when deferring is not safe or reasonable. My newest hypothesis is that this is the main issue that vehicular cycling addresses.
Bike lanes facilitate deferential cycling in traffic. When cyclists defer to faster traffic, they typically ride to the side, yielding to faster traffic the right-of-way to the remainder of the lane they are not using. Because the exact point where the cyclist's right-of-way ends and the yielding begins is not necessarily clear, many people, including many cyclists, support bike lanes which delineate a specific right-of-way portion of the lane, albeit a very narrow one, to cyclists.
The argument against bike lanes ultimately boils down to the contention that the delineation function of bike lanes solves a very small and insignificant problem -- imprecise same-direction right-of-way determination within a wide shared lane -- at a very big price... by introducing many more significant problems for cyclists, not the least of which is encouraging deferential cycling when it is either not safe, not appropriate, or both.
I think we are getting down to the essence of the bike lane vs. everything else argument. It is not at all clear to me why, in a right of way system, we should have a problem with deferential cycling in certain areas away from intersections. In fact, the whole point of advocating WOL's is to facilitate deferential cycling in areas away from intersections. In fact, just thinking about it, the whole debate here centers on a certain fallicies on both sides. That is, when BL proponents criticise WOL's, it is in the context of areas away from major intersections and the ROW problems that lane sharing contains. (I have already outlined with the right hook arguments how WOL's don't do anything for the cyclist at minor intersections with driveways.) When WOL proponents argue against bike lanes, it is mostly in the context of lane positioning problems, which are really only relevant at intersections. Their problem with bike lanes stems from the tendancy of badly designed bike lanes to guide the cyclist in the wrong direction. WOL's are said to alleviate this problem by not giving any guidance through an intersection. The proposition is that, with proper training, the cyclist can be free to move to different positions in the lane and, hence, be safer.
I am getting to that point where I am craving to see what actually happens in a WOL and a BL on the same road and how cyclists really behave. There are a few studies, and they are mostly done with biases in mind and are ill controlled or contain statisical problems. By far, the biggest problem with a "cyclist behavioural study" is the lack of a large sample size. Some of the studies simply comb through hospital records to find out what type of accidents happen to riders who ride certain ways. It leaves the question of behaviour untouched and simply focuses on the consequences. This leads to VC proponents to question why we should be worried about traffic from the rear at all, since their are very few collisions from the rear and the risk is very low. However, this leads to the argument that the cyclist should simply be very hard headed and ignore the cars around him or her. It actually ignore the fact that cars are on the road and relies soley on the scarcity of cyclists to make this system work.
BL proponents emphasis behaviour issues with the interactions between car and cyclist, which are very difficult to capture in a study. One has to have a very long observation period along a road, or else provide their own cyclists, to get a sample size which is statisically significant. BL proponents, in the face of very little data, use personal experience almost exclusively to argue the case.
The obvious solution, would be to choose something, anything, and require that cyclists get licensed. This ensures a uniform knowledge of the rules of the road between both drivers and cyclists. Perhaps this really is the best way to go. After all, the biggest problem with mixing cyclists and drivers is that one or the other doesn't know the rules.
If we, as a cycling community, don't want to get licensed, then we really do need something that works, and studies, both controlled and statisical, need to be employed to determine what really does work best. Until then, the best we can do is to bicycle vehicularly on whatever road takes us to where we want to go.
BR
I'll allow that things may have been interpreted wrongly. My airing of feelings about John Forester may have been misplaced here. He himself is a controversial figure and did more to defend his views than to explain and teach what he knows with his reply, but I guess that is his right. It only makes him come off as being over-bearing and dogmatic.
Now, rant over. We will return to the topic of bike lanes.
Yes, it was a digression, but I must say one more thing to set the record straight, and totally blew it by not explaining the context of what was going on in the other forum. At the time your father (John Ratliff) posted his story about his accident and subsequent email experience with John Forester, I was engaged in a discussion on the BTI list (and still am) about whether we VC advocates are often our own worst enemy. I was arguing that we are, because we all seem to to be thick skinned and tend to treat others as if they are too, often coming off as being rude, arrogant, etc. I know I'm preaching to the choir here (you guys know what I'm talking) but over there, trust me, I'm not. Forester in particular feels that it is the content of his message that others find offensive, not the way he conveys it. So anyway, there is back and forth going on about this when your father's post shows up here. I used it, among some others, as an example to Forester of how his approach affects others. So what he was mostly responding in the reply that I then posted her was again a defense of his approach. I think if you reread his words in this context they will make more sense. And I'm very sorry to create all this confusion. Reading everything in context in both forums made me forget how important context was. Sorry!
Serge
... not explaining the context of what was going on in the other forum. .... when your father's post shows up here. I used it, among some others,... responding in the reply that I then posted here .... if you reread his words in this context they will make more sense. And I'm very sorry to create all this confusion. Reading everything in context in both forums made me forget how important context was. Sorry!
Serge
Maybe its better not to manually x-post/quote what others have posted in one forum to another. If someones writes something relevant to a different forum then invite them to post it there instead of quoting them. That would cause much less confusion and be much more polite.
Al
The argument against bike lanes ultimately boils down to the contention that the delineation function of bike lanes solves a very small and insignificant problem -- imprecise same-direction right-of-way determination within a wide shared lane -- at a very big price... by introducing many more significant problems for cyclists, not the least of which is encouraging deferential cycling when it is either not safe, not appropriate, or both.
Sounds like this could also be a problem with WOL's.
Indeed, WOLs also could and do encourage deferential cycling when it is not appropriate, but the available open space is not nearly as discouraging to more assertive cycling as is the explicit stripe.
Overall, I am not aware of any significant benefits of explicit bike lanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate#Commonly_claimed_benefits_of_bike_lanes_to_cyclists) that are not facilitated by implicit bike lanes within WOLs. And I don't know of any disbenefits of implicit bike lanes within WOLs that explicit bike lanes do not also have, usually to a greater degree (like this one).
CLARIFICATION: Yes, I'm quoting individual statements and responding to them, but, as always, I am interpreting each statement in the context of the entire post and discussion in which it was written. If it looks like I'm taking something out of context, I assure you, it was an unintentional misunderstanding. The point of quoting what I quote is to be clear which part of the post I am responding to, that's all. If I misunderstood something, please let me know.
If we, as a cycling community, don't want to get licensed, then we really do need something that works, and studies, both controlled and statisical, need to be employed to determine what really does work best. Until then, the best we can do is to bicycle vehicularly on whatever road takes us to where we want to go.
And most of us who already "bicycle vehicularly on whatever road takes us to where we want to go" have no need to "determine what really does work best", because we already have determined what works best. :)
I agree with much of the analysis that lead to your conclusion, but do have a couple of nits to pick...
I have already outlined with the right hook arguments how WOL's don't do anything for the cyclist at minor intersections with driveways.
And I already dispensed with it ;) , didn't I? A cyclist traveling in an explicit bike lane approaching a driveway is discouraged by the explicit stripe from merging left as he approaches the intersection; a cyclist traveling in an implicit bike lane within a WOL is not affected by the discouraging effect of the explicit stripe... because it is not there. Now, a novice cyclist who has never thought about sight lines and what makes him vulnerable to right hooks is probably not going to merge left anyway... for he is not aware of any reason to. But an experienced cyclist in a WOL who is aware of the potential problems could very well merge left widening his implicit bike lane in the process, while the same cyclist in an explicit bike lane situation might very well succumb to the false sense of security conveyed by the explicit bike lane stemming at least partially from the sense of having the legal ROW (right-of-way) while riding to the right of the stripe. In short, in the WOL case at least the stripe discouraging doing the right thing isn't there...
areas away from major intersections and the ROW problems that lane sharing contains.
The alleged "ROW problems that lane sharing contains" between major intersections is that ROW is not clearly delineated without the line. It is true that a stripe delineates ROW (by definition), but whether clear delineation of ROW in this case is a benefit to cyclists is not clear at all (ROW ambiguity has proved to be a good thing in other contexts as well, particularly in terms of traffic calming). Some BL proponents try to dismiss this argument by labeling it as using cyclists as speed bumps, but that's a disingenuous detraction from the key issue that is used to avoid addressing it.
When WOL proponents argue against bike lanes, it is mostly in the context of lane positioning problems, which are really only relevant at intersections. Their problem with bike lanes stems from the tendancy of badly designed bike lanes to guide the cyclist in the wrong direction.
...
It is true that these points are part of the argument, but please take a few minutes to study the short but very dense bike lane debate entry in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate) to see why such "mostly" generalizations and "stems from" simplifications about the argument in opposition to bike lanes are not accurate.
This leads to VC proponents to question why we should be worried about traffic from the rear at all, since their are very few collisions from the rear and the risk is very low. However, this leads to the argument that the cyclist should simply be very hard headed and ignore the cars around him or her.
VC proponents are not the only ones who question worrying about traffic from the rear. As one example, Robert Hurst, the author of The Art of Urban Cycling, a critic of VC, agrees with VC advocates on this point. Truth be told, so do almost all experienced cyclists. It is mostly only beginners that have a serious fear of the rear. I got over the fear from the rear decades before I learned to ride vehicularly consistently in traffic.
More importantly, I don't see how getting over fear from the rear "leads to the argument that the cyclist should simply be very hard headed and ignore the cars around him or her". I, for one, don't ignore a single car around me when I'm in traffic, including those behind me (if I did, then how would I know that there is someone to defer to when it is safe and reasonable to merge right to accomodate them passing me?).
It actually ignore the fact that cars are on the road and relies soley on the scarcity of cyclists to make this system work.
For the life of me I can't understand how vehicular cycling is ignoring "the fact that cars are on the road ". Quite the contrary... vehicular cycling is about cycling integrated -- sometimes using the full lane, sometimes sharing the lane side-by-side, depending on current factors and conditions -- with the other vehicles on the road, and you can't do that at all if you're ignoring them!
And this is perhaps the 3rd or 4th time you've alluded to this idea that VC is based on the assumption of relatively low numbers of cyclists on the road. Each time I question it, and every time you don't respond, then a few days later just assert it again. We're not going to make any progress on this point unless you go into it a little deeper.
BL proponents emphasis behaviour issues with the interactions between car and cyclist
I think you've got it backwards. It's VC advocates that emphasize interactions between cyclists and other vehicle drivers. BL proponents want to limit those interactions as much as possible by segregating cyclist traffic from other vehicular traffic with a big white very explicit solid stripe.
Okay, so they weren't just nits, and there were more than a couple. :D
Serge
So here we have yet another tragic cyclist death.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=105951
If you read the article, it appears to have nothing to do with WOLs or BLs, since it happened at an intersection.
But there is something I call the "cyclists' own space mentality" that affects the behavior of most cyclists. The mentality involves the belief that cyclists need their own space, off to the side, out of the way of motor vehicles. This is why cyclists with this mentality support bike lanes. In turn, the very existence of bike lanes reinforces "cyclists' own space mentality", until it kills you.
The "cyclists' own space mentality" causes cyclists to keep to the side, even at intersections where doing so is often out of the sight lines of other traffic.
No, the fact that bike lanes reinforce the deadly "cyclists' own space mentality" is not the only argument against bike lanes, but it is a key one.
Serge
A different - and possibly more useful - way to look at the engineering issue is to first assume that all streets are bicycle facilities, and that all lanes are bike lanes that just happen to be allowed for operation of other vehicles as well. Then, analyze which locations might benefit from improved *passing facilities* for drivers of faster vehicles, and under which circumstances passing without changing lanes should be accommodated.
Many of our existing roads started out as pedestrian and horse and carriage facilities, then accommodated bicycles. Only later did automobile operators start using them. The lack of convenient passing facilities for faster vehicles doesn't need to imply that slower vehicles are not accommodated on the road; to assume so unnecessarily assigns inferior sociopolitical status to the slower operator, and is inconsistent with ordinary traffic law. The real operational issue is the accommodation of reasonably safe and convenient overtaking; that ought to be the focus of education, enforcement, and engineering efforts to improve road sharing between drivers of different vehicle types.
-Steve Goodridge
Good, back on topic.
For the life of me I can't understand how vehicular cycling is ignoring "the fact that cars are on the road ". Quite the contrary... vehicular cycling is about cycling integrated -- sometimes using the full lane, sometimes sharing the lane side-by-side, depending on current factors and conditions -- with the other vehicles on the road, and you can't do that at all if you're ignoring them!
And this is perhaps the 3rd or 4th time you've alluded to this idea that VC is based on the assumption of relatively low numbers of cyclists on the road. Each time I question it, and every time you don't respond, then a few days later just assert it again. We're not going to make any progress on this point unless you go into it a little deeper.
I will get this out of the way first. I appologize for restating the argument without addressing it so many times. Arguments get spread over days and weeks and I lose track.
First off, we misunderstand each other. Vehicular cycling ignores the needs of the cars on the road. By vehicular cycling, I don't mean all of it, I am primarily refering to the straight ahead cycling lane position VC'ers advocate, which is to be centered in the lane. Now, you are saying to yourself "Whoa, I'll rake him over the coals for this ;)," but hear me out.
I have the belief that we are stuck in a local "minimum" (in the mathmatical sense, not the numbers sense) when it comes to number of cyclists on the road. The cyclists now are either like you and I, that is, hyper aware of our place on the road and how to move around with cars, or like my father, who after a couple accidents, stays as far away from traffic as possible. Because of lack of specific bicycle facilities roads, and lack of proper traffic engineering which integrates cyclists into the traffic system, when we start adding more and more cyclists on the roads, the irritation of the moterists will be enough to marginallize us. We are fully out-numbered by the car drivers and when we have to use our assertive behavior to get us a spot on the road, then we start irritating people. Get enough of these assertive cyclists to start slowing down traffic, and we start getting letters to the editor in the local papers complaining about the "unlawful" behavior of the cyclists. See the complaints about critical mass. These complaints are not only about breaking laws such as red light stops. The major complaints is how "choked up" the streets get when the parade is in town.
The truth is that the roads are not designed to accomodate cyclists. We fit in because there are only a few of us and no any one car has to deal with very many cyclists. What few they do deal with are generally fast and accomodating. This is the crux of this debate. I want a street which is designed with bicycles in mind, as part of the traffic pattern. I don't want to be, forever, an afterthought in the street design and bike as though I have to "bike large," which means, be in people's way. Part of this is education for both moterists and cyclists as to the rules of the road. Part of this is having an express lane where I can worry less about cars coming up from behind (I'll get to your argument on this later, though I will assert it here). Most of the arguments against bike lanes are disregarded because they are design and education issues, not fundamental to bike lanes. Note that the most common argument to counter the criticisms of WOL's are only relevant if the cyclist knows how to properly position themselves in the lane in the first place.
Yes, bike lanes are something that have to be designed. They will never get over this fact. This is why the criticism of badly designed bike lanes never lands with BL proponents. BL's are a painted line on the road, and the position of this painted line is something that needs to be thought out. That WOL's don't need to be designed only points to the need for greater emphasis on cyclist education. Cyclists would still benefit from education with bike lanes, but ROW in a bike lane is more intuitive. The criticism of the alleged ROW confusion in bike lanes at intersections is simply a straw man used to confuse the issue and is irrelevant. If bike lanes are treated as normal traffic lanes, then no new ROW law has to be applied. It simply has to be spelled out that the normal ROW laws apply equally to bicycles in any lane, including the bike lane. When VC'ists counter that normal drivers don't know the ROW laws as they pertain to bike lanes, they are really confusing the issue again because they are applying status quo behaviors to the car drivers to an issue which looks ahead of the future. Whether VC or another doctrine is agreed upon and coded into law, education of moterists and cyclists will be one of the primary issues to be taken up. That WOL's work well now do not necessarily mean they will be ideal in the future.
Contrast this to VC doctrine. WOL's don't have to be designed and are more intuitive for people who are willing to negotiate with cars. This is largely why third world countries do not feel the need to create a traffic system. This one-on-one negotiation system, while being very inefficient for large numbers of cars, is very intuitive and requires little education. For vehicular cyclists who know how to use the road, WOL's are a good tool. It costs less, requires only a road widening project, and allows considerable freedom to use lane positioning to negotiate with cars. This is all good. This is why you cannot see the need for further study or further experimentation with other road systems. But now, a ROW "bubble" has to be created into the legal framework of the road system. Cyclists don't have a permanent place in the traffic system, except for a six foot diameter bubble inside which they operate. With the exception of making the road wider (with a WOL) to partially accomodate this bubble, cyclists are not designed into the traffic system at all.
I regard WOL's as a "status quo plus" type of a solution. It is an increment better from where we are today, but does not solve fundamental issues. Keeping in mind that bike lanes may look different tomorrow than they look today, the fundamental concept of giving an express lane for cyclists holds promise for the future of our place on the road.
=============================
I want to address one more thing briefly:
VC proponents are not the only ones who question worrying about traffic from the rear. As one example, Robert Hurst, the author of The Art of Urban Cycling, a critic of VC, agrees with VC advocates on this point. Truth be told, so do almost all experienced cyclists. It is mostly only beginners that have a serious fear of the rear. I got over the fear from the rear decades before I learned to ride vehicularly consistently in traffic.
More importantly, I don't see how getting over fear from the rear "leads to the argument that the cyclist should simply be very hard headed and ignore the cars around him or her". I, for one, don't ignore a single car around me when I'm in traffic, including those behind me (if I did, then how would I know that there is someone to defer to when it is safe and reasonable to merge right to accomodate them passing me?).
"Fear from the rear" is not what I am talking about. This concern about cars coming up from behind has little to do with collisions. Almost all interactions between cyclist and drivers are from the rear. On a typical commute, I am passed by probably more than 100 cars. The number of cars crossing my path while I am moving I can probably count on my fingers. It is the interaction I am refering to when talking about cars coming from the rear, not a collision.
Similarly when I am talking about "ignoring" cars, I am not talking about ignoring their presence, I am talking about ignoring their needs and concerns.
BR
sorry about the confusion with the post I deleted. I slipped and hit the wrong key.
BR
So here we have yet another tragic cyclist death.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=105951
If you read the article, it appears to have nothing to do with WOLs or BLs, since it happened at an intersection.
But there is something I call the "cyclists' own space mentality" that affects the behavior of most cyclists. The mentality involves the belief that cyclists need their own space, off to the side, out of the way of motor vehicles. This is why cyclists with this mentality support bike lanes. In turn, the very existence of bike lanes reinforces "cyclists' own space mentality", until it kills you.
The "cyclists' own space mentality" causes cyclists to keep to the side, even at intersections where doing so is often out of the sight lines of other traffic.
No, the fact that bike lanes reinforce the deadly "cyclists' own space mentality" is not the only argument against bike lanes, but it is a key one.
Serge
At "just before midnight," I would assume without further information, that visibility was the key issue here, not any type of bike philosophy or facility. Education does well for these types of accidents.
BR
Brian,
I've read and reread your post several times. Let me see if I can summarize your argument accurately. I just want to verify whether I understand what you're saying, and simultaneously taking some liberty in guessing at some things you might try to be saying. Please correct me where I might have misstepped.
I believe the "problem" you're trying to solve is cyclists being in the way of motorists. You talk about the "needs of cars" (do cars have needs?) that vehicular cyclists supposedly ignore, but I think what you really mean is the "preference of motorists" to not be inconvenienced by same-direction cyclists. Further, your argument seems to be based on the unstated premise that many cyclists don't want to incovenience same-direction motorists, and, so, any facility that aids them in riding on the streets without inconveniencing same-direction motorists is a benefit to these cyclists.
Further, because of the ambiguous distribution of ROW within a WOL, you hold that a WOL is not as effective at providing space for cyclists to ride without inconveniencing same-direction motorists as is a bike lane.
Finally, implied in you argument is the belief that the ideal solution to this "problem" is creating a completely separate infrastructure for cyclists. But that has all kinds of logistical problems, so in the mean time we have to settle for segregated on-street facilities, like bike lanes. No, bike lanes not perfect, you acknowledge -- hence all the "disbenefits" -- but at least it gets us moving in the "right" direction, and does make some progress in providing space on streets for cyclists to ride without having to worry about inconveniencing, or "interacting with", passing same-direction motorists.
I'm not interested in creating a strawman argument, so I will wait to hear from you on how close I am to representing your argument accurately. How did I do?
I believe the "problem" you're trying to solve is cyclists being in the way of motorists. You talk about the "needs of cars" (do cars have needs?) that vehicular cyclists supposedly ignore, but I think what you really mean is the "preference of motorists" to not be inconvenienced by same-direction cyclists. Further, your argument seems to be based on the unstated premise that many cyclists don't want to incovenience same-direction motorists, and, so, any facility that aids them in riding on the streets without inconveniencing same-direction motorists is a benefit to these cyclists.
This is close, with a spin. There is more than one unstated premise floating around in this discussion. You listed one of mine. One of yours is the flip side; that it is okay to inconvience moterists and go against their preference. Right now we inconvenience moterists so that we can stay safe.
We put ourselves in a position for maximum negotiation with cars and we use the confusion about ROW created by our being out on the road in the path of cars to maximize our safety. I believe that a road system can be made which fully integrates cyclists without inconveniencing anyone, without compromising anyone's safety, and without using confusion and uncertainty as a traffic calming measure. Afterall, our most common complaint about cars is how close they pass, which is to say, how certain they are of our movements and lane position. The false slowing signals and swerves you employ is to intentionally create confusion and uncertainty to try to calm traffic. In fact, we are not nearly so scared of driving in a car and being passed at <100 mph closing speed by traffic in the next lane, only a couple feet away. Why? Because moterists are taught to be predictable, and they follow rules of the road to enhance that predictability. Why don't drivers have the right to this type of certainty when passing a cyclist? If we could design a road system where we did not have to inconvenience cars to be safe, would you be in favor? Well designed bike lanes, coupled with good cycling education can provide this.
Further, because of the ambiguous distribution of ROW within a WOL, you hold that a WOL is not as effective at providing space for cyclists to ride without inconveniencing same-direction motorists as is a bike lane.
This is a question of degree. A WOL certainly implies more ambiguity and uncertainty for the moterist passing a cyclist. Lane sharing does not happen that often on the road.
Finally, implied in you argument is the belief that the ideal solution to this "problem" is creating a completely separate infrastructure for cyclists. But that has all kinds of logistical problems, so in the mean time we have to settle for segregated on-street facilities, like bike lanes. No, bike lanes not perfect, you acknowledge -- hence all the "disbenefits" -- but at least it gets us moving in the "right" direction, and does make some progress in providing space on streets for cyclists to ride without having to worry about inconveniencing, or "interacting with", passing same-direction motorists.
Here, the spin is very strong to make my argument fit one of the "classic" arguements for bike lanes so you can provide the "classic" argument against bike lanes. No, a separate infrastructure is not what I am after. On the contrary, I am after what you are after, more and better integration, but based on very clear right of way interactions and very clear guidelines governing those interactions. Mine is simply a different way based on the cyclist using an express lane (maybe looking significantly different from todays bike lanes, depends of what works) for most of the between intersection riding and moving out of that express lane when necessary, all of this tightly governed by right of way rules consistant with how the roads in the US work. We don't have to carve out a special rule for cyclists (making cyclists share lanes with cars) to make this work. We can make this work in our system of lanes we have right now so that nobody has to share lanes at all, not cyclist, not car.
This is not about cyclists interacting or not interacting with cars. We interact with cars if we use the road, end of story. It is about clarity regarding the rules of the road and not using ambiguity and confusion as a tool for cyclists to have a place on the road.
BR
Just to be clear, when I say "roads" in any of my arguments, I mean roads where both cars and bikes travel. I have never been, and never will be, a proponent of a completely separated cycling facility. This causes all sorts of problems, far beyond that of a bike lane.
BR
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.