Advocacy & Safety - Vancouver Bike Box ?

Haven't heard of these before. Does anyone from Vancouver, B.C. know how well they work? How widespread are they? How long have they been there?

Bike Box (http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/09/vancouver_bike.html)

Looks like right-hook bait to me.

This box works in the netherlands because there are two set of traffic lights at many intersections, one for cylists and one for cars. When the red changes, the cyclists get a green light first, cars still have a red. This lets them get moving through the intersection, then cars are given the green.

Good first step, but I bet there were a lot of impatient drivers when it first started.

What this does is simply recognize the way many cyclists ride out of a concern for their self preservation. Its safer to filter forward at a light and be in front of traffic when everyone starts off from a dead stop.

This of course is anathema to the minions of the Church of the VC who will call for nothing less my burning at stake for my blasphemy. I remain unrepentant. I will not utter Mea Campy!

The trouble with bike boxes is that bicyclists who are trying to pass on the right to reach the box must cross in front of car traffic with a different destination. Without the Dutch bike-only signals, the car traffic can start up suddenly as the cyclists try to cut in front of them. Left-turning cyclists can collide with straight-traffic and straight-traveling cyclists can collide with right-turning traffic.

I prefer to merge with other traffic when approaching intersections so that we can sort ourselves by destination, and thus no surprises occur. Also, since most of the urban travel lanes where I live are narrow, I don't frustrate other drivers by requiring them to overtake me more than once. Personally, when on a bike I prefer to be the last person through a green light, not the first, since being the first results in a lot more drivers trying to overtake in dense traffic conditions that makes it harder for them to change lanes to the left.

I find that a driver who is sitting behind me waiting at a red light is highly cognizant of my being there and is no threat to me as we proceed -and he or she effectively protects me through the intersection if I'm taking the lane. I'd be more worried about overtaking on the right as I get to the intersection and traffic may be about to move, since those drivers I'm passing may not see me soon enough.

We have several of these in Victoria BC. They work well. One in particular at an intersection where a two lane road veers to the left. The outer left lane must turn left, the inner lane can either go left or go straight ahead. The box serves as a location for cyclists to gather to make the left turn, while staying ahead of and seperate from those vehicles that are travelling straight through. Yes, "taking the lane" serves the same purpose, but if nothing else the big blue box serves as a reminder to drivers taht there are cyclists out there.

http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/cycletherapy/ct200309.pdf#search=%22%22greater%20victoria%20cycling%20coalition%22%20%22bike%20box%22%22

I frequently use the Bike box Westbound at Union and Main, where its actually a "T". The intersection allows drivers to go right, straight, or left, and the bike box is in front of ALL of these lanes.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/images/bikebox/after_2.jpg

This means that cyclists can ride up between the right and left turners, to take position at the front.
The funny part is, that the Eastbound cyclists get to go before the Westbound ones, because the lights haven't been updated.

I've spoken to Peter Starey, Vancouver's Bicycle Program Coordinator about it, and here's what he had to say:


We plan to install an advance green bicycle signal in the near future which will come up at the same time as the pedestrian Walk and legitimize westbound cyclists starting off ahead of the vehicle green. This device has just recently been approved for use by the Transportation Association of Canada and was not available to us when the bike box was implemented.


More recently, they've installed a bike box at Victoria and Broadway, which I also use on my commute.
This one is a little different. Its only in the far right (of 3) westbound lanes. The reason for this, is because the bike route diagonally intersects these two roads.

MAP (http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=457164)

I used to just hop into the Northbound left (west) turn lane, and complete the turn with traffic, but now I'm experimenting with doing the two step North crossing to the bike box, then crossing West to continue.

I'm still not entirely sold on this one, as they've put a 'Bike crossing' further east than the crosswalk.

I’m a little concerned about the dreaded ‘right hook’ when coming off of the curb on the SE corner of the intersection. I’ve had a few instances of cars making half the turn, and stopping on the crosswalk once they notice me. It seems that the recessed cross bike is far enough back from the intersection, combined with the NW greenway direction, that a car heading north preparing to turn might not see the approaching cyclists.
In a way, this is like having a right turn lane to the left of a straight through lane.

Of course I emailed this to Peter...


The "cross bike" and bike box at Broadway/Victoria isn't complete yet. The markings were installed after paving, however we are also planning to install a textured red surface on the facility, as well as bike symbols within the bike box.
Warning signs have been installed on Victoria to warn drivers of bikes crossing should they turn onto eastbound Broadway.


So, I went out and looked at the warning sign Peter referred to along Victoria, and it was like no sign I had ever seen before. Its an orange diamond with images of bicycles and crosswalks. I have a feeling that most motorists have no idea what it means, and won't understand it until they nearly hit a cyclist.

All in all, I think the boxes are a good thing, but its going to take some driver training to stop them from driving on them. It will also take some careful planning on the city's part to get the lights programmed to an optimal system for everyone.

they're common in the UK - we call them ASLs Advanced Stop Lines. They work pretty well, except that many motorists don't understand that they shouldn't enter them when there isn't a cyclist in it.

Their main advantage is that they give you a small head start and also put you more in the driver's eyeline so left hooks (right US) are reduced.

But why are bike boxes used at all if riders are merging with traffic?

I know in my commute I am in place in line with the autos... maybe 3-5 cars back, and then I am there. Especially where bike lanes don't exist.

We have a different type of bike box in a few places in Ottawa - O'Connor at the Queensway comes to mind. They are basically just a "stump" of a bike lane, about the same length as a turn lane, and ending at the stop line just like the other lanes. In the case of the one mentioned above, it is because only bikes are allowed to go straight through that intersection, cars must turn right, or sweep under the Queensway (freeway) and take a left to the on-ramp.

We have several of these in Victoria BC. They work well.
Just curious, they "work well", as compared to what?

In particular, do they work well for cyclists who normally try to sneak and squeeze up to the front at lights? That is, it "works well" because it gives these cyclists a legitimate place to stop?

Does it "work well" for cyclists who just prefer to take their place in line? See sggoodri's and genec's posts for what I mean by this.

I would love to see some of those in my town. I can think of 3 intersections off the top of my head which could certainly use them. Wait, make that 4...no...5...oh gawd, the possibilities!

bike 'boxes' positioning bicyclists in destination positions for straight ahead traffic, as well as some bike 'boxes' at intersections to favor a left or right hand turn by bicyclists, in the correct destination position for these turns, are used with great success at well accomodated intersections in the greater Seattle area.

bike boxes work well for bicyclists at well accomodated intersections.

Just curious, they "work well", as compared to what?

In particular, do they work well for cyclists who normally try to sneak and squeeze up to the front at lights? That is, it "works well" because it gives these cyclists a legitimate place to stop?

Does it "work well" for cyclists who just prefer to take their place in line? See sggoodri's and genec's posts for what I mean by this.

It probably has no effect on the holier than thou adherents to the Church of the VC, whose ten commandments include "Thou Shalt Not Filter". In the real world, however, cyclist naturally filter to the front of a line of traffic, and what the box does is simply recognize the reality of bicyclist's behavior all over the world.

Reality, now theres something the VC need a big dose of. Instead of having one dogma, "Thou Shalt Ride a Bicycle As If You Were A Car" and then artificially deriving a bunch of commandments from that premise, many of which do not apply, they should look at the real world every once in a while.

It probably has no effect on the holier than thou adherents to the Church of the VC, whose ten commandments include "Thou Shalt Not Filter". In the real world, however, cyclist naturally filter to the front of a line of traffic, and what the box does is simply recognize the reality of bicyclist's behavior all over the world.

Reality, now theres something the VC need a big dose of. Instead of having one dogma, "Thou Shalt Ride a Bicycle As If You Were A Car" and then artificially deriving a bunch of commandments from that premise, many of which do not apply, they should look at the real world every once in a while.

Who said those who ride in a vehicular style don't filter? I'll filter when it's appropriate but I don't go all the way to front for a few reasons. First is to avoid right hooks. Second is to avoid passing and being repassed by the same group of cars. Bike boxes seem to encourage behavior that makes both of these siuations more common (they can't always be avoided but one should do their best to do so anyway). They also impart a "holier than though" attitude to cyclists ("look at me, the city thinks I'm special") which can encourage other boneheaded cyclists' moves in traffic such as running red lights and stop signs.

bike boxes encourage correct destination positioning by bicyclists, which educates and extends to bicyclists choosing appropriate destination positions at intersections that have no specific accomodations.
to the left of right-turn only lanes, to the right of thru traffic leading into signalled intersections.

First is to avoid right hooks. Second is to avoid passing and being repassed by the same group of cars. Bike boxes seem to encourage behavior that makes both of these siuations more common.

I'm under the impression that allowing bicycles to stop IN FRONT of cars, and clear the intersection before them, actually reduces the chance of the right hook.

Not to take away from a good idea, but I think where I live, drivers will just pull into the area just like they do with crosswalks. Cops won't enforce that, so I don't think they would enforce this either.

Bek, in lyledriver's pic, the bike lane/box could very easily place cyclists to the left of thru traffic at the intersection. I hardly consider that proper destination positioning.

Lyle, you are assuming that the cyclists always make it to the front before the light changes and that no driver decides to pull to the right to make a right turn as a cyclist is passing him (in cases where the bikelane positions bicycle traffic to the right of motorists which is normally the case). When positioned to the left of a straight or right lane, a cyclist who does make it to the front before the light changes is now forced to merge across faster traffic to his right which your average bikelane only cyclist probably won't feel too comfortable doing, and again is not proper destination positioning to begin with.

Looking at your picture closer, which direction is the cyclist going to go if stopped in the bike lane before they get to the box? Are they going straight, left or right? Seems very ambiguous and hardly vehicular to place traffic that could turn in any direction in between two other streams of traffic.

In that pic of the Union/Main bike box, there are actually 4 different directions a person can go.

-Left (south) on Main
-Straight up (west)the viaduct from the left lane
-Straight down (also west) Union Via the right lane
-Right (North) on Main.

MAP (http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=459212)

Union Street (on the east side of Main) is a single lane arterial bike route into the downtown core. It only turns into 2 lanes at the intersection. In all the times where I didn't make it to the box before the light changes, I've never had a problem finding my way to the bottom of the bike box 'T'. I've also never had a problem with right turning cars trying to cross that section of the box either.

If the light is green to go through the intersection, then it doesn't really matter (to cyclists or cars) if there is a bike box there.

Edit, to adress your first paragraph.. Going straight through on the right lane, DOES indeed put the cyclist on the left side of traffic, which is why the city is putting in an advanced green 'bike crossing' signal, as noted in my first post.
This isn't too big of an issue though, as Union (west of main) is a wide one way, single lane.

Seems a lot more complicated and unpredictable than simple destination lane positioning per the uniformly accepted standards that apparently were in place on this roadway at one point in time.

The advanced green still does nothing for the cyclist who doesn't get there in time.

None of this complication should be much of an issue for a cyclist with enough on-road experience to feel comfortable in traffic. For the inexperienced rider with very little traffic cycling experience (who these additions are expected to cater to) these issues become a much bigger problem. So what's the problem again that they are trying to solve?

why assume these bike boxes only cater to inexperienced bicyclists? all bicyclists stand to benefdit, not just 'inexperienced' ones.

So what's the problem again that they are trying to solve?

See before and after pictures for this particular intersection:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/bikeboxes.htm

See before and after pictures for this particular intersection:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/bikeboxes.htm

Thanks for posting that link. The brochure (PDF) does a very good job of explaining how the Bike Boxes are supposed to work. I think this one sentence pretty much sums it up:

"By letting bicycles go in front of queuing
motor vehicles, cyclists’ movements become
more visible and predictable."

See before and after pictures for this particular intersection:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/bikeboxes.htm

So what do motorists think about the new arrangements? Is it easier for them to share the road with cyclists this way?

So what do motorists think about the new arrangements? Is it easier for them to share the road with cyclists this way?


And to what extent should we care?

See before and after pictures for this particular intersection:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/bikeboxes.htm

Aside from poorly positioned cyclists, which still exist with the bike box in place at least in the picture, I don't see the problem with th intersection. It was relatively simple with two lanes serving a few different destinations. Now you've got three lanes with boxes and possibly another traffic signal.

They also impart a "holier than though" attitude to cyclists ("look at me, the city thinks I'm special") which can encourage other boneheaded cyclists' moves in traffic such as running red lights and stop signs.

Mer...I don't think you can draw that conclusion from a simple safety implement into the roadways.


Seems a lot more complicated and unpredictable than simple destination lane positioning per the uniformly accepted standards that apparently were in place on this roadway at one point in time.

The advanced green still does nothing for the cyclist who doesn't get there in time.

None of this complication should be much of an issue for a cyclist with enough on-road experience to feel comfortable in traffic. For the inexperienced rider with very little traffic cycling experience (who these additions are expected to cater to) these issues become a much bigger problem. So what's the problem again that they are trying to solve?

Personally, I think that the bike box idea feels quite intuitive. It took some good thinking, but I think it's a good start to true bicycling advocacy.

Bikes go first, then cars. Plus, the large painted area and bicycle-only lane (which is well signed) helps to keep motorists' awareness up. I know that the one street in Tucson where they have a lot of signage stating "No motor vehicles in bike lane" has a lot fewer problems than any other street I've ever ridden on.

That said, I feel this is a great thing for cyclists. Is it the be-all, end-all? No.

bike boxes encourage correct destination positioning by bicyclists, which educates and extends to bicyclists choosing appropriate destination positions at intersections that have no specific accomodations.
to the left of right-turn only lanes, to the right of thru traffic leading into signalled intersections.

Ever see a bike box in a left turn lane? How does one "destination position" for a left turn from a right handed bike box?

Ever see a bike box in a left turn lane?

Yes, it is a bike box to the left of all thru traffic and to the right of the left hand turn traffic. there is one less than a half mile from the bike shop where i work.

Don't forget that it's not obligatory to enter the box.

If you want to turn left, simply ride as you usually do,moving to left, or left of, lane.

Its sole purpose is to give cyclists a chance of a small headstart and to put them into the driver's eye-line, thereby reducing the chances of a left hook

Mer...I don't think you can draw that conclusion from a simple safety implement into the roadways.

If you treat cyclists like they aren't "real" traffic, how can you expect them to act like "real" traffic? MUP's are not treated like true roadways (for use only by peds, cyclists, etc.) and most people agree that they are a free for all.


Personally, I think that the bike box idea feels quite intuitive. It took some good thinking, but I think it's a good start to true bicycling advocacy.

Bikes go first, then cars. Plus, the large painted area and bicycle-only lane (which is well signed) helps to keep motorists' awareness up. I know that the one street in Tucson where they have a lot of signage stating "No motor vehicles in bike lane" has a lot fewer problems than any other street I've ever ridden on.

That said, I feel this is a great thing for cyclists. Is it the be-all, end-all? No.

What is the advantage of getting ahead of a few cars at a traffic light? Are bike boxes trying to cater to the selfish attitude of the typical motorist and thus entice them to ride a bike because they'll get to jump in line at lights? That's my most logical conclusion as to what bike boxes provide.

Don't forget that it's not obligatory to enter the box.

If you want to turn left, simply ride as you usually do,moving to left, or left of, lane.

Its sole purpose is to give cyclists a chance of a small headstart and to put them into the driver's eye-line, thereby reducing the chances of a left hook

I understand the eye-line part... I used to filter forward when commuting at one job that was accessed by a narrow road... at the top of the road was a somewhat confusing set of right only or left only turns. By filtering forward I was able to convey to the first driver or two what I was going to do and use them as a shield.

Otherwise I find very little benefit in filtering forward... especially if those motorists are going to pass me again.

I'm not sure I actually would support signage that seems to promote the idea that bikes should have a privileged access to intersections. Don't get me wrong, I do filter. I pass to the left of right signalling vehicles and to the right of left signalling vehicles. If there is no signal, then I assume the driver is going straight (go to the right of them if the lane is wide enough). This works well for me, and allows me to let right turners behind me turn right on red (I'm to the left of the lane). The weakness of the bike box is that it encourages cyclists to block right turning vehicles at red lights. I'm not sure that this is advantageous to anyone. Furthermore, do you really want to filter to the left of through traffic? It seems to me that the construct makes things more complex than they need to be.

I'm not sure I actually would support signage that seems to promote the idea that bikes should have a privileged access to intersections. Don't get me wrong, I do filter. I pass to the left of right signalling vehicles and to the right of left signalling vehicles. If there is no signal, then I assume the driver is going straight (go to the right of them if the lane is wide enough). This works well for me, and allows me to let right turners behind me turn right on red (I'm to the left of the lane). The weakness of the bike box is that it encourages cyclists to block right turning vehicles at red lights. I'm not sure that this is advantageous to anyone. Furthermore, do you really want to filter to the left of through traffic? It seems to me that the construct makes things more complex than they need to be.

Why shouldn't cyclists have privileged access to intersections? Pedestrians have privileged access, most states have laws that require cars to let pedestrians cross that are in a cross walk and most street lights have ped walk lights where all traffic is stopped. Cars have privileged access to many roads where bicycles are banned.

bike boxes correctly positioned actually discourage bicyclists from blocking intercsections or right hand turners by correctly positioning bikes to the left of right turning traffic and out of a right most lane position many bikers will default to at an intersection, or worse yet, hugging the curb.

appropriately designed bike boxes encourage correct destination positioning at traffic signals. one of the benefits adding bike boxes to a regional transportation road grid is bicyclists positioning themselves better at intersections with no bike accomodations.

I don't know if you Canadians consider these bike boxes, but these are what i call "bike boxes" at intersections that work very well at positioning bikes in correct destination positions.

left biased 'bike box' on divided boulevard. and right biased bike box to the left of right turning traffic. no advanced signals at these lights. so perhaps these are just bike lanes that place bikes in good positions leading up to the intersections by keeping bikes out of the path of hooking traffic.

Why shouldn't cyclists have privileged access to intersections? Pedestrians have privileged access, most states have laws that require cars to let pedestrians cross that are in a cross walk and most street lights have ped walk lights where all traffic is stopped. Cars have privileged access to many roads where bicycles are banned.

Yeah, frankly in a way I tend to agree. Car pools are given privileged access due to saving gas and reducing pollution. Perhaps on those grounds alone bikes SHOULD be given more privileged access. I wonder if privileged access would help improve the image of cycling... or would motorists resent us even more.

The other problem is that any form of privileged access is a sword that cuts both ways... pretty soon those areas may become forced access... at least in a society that values autos over bikes.

Yeah, frankly in a way I tend to agree. Car pools are given privileged access due to saving gas and reducing pollution. Perhaps on those grounds alone bikes SHOULD be given more privileged access. I wonder if privileged access would help improve the image of cycling... or would motorists resent us even more.

The other problem is that any form of privileged access is a sword that cuts both ways... pretty soon those areas may become forced access... at least in a society that values autos over bikes.

I think eventually cars would give bicyclists grudging respect, and cut down on a lot of the resentment that comes from ignorance. The often heard complaint that cars drivers constantly tell bicyclists to "get off the road, your supposed to be on the sidewalk" does come, to a certain extent, from ignorance, people really believe that is the case. Boxes will reinforce the bicyclists right to be on the road they will eventually be more accepted by cars.

Car drivers don't especially like pedestrians, and will grouse about them, but you never hear car drivers saying "get the hell off the street" to peds who are crossing in a crosswalk. With bike boxes, cars would eventually respect them more.

I do see quite alot of drivers, though, pulling into the crosswalk without regard to pedestrians, who are sometimes forced to walk around (into traffic). What's going to stop motorists from pulling into the box? It is against the law here to pull into the crosswalk, but it's very rarely enforced.

I think eventually cars would give bicyclists grudging respect, and cut down on a lot of the resentment that comes from ignorance. The often heard complaint that cars drivers constantly tell bicyclists to "get off the road, your supposed to be on the sidewalk" does come, to a certain extent, from ignorance, people really believe that is the case. Boxes will reinforce the bicyclists right to be on the road they will eventually be more accepted by cars.


I would love to think so, and this is one reason I support bike lanes.


Car drivers don't especially like pedestrians, and will grouse about them, but you never hear car drivers saying "get the hell off the street" to peds who are crossing in a crosswalk.

No, they rev their engines and honk at pedestrians... I have seen this display several times... at even school children and old ladies... it is a truly disgusting display of selfish power.

bike boxes correctly positioned actually discourage bicyclists from blocking intercsections or right hand turners by correctly positioning bikes to the left of right turning traffic and out of a right most lane position many bikers will default to at an intersection, or worse yet, hugging the curb.

appropriately designed bike boxes encourage correct destination positioning at traffic signals. one of the benefits adding bike boxes to a regional transportation road grid is bicyclists positioning themselves better at intersections with no bike accomodations.

Bek, I'll agree that bike lanes will help prevent cyclists from positioning themselves to the right of a right turn lane. But, I think they encourage poor positioning at intersections without turn lanes where the cyclist should be in the center of the traffic lane for a number of reasons.

I think true bike "boxes" encourage terrible habits in cyclists of filtering all the way to the front at lights and then in addition they encourage cyclists to plop themselves down in front of motorists who were there first. They complicate intersections unnecessarily and imply that cyclists have some sort of special right of way when the truly do not.

Looks to me like bikes would just be the first one crushed when some idiot runs the other light.

I think true bike "boxes" encourage terrible habits in cyclists of filtering all the way to the front at lights and then in addition they encourage cyclists to plop themselves down in front of motorists who were there first. They complicate intersections unnecessarily and imply that cyclists have some sort of special right of way when the truly do not.

I agree with this, but then offer the question for discussion... why don't we deserve some special right of way? Motorists in California get special right of way based on having a hybrid car, or having a certain number of people in the vehicle... why shouldn't cyclists be given some special status?

We always talk about cyclists rights and advocates fight for at least equal access, but why should we not go further and look for more rights based on our energy and space saving (parking) side benefits.

I would love to think so, and this is one reason I support bike lanes.

No, they rev their engines and honk at pedestrians... I have seen this display several times... at even school children and old ladies... it is a truly disgusting display of selfish power.

Agreed, there are certainly cagers out there who have no respect for peds, but in my experience, as a ped I get much more respect than I do as a cyclist.

I agree with this, but then offer the question for discussion... why don't we deserve some special right of way? Motorists in California get special right of way based on having a hybrid car, or having a certain number of people in the vehicle... why shouldn't cyclists be given some special status?

We always talk about cyclists rights and advocates fight for at least equal access, but why should we not go further and look for more rights based on our energy and space saving (parking) side benefits.

Personally, I think that until we get cyclists to realize the rights they already have, advocating for special rights will go nowhere. Get cyclists using the roadways as they should, prove the cycling is far safer and more efficient than automobile use, then ask for special rights of way (although the only thing I can dream up would be bike only interstates to get quickly from big city to big city). Complicating traffic signals and intersections with more paint will only make things more dangerous in the long run.

Actually, for businesses that provide bike parking, we technically already get pretty special treatment. I can lock my bike at the mall at a closer distance to the entrance than the handicapped spots.

Personally, I think that until we get cyclists to realize the rights they already have, advocating for special rights will go nowhere. Get cyclists using the roadways as they should, prove the cycling is far safer and more efficient than automobile use, then ask for special rights of way (although the only thing I can dream up would be bike only interstates to get quickly from big city to big city). Complicating traffic signals and intersections with more paint will only make things more dangerous in the long run.

Actually, for businesses that provide bike parking, we technically already get pretty special treatment. I can lock my bike at the mall at a closer distance to the entrance than the handicapped spots.

Guess you never negotiated for anything... you should always start with a higher goal in mind and then if you have to, settle for a lesser goal. By only trying to meet the goal of being equals, we have set ourselves up for something less.

Frankly I am not for complicating things with more paint... but I am all for cyclists having a greater ROW than motorists... putting the "weight" on motorists to watch out for us. I also believe that giving cyclists any advantage possible will tend to nullify some of the objections some folks have of cycling.

I agree with this, but then offer the question for discussion... why don't we deserve some special right of way? Motorists in California get special right of way based on having a hybrid car, or having a certain number of people in the vehicle... why shouldn't cyclists be given some special status?

We always talk about cyclists rights and advocates fight for at least equal access, but why should we not go further and look for more rights based on our energy and space saving (parking) side benefits.

A reasonable idea, if kept to reasonable levels. Bike lane at a T intersection with a light on the through street on the sire where there is no cross street does not have to stop. Very reasonable, no one else loses, bikes win. Bike lane properly positioned to the left of right turn lane that allows bikes to filter up. Who else loses? But those bike boxes put bikes in front of any car that wants to turn right on red. On many streets those right on red turns make a real difference in traffic. There others lose big. Now I can think of places they would still be called for. Like where the beach bike path takes Washington for a while. Enough bikes to make it worthwhile FOR CARS. There getting the bikes to the front and out of the way would actually help more cars than it hindered. But on most streets restricting cars for bikes that do not exist would be as stupid as the entire rows taken up at Hone Depot for ahandicapped spaces that are never all taken.

Guess you never negotiated for anything... you should always start with a higher goal in mind and then if you have to, settle for a lesser goal. By only trying to meet the goal of being equals, we have set ourselves up for something less.

Frankly I am not for complicating things with more paint... but I am all for cyclists having a greater ROW than motorists... putting the "weight" on motorists to watch out for us. I also believe that giving cyclists any advantage possible will tend to nullify some of the objections some folks have of cycling.

I have negotiated for things many times. Going into a negotiation not knowing what you already have (not knowing or understanding all of the facts) is a great way to get show down very quickly. We don't need to negotiate right now for rights to the road but most cyclists or would-be cyclists don't even know that.

If you treat cyclists like they aren't "real" traffic, how can you expect them to act like "real" traffic? MUP's are not treated like true roadways (for use only by peds, cyclists, etc.) and most people agree that they are a free for all.

I fail to see how a bike box doesn't treat cyclists as real traffic.


What is the advantage of getting ahead of a few cars at a traffic light? Are bike boxes trying to cater to the selfish attitude of the typical motorist and thus entice them to ride a bike because they'll get to jump in line at lights? That's my most logical conclusion as to what bike boxes provide.

Being seen. Similar to your POWERWEAVE (TM) but predictable.

I have negotiated for things many times. Going into a negotiation not knowing what you already have (not knowing or understanding all of the facts) is a great way to get show down very quickly. We don't need to negotiate right now for rights to the road but most cyclists or would-be cyclists don't even know that.

Yeah... too bad no one bothers to tell them either. And certainly bike boxes and bike lanes don't convey that message, as both say "ride here."

This is exactly why we need PSAs for cycling. And education programs.

BTW I am not anti Bike Lane... but I do understand the mixed messages Bike Lane can convey to the uninformed masses. (especially motorists... who themselves believe they DO own the road).

If you treat cyclists like they aren't "real" traffic, how can you expect them to act like "real" traffic? MUP's are not treated like true roadways (for use only by peds, cyclists, etc.) and most people agree that they are a free for all. What is the advantage of getting ahead of a few cars at a traffic light? QUOTE

MUPs have no relevance to this discussion, since, by definition they are not on the roadway. ASLs (boxes) are on the roadway and are one of a number of tools in the designer's kit which are created with one or other of road user categories in mind.

I repeat, they have the following aims in mind:

1. Place the rider in the motorists eyeline, reducing the SMIDSY factor (Sorry mate I didn't see you)
2. Place riders in a position where it is more difficult for a driver to hook them
3. Give cyclists a small head start, free of traffic, not to get them ahead of a few cars

QUOTE
Are bike boxes trying to cater to the selfish attitude of the typical motorist and thus entice them to ride a bike because they'll get to jump in line at lights? That's my most logical conclusion as to what bike boxes provide.

I'm regret to say that your logical conclusionhas no basis in fact but is a figment of your imagination. Iwas a highways cycling officer for a city council for 4 years and have been a campaigner for 12 years, and not once has anyone come up with that as a reason for introducing them. I've also read the literature, particularly the technical stuff, produced by the UK Dept of Transport and nowhere does it mention such an idea. 8/10 for creativity, but 0/10 for reality, I'm afraid.

I've been using ASLs for as long as they've been around in my area and have found that, by and large, they reduce some of the better known hazards suffered by cyclists at signalled junctions. There are still motorists who don't understand them, some who don't want to understand them, but the majority abide by them, to our benefit.

Of course, proper use of them by drivers does require a reasonable level of tested competence and from what I've read of many of the US states' driving tests, they don't require such a leve, but that's another matter entirely