I was thinking about this this morning on my way in, b/c of joejack's thread about reading right turners.
I kept track of my intersection crossings this morning and there were only two where I had to actually try to read or otherwise "negotiate" with motorists. I was in traffic- that is, there was a moving motor vehicle within ten yards of me- for the entire ride, with the exception of the MUP on the Brooklyn Bridge, which does not have any intersections, either. I've gone back and using google maps counted the intersection... I crossed 91 (or 93, depending on how you count some of the complicated ones in brooklyn). My math is not the greatest but that's a shade over 2% of the intersections I crossed that required anything more than cursory glances and an average degree of awareness. This was an about-average commute in term of traffic and my speed, which was (an average of ) ~16mph. (8.1 miles in 31 minutes, by my stopwatch.)

I know there's a temptation to claim NY exceptionlism about this but I'd be interested to hear how many intersections you guys feel like you have to negotiate or otherwise actively manage on any given ride. I was surprised at how little effort I spent doing so. My trickiest and most demanding negotiation in traffic today was a 3.5-lane, left to right merge from the left-side situated striped bike lane on Hudson to the extreme right traffic lane, and even that wasn't so bad (habitually traffic is dense and slow moving so it's easy to carve out space for yourself, provided the cabdrivers aren't feeling frisky.

Oh, yeah...as regards that MUP on the bridge...I do more active "negotiation with pedestrians on that bridge than I do with motorists on surface streets. And I prefer negotiating with motorists, honestly!

If it makes any difference, I have 2.4 miles of striped bike lane/sharrows in Brooklyn, it's like a 60/40 split, and .35 miles of striped bike lane in Manhattan. The MUP on the bridge is a shade under a mile and a half.

You keep bumping your thread, but other than the thread title haven't really asked a question.

I can't really answer the question as I've never heard anyone say intersection negotiation is dangerous. Only that intersections can be more dangerous if appropriate precautions (including some level of negotiation) are not taken.

Al

I thought the thread title was question enough. Also, in the second paragraph, I wrote "I'd be interested to hear how many intersections you guys feel like you have to negotiate or otherwise actively manage on any given ride."

I thought maybe the folks back here would like to stop the ongoing pissing match for a minute and actually discuss an aspect of, you know, cycling but I'll stop bumping it if it annoys you.

Intersection negotiation is an ongoing theme in the posts of a lot of people here and in A&S. I mean, how many threads about right-hooking have there been recently? And joejack posted a thread in A&S about reading right turners yesterday that I responded to and which got me thinking about this. Sorry to be a bother.

I'm not annoyed with the bumping at all, just giving thought as to why others haven't responded.
There is a thread JJ started about avoiding right hooks - there is lots of good stuff in there if I remember right.
Al

I have had interstection encounters on a regular basis. Lots of drivers don't see me. A common occurrence is at a 4-way stop and the vehicle is to my right. I'm partially blocked from view by their pillar, but also they aren't really looking for me. They slow at the stop, then keep going. I've anticipated this and either ring a bell, or yell, or just avoid them.

Last week I was heading west, then turned left (south), and as I exited the intersection, I had to pass in front of a car that had been heading east, and was turning right (south, like me) in a separated lane. The driver was looking north for southbound traffic, and I could see she wasn't noticing me She also was holding a phone to her ear. As I passed in front of her she started forward and I yelled "hey" as I braked. She looked startled, made a sort of apologetic grimace, but kept going, cutting me off.

I caught up with her a couple of lights later and came around the car to her door to yell at her, just to imprint the episode in her memory for future utility. She made like she was dialing 911 or something.

I continually monitor drivers for this kind of behaviour because I know they don't always see bikes.

the dangers of intersection negotiation are overstated. yes. in my opinion. that said, I avoid most busy ones, so YMMV.

I am of the opinion that the dangers of the door zone are also overstated, but I guess that's another thread.

Yes they are overstated, unless you are the one that gets nailed by the door or the driver at the intersection. Then that cyclist likely would have been happy if someone had told them about such hazards before they got nailed.

I know there's a temptation to claim NY exceptionlism about this but I'd be interested to hear how many intersections you guys feel like you have to negotiate or otherwise actively manage on any given ride. I was surprised at how little effort I spent doing so. My trickiest and most demanding negotiation in traffic today was a 3.5-lane, left to right merge from the left-side situated striped bike lane on Hudson to the extreme right traffic lane, and even that wasn't so bad (habitually traffic is dense and slow moving so it's easy to carve out space for yourself, provided the cabdrivers aren't feeling frisky.

Negotiating at an intersection and trying to read motorists actions are completely seperate things. I negotiated a lane change near an intersection about 8 times today I'd say. There's a few spots on the way in and on the way home where I'll use the shoulder for a short bit but it turns into a right turn only lane or goes by an intersection that I want to avoid being far right at so I negotiate my way into the traffic lanes. I also make a left turn to get onto the street where I work which requires negotiating into the left lane from the right lane to get into the left turn lane. I have two left turns on the way home that require merging across at least one lane, sometimes two at the one intersection (road open into three lanes shortly before I make my left and sometimes I'll just stay in the middle lane if traffic is moving slowly enough or the light before my light is red). I don't consider these negotiations dangerous at all but they were something I would have never tried as an inexperienced cyclist (gotta stay out of the way of cars after all).

In terms of reading motorists, I only did a slight bit of this on the way in while passing by a few minor intersections on an uphill stretch of my commute into work. I use the shoulder going by some residential driveways when traffic is heavy and fast and I'm moving pretty slow (~10mph). I have a clear view of the driveways so I know there is basically no threat of traffic entering the roadway so all I need to do is to look for someone possibly slowing to turn right. Going uphill, I can slow down a lot faster plus I'm moving quite slowly (unlike the example in my other thread where I'm moving at 2-2.5X times my uphill speed).

As I've stated in my other thread, I do consider trying to read high speed motorists while cycling at relatively high speeds to be a dangerous thing. In the situations where I've tried it, there's usually too much going on for me to pay enough attention to everything I think I should be paying attention to. Moving out into the right hand lane eliminates a large portion of what I need to be watching for.

Does this answer your question at all? I tried to stay on topic but not sure if I did or not.

When I can reasonably do so, I avoid intersections with uncontrolled high-speed merges and diverges, such as the mouths of many freeway access ramps.

The last two comments are interesting in that it makes me realize that even though I spend most of my task-driven riding in the mix with dense urban traffic, living in a largely pre-automobile city I have it a lot easier than you sub and exurban folk. I'd really, really have to go out of my way to find a true on- or off-ramp, and the one I do cross (the Bklyn Bridge automobile access points) are regulate by traffic lights and are, in bound, two lanes going into two lanes (with a merge well onto the bridge) and two lanes exiting into three lanes on a surface street. and, though its largely observed in breach when conditions are clear, we have a city-wide 30mph limit on surface streets, and when conditions are not clear, actual speeds are much much lower. Actually, probably the bigges automobile speed danger I face is drivers who, upon finally seeing a clear patch of asphalt, gun it in a mad rush to get to a red light or stop sign. This might be the key to what I was wondering about, vis a vis intersections..it seems your cycling speeds are not far different from mine, but the automobile traffic in your areas moves at a much greater average speeds. Huh.

lots of suburban arterials here typically with speeds of 45-60 mph daily. (with a 40-45 mph limit)... whatever they can get away with, that's what they do... that's partially why I avoid 'em.

This was an about-average commute in term of traffic and my speed, which was (an average of ) ~16mph. (8.1 miles in 31 minutes, by my stopwatch.)
This is really off-topic, but I don't feel like paying attention right now.

Laika, your average commute time in NYC is amazingly similar to mine in Atlanta.

Ennyway... :)

The last two comments are interesting in that it makes me realize that even though I spend most of my task-driven riding in the mix with dense urban traffic, living in a largely pre-automobile city I have it a lot easier than you sub and exurban folk. I'd really, really have to go out of my way to find a true on- or off-ramp, and the one I do cross (the Bklyn Bridge automobile access points) are regulate by traffic lights and are, in bound, two lanes going into two lanes (with a merge well onto the bridge) and two lanes exiting into three lanes on a surface street. and, though its largely observed in breach when conditions are clear, we have a city-wide 30mph limit on surface streets, and when conditions are not clear, actual speeds are much much lower. Actually, probably the bigges automobile speed danger I face is drivers who, upon finally seeing a clear patch of asphalt, gun it in a mad rush to get to a red light or stop sign. This might be the key to what I was wondering about, vis a vis intersections..it seems your cycling speeds are not far different from mine, but the automobile traffic in your areas moves at a much greater average speeds. Huh.

Laika, the relatively small amount (in comparison to my suburban miles) of city riding (in Philadelphia mostly) that I have done has been an absolute pleasure. Traffic speeds are so slow that lane position becomes a non-issue. The cyclist just uses a full lane like you said you do in NYC. This is why I can't understand the constant plea for bike lanes in any urban environment. I can only see them making things worse for everybody.

I agree that the biggest difference between suburban and urban riding is the speed differential but that's all the more reason to not implement bike lanes which tend to make motorists ignore the cyclists on the road and which tend to cause confusion at intersections.

This is really off-topic, but I don't feel like paying attention right now.

Laika, your average commute time in NYC is amazingly similar to mine in Atlanta.

Ennyway... :)

And very similar to my suburban commute time from Wilmington to West Chester of 7.8 miles in 28-30 minutes.

OK, mostly similar results this morning... there were three instances when I had to negotiate with cars turning across my path... twice in actual intersections and once in front of the big Mobil on Caton Ave, where I get my coke slushies & PBR. In all cases there was no bike lane and I was riding approximately just left of the right tire track in the right most lane (would that be a right-biased, centerlane position, I guess?) In one case, the motorist passed me unsafely (not completing a lane change fully out of the right lane and then a full lane change back in front of me to make the turn) In the other two cases, the motorists were in the lane to my left and made right turns across a full lane of traffic, which seems equally bad. None of the three motorists signalled their turns. Negotiation consisted of me either pausing my pedalling or, in one case, of actually applying my brakes to allow them to pass & turn. This still leaves me, by today's route, having to actively negotiate with motorists at only three of the ~95 intersections I crossed and at no time did I feel as if the process required anything greater than a normal degree of awareness or reaction.

In an absolute scale, the probabilities of an accident at any one moment are very small. So, I think that it is typical that one can go through many intersections without incident in a carefree manner. But the relative risk of going through intersections is probably much higher than riding legally on a typical road between intersections.

My guess is that you (Laika) also have a considerable amount of experience riding among traffic such that a lot of actions that a new rider would have to do consciously, you are able to compute subconsciously.

Is the risk overstated? My interpretation is that you mean, "Is too much emphasis given to negotiating intersections when safety is discussed or taught to a new rider?" My feeling is no.

My interpretation is that you mean, "Is too much emphasis given to negotiating intersections when safety is discussed or taught to a new rider?" My feeling is no.

Well, certainly you're correct in your feeling regarding new riders... there cannot be enough emphasis on safe practices, whatever you believe them to be. But I actually was thinking more about somewhat to very experienced cyclists and really was wondering if the skills we've developed are sufficient to the task, or if intersection negotiation is so inherently perilous that it merited a special, heightened degree of awareness/skill. I was wondering this, largely, b/c of the large number of threads regarding the dangers of intersections, esp. the dreaded "right hook" that is so often dicussed in A&S & VC.

Thanks for your answer though... every perspective is interesting and yours was very thoughtfully written. (As have been all of the responses offered thus far...thanks!)

depends on the type of intersection. I have had little problems at controlled intersections (other than the occassional late left turner) but I really dislike trying to cross over a busy alterial with two directional traffic that constantly "flows" due to a lack of controlled intersections nearby

OK, mostly similar results this morning... there were three instances when I had to negotiate with cars turning across my path... twice in actual intersections and once in front of the big Mobil on Caton Ave, where I get my coke slushies & PBR. In all cases there was no bike lane and I was riding approximately just left of the right tire track in the right most lane (would that be a right-biased, centerlane position, I guess?) In one case, the motorist passed me unsafely (not completing a lane change fully out of the right lane and then a full lane change back in front of me to make the turn) In the other two cases, the motorists were in the lane to my left and made right turns across a full lane of traffic, which seems equally bad. None of the three motorists signalled their turns. Negotiation consisted of me either pausing my pedalling or, in one case, of actually applying my brakes to allow them to pass & turn. This still leaves me, by today's route, having to actively negotiate with motorists at only three of the ~95 intersections I crossed and at no time did I feel as if the process required anything greater than a normal degree of awareness or reaction.
(I haven't read this thread, but in response to this post, Laika-)

I think since you're flowing with traffic, your problems are few at intersections.

Anyway... :)

I am of the opinion that the dangers of the door zone are also overstated, but I guess that's another thread. Actually the door zone is by far the most underestimated danger by non-cyclists and many cyclists. The danger that really is overstated is being hit from behind.

But I actually was thinking more about somewhat to very experienced cyclists and really was wondering if the skills we've developed are sufficient to the task, or if intersection negotiation is so inherently perilous that it merited a special, heightened degree of awareness/skill. I was wondering this, largely, b/c of the large number of threads regarding the dangers of intersections, esp. the dreaded "right hook" that is so often dicussed in A&S & VC.

Hmmmm, well ... in my opinion, most experienced cyclists that have given some thought to the issue have developed the skills to negotiate just about any intersection with a low level of risk conditioned on a minimum level of attention to the matters at hand.

Just to clarify, I believe that the level of focus needed is actually pretty low. But distractions from traffic such as grabbing the water bottle or answering the cell phone probably change the equation enough such that one would have to apply a "heightened degree of awareness" to safely navigate the intersection.

More generally, I think that part of experience is determining when one needs to apply more focus than the "average" situation. For instance, I have thought about my commute and which intersections/stretches are more dangerous than others at particular times of the day. When I commute home on a Friday evening, there are a lot of people parking and eating at restaurants on Wilson Blvd. Hence, I believe that the risk of being doored or experiencing inattentive drivers looking for the restaurant or a parking space is greater than the typical commute.

In short, if a rider can get down a few concepts in a simple pamphlet and exercise due diligence, my opinion is that he/she is minimizing the vast majority of the risk from road riding.

Actually the door zone is by far the most underestimated danger by non-cyclists and many cyclists. The danger that really is overstated is being hit from behind.

Chep, of the last five fatalities in Toronto, all of them, as far as I can tell from the reports, were hit from behind. The Toronto bike study a few years back also found that "motorist overtaking" caused more fatal accidents then doorings and all intersection accidents put together. I don't want to sound paranoid, but while overtaking accidents are rare, they are much more likely to be fatal.

are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated by the ardent Bike Forums holders of the "vehicular cyclist" torch? YES.

I thought about this yesterday while riding in this bike lane past minor intersections- there was NO COMPELLING NEED to move out of the bike lane at hundreds of minor driveways along this bike lane- some of the fearmongering "VC" (and I ride vehicularily, just without a political agenda attached to my bicycling ) INSIST bike lanes NEED TO END 200 feet before ALL intersections.

are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated by the vehicularist zealots in bike forums? YES.

The most recent fatality of a cyclist in the Raleigh area was a driver who pulled out in front of her from a side street as she was descending a hill on the main road. From today's paper:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/631042.html

I used to ride on this hill regularly when I worked in west Raleigh. One can easily reach 35 mph coasting. I always turned right onto the side street, Farm Gate, near the bottom of the hill, but this cyclist was going straight. The lane is wide on the downhill lane/direction, and I don't know where she was in the lane, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the far-right location of a typical striped bike lane if I were going straight.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=27513&ie=UTF8&ll=35.773619,-78.736058&spn=0.002598,0.004603&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1

The most common fatalities in the Raleigh area, which is mostly urban/suburban, involve intersections or darkness. We haven't had any fatalities in Cary on record as far as I can find, but our most common reported injury crashes are intersection related.

Yeah... I was trying to stay away from that point, but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.

The most recent fatality of a cyclist in the Raleigh area was a driver who pulled out in front of her from a side street as she was descending a hill on the main road. From today's paper:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/631042.html

I used to ride on this hill regularly when I worked in west Raleigh. One can easily reach 35 mph coasting. I always turned right onto the side street, Farm Gate, near the bottom of the hill, but this cyclist was going straight. The lane is wide on the downhill lane/direction, and I don't know where she was in the lane, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the far-right location of a typical striped bike lane if I were going straight.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=27513&ie=UTF8&ll=35.773619,-78.736058&spn=0.002598,0.004603&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1

The most common fatalities in the Raleigh area, which is mostly urban/suburban, involve intersections or darkness. We haven't had any fatalities in Cary on record as far as I can find, but our most common reported injury crashes are intersection related.

I had a friend that got killed the same way.

When descending at speed I move out into the middle of the lane.

can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.

Do most facilities supporters intentionally understate the dangers of intersections and overstate the protection offered by bike lanes in order to support their agenda? H e l l yeah, in my opinion. Look at Bek's posts for good examples.

Yeah... I was trying to stay away from that point, but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.

You should study the Cross statistical study of car-bike collisions before you sound off on this subject. Or, since getting a new copy is difficult, see my detailed analysis of Cross's statistics in Bicycle Transportation, which is easily available.

You should study the Cross statistical study of car-bike collisions before you sound off on this subject. Or, since getting a new copy is difficult, see my detailed analysis of Cross's statistics in Bicycle Transportation, which is easily available.
AKA You should "Buy My Book" for "My Spin" on the subject. Accept no substitutes.:rolleyes:

bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.


but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.


I'd agree. the dangers are overstated by the shrill & zealous anti-facilities crowd on Bike Forums.

bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.





I'd agree. the dangers are overstated by the shrill & zealous anti-facilities crowd on Bike Forums.

You are agreeing to a claim in a subject about which you have no information, when substantial information has been available for years. Your credibility is zero.

sad to see you attempt to refute the obvious, jhon.

whoo hoo! a Bek/JF pissing match! I feel like my little thread has arrived!

John, thanks for jumping in to argue completely off-topic points. I'd expect no less.

bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.


You've made a completely irrelevant comment. Please try to read more carefully before posting.

The subject collision in Raleigh was a near-side drive-out, not a left hook. Operating farther from the curb is helpful for reducing the danger of near-side drive-outs, because it greatly increases the cyclist's conspicuity to the driver at the side street, increases the time and distance the side-street driver must travel to enter the cyclist's path, and increases the amount of room the cyclist has to maneuver.

In my own city, the number of right-side cyclists struck by drive-outs is similar to the number struck by left crosses. (The number of left-side cyclists on sidewalks struck by drive-outs is about five times higher.) The total number of intersection collisions is about fifteen times the number of overtaking collisions.

The hazards posed by less effective intersection negotiation on sidewalks or curbside are not so great as to warrant prohibiting such behavior or trying to make people feel bad for operating that way. But, assuming we care about reducing collision risks among cyclists who are willing to listen, it is sensible that we encourage operating on the right half of the roadway, avoiding suddently swerving in front of overtaking traffic close enough to create a hazard, but operating in a visible location at junctions. It is also sensible that we avoid employment of traffic control devices (such as curbside bike lanes through intersections and signage of sidewalks as two-way bike paths) that encourage operation contrary to this benevolent advice.

Of course, the bottom line in all this discussion is, "how do you ride?"

Forget about bike lanes for a minute. Do you exercise additional care at intersections?

I do.

I keep a heads up at intersections, but am certainely not compelled to be in the middle of the road for each and every curb cut and driveway...

by the way, steve, bike lanes encourage road cycling versus sidewalk riding, and bike lanes buffered away from the curb help encourage a more visible road position from average bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone....

by the way, steve, bike lanes encourage road cycling versus sidewalk riding, and bike lanes buffered away from the curb help encourage a more visible road position from average bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone....

Shared use arrows and share the road education campaigns also encourage roadway use, without dictating inappropriate positioning. The bike lanes stripes in my area are marked 4' from the curb at over 95% over of the significant intersections they cross. They cannot be marked farther left because the right of way is limited (unless the road was over-built in the first place). A better solution for promoting safer intersection negotiation at these locations would be no bike lane stripe combined with better education of road users.

whoo hoo! a Bek/JF pissing match! I feel like my little thread has arrived!

John, thanks for jumping in to argue completely off-topic points. I'd expect no less.

The formal issue is whether intersection dangers are overstated by those who oppose bike lanes. My statement referred to Bekologist's statement that they were, without any reference to data as to the prevalence, or not, of turning and crossing collisions, when such data have been available for thirty years. That's on the stated topic.

yes, john, intersection dangers are overstated in this forum by anti-accomodationalists.

.... the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.

And I find Noisebeams' quacky insistence bike lane stripes HAVE TO END 200 feet before all intersection and CURB CUT fearmongering in the extreme.

Are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated in this forum? YES.

yes, john, intersection dangers are overstated in this forum by anti-accomodationalists.



And I find Noisebeams' quacky insistence bike lane stripes HAVE TO END 200 feet before all intersection and CURB CUT fearmongering in the extreme.

Are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated in this forum? YES.

Provide the data, Bekologist, to support your claim.

data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.

should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!!

200 ft? not 150? or 250?

I remember back at a time, that the "200 ft" rule was used by noisebeam and others simply as a retorical device to get someone to agree that there is no purpose for a bike lane stripe at all. After all, as the argument went, if you fragment the bike lane with the "200 ft rule", then you'd have nothing left at all and might as well eliminate the bike lane line all together.

But then again, the driveway to the local kwiki mart was considered an intersection, even if it did only attract a car an hour.

I am gaining the strong impression that, while there is an underlying order to the traffic system in the US, it is so littered with exceptions and novelties (where else on the road are vehicles asked to share lanes at speed?), that almost anything can be made to work and people will learn to work it. It's just a matter of exposure and the driver's manual. Just as you have to teach people what an unprotected left turn is, you just have to teach people how to deal with the possibility of a cyclist in the bike lane when making a turn into a driveway. And, similarly, teach cyclists the somewhat modified (as compared to car drivers) techniques for dealing with little inconsistencies stemming from the large speed differential. Oregon's drivers manual and bicycling manual are examples of how the word might be spread.

In other words, it's kind of like what scientists have found out about diets. It doesn't really matter what diet you are on, as long as you stick to it and the diet works towards the goal of reducing body fat. Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists.

In other words, it's kind of like what scientists have found out about diets. It doesn't really matter what diet you are on, as long as you stick to it and the diet works towards the goal of reducing body fat. Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists.

That is interesting ... the view is consistent with the casual observation that state/municipal safe-cycling programs appear to increase cycling safety while it is difficult to identify and measure the effects of the components of these programs.

Moreover, I find it consistent conceptually with more cyclists leading to greater safety. In this case, it would be the idea that cyclists and motorists need to figure out how to negotiate traffic together. If you have more cyclists, motorists get more practice resulting in smoother interaction.

data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.

should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!!

Oh, I get it ... you are referring to metrics on what people post ... not safety/traffic metrics.

Sorry for the interruption. Back to your scheduled programming.

When I can reasonably do so, I avoid intersections with uncontrolled high-speed merges and diverges, such as the mouths of many freeway access ramps.
These are an abomination and should be outlawed. They're much worse for pedestrians than cyclists, but bad enough for us. It's hard to negotiate with drivers merging at 40 mph from your four o'clock position. Especially when they're trying to merge all the way into the left turn lane. In some cases you can only hope (or pray) that they don't hit you.

It's just wrong to put people in this situation. The simple fix, but not very effective, is to put "yield" signs instead of "merge" signs for entering traffic. The real solution is to reengineer and rebuild to make the merge into a perpendicular junction with traffic light or "stop" sign.

Obviously, bike lanes will provide no protection or guidance in these all too common intersections. Bike lanes = quick "fix" -- for traffic designers who are too lazy or too cheap to make roads that can be used by everybody.

snips

Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists.

What do you mean by "accommodating cyclists"? I know of no city in the USA whose streets do not accommodate cyclists, and in some number, too.

data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.

should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!!

More irresponsibility. You cannot know whether or not the fears of intersection negotiation are stated accurately or inaccurately unless you understand the actual dangers as shown by collision statistics.

bwuaghhahahaha. :roflmao: "knows of no streets that don't accomodate cyclists"... worthless rhetoric.

'legality' does not denote 'bikeability', safety, or rideability by the bulk, the majority of bicyclists, john.

the majority of who are likely aware on how to ride bikes according to the rules of the road. there's a lot of ability levels in bicyclists that know how to ride, john.

bicyclists are NOT dividable into two camps consisting of competant/incompetant, despite your best smear tactics.