Advocacy & Safety - With advocates like this...

who needs enemies?

Our local cycling co-ordinator for my city has approved of lanes next to parked cars (similar to the photo).

I can see the doorings happening now.

This must be a sick joke...

We have these all over the place, but they aren't quite as close to the cars. Just be sure to ride on the inside edge. On the bright side, there is the solid white line to prevent some of the drivers from driving in your lane.

I just hope this doesn't happen...

Do they drive on the left in Canada !! , or is it a one way street ?

Check out these new bike lanes in SLC. The idea is brilliant, and very unique. I'm sure most citys do not have streets as wide as SLC's, as this would be hard to implement elsewhere.

Salt Lake City recently installed bike lanes on 200 South extending from the Jordan River to Main Street. To make this possible, standard angle parking was replaced with reverse angle parking between 650 West and West Temple.

Full story: http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/transportation/BicycleTraffic/200South.htm

Geez!Anyone know what happened to that poor cyclist in the picture?

Canada is right hand driving. That must be a one way street.

She died.

Wabbit, I there was a discussion about that picture here. She was doored, and ended up under the bus. She later died due to her injuries. :(

Originally posted by closetbiker
who needs enemies?

Our local cycling co-ordinator for my city has approved of lanes next to parked cars (similar to the photo).

I can see the doorings happening now.

Essentially, the problem here appears to be one of space. Where are the bike lanes going to go if not there? Perhaps they could move the bike logo to a position that indicates that bikes are likely to leave the lane on occasions as they've done in parts of Brisbane.

My policy on on-road bike lanes is that I treat them as any other shoulder. Basically, in a situation such as that picture (we have some such around here), I'd be riding a sufficient distance from the doors to avoid being cleaned up. If that means leaving the bike lane, then so be it.


Originally posted by Joe Gardner

Check out these new bike lanes in SLC. The idea is brilliant, and very unique. I'm sure most citys do not have streets as wide as SLC's, as this would be hard to implement elsewhere.

It's not totally unique, we've got a few of those around here as well (Broadbeach most notably). It should be noted that drivers pulling out of car parks can be just as inattentive as those opening car doors.

I'm split on the issue of bike lanes.

They can be good, but in this instance (and in others) the design is flawed and is downright dangerous.

The 2 biggest problems I have with bike lanes in general are: #1 they don't really help in intersections and, #2 I find drivers tend to ignore the lanes in mid-block and either drive or park in them.

I'm more in favor in using quiet, parallel streets running on beside busier roads with traffic calming devices and cyclist activated traffic lights. We have these here as well as the bad designs.

Originally posted by Sailguy
On the bright side, there is the solid white line to prevent some of the drivers from driving in your lane.

If only that were true... Most drivers around here at least seem to have little lane discipline. I see them infringing upon the shoulders and bikelanes all the time... usually at curves. Sometimes they do it to pass other vehicles. It's infuriating. What's wrong with these drivers? If I can keep my supposed "death-mobile land-barge" of an SUV squarely tracking in the center of a lane, I expect other people to be able to do it too in their sport-tuned uber-handling European sedans. Hell, I almost got doored once on a two-lane street because someone decided to let their front passenger out in front of a store by just stopping in the middle of the road.

Originally posted by closetbiker
The 2 biggest problems I have with bike lanes in general are: #1 they don't really help in intersections and, #2 I find drivers tend to ignore the lanes in mid-block and either drive or park in them.

Oh my God! Don't tell me we agree on something! :eek: ;)

If I can just add #3 to that list, it's the perception from non-cyclists that cyclists are allowed to use only the bike lane. To quote from the laws here in Queensland "a bicycle rider must use an on-road bicycle lane if it is practicable to do so". As I would say to any cop who ever had the temerity to question my decision to leave a bike path, it is not practicable to ride within dooring range of other vehicles.

Originally posted by Chris L

If I can just add #3 to that list, it's the perception from non-cyclists that cyclists are allowed to use only the bike lane.

Around here, bike lanes are treated like HOV lanes. They are purely optional. I usually make this comparison when someone tries to insist that cyclists must always use the bike lanes.

Hey, we agree one more time! :beer:

"Do they drive on the left in Canada !! , or is it a one way street ?"

This was a photo of one similar. It's from the U.K. so the point of the drivers side door opening into the bike lane (and not the passenger door) is important because it's guarenteed that that door will open after the vehicle has stopped.

Originally posted by wabbit
Geez!Anyone know what happened to that poor cyclist in the picture?

Canada is right hand driving. That must be a one way street.

its not a one way street. Look at the arrow markings on the far side of the road.

The liscence plates on the cars do not appear to be Canadian either.

I reckon the photo is from Australia as the car in the shot is a Holden Commodore Ute and on the left is a Mitsubishi Colt.

Those bike lanes are common in our city and I have nearly been "doored" several times out the front of a car rental company. The customers walk straight onto the road from behind the car and assume the bike lane is some sort of buffer zone between them and the traffic lane. This usually results in me yelling "LOOKOUT" just as I buzz them by 6 inches.:crash:

CHEERS.
Mark

Originally posted by closetbiker
I'm split on the issue of bike lanes.

They can be good, but in this instance (and in others) the design is flawed and is downright dangerous.

The 2 biggest problems I have with bike lanes in general are: #1 they don't really help in intersections and, #2 I find drivers tend to ignore the lanes in mid-block and either drive or park in them.

I'm more in favor in using quiet, parallel streets running on beside busier roads with traffic calming devices and cyclist activated traffic lights. We have these here as well as the bad designs.

We have a bike lane on a main road near Cleveland that runs along Lake Erie. The biggest probelm I see is that all the gravel, salt, and junk from the cars is thrown into the bike lane. Also, the city doesn't like to repair pot holes in the bike lanes...I find myself riding on the road outside the bike lane because it is safer believe it or not! Drivers really get pissed off at me then! :D Yelling..."Get in the BIKE lane!!". Id rather take the heat from the drivers then end up in a ditch from a pothole.

When I wrote the city bike co-ordinator, he said the design falls within the Transport Association of Canada guidelines.:irritated

I wrote the British Columbia Cycling Coalition, and they said:

"The BCCC currently follows the general philosophy that bikelanes should be
designed according to the federal TAC* guidelines for Bikeways.
The TAC Guidelines provides the designers of the facilities with common guidelines and standards accepted federally.

The city, their engineers and planners, are liable only to the extent that
they ignore standards. You might make the case that the standards are
defective and I would have to agree. A 2.4 metre parking lane prescribed by
current TAC standards is certainly worth reviewing.

It is our experience that currently the design and implementation of bicycle
facilities needs to be reviewed case by case, as each design is unique."

So I figure, the idea to challenge TAC guidelines, so each bike lane could be designed on a case by case basis and not on a common guideline, is a good one.:fight:

Some bike lanes (or bikeways) are great, some are less than great and some, downright dangerous.

I would rather have no bike lane than a dangerous bike lane.:)

The problem is simple.

Simpletons are designing "bikeways."

Originally posted by closetbiker
When I wrote the city bike co-ordinator, he said the design falls within the Transport Association of Canada guidelines.

<snip>

"The BCCC currently follows the general philosophy that bikelanes should be
designed according to the federal TAC* guidelines for Bikeways.
The TAC Guidelines provides the designers of the facilities with common guidelines and standards accepted federally.

"Teacher starve your child, PC approved - as long as the right words are used. Systemised attrocity ignored, as long as bi-lingual signs are on view" - Manic Street Preachers.

:crash:

Originally posted by closetbiker
When I wrote the city bike co-ordinator, he said the design falls within the Transport Association of Canada guidelines.:irritated


I wrote the British Columbia Cycling Coalition, and they said:

"The BCCC currently follows the general philosophy that bikelanes should be
designed according to the federal TAC* guidelines for Bikeways.
The TAC Guidelines provides the designers of the facilities with common guidelines and standards accepted federally.

...

It is our experience that currently the design and implementation of bicycle
facilities needs to be reviewed case by case, as each design is unique."

...



Did the bureaucratic drone tell you when they might deign to review this especially dangerous case ?

regards
Dan

The picture is from Boston, WBZ is a local AM station there.

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
Did the bureaucratic drone tell you when they might deign to review this especially dangerous case ?

regards
Dan

I'll bet that they review it after someone is
a) hurt badly
b) the victim makes a big stink about it and,
c) the press covers the story

I think I might go to the local press and lay out the story for them. Spring is soon and wouldn't the unwary public be thinking about getting out and trying out those new lanes that they are happy the city made for them?

In a crowded city setting where you could be doored, ignore bike lanes and take a lane. The safest place will always be a swinging door's radius from the side of the widest car.

I was looking at the picture myself. The bike lane kinda resembles the bike lanes we have here in Chicago. However, there is just a tiny bit of extra space between the doors and the bike lanes, although it's not much. Plus, so many drivers don't know how to park so that they are right next to the curb so they end up being right next to our lane.

After I read on the forum about the woman who avoided being doored only to get run over by the bus, I went back to the City of Chicago to read up on the guidelines for using the path. They had a good explanation of the "door zone". If this bike lane is anything like Chicago's, hopefully they will have guidelines similar to ours that are published and passed out to all cyclists so that they are aware of how to stay safe while riding in such narrow confines.

I think the best thing to focus on is the fact that they are trying to work with people who cycle by providing them with their own lanes. As people get more used to cyclists, motorists will hopefully avoid opening doors in front of cyclists, and the street traffic on the other side of the bike lanes will be curteous enough to give a little extra room for cyclists and steer clearer of the bike lane so they have a bit more freedom of movement.

Koffee

Originally posted by Koffee Brown

After I read on the forum about the woman who avoided being doored only to get run over by the bus,

While I have genuine sympathy for what happened to this woman, I feel she may have been a victim of her own error as much as anybody else's. The trick to avoiding being doored and avoiding being hit from behind is to hold a consistent line when riding wide enough to be safe from the doors. It also helps to signal before you move wide. I am wondering if she took this precaution.

Was she a cyclist or a Person on a Bike. I find that a lot of people go out on bikes, have little regard for traffic rules, don't wear helmets and ride crappy old bikes, etc, don't signal or look where they're going, etc. Cyclists tend to be very observant and careful, but a lot of casual, occasional Bike Riders are not exactly versed in the rules of the road.

I like what the City of Chicago does- they give very clear and concise guidelines on how to avoid being doored- it's in their Chicago Bike Map, and there's an entire section on it that is very clearly outlined. They also include pictures with YES labelled on the picture showing how to do it, and pictures with the NO label showing how not to do it. Under each picture is a long written explanation on why or why not. Perhaps if more cities took these precautions to better arm their cyclists so that they are more prepared for these dangerous situations, there would be less tragedies like this woman's.

Regardless of whether she knew the rules of the road, whether she was wearing a helmet or not, whether she's a "cyclist vs. recreational cyclist" doesn't matter to me. The fact of the matter for me, with regards to this situation is that the person opening the door knows there's a bike lane there, and they should have looked before opening the door. Period.

I hope to start a campaign with the City of Chicago to make drivers more aware of dooring and to look before opening their doors and/or stepping out of their cars into oncoming bike traffic, which is a big problem here. I also want to work with the City on the taxi problems we have here- pedestrians will casually step to the curve without regard to oncoming bike traffic and flag down a taxi. Every single taxi driver in that block radius will race over to pick up that person without regard to the cyclist on the street- I've had them gun their motors from behind me without warning, jump in front of me and cut me off when I'm going at a pretty good clip. I've had multiple taxis jump in front of me and almost get into car accidents with each other while cutting me off. All for a fare that will probably be less than 4 bucks. Or, they'll just stop suddenly when I'm behind them and proceed to drop off their fares... no warnings, no signal lights. Just suddenly, a taxi peels over 2 lanes and jumps in front of me with no warning.... sheesh! I am doing everything right. When there aren't bike lanes, we're supposed to stay as far over in the right lane as possible unless we're going to be turning left and have to move into the left lane, and I'm obeying the laws, but yet we have these crazy taxi drivers driving erratically without regards to the cyclists around them. :(

A little off the topic, but hey! There's no more rants n raves, so it had to go somewhere! ;)

Koffee

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
I like what the City of Chicago does-

Having grown up in Chicago and left before many of the major cycling improvements went into effect, I'm pretty impressed with what's happened since Mayor Daley took office. I actually used to live opposite his old house in Bridgeport (my yard faced his... well at least the adjoining alley). Mayor Daley is a cyclist himself and I remember even before he was elected, him encouraging us as kids whenever he saw us riding around the block and through the alley on our bikes. I understand he's set up a special office in his administration just to deal with cycling and cycling advocacy. Are you looking to work with/through them?

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Regardless of whether she knew the rules of the road, whether she was wearing a helmet or not, whether she's a "cyclist vs. recreational cyclist" doesn't matter to me. The fact of the matter for me, with regards to this situation is that the person opening the door knows there's a bike lane there, and they should have looked before opening the door. Period.


Agreed. I never suggested that the driver was anything more than a total and complete tosspot. However, the fact is that until we get the facist-police-state law enforcement that traffic situations need and demand, we are going to have to put up with tosspots like this. We have to compensate for their stupidity, and personally, I'd rather take action to do that than getting doored and knocked into the path of oncoming traffic.


Originally posted by Koffee Brown

I hope to start a campaign with the City of Chicago to make drivers more aware of dooring and to look before opening their doors and/or stepping out of their cars into oncoming bike traffic, which is a big problem here.

Good luck, and let me know how you go with it. I might think of starting something similar over here if it helps.


Originally posted by Koffee Brown

I am doing everything right. When there aren't bike lanes, we're supposed to stay as far over in the right lane as possible unless we're going to be turning left and have to move into the left lane, and I'm obeying the laws, but yet we have these crazy taxi drivers driving erratically without regards to the cyclists around them.

That seems to be a common thing. Taxi drivers have a habit of behaving like cowboys. I've often thought of setting up a website somewhere that 'blacklists' companies (not just taxi drivers) whose drivers behave like imbeciles. However, I'm not sure it will work. Another reason traffic laws need fascism.

Khuon-

Hopefully through them, but I will probably apply for a grant to set up an offshoot that will deal more aggressively with legal implications of cyclists. I would love to become a big cycling advocate, but to do that, I really will need cooperation with the mayor, aldermen and other political folks out here. They really do want to make the city more bike friendly, but in order to do that, they really do need better legislation that will protect the cyclists. For instance, they recently passed a law fining motorists $250 (I believe that's the amount) for parking in bike lanes, but I know from riding in the streets that they are not enforced. I've even seen cops parked in the bike lane! If they pass the law, they should enforce it, and there doesn't seem to be anyone there that works to ensure that the laws are enforced. <sigh>

I have ideas, but first I need to get myself hired by the City and get through the interview process.

Chris- If I get hired, I'll let you know what I'm doing and how it's working for the city.

Koffee

Originally posted by khuon
Around here, bike lanes are treated like HOV lanes. They are purely optional. I usually make this comparison when someone tries to insist that cyclists must always use the bike lanes.

Agreed. If it's safe to use them, I use them. But when there are cars parked next to them and there isn't enough room in the bike lane to safely pass outside of dooring range, then I do what I'm allowed to do: use part of the rest of the roadway.

IMHO, most bike lanes are a serious hazard to riders. The SLC lanes are an exception. Drivers look for traffic in the first 'real' lane and often overlook the rider in the bike lane. Or, they pull across the bike lane to look for oncoming traffic and cannot understand why the biker in the funny clothes is so upset.

Give me wide curb lanes and you can keep all you edge of the road bike lanes. Standard lane width in the US is 11' 9", give me a 15' -16' curb lane and I'm happy.

The drawback is that is is easier to get extra funding for bike lanes and there is less temptation for the government to turn them into another traffic lane (like Houston).

Hey, the bike lane could be UNDER the parked cars, like in Green Bay. :p

Earlier in this thread, a poster entered a photo of the police investigating the Dana Laird door-zone bike lane crash. This happened on July 2, 2002 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city that has aggressively promoted bike lanes.

The crash has been carefully studied and summarized by John Allen, a Boston-area bicycling expert and accident investigator whose pamphlet "Street Smarts" became the Bicycle Driver's Manual for Pennsylvania and Ohio.

You can see what Allen has to say about the crash at
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/program/laird.htm

Tom

Originally posted by MassBiker
Earlier in this thread, a poster entered a photo of the police investigating the Dana Laird door-zone bike lane crash. This happened on July 2, 2002 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city that has aggressively promoted bike lanes.

The crash has been carefully studied and summarized by John Allen, a Boston-area bicycling expert and accident investigator whose pamphlet "Street Smarts" became the Bicycle Driver's Manual for Pennsylvania and Ohio.

You can see what Allen has to say about the crash at
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/program/laird.htm

Tom
Tom,

Bike lanes, as designed, are accidents waiting to happen

And it did, in this case.

When will anyone who drives a car listen?

Well, i do not ride in the big urban areas you refer to, so I will leave the final decision to those who really know. But to me the best overall solution is a broad shoulder on the right hand side. At intersections with complex lanes and needs to turn left, etc, I just get off and walk across if I have to. Its almost always just as fast. As a vehicle with no directional lights, brake lights, or mechanism to reduce injury (common in most cars these days), I take the viewpoint I am not an equal dog in the traffic fight.

That doesn't sit well with many cyclists, but its kept me alive riding over 100,000 miles and 30 years.

roughstuff

They do that a lot around here in Bakersfield California as well as other towns I've ridden in. You have to ride alert and careful. I ride closer to the street then to the cars; and I aways check through the rear window and the side mirror to see if a person is sitting in the car and if so I pay real close attention and ride sometimes out of the bike lane to allow door distance.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
When will anyone who drives a car listen?

What kills me, and why I started this post, is a supposed cycle advocate group, who say they are cyclists and told me even they try to stay clear of doors by riding to the left side when riding in these lanes, are all in favor of this death trap!
:mad:

I agree with you, ClosetBiker.

I have a friend who lives in Los Angeles, and who is an officer in CABO -- the California Association of Bicycle Organizations -- as well as being in the Bicycle Transportation Institute. He believes that bike lanes can be positive things on arterial roads that don't have frequent intersections with roads or car-park entrances.

He's probably right, but where I live, in Boston, those kinds of roads are few and far between, and he recognizes that. The problem with the lanes we don't like is that they're presented as a one-size-fits-all solution toward making a community "bicycle friendly."

Whereas, virtually no other traffic control is given that way -- nobody will propose getting rid of all stop signs because traffic lights are "friendlier," nor will someone insist that every road, no matter how narrow, get dedicated left and right-turn lanes.

The best treatment for a roadway that will best accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles operating together (as they must in any urban area) depends on the road itself, along with the population that uses it, and the time of day, week, and year that the road is studied.

I've written at length about bike lanes, and in 2001 I was part of a Bike Lane Forum sponsored by the City of Boston. You can see this work at http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/index.htm

I'm happy to receive your comments on this information, if you'd care to write back.

Enjoy your ride!

Tom Revay
Dedham, Massachusetts

Originally posted by Roughstuff
Well, i do not ride in the big urban areas you refer to, so I will leave the final decision to those who really know. But to me the best overall solution is a broad shoulder on the right hand side. At intersections with complex lanes and needs to turn left, etc, I just get off and walk across if I have to. Its almost always just as fast. As a vehicle with no directional lights, brake lights, or mechanism to reduce injury (common in most cars these days), I take the viewpoint I am not an equal dog in the traffic fight.

That doesn't sit well with many cyclists, but its kept me alive riding over 100,000 miles and 30 years.

roughstuff
Though I am a purist to a fault about equal rights for cyclists, I find your argument extremely compelling, Roughstuff.

I only want to mention this in passing, because the bike lane argument divides us cyclists too much and I feel that experience teaches those who prefer to argue.

Bike lanes have one advantage: they state clearly and unequivocally that the cyclist has the right-of-way there. Period.

But on the other side of the coin, the right-of-way of a cyclist doesn't need a white line, nor can a white line be painted on every street upon which a cyclist has rightful access to. And to add to the argument, paint can never widen the road. In fact, the usable pavement actually shrinks, due to the debris that collects in the "no drive zone," known as the "bike lane." And a white line certainly provides no real protection at all from an errant motorist. Plus, the bike lane, like the urban path, creates a second, separate vehicle throughway which complicates traffic patterns (and anything which complicates traffic flow makes vehicular travel more dangerous.) Furthermore, on busy urban streets, motorists often park in the bike lane, or outside of it--this is what caused this dramatic, fatal crash by "dooring," which catapulted the female cyclist under the wheels of a passing bus.

Finally, bike lanes tell motorists that bikes do not belong elsewhere. If we don't belong elsewhere, we are being corralled
like cattle, eventually to be moved out of the way completely. If
one does not care about having their rights curtailed, one should be in favor of more bike lanes, for the trend is toward fewer, not greater cyclist rights.

I think we've dealt with the issue of car doors before, and I didn't send the letter I wanted to, so I will send it now.

When i am riding along a line of cars, and am restricted to how far to the left i can go, it is a constant glance back and forth between traffic coming behind me (on my left, visible thru my helmet mirror) and doors opening (or people pulling out) on the right. Still...the obligation to make sure the coast is clear is the burden of the driver...you can no more open your car into a bike than into another automobile.

But aren't most car door openings predictable? I mean, didn't the car just pull in, kill its engine, turn off its lights? Isn't there at least some kind of shadow of a person visible in the drivers seat? Even if they do sit there for a while before the door opens?

I suppose one solution would be to have the directional light on the appropriate side to come on and blink when the door is opened; but in a line of cars this may not be that visible.

I am just damn careful near a line of cars. Nor are open doors the only threat...pedestrians or even children often cross between parked cars, and dogs love to run out that way, too.

roughstuff

I did forget one very important problem with bike lanes.

If you're riding along without a bike lane, motorists see you as "in their lane." They usually pass carefully with a wide berth.

If you're riding on an equally wide street, but there is a painted line indicating a bike lane, motorists see that as an invisible barrier of protection. They cease slowing down or moving over. They don't leave you nearly as much safe space and some of them blow by your elbow.

I'd rather ride without the "safety" of a "bike lane."

:rolleyes:

Commuters are brave souls. :) I just ride on the sidewalk. :p

Originally posted by closetbiker
who needs enemies?

Our local cycling co-ordinator for my city has approved of lanes next to parked cars (similar to the photo).

I can see the doorings happening now.

Closetbiker...where was this picture taken?

There is no way that I would ride in this bike lane. After a bad dooring incident earlier this year, I now ride out on the edge of the next lane. I don't care if cars honk or whatever. Actually, not many do but people are way too stupid. When I shout at them to watch their door, they are all startled and flatten themselves up against the car, holding the door against them. It would be funny if what they had just done wasn't so dangerous.

Justen

Originally posted by Justen
Closetbiker...where was this picture taken?


It looks just like of one close to my home.

Read page 2 of this thread to see what I've done about it.:(

back in 1997, it hit home very close, a co-worker was late from his shift, so we called his house, a lady answered that Brian was on his way , he never showed up, next day the same lady called our workplace and informed us the Brian was killed in a Bicycle accident, when he was hit by a car park and the passenger was opening the door, Brian Tried to avoid the door and was hit from behind by a TTC Bus, I could not get that out of my mind, for a long time...

I know this is going back aways, but I was thinking about that girl that was killed in that photo early on. The life of the person who opened that door is probably ruined also. Imagine the guilt of just forgetting to look (assuming they did forget) and killing somebody, I know for the vast majorty of the population the guilt would be overwhelming. Chris writes the person off ass a tosspot, but I don't thikn that is necessarily the case, it could have simply been absentminded ness that the person who opened the door will never be able to get over.