Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

If you're so sure we don't know how to use bike lanes, please, tell us what you think we're doing wrong.
Agreed, please do.


They do reduce the amount of paranoid monitoring you have to do of your rear.

I find if I choose to use a BL I spend more time monitoring rear (especially approaching commercial driveways) than I do when I ride in the lane. Far more time and far more often with the need to react to what I see at my rear.
Al

Maybe you guys should take a class.

Maybe you guys should take a class.
yoga?
debating?
calculus?

oh, a how to ride in the gutter class? Pls. advise where to sign up. All cycling classes I know of or have taken do not address how to ride in BLs, they are about cycling safety, riding in traffic, negotiating a merge, signaling, looking back, riding in straight line, bike maintenance, legal requirements, turning, etc.
Al

Then maybe you should read a book. You guys obviously have some issues with bike lanes. It's really not that complicated.

Then maybe you should read a book. You guys obviously have some issues with bike lanes. It's really not that complicated.
Books about using BLs, oh my, what has the world come to.
Really the issue about BLs is yours. We don't need them, there is no conclusive data to support they make roads safer, yet you resort to pissing contests about experience and training of anyone who suggests that they may not be all that.

Designing roads with WOLs is a no brainer, hard to screw up and easy to implement. Adding a stripe adds a level of complexity that time after time has been shown to result in unnessessary striping, unsafe striping, confusing striping, etc. The burden of proof is on BL proponents to demonstrate they can be implemented without error consistently and without creating unintended worse condition in some places while attempting to create perceived safer conditions in others.

Al

Designing roads with WOLs is a no brainer, hard to screw up and easy to implement.
Iz Zat Zo? Let me know about your experience or information about how easy it is to retrofit WOLs on streets in built up urban areas where few/none have ever been used; say almost any city built up prior to WW2, especially where cheap desert/rural land wasn't available in the city for road widening.

If you're so sure we don't know how to use bike lanes, please, tell us what you think we're doing wrong.
Simple. You are using your imagination rather then facts.

Books about using BLs, oh my, what has the world come to.
Really the issue about BLs is yours. We don't need them, there is no conclusive data to support they make roads safer, yet you resort to pissing contests about experience and training of anyone who suggests that they may not be all that.

Designing roads with WOLs is a no brainer, hard to screw up and easy to implement. Adding a stripe adds a level of complexity that time after time has been shown to result in unnessessary striping, unsafe striping, confusing striping, etc. The burden of proof is on BL proponents to demonstrate they can be implemented without error consistently and without creating unintended worse condition in some places while attempting to create perceived safer conditions in others.

Al
Man, you're getting very good at this.


Iz Zat Zo? Let me know about your experience or information about how easy it is to retrofit WOLs on streets in built up urban areas where few/none have ever been used; say almost any city built up prior to WW2, especially where cheap desert/rural land wasn't available in the city for road widening.
Who said anything about how easy it is to retrofit WOLs on streets in built up urban areas?
If you have room for a BL, you definitely have room for WOL.
If you have room for a WOL, you might have room for a BL. But maybe not.

If you don't have room for a WOL, a BL is out of the question.

Simple. You are using your imagination rather then facts.
Easy to say by the dodger of all the tough questions. :rolleyes:

Easy to say by the dodger of all the tough questions. :rolleyes:
There are no tough questions here. All your bike lane opposing is a simple *****ing over the idea that someone would rank you lower than a car driver. Safety has nothing to do with that.

There are no tough questions here.
If there not tough, then why don't you answer them? I'm talking about a series of questions from several of us from earlier today.


All your bike lane opposing is a simple *****ing over the idea that someone would rank you lower than a car driver. Safety has nothing to do with that.
Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. Predictably, it's a statement of opinion about what I've said, without any reference to any of my actual words. :rolleyes:

Luckily, not a death... but similar accident to others noted here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=238879

It happened back on 9/16/06, sorry for the late post.

http://http://www1.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5000566,00.html


Bicyclist killed after he's hit by car

Glenn Garvin, a 49-year-old Thousand Oaks man, was killed Saturday when his bicycle was hit by a car on Westlake Boulevard.

Garvin was riding in the northbound bicycle lane about noon when he was hit from behind by a car driven by Norma Seigel, 82, of Thousand Oaks, according to a statement from the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. An ambulance took Garvin to Los Robles Hospital & Medical Center, where he died about two hours later from head injuries, the Sheriff's Department said.

Seigel hit Garvin after her car drifted to the right and into the bike lane, according to the Sheriff's Department, which is still investigating the accident.
Here is the location of the fatality in Google maps: http://tinyurl.com/ybedeb - It occurred on Westlake Blvd, northbound, perhaps 50 yds north of Cresthaven drive. Westlake Blvd is two lanes (+ a bike lane) in each direction. The street is in a very broad, sweeping turn to the right at that location. The posted speed limit is about 45 mph. The accident occurred about noon, I believe.

Garvin was a member of the Thousand Oaks traffic commission and an avid cyclist, part owner of a local bicycle shop.

this thread is very long and I'm not reading all of it (at least not right now)...

just read the first page plus a bit...

and I want to commend Helmet Head for taking the time and composure to reply to all the ignorant and unexperienced responses that simply dismiss criticism of bike lanes

I appreciate the thoughtfullness of your responses, and your posting of the thread in the first place

Why, thank you teiaperigosa.

Of course, the issue is much bigger than bike lanes. It's really about whether cyclists should ride on roads as if they have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, which is the pervasive cultural expectation in our society, and supported by bike lanes and their advocacy. Consider this recent statement from Floyd Landis:



"I believe most cyclists don't go out of their way to get in the way of a car and likewise, I don't think drivers are always aware of how close they are to a bike. Every now and then there is the driver who would rather see you in the ditch - or dead - but not too often. Unless you've been on a bike and had a car come close to you, you wouldn't think about this situation. Cyclists need to show as much respect as possible; it doesn't help to react to a driver and education for drivers is needed. Which is why I'm here tonight."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct22news

The subconscious implication of this statement, which I bet Landis does not even realize, nor do most people who hear him say it, is that, yes, there are times when cyclists have to ride in a lane position which is in the way of cars, but those situations are relatively rare, and most cyclists try hard at staying out of the way of cars all the other times, like they're supposed to. And, of course, bike lanes help cyclists do that (get out of the way of cars).

In the mean time, Glenn Carvin's family is in deep mourning.

Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?

Whether or not one supports BLs, one has to see this practice only leads to driver (cyclist and motorist) confusion. If folks want to (further) advance the standing of BLs, drive for a national standard that avoids their placement in dangerous places.

Al

Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?

Whether or not one supports BLs, one has to see this practice only leads to driver (cyclist and motorist) confusion. If folks want to (further) advance the standing of BLs, drive for a national standard that avoids their placement in dangerous places.

Al

+100. Heck, even the nationally recognized MUDCD allows for bike lanes next to parked cars..... perhaps we should start with that document first.

Also at this point we know that different states treat BL differently, where as most states treat other traffic signals pretty much the same. (I have to use modifiers in that statement as some states have strange traffic lights, some have right on red, and some even allow stop signs to be yields for bikes)... why can't we all get along? :rolleyes:

+100. Heck, even the nationally recognized MUTCD allows for bike lanes next to parked cars..... perhaps we should start with that document first.

Also at this point we know that different states treat BL differently, where as most states treat other traffic signals pretty much the same. (I have to use modifiers in that statement as some states have strange traffic lights, some have right on red, and some even allow stop signs to be yields for bikes)... why can't we all get along? :rolleyes:
Missing the point.

Like all bike lanes, even door zone bike lanes and bike lanes painted all the way up to the intersection demarcate space that is appropriate to be used by cyclists under certain factors and conditions. The space demarcated by a clean door zone bike lane might be fine, for example, to allow faster traffic to pass when no cars happen to be parked. The bike lane on n/b Genesee that goes all the way up to the intersection with Eastgate Mall is fine, if you're turing right/east onto Eastgate mall.

Almost no bike lane demarcates roadway space that should never be used for bicycling.
Almost no bike lane demarcates roadway space that should always be used for bicycling.

All bike lanes demarcate roadway space that, like any other roadway space, should sometimes be used for bicycling, and sometimes not. In others words, all bike lanes are, at best, useless and pointless. At worst, they encourage use of roadway space for bicycling at times when that space is not appropriate for bicycling. That's the point of this thread. To contend that door zone bike lanes or up-to-the-intersection bike lanes are somehow significantly different and significantly worse than other bike lanes is still missing the point... on page 15!

All bike lanes demarcate roadway space that, like any other roadway, should sometimes be used for bicycling, and sometimes not. In others words, all bike lanes are useless and pointless.
Of course, but some go beyond pointless and are clearly worse than others being far more likely to be dangerous and/or improperly/unsafely used by cyclist. My point is that almost all BL proponents agree that BLs in door zones are bad and should not be designed as such (and some communities have done this) and most agree that BL approaching intersections (at least non-driveway ones) are bad too. I am suggesting that the absolute worst of BLs be corrected with a national standard, while allowing the debate over the stripe less obvious useless and pointless places to rage on. But with an exteme, even if valid, position one can not see this middle ground I suppose.

Really if there were never BLs for the 100yrd. approach to every intersection, including driveway and no BLs next to door zones I don't think the remaining stripe along faster intersectionless roads really is that big a deal.

Al

Al,

I think you're estimating the "bad" bike lanes to be worse than I think they are, and/or estimating the "good" ones to be not as bad as I think they are, so that the distinction between the good and the bad seems more significant to you than to me.


Really if there were never BLs for the 100yrd. approach to every intersection, including driveway and no BLs next to door zones I don't think the remaining stripe along faster intersectionless roads really is that big a deal.
Well, if you're talking only about bike lanes that are on long stretches of freeway-like intersectionless roads, I'll agree those aren't as problematic (but they still make the cyclist more prone to close passes and inadvertent drift and have debris collection issues). But that's different from simply isolating door zone bike lanes and bike lanes that go all the way up to intersections. There are many thousands of miles of bike lanes that do not fit either of those categories, nor your special category, that are very problematic.

But that's different from simply isolating door zone bike lanes and bike lanes that go all the way up to intersections. There are many thousands of miles of bike lanes that do not fit either of those categories, nor your special category, that are very problematic.
Remind me...

There are many thousands of miles of bike lanes that do not fit either of those categories, nor your special category, that are very problematic.

Remind me...

Any bike lane on a road with no onstreet parking and with driveways less than 100 yards apart fits that category.
I submit that describes the vast majority of bike lanes.

I think you're estimating the "bad" bike lanes to be worse than I think they are, and/or estimating the "good" ones to be not as bad as I think they are, so that the distinction between the good and the bad seems more significant to you than to me.
This may come from different local experiences.
The striping at all intersection approaches I find problematic because there are so many minor intersections along arterials, especially in the 1-2hundred yards before and after arterial intersections. These are often heavily used during rush hour as they tend to be for shopping centers, gas stations, grocery stores - places folks stop by on their way home or on the way to work. (more so in the PM commute I find)
I experience the level of driver harrassment goes up massively when I don't use these bike lanes that are in the approach of these type of intersections. Far more harrassment than when there is no stripe, but instead a WOL and I stay center biased and even more so than when a NOL. It makes sense too as drivers see the BL and me not in it and it gives them justifcation for harrassing me as I am out of my designated place holding them up.

Now in the case of straight or curved intersectionless roads with no door zones, but a BL, one may default to riding in the primary lane. But if safe, one will also move over to let faster traffic pass after the visual two way contact has been made. The opportunity for harassment is much lower if not zero. The only real possibilities for not moving over are if there is a patch of debris in the BL or if one sees other vehicles following that one doesn't want to pass you. Both of these are rare and short lived events - very unlikely to lead to harrassment.

Now I know one can and will take the harassment, but that is a different discussion, but here I just wanted to explain why I find BL stripes at intersection approaches to be worse than along intersectionless roads.

Al

Any bike lane on a road with no onstreet parking and with driveways less than 100 yards apart fits that category.
I submit that describes the vast majority of bike lanes.
If there are roads with driveways each less than 100 yards apart, then that road should not have a BL stripe. It exactly fits the kind of road with BL stripe that I find so problematic and that there should be national guidelines to not have BL stripes in this case.

That is why I said "Remove the stripe 100yrds before every intersection including driveway."

Al

Well, your original wording was, "Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?"

So I assumed you were referring only to intersections big and busy enough to warrant RTOLs if space was available. Apparently, you're also talking at least about intersections with commercial driveway entrances. What about residential driveways? No BL stripe for 100 yards prior to them too?

Well, your original wording was, "Why is it still even acceptable to have BL stripes painted approaching intersections (where there isn't a RTOL)?"

So I assumed you were referring only to intersections big and busy enough to warrant RTOLs if space was available. Apparently, you're also talking at least about intersections with commercial driveway entrances. What about residential driveways? No BL stripe for 100 yards prior to them too?
Yes, any, all, every intersection. Residential too.
The reason there is an intersection is because some vehicle at some time will turn there. There is no safe guessing as to which vehicle may turn and which will not and rating intersections by frequency of use it basically making getting right/left hooked a game of different odds with ones life.

edit: The 'except RTOL' comment was only to pre-emptively fend off the BL defenders comment that installing RTOLs is a better approach. But it is not a practical approach as I can't see a national guidelines that says that every intersection (including driveways) must have a RTOL. Plus it still leaves open the increased chance of not being noticed and getting left hooked.

Al

Yes, any, all, every intersection. Residential too.
The reason there is an intersection is because some vehicle at some time will turn there. There is no safe guessing as to which vehicle may turn and which will not and rating intersections by frequency of use it basically making getting right/left hooked a game of different odds with ones life.

edit: The 'except RTOL' comment was only to pre-emptively fend off the BL defenders comment that installing RTOLs is a better approach. But it is not a practical approach as I can't see a national guidelines that says that every intersection (including driveways) must have a RTOL. Plus it still leaves open the increased chance of not being noticed and getting left hooked.

Al
Okay. So, if your rule would apply, what percent of bike lane stripe miles would you expect to be eliminated as a result?

Okay. So, if your rule would apply, what percent of bike lane stripe miles would you expect to be eliminated as a result?
Pretty much all of them in urban areas.
Al

Pretty much all of them in urban areas.
Al
And suburban areas? They have driveways and onstreet parking everywhere too, except maybe on the main arterials.

Much of older San Diegan suburbs have residences along the main arterials.

Even in newer areas, there are not too many arterials with very long stretches that are totally intersection and parking free for hundreds of yards.

And suburban areas? They have driveways everywhere too, except maybe on the main arterials.

Much of older San Diegan suburbs have residences along the main arterials.

Even in newer areas, there are not too many arterials with very long stretches that are totally intersection free for hundreds of yards.
I purposfully left out suburban as the definition of suburban means very different things to different folks. I used to describe where I live as (endlessly) suburban, but this has caused confusion to those who live in areas with new even lower density suburban.

I am finding there is enough traffic volume and intersections in phoenix-metro type subrubia as to better describe it as urban for traffic discussion purposes. Technically it may be surburban, but its not the large grassy lots with winding roads connecting them and a shopping center where the turn off from the highway is, type suburbia.

Yes, here too there are residential driveways along arterials and its very hard to find a 1/4mi stretch of arterial without an intersection.

The city I live in, although considered technically a suburb of Phoenix is the most densely populated city in Arizona.

Play with this link, zoom in an change to satellite view and see for yourself.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=tempe,+az&ie=UTF8&z=14&ll=33.398772,-111.926308&spn=0.042349,0.085573&om=1

Al

Interesting reading http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2Z2XnXvDN-wJ:www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp%3Farticle%3D3560373+%22patrick+sims%22+text+message&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11 regarding the collision that killed Sydney:

cut & paste:

'There was no doubt what caused the accident. "Carelessness," said Douglas County sheriff's Deputy Adam Cataffo, the accident's chief investigator.

But it wasn't that simple.

It was a bright, sunny day on a curvy hillside, with signs, homes, trees, a high school on the hill and other visual clutter to camouflage the cyclist.

There was little room for error. Only a ribbon of white paint ran between the busy street and the bike lane. Patrick's car drifted across the line as the road curved gently to the left in front of his high school.

Any driver would've needed to pay close attention.

The witness in the next lane never saw Price on his bicycle, only the aftermath.

"It was very difficult, at best, to see where Mr. Price would have been," Cataffo said.'

Add to the list....(not dead thankfully)

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=243508

and yet another bike lane crash...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=244484

This topic is sick. Taking glee for your "side" by using the deaths of others. That's just sick.

This topic is sick. Taking glee for your "side" by using the deaths of others. That's just sick.

Your sick is my information. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that bike lanes don't have any safety problems is dumb. Just plain old dumb.

If you want to be dumb, fine. But other folks might want to the information and try to make a rational decision on their own.

After all, the decision they make (weather to use or not use bike lanes and weather to promote or not promote bike lanes) may save someone from injury or worse... it might just save themselves.

Your sick is my information. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that bike lanes don't have any safety problems is dumb. Just plain old dumb.




Yes, bike lanes have problems... but this thread is far from balanced in that it also does not report cyclist deaths out of bike lanes.

This thread simply "scores" the death of cyclists on the far right edge of the road, where they would be riding even if a stripe did not exist...

Be honest and ask yourself where you would ride on a 50MPH WOL...

This topic is sick. Taking glee for your "side" by using the deaths of others. That's just sick.
Someone has to fill in as the Official BF Ghoul, during the OP's BF sabbatical, eh?

Yes, bike lanes have problems... but this thread is far from balanced in that it also does not report cyclist deaths out of bike lanes.

This thread simply "scores" the death of cyclists on the far right edge of the road, where they would be riding even if a stripe did not exist...

Be honest and ask yourself where you would ride on a 50MPH WOL...

Genec, I was on a 50 MPH two-lane road Saturday with moderate traffic. Lane was < 12' wide and me an my buds took up the whole lane most of the time riding in a tight two-abreast paceline. Somehow, every single car/truck/SUV/motor-home/motorcycle got around us without incident.

If somebody wants to start a thread about non-bike lane collisions or a thread about non-bike lane collisions vs. bike lane collisions (which I think is more pertinent then actual deaths and not so morbid for the weak of stomach), I would welcome it.

Genec, I was on a 50 MPH two-lane road Saturday with moderate traffic. Lane was < 12' wide and me an my buds took up the whole lane most of the time riding in a tight two-abreast paceline. Somehow, every single car/truck/SUV/motor-home/motorcycle got around us without incident.
Where would you be riding on this road when you are NOT in a paceline, and without a supporting cast of other cyclists on a weekday in moderate to heavy traffic? In other words the typical cycling scenario for cyclists for whom bike facilities are intended; not a recreational playground for club cyclists.

Where would you be riding on this road when you are NOT in a paceline, and without a supporting cast of other cyclists on a weekday in moderate to heavy traffic? In other words the typical cycling scenario for cyclists for whom bike facilities are intended; not a recreational playground for club cyclists.

same place

I just happened to notice this comment:


I don't know who's bike lanes you have. Thanking my lucky stars, we have few bike lanes here around Baltimore or anywhere in Maryland. I have seen (but not ridden) a few. They can be as narrow as 2'!


FWIW there are numerous types of lanes in MD and it can get very confusing but the major types that cyclists should be aware of are bike lanes, curb lanes and shoulders. We are required by law to ride in bike lanes and shoulders (unless there are hazards) but we are not required to ride in curb lanes. The main distinctions are; bike lanes have the bike symbol in them, shoulders are wide enough to park a car in and curb lanes are what’s left. We have been trying to keep the bike symbol out of questionable bike lanes because of our stupid law and the state has been trying to give us something along side the road so there has been an increase in the amount of 2-3 foot curb lanes in the state but they are not bike lanes!

They just keep adding up....

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=252054

They just keep adding up....

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=252054
Hi everybody. Just a few comments and back to my break from bikeforums...

I'm concerned as to the number of posters in that thread who have expressed surprise that the motorist apparently did not see the cyclist in the bike lane. Here are some samples:


"but it's a fact of life to be taken into account everytime we ride."
"He did everything right...It could happen to anyone of us. Seems so hopeless..."


In addition, the notion that somehow penalizing the rare motorist who, due to inattention, kills a cyclist who was doing nothing legally wrong is going to make cycling safer to some significant degree is expressed a number of times.

On the other hand, there is this insightful post from biker7:




Don't believe there is a loud enough voice to change the laws from cyclists. Nor would that keep another stupid or drunk driver from running down a cyclist out on the road. Guys...since this whole thing is quite common, will give you my $0.02. Cyclists that ride along side of a road are at big risk. I make every point to minimize my riding on fast traveled roads...above 25 mph. Those who ride in bike lanes in particular that are part of the road get run over all the time. I believe that cyclists that travel this type of lane are lulled into a false sense of security or they feel secure because they are riding in a dedicated bike lane adjacent to the road. Truth is...they may be even more liable to getting run over then cyclists that share the road with cars...with no adjacent bike lane. Would love to see the stats on this...believe A to B...there aren't nearly as many bike lanes adjacent to the road as compared to cyclists who ride on the road. That said, I try to spend most of my time riding my bike on dedicated bike trails....well off public roads. They aren't safe either...but worse case is head on with a bicycle or hitting a roller blader or runner and you likely won't die from any of those occurences. Biggest issue is getting run over from behind...again, I believe that dedicated bike lanes "that share the road" are more dangerous then riding out on the road. This is because these so called dedicated bike lanes on the road are construed by the driving public as nothing more then a shoulder to their right of way.
George


George is right. And you can't be safe out in traffic if you're surprised when they don't notice you while you're riding "out of the way".

To be clear, it appears this cyclist did nothing wrong and the motorist should be totally responsible in the eyes of the law. However, if we are to take responsibility for our own lives while cycling in traffic, there are things we can do to protect ourselves even when the motorists are totally at fault. That's what this is about.

The cyclist was in a bike lane as he was approaching an intersection.

Bike lanes, especially in most locations in most of the U.S., are unoccupied most of the time.

The latest research in the new cognitive science field of inattentional blindness indicates that many drivers are likely to not notice something or someone right in front of them that they do not expect to be there.

Because bike lanes are usually unoccupied, you can count on drivers to develop the expectation that bike lanes will be unoccupied. Expecting bike lanes to be unoccupied makes one much less likely to see you in the bike lane. Ride accordingly: assume the bike lane stripe marks the edge of an invisibile field: when you're inside of the bike lane many are likely to not notice you.

Bicyclists in traffic, certainly more than motorists, and arguably even more than motorcyclists, should have very keen situational awareness. In particular, if you're riding in a bike lane, especially as you're approaching an intersection, be aware of who is approaching from behind (a mirror helps a lot), and whether they are exhibiting signs of having noticed you. This is much easier to develop into a regular habit than you might think.

The bike lane slaughter will continue until cyclists understand how the human mind works, including the human driver mind, and act accordingly.

Cognitive conspicuity (being relevant to the driver) is at least as important as sensory conspicuity (lights, bright clothing). When you're in a bike lane you're irrelevant to the driver he expects the bike lane to be empty and, so, does not even notice you.

Position yourself in the road to maximize cognitive conspicuity.

If you have much experience riding in traffic and experimenting with both positioning that makes you more conspicuous and positioning that tries to get you "out of the way" (including riding in bike lanes), especially if you have a mirror and high situational awareness, then you probably know first hand how much more drivers are aware of you and notice you when you're riding conspicuously then when you're not. The difference is so stark it's probably impossible to imagine until you experience it yourself.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

Reference:

http://hubel.sfasu.edu/courseinfo/SL03/inattentional_blindness.htm

Excerpt:


"Most people believe that if our eyes are open, we are seeing.
Cognitive scientists once thought the same way. They thought our
visual perception acted much like a videotape recorder with the mind
recording everything the eyes take in. We now know that this is not
the case. More and more, perception studies are demonstrating how
little people actually see when they are not paying attention
(Carpenter, 2001). "

Of course with this approach: "I make every point to minimize my riding on fast traveled roads...above 25 mph...." Biker7 could not be a commuter in most big cities... including San Diego, where heavily traveled arterial roads typically move at 45MPH+

So much for the practical aspects of cycling, eh.

EDIT: So HH, quoting from a guy that won't even ride the roads you regularly ride... great source.

Hi everybody. Just a few comments and back to my break from bikeforums...
The bike lane slaughter will continue... Cognitive conspicuity...sensory conspicuity...

That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

Good!

Same ol', same ol' http://www.majordickwinters.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/bs.gif

http://www.majordickwinters.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/sleepy2.gif

And the bike lane whacking continues...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=257587

And the bike lane whacking continues...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=257587

Hey no one died in this incident... Yes, a BL was involved, but would the outcome have been any different if there were no stripe on the road, and the cyclist just continued as they were, with the motorist aggressivly making that right turn?

Blaming bike lanes for cycling accidents is like blaming hiways for drunk driving.

Hey no one died in this incident... Yes, a BL was involved, but would the outcome have been any different if there were no stripe on the road, and the cyclist just continued as they were, with the motorist aggressivly making that right turn?

Blaming bike lanes for cycling accidents is like blaming hiways for drunk driving.
How many times have we talked about the need to end bike lane stripes at least 100 feet before any intersection that has no right only lane (assuming, of course, the BL is to the left of the RTOL at the intersections with RTOLs)? I thought you agreed with this, no? The reason for this, of course, is that the bike lane sets up the through cyclist and right-turning motorist on a collision course at the intersection.

Right hooks happen at intersections without BL stripes, to be sure. Ultimately it is the behavior that causes the crashes. The contributory behavioral factors include:


The cyclist is going straight from "right turn space" if you will - the space normally used by drivers who are not going straight but turning right.
The motorist is not "as far right as practicable" as he approaches the intersection and makes his turn.
After the motorist passes the cyclist and slows down, the cyclist does not slow down, and, instead, commences passing the slowing motorist on the right.


Ultimately, it is those three behaviorial factors that have nothing to do with the stripe that cause the collision. But to the extent that the bike lane stripe, even if it is dashed at that point, encourages any or all of this behavior, it is a secondary but significant contributory factor as well.

And, as I pointed out many times before, to the extent that the BL stripe at intersection approaches "trains" right-turning motorists and through cyclists to behave in accordance to (1) and (2) at intersections with bike lanes, bike lanes in general are even contributory factors when these learned behaviors are transferred to intersections without bike lanes.

Even on this forum despite all my pontificating very few (including even you apparently) can seem to apply this understanding to real world situations. Note the original thread on the particular incident we're discussing, and how few noted the relevance of the cyclist's positioning as a contributory factor (with notable exceptions like Stephen Goodridge who of course noted it right away). This illustrates how few really understand the mechanics and safety purpose of destination positioning, and how bike lanes (except those to the left of RTOLs) contradict it.

And if a bike lane did not exist, then would the accident have been prevented?

I fully understand the issues you present, and I also understand that much of what a cyclist has to do to avoid accidents with motor vehicles has a lot to do with compensating for the lack of good driving habits by motorists.

Speeding up to pass a cyclist and then making a sharp turn is a bad habit portrayed by motorists that feel they must pass a bicycle at all costs... a bad habit by motorists who are not willing to truly share the road.

Yes, luckily nobody died. But, that is beside the point. Was the drive at fault? Technically, yes. Did the bike lane contribute to the right hook? I think it did. Bike lane positions the rider 'out of the way of motorists'.

You get right hooked in a standard travel lane, but it's a little harder. Especially if you ride in or slightly left of the right tire track. And, especially if you position yourself further left when approaching intersections and driveways.

The thing about bike lanes is they inhibit the cyclist from taking a ceterish position at intersection and driveways, especially in an urban setting where there might be a driveway every few yards.



Hey no one died in this incident... Yes, a BL was involved, but would the outcome have been any different if there were no stripe on the road, and the cyclist just continued as they were, with the motorist aggressivly making that right turn?

Blaming bike lanes for cycling accidents is like blaming hiways for drunk driving.