Advocacy & Safety - Bike lanes must stop 100 feet before intersection

Hi all,

I really think that the fed's need to get involved and mandate that all bike lanes end 100 feet (at least) before an intersection without a right turn only lane.

The government would never allow a straight thru lane to be built on the right of a possible right turning lane and yet that has become common practice in the United States.

Many cyclists are killed like this. See the latest one from Portland for more information.

The correct way to handle this would be to leave the bike lane, signal and merge with traffic before the intersection and just take your place in line. Many people are going to feel uneasy about doing this because they feel as though they have to stay in the bike lane. Motorists sometimes feel the need to remind you that there is a bike lane over there as well.

In my city we are going to end all the new bike lanes before the intersection (supposedly) and either install a sign telling them to merge or just leave it up to them.....some will merge and some will still filter (not knowing any better) but at least stupidity has not been mandated by the government in that situation.

Why couldnt a cyclists family who is killed in this way sue the city? They always seem to sue the poor drivers who could not have possibly seen the cyclists passing them on the right when the light turned green.

What say you?

Hi all,

The correct way to handle this would be to leave the bike lane, signal and merge with traffic before the intersection and just take your place in line. Many people are going to feel uneasy about doing this because they feel as though they have to stay in the bike lane. Motorists sometimes feel the need to remind you that there is a bike lane over there as well.



There needs to be massive public campaigns to remind cyclists to move away from the corners, and to tell the motoring public that this is OK and expected.

Changing the paint won't be enough.

The federal government doesn't give a **** about bike lanes

i disagree with gos.

bike lanes do not have to end 100 feet before all intersections. motorists have to yield to bicyclists before turning right.

at MAJOR intersections, with multiple traffic lanes and designated turn lanes, some modification of striping should be placed so bike lanes are not to the right of right turn only lanes.

I look out for myself at all times, a painted line doesn't mean crap.

One of the options offered in the AASHTO manual on bike facilities designs is to fade out or 'bear track' the bike lane before the intersection. The width from the bike lane is used to widen the outside straight through lane. The latest vesion specifically prohibits lanes outboard of RTO lanes.

The federal government doesn't give a **** about bike lanes

They also don't have any authority over them, unless they're on an interstate.

I think the bike lane stripes should end 200' before intersection, at least on 35mph+ roads where it often takes longer than 100' to negotiate a safe merge out of the BL.

On lower SL roads 100' is appropriate.

In Arizona ending the stripe fully (not even dashed as it still defines a BL) is even more important as motorists are not allowed to travel forward in any bike lane and because the penalties for the 3ft passing law do not apply if a bike lane is present and a collision happens outside the bike lane.

Sure it would be nice to teach 100% of motorist to watch before turning right, but until it can be guaranteed that there will be 100% compliance no cyclists should rely on a motorist to watch out for them.

The ones who have a stake in this are the cyclists - teach them to avoid the right at all possible right turns and do not imply or enourage dangerous far right postioning with a bike lane stripe.

Al

Motorists cannot and will not open their car door stand up and look behind them for a passing bicycle before turning right.

Have any of you ever driven a dump truck or another large truck? You can pretty much see what is in front of the truck (except for the hood which blocks 1/3 of that and what is straight out the side windows.

You sure as heck cant see what is sneaking up alongside of you or what is behind you.

Its not like driving your toyota camry.

Its not like driving your toyota camry.
Of course not, but I wouldn't trust a camry driver to see and react to me passing on the right either.

Al

Around here I've seen some bike lanes cross over to the left of the right turn lane with signs "yield to bikes". I'm not sure if any of you guys have experience with these? Seems like a decent idea.

Hi all,

I really think that the fed's need to get involved and mandate that all bike lanes end 100 feet (at least) before an intersection without a right turn only lane.

{SNIP**

What say you?

I say the federal Government should mandate the elimination of intersections; as well as the elimination of dump trucks, too! Safety First, eh?:rolleyes:

I'm not talking about roads with right turn only lanes that cross the bike lane. In that situation its fine for a bike lane to go to the front.

Im talking about your everyday 4 lane intersection where the light turns green, the truck turns right and the cyclists ends up dead.

I think that a cyclist would have a really strong lawsuit against a government that installs something like that.

Just like if there was a possible right turn lane on the left side of a straight through car lane. No one would tolerate that kind of poor design.

I appreciate your sarcasm but everyone understands what a dangerous situation this is.

Around here I've seen some bike lanes cross over to the left of the right turn lane with signs "yield to bikes". I'm not sure if any of you guys have experience with these? Seems like a decent idea.

yep, its a decent idea. Sounds like AASHTO regulation should prevent bike lanes striped to the right of right turn only lanes.


gosmo has a point, ending bike lane stripes before some four lane intersections could minimize bicyclists not automatically choosing to be to the right of potential turning traffic, but by no means is it some kind of magic cure all against right hooks for all bicyclists.

there are many, many minor, unsignalled street intersections along two lane streets that are and can be accomodated quite well without any cessation of the stripe, or a dashing of the stripe, or a short break in the stripe.

the mantra 'end the bike lane stripe 100 feet at all intersections' is the typical VC diatribe against bicycling infrastructure. note gosmoso is a 'bike instructor'- wonder what cirriculum he's 'qualified' to teach? :rolleyes:

bekologist.

I hardly think its typical. I've never heard it before.

If your answer is for cars to look for you passing them on the right before they make a right hand turn then youre barking up the wrong tree because it aint and shouldnt happen.

If you drive do you check your passenger side mirror for cyclists passing you before making a right hand turn??

Having BLs to the left of a RTOL is widely implemented across many parts of the US. This is nothing new and clearly shown in AASTHO guidelines. Not placing BL to the right of RTOL has also been for the most part done away with in most regions and does not meet guidelines. Neither of these cases are what is being discussed here or is what the issue at hand is.

The issue is having BLs striped to the right of a thru/RT lane where some vehicles go straight and others turn.

I very much disagree than minor or unsignaled intersections are not a cause for concern for potential right hookers. If a right turn is possible then a right turn can and will happen. It is these cases where a right turner may most surprise a cyclist who just assumes it is a little used side street.

I ask what is the downside to removing the BL stripe 100-200' before these minor intersections? I can see none, this short a distance is too little for motorist who are not turning to make a lateral adjustment with the momentary removal of stripe. The advantage is to not encourage cyclists to stay far right and to not wrongly tell motorist that far right is where cyclists should ride. Why wrongly educate motorists and cyclists thru improper lane markings?

Al

noisebeam you are very wise.

minor, unsignalled intersections are not going to have a line of cars either going straight or right. particularily residential driveways.

motorists should be better advised to not right hook bicyclists, bicyclists should be better advised to not pass slowing cars on the right, and wide or narrow lanes alone do not prevent either of these situations from occuring.

The issue is having BLs striped to the right of a thru/RT lane where some vehicles go straight and others turn.
Al

CA's solution to this is to require cars to merge into the bike lane up to 200 ft before they make a right turn, effectively turning the bike lane into a right-turn only for cars but a thru or right-turn for bikes. The right most regular lane is then a thru-only.

In theory, this seems like the right idea to me: it makes the faster moving traffic (cars) merge into the slower lane rather than forcing slower moving vehicles (bikes) to merge into fast moving traffic, cut people off and generally slow the flow of traffic.

In my experience, however, drivers are unaware of this regulation and the right hook is still a problem.:(

Bek - you know very well that a slow or stopped line of cars is not a prequisite for a right hook possibilty. Right hooks can happen when a single driver overtakes and turns in front of a cyclist.

Even when drivers know and internalize that a cyclist is there it is a more difficult judgement to make in respect to relative speed when one also needs to include decelleration and turning time. It is best to play it safe, but all too often driver who play it safe end up waiting 'overly' long for the cyclist to pass. I know I do when there are cyclists to my right and I need to turn. Perhaps I play it overly safe and have no problem waiting 'overly' long so I do it. Other drivers mis-judge and think they are well ahead of cyclist before turning, but make a serious misjudgement.

This is not a judgement that is required in any other driving situation - two vehicles going traveling the same direction and one needing to cross over the path of the other.

But the most important question that you need to answer is what benefit or purpose does the last 100-200' of bike lane stripe before an intersection serve? What is lost if that small section of stripe is removed?

Al

CA's solution to this is to require cars to merge into the bike lane up to 200 ft before they make a right turn, effectively turning the bike lane into a right-turn only for cars but a thru or right-turn for bikes. The right most regular lane is then a thru-only.

Yes. This is true.

The flaw in this (aside from lack of awareness and varied laws across state lines) is that the bike lane is rarely wide enough for an average width motor vehicle to travel in. Driving partly in lanes goes against normal rules of traffic. Why paint a lane that one should be in for turning when one can fit ones vehicle in it?

Addtionally many motorist when turning at normal cornering speed do not want to go too close to the curb as it makes for a tighter radius turn.

Al

Should I have stayed in the BL assuming the driver would yield to me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvA6jQyPP98

Al

Look, this 'bent cyclist stayed in the BL and was right hooked. They had to slow hard to avoid hitting the turning vehicle. It was a minor non-signaled intersection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hir5oY-h10Y
Al

The flaw in this (aside from lack of awareness and varied laws across state lines) is that the bike lane is rarely wide enough for an average width motor vehicle to travel in. Driving partly in lanes goes against normal rules of traffic. Why paint a lane that one should be in for turning when one can fit ones vehicle in it?
Al

I agree with your first reason for opposition (lack of awareness and varied laws) but not the second (partial lanes). With or without the dotted bike lane line there, cars wanting to turn right will slide around the right hand side of cars going straight--they make their own two-lanes-in-one, so it's not an odd or confusing situation. I just wish people were aware and that the same law was in place in every state.

The downside of removing the bike lane is forcing bike to merge into faster traffic. In places where traffic is heavy like my commute, it would be impossible for me to merge and take-the-lane at every right hand turn. So, the only option I would have left is to forego the bike lane entirely. But since I tend to travel at about 20 MPH less than the cars, I'm now a roadblock. (By CA law, I am allowed to do this, if I believe it removes me from a hazardous situation, btw) It seems unreasonable to expect that all motorists must travel at the speed that I solely decide.

So what do I do? I stay in my bike lane and at the places along my commute where right hooks are common (3 of them), I watch the cars near me very closely and I'm hyper aware that I might need to save my butt at a moment's notice.

So I would argue that its better to increase awareness and try to standardize the regulations rather than remove the bike lanes at the intersections. In the meantime, do whatever it takes to stay safe.

Just because the BL stripe ends does not mean that cyclist must or is forced to merge into centerish position of now wide lane. It may be recommended in many traffic conditions, but not always - instead no bike lane stripe gives an unbiased choice for the cyclist.

Motorists will be (perhaps very marginally) less likely to be 'concerned' about a cyclist riding centerish when the bike lane stripe is not present. It does take away the message that the cyclist should be in the bike lane.

Al

So what do I do? I stay in my bike lane and at the places along my commute where right hooks are common (3 of them), I watch the cars near me very closely and I'm hyper aware that I might need to save my butt at a moment's notice

Thats what I used to do - this was the first time I'd ever seen anyone turn right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iibXnV4AU

In this case no direct action on my part was required except some resistance on pedals to slow a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu1wOyS6UAQ
But the motorist took a chance that they didn't suddenly need to slow while turning.

Point is right hooks can sneak up one one quicker than one realizes.

Al

avanwyns -

What is the CA bike lane law exactly.

Feel free to PM me if you want. I am curious because I have not heard this before.

Thanks,

I feel that bike lanes that sporatically start and stop are useless - I might as well ride with traffic so I don't have to be constanly merging.

There is a poorly implemented bike lane on my commute that is right next to a lot of driveways and low visibility so I don't use it, but it also has the bike lanes ending about 8 feet before 4-way stops. This doesn't make any sense to me at stop signs.

Short version: Advocating for a painted line to stop 100' before intersections is a drop in the bucket and is such a small fish that it isn't even worth your time.


Hi all,

I really think that the fed's need to get involved and mandate that all bike lanes end 100 feet (at least) before an intersection without a right turn only lane.

Feds don't build surface streets. They can recommend, but the ultimate responsibility is to the state, county, or city, depending on the road.


The government would never allow a straight thru lane to be built on the right of a possible right turning lane and yet that has become common practice in the United States.

Right turn only lanes with bike lanes to the left are becoming more common. There is no good solution to the "straight through cyclist + right turning car" since cyclists are mostly slower than traffic, thus to the right of traffic. The answer is for drivers to have more exposure to cyclists. Paint on the ground, paint not on the ground, it's small peanuts vs. having drivers be exposed to cyclists and knowing how to move around them.


Many cyclists are killed like this. See the latest one from Portland for more information.

Yes, "many" are killed, perhaps. But "many" are killed in other ways not related to bike lanes. Both times I've had run-ins with cars (one was an extremely near miss, and the other actually resulted in a collision), I was nowhere near a bike lane. I know, it's emotional when a person dies, but to blame lines on the road is not the answer. Put the responsiblity on the person who did not responsibly pilot their vehicle on public streets. That's where it belongs.


The correct way to handle this would be to leave the bike lane, signal and merge with traffic before the intersection and just take your place in line. Many people are going to feel uneasy about doing this because they feel as though they have to stay in the bike lane. Motorists sometimes feel the need to remind you that there is a bike lane over there as well.

Correct. Somewhat.


In my city we are going to end all the new bike lanes before the intersection (supposedly) and either install a sign telling them to merge or just leave it up to them.....some will merge and some will still filter (not knowing any better) but at least stupidity has not been mandated by the government in that situation.

"Stupidity"

Kinda harsh.


Why couldnt a cyclists family who is killed in this way sue the city? They always seem to sue the poor drivers who could not have possibly seen the cyclists passing them on the right when the light turned green.

What say you?

The city does what it can. Ultimately, it is this type of attitude which prevents cities from experimenting with newer ways to mix bicycles and cars. Know why Portland doesn't implement sharrows? It's not approved. That's why.

Ultimately though, just as you are placing responsiblity on cyclists to avoid putting themselves in a position to get killed through someone else's carelessness or mistakes, you also need to place responsiblity on drivers to avoid killing people with their vehicles. Two parties were careless, and one was careless with the capacity to kill, while the other was careless in the capacity to be killed. The party with the capacity to kill has the moral responsiblity to avoid killing someone.

In the recent Portland incident, why aren't you advocating suing the truck manufacturer which designed a truck which doesn't afford sufficient visibility for the driver to avoid killing people on the streets? Or the company the driver was working for for insufficiently training the driver in driving in city streets? I was taught by my father (back in the mid 90's) that, when turning right in a car across a bike lane, I always need to look in the right hand mirror to see if there is a cycist there. Why don't you sue the city or state for not requiring this type of training for their drivers?

But this all is just picking on small fish. The big fish? Get more people out on the street cycling. And, for God's sake, get a grip and stop harping on every single bicycle-car collision which get mentioned in the papers. Statistically, there will always be a couple, regardless of the paint on the street. That there are so few that each gets its own article in the paper and its own internet thread is a fact to be celebrated, not reviled.

And if you want the bicycle/car mixing problem solved in a way which is natural and doesn't scare people off of cycling, then stop suggesting that a city be sued. Instead, work with them to put the best minds on the problem and try lots of things and build up a body of knowledge of what works and what doesn't. And don't limit your research to paint and where to put it.

Or go back to being satisfied for your <0.5% trips by bicycle and advocate vehicular cycling and the abolition of bike lanes and condemn cycling to being a novelty practiced by a few kooks. Don't throw away your car though, if you do that. You'll need it once your city becomes 50 miles in diameter and every road is a 4 lane highway. Remember when you are taught to "be big" when bicycling vehicularly, so that cars don't intrude in your space? Well, you gotta do this too when advocating for your rights to the road too. Otherwise, everyone else who is bigger than you, and face it, every other road user group, right down to the pedestrians, have constituencies who are bigger than you, will keep brushing you and brushing you, until it's all you can do to get up in the morning to get on your bike and deal with all the hassle of high speed roads and no accomodation. Good luck with that.

I agree with your first reason for opposition (lack of awareness and varied laws) but not the second (partial lanes). With or without the dotted bike lane line there, cars wanting to turn right will slide around the right hand side of cars going straight--they make their own two-lanes-in-one, so it's not an odd or confusing situation. I just wish people were aware and that the same law was in place in every state.

The downside of removing the bike lane is forcing bike to merge into faster traffic. In places where traffic is heavy like my commute, it would be impossible for me to merge and take-the-lane at every right hand turn. So, the only option I would have left is to forego the bike lane entirely. But since I tend to travel at about 20 MPH less than the cars, I'm now a roadblock. (By CA law, I am allowed to do this, if I believe it removes me from a hazardous situation, btw) It seems unreasonable to expect that all motorists must travel at the speed that I solely decide.

So what do I do? I stay in my bike lane and at the places along my commute where right hooks are common (3 of them), I watch the cars near me very closely and I'm hyper aware that I might need to save my butt at a moment's notice.

So I would argue that its better to increase awareness and try to standardize the regulations rather than remove the bike lanes at the intersections. In the meantime, do whatever it takes to stay safe.
The CA law to which you refer, CVC 21208 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22108.htm), allows you to leave the bike lane any time you are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, specifically for the reasons noisebeam is writing about.



Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.




Also, regardless of the type of slow moving vehicle being driven -- moving van, cement truck, tractor, horse and buggy, car while looking for a place to park, bus, bulldozer, or yes, a bicycle -- it is completely reasonable to expect that all motorists must travel at the speed that the slow moving driver solely decides, when there is no safe and reasonable alternative. In many circumstances, including whenever approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, moving aside is often neither safe nor reasonable.

Per CVC 21200 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm), cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles. There is nothing unreasonable about riding accordingly.



Laws Applicable to Bicycle Use: Peace Officer Exemption

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division...

I feel that bike lanes that sporatically start and stop are useless - I might as well ride with traffic so I don't have to be constanly merging.


Why do you feel you must constantly merge if the BL stripe ends and starts?

Al

I feel that bike lanes that sporatically start and stop are useless - I might as well ride with traffic so I don't have to be constanly merging.


This is the only reason for suggesting the lane stoppage. It's a back-ally way of suggesting that bike lanes have no place on the road; an argument which is both untrue and self-serving. If bicycling is something which is going to be as safe as driving, then it has to be common, and ripping out all the bike lanes and replacing them with narrow lanes or wide lanes is working counter to that goal.

Yes, a few cyclists are assertive enough to ride anywhere they want in whatever traffic condition and/or road condition which presents itself. Portland has, probably, the largest cycling population per capita of any major city in the US. Guess what. Only <10% of all cyclists who bicycle regularly in Portland are this confident in their abilities. This is why all the talk of ending bicycle accomodation is self-serving. Since I can do it, anyone can, right?

Why do you feel you must constantly merge if the BL stripe ends and starts?

Al

Isn't this the point?

What is the CA bike lane law exactly.


Here's what I know about CA law pertaining to bike lanes.

-from the CA driver handbook; relevant vehicular code section is 21209:

"A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white line will usually be broken near the corner and the words "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time."

21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows: ... (3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection...


Section 21208 says you shall ride in the bike lane, but you may leave that lane if you need to avoid hazardous conditions(3) or you come to a right-hand turn(4). That's good b/c it means you can stay in the bike lane if you want to or you can follow noisebeam's advice to avoid right hooks; either are within the law.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations: (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions. (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.


Also important is Section 9C from the CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/CA-Part9.pdf) It says that solid bike lane lines should end 100' to 200' from the intersection, and either the bike lane then ends or it is continued to the intersection as a dashed line.


If you want to see the full CA vehicular code as it pertains to bikes, see Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4, Sections 21200-21212 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm)

Why do you feel you must constantly merge if the BL stripe ends and starts?

Al

Sorry I wasn't clear - in the specific bike lane I referenced the bike lane physically ends before the stop signs. (The seperate grade sidewalk extends out) Obviously, this isn't the norm.

Short version: Advocating for a painted line to stop 100' before intersections is a drop in the bucket and is such a small fish that it isn't even worth your time.

But what is being asked for is when advocating for bike lanes, advocate for designs that do not discourage destination positioning. If that can't be done, keep making the lane wide, but stop striping until there site specific study on the best striping for every intersection approach.



Ultimately though, just as you are placing responsiblity on cyclists to avoid putting themselves in a position to get killed through someone else's carelessness or mistakes, you also need to place responsiblity on drivers to avoid killing people with their vehicles. Two parties were careless, and one was careless with the capacity to kill, while the other was careless in the capacity to be killed. The party with the capacity to kill has the moral responsiblity to avoid killing someone.

Sure, but the party that may be killed has the incentive to change behavior.

Also keep in mind no one is suggesting that if the stripe is ended before intersections that motorist should then not be morally responsible to look out for right passing cyclists when turning. They still are responsible not to turn in front of a thru cyclist to their right and should be held accountable by law if they do.

Al

Short version: Advocating for a painted line to stop 100' before intersections is a drop in the bucket and is such a small fish that it isn't even worth your time.

You might think so, especially if you accept this premise:



There is no good solution to the "straight through cyclist + right turning car" since cyclists are mostly slower than traffic, thus to the right of traffic.

I beg to differ. First, you're applying speed positioning rules (slower traffic keeps right) where destination positioning rules (position yourself relative to your destination) have priority: at intersections, junctions and their approaches. Second, there is an excellent solution: as the cyclist is approaching any place where right turns can and might be made, she should look back over her shoulder, signal/negotiate as required, and move left into a predictable and conspicuous "going straight" lateral position near the center, biased left, of the straight-or-right lane.



The answer is for drivers to have more exposure to cyclists.

That would help, but it's hardly a solution. You think they don't have right hooks in Davis and northern Europe where cycling is much more popular? Anyway, how about a solution for our lifetimes? How about something that works today? (see above).



Paint on the ground, paint not on the ground, it's small peanuts vs. having drivers be exposed to cyclists and knowing how to move around them.

It's small peanuts compared to getting all motorists off of surface streets too. So what? Let's be realistic, shall we?



Ultimately though, just as you are placing responsiblity on cyclists to avoid putting themselves in a position to get killed through someone else's carelessness or mistakes, you also need to place responsiblity on drivers to avoid killing people with their vehicles. Two parties were careless, and one was careless with the capacity to kill, while the other was careless in the capacity to be killed. The party with the capacity to kill has the moral responsiblity to avoid killing someone.

Holding careless drivers responsible doesn't bring anyone back from the dead. When people are already motivated to do something, such as drivers are motivated to avoid scratching their cars, much less crashing into anyone or anything, the effectiveness of "holding them responsible" for doing what they are already motivated to do is dubious. Reminding drivers to remember to check their blind spots for cyclists before they turn right is all well and good, but that fact remains that once they check dozens if not hundreds of times in a row and never see a cyclist there (because there is no cyclist there), some significant portion of them is going to stop checking. That's human nature. It goes to the getting butts on bikes "solution", but, again, why wait for that, which at best might help, when we have something that is near 100% effective today - stay out of the right turn zone of cars when approaching or crossing a place where they can or might turn right!?



But this all is just picking on small fish. The big fish? Get more people out on the street cycling.

I don't understand why you want to wait indefinitely for something that at best might help a little when we can do something about it today.



Otherwise, everyone else who is bigger than you, and face it, every other road user group, right down to the pedestrians, have constituencies who are bigger than you, will keep brushing you and brushing you, until it's all you can do to get up in the morning to get on your bike and deal with all the hassle of high speed roads and no accomodation. Good luck with that.
Well, we can dream too, can't we?

Isn't this the point?

No, the point is to give the individual cyclist the unbiased option to decide if they merge left or not at every intersection based on current conditions.

Just because the stripe ends does not mean I will always move left.

Al

But what is being asked for is when advocating for bike lanes, advocate for designs that do not discourage destination positioning. If that can't be done, keep making the lane wide, but stop striping until there site specific study on the best striping for every intersection approach.

How does this help?


Sure, but the party that may be killed has the incentive to change behavior.

Of course. Might make right. Get out the way or I'll run you over.

Sound familiar?

It doesn't work this way in civilized society. Only in the Kingdom of the Apes.


Also keep in mind no one is suggesting that if the stripe is ended before intersections that motorist should then not be morally responsible to look out for right passing cyclists when turning. They still are responsible not to turn in front of a thru cyclist to their right and should be held accountable by law if they do.

Al

Is this "ending the strip 100' (or 200') before an intersection" something that you are sure will work for all cyclists, or is it something for your convenience only, to get meanies off your back about using the bike lane. What would your paint redistribution scheme do for your average cyclist? I mean, besides make them ride closer to the curb (which, correct me if I'm wrong) is opposite from what we want, even though it seems to be the main effect of eliminating the shoulder or bike lane and providing a wide lane.

Helmet Head,

Sorry, I missed your post when I collecting information... (links and so forth)

Obviously, I agree with your assesment of the current law, and I think cyclists have the right to be on the road in a safe manner.

I think what we disagree on is whether bike lanes continuing to the intersection constitue a "safe and reasonable alternative" I believe they are safe and reasonable. They could be safer if motorists understood the law better and the laws were more uniform.

This is the only reason for suggesting the lane stoppage. It's a back-ally way of suggesting that bike lanes have no place on the road; an argument which is both untrue and self-serving. If bicycling is something which is going to be as safe as driving, then it has to be common, and ripping out all the bike lanes and replacing them with narrow lanes or wide lanes is working counter to that goal.

Yes, a few cyclists are assertive enough to ride anywhere they want in whatever traffic condition and/or road condition which presents itself. Portland has, probably, the largest cycling population per capita of any major city in the US. Guess what. Only <10% of all cyclists who bicycle regularly in Portland are this confident in their abilities. This is why all the talk of ending bicycle accomodation is self-serving. Since I can do it, anyone can, right?

I would not be in that 10%. I like bike lanes if they are implemented well, but I stay out of them where I think they are poorly implemented.

This is the only reason for suggesting the lane stoppage. It's a back-ally way of suggesting that bike lanes have no place on the road; an argument which is both untrue and self-serving. If bicycling is something which is going to be as safe as driving, then it has to be common, and ripping out all the bike lanes and replacing them with narrow lanes or wide lanes is working counter to that goal.

No Brian. This is only about ending the BL stripe before intersection approaches where there is not a RTOL. No one is suggesting 'ripping out' bike lanes. Only ending the stripe.

Yes, in urban areas the effect may be no BL stripe for extended durations where there are many commercial intersection and side street, but these are the very places where right hook danger is elevated due to high frequency of turns and many possible turning vehicles and go/slow/stop/go nature of such urban traffic.

I personally don't need BLs on intersectionless stretches of roadway, but I will advocate for them if it means getting more total pavement space. I also recognize that they are desired by many cyclists and understand that postion. What I do not get is the desire to want them to the right of possible right turns. That is beyond my comprehension - I can't think of one even perceived benefit.

Al

Of course. Might make right. Get out the way or I'll run you over.

Sound familiar?
It is quite different. I clearly stated I was not talking about right. I was talking about who to reach and teach and who is more likely to be teachable. Don't twist this.

But if you want to got this path - I am suggesting cyclists 'get in the way' so they don't get run over.

Al

If safety is the ultimate concern, one option is for the cyclist to dismount before the intersection where the bike lane ends, proceed on the sidewalk as a pedestrian, and mount the bike again where the bike lane resumes. Another option is for the cyclist to stop where the bike lane ends and plant one foot on the curb. Then turn your head to watch until all traffic behind you has gone through the intersection. When the last car has passed you, pedal through the intersection before the light turns again. I have done both and felt very safe.

It is hard to follow some of the suggestions above without diagrams.

Also, someone please explain what filtering is.

Thanks.

Tell you what, HH. I'm going to start advocating that we use destination lane positioning all the time. Not just when approaching intersections. If I were on a two lane (same direction) arterial, and need to make a left at some point in my trip, if I were in my car, I'd just be in the left lane. So, how about we bicycle like this?

And, HH, for what it's worth, I have faith that driver behavior can change in a fairly short time period, because I've seen it with my own eyes. An increase in cycling in the west side suburbs of the greater Portland area, along with, yes, bike lanes on nearly all roads, has made cycling noticeably easier, safer, and more pleasent. It's been 8 or 9 years since I first commuted here. I used to get yelled at, cursed at, and cut off frequently. Now: not so much.

Scoff at my ideals if you want. But while I can, and I am quite good at it, hold things together with zipp ties and duct tape; I prefer solving problems in a robust fashion.

No Brian. This is only about ending the BL stripe before intersection approaches where there is not a RTOL. No one is suggesting 'ripping out' bike lanes. Only ending the stripe.

Yes, in urban areas the effect may be no BL stripe for extended durations where there are many commercial intersection and side street, but these are the very places where right hook danger is elevated due to high frequency of turns and many possible turning vehicles and go/slow/stop/go nature of such urban traffic.

I personally don't need BLs on intersectionless stretches of roadway, but I will advocate for them if it means getting more total pavement space. I also recognize that they are desired by many cyclists and understand that postion.
:beer:



What I do not get is the desire to want them to the right of possible right turns. That is beyond my comprehension - I can't think of one even perceived benefit.

It's emotional/political symbolism. Most cyclists couldn't care less about the laws. They don't care if they're required to ride in bike lanes or not. Why should they? They ignore the laws requiring them to stop at red lights and stop signs, or to ride on the right side of the street (when riding on the left suits them), etc. Why would they care about mandatory bike lane laws? It's not like the cops enforce this stuff anyway.

But a bike lane, any bike lane, no matter how poorly placed, represents official acknowledgment of their right to the road (well, at least the margin), and it demarcates space that they feel they can use without having to worry so much about cars.

They haven't thought it through, of course, so they like them. And that's the 90% that Brian is talking about. Brian (and those "advocates" who think like him) takes it as a given that they're going to stay ignorant about all this stuff, and has accepted that the only way to get and keep the vast majority of these ignoramus cyclists on the street is keep painting these symbolic facilities. He also recognizes that ending the stripe 100-200' prior to intersections would mean the practical elimination of bike lane stripes in many urban and suburban environments, for the reasons you cited, and he doesn't want that, because that's not what the ignoramuses want. And what the ignoramuses want is what Brian wants, because he seems to think that's the only way to get and keep their ignoramus butts on bikes.

If I were on a two lane (same direction) arterial, and need to make a left at some point in my trip, if I were in my car, I'd just be in the left lane. So, how about we bicycle like this?
No matter what vehicle your are driving if you are moving at less than the normal speed of traffic you really shouldn't get into the left most lane until needed to safely prepare for the left turn. I sometimes get in the left most lane when cycling up to 1/4mi before a left turn for this reason. Sometimes I only need 50' Same as when I drive a motor vehicle.

Al

Tell you what, HH. I'm going to start advocating that we use destination lane positioning all the time. Not just when approaching intersections. If I were on a two lane (same direction) arterial, and need to make a left at some point in my trip, if I were in my car, I'd just be in the left lane. So, how about we bicycle like this?
Uh, why would you do that? What would be the point? Do you not understand the reasons for speed positioning between intersections, and why it is trumped with destination positioning at intersections and their approaches?



And, HH, for what it's worth, I have faith that driver behavior can change in a fairly short time period, because I've seen it with my own eyes. An increase in cycling in the west side suburbs of the greater Portland area, along with, yes, bike lanes on nearly all roads, has made cycling noticeably easier, safer, and more pleasent. It's been 8 or 9 years since I first commuted here. I used to get yelled at, cursed at, and cut off frequently. Now: not so much.

Scoff at my ideals if you want. But while I can, and I am quite good at it, hold things together with zipp ties and duct tape; I prefer solving problems in a robust fashion.
The fact that driver behavior can change is hardly a robust solution. The best you can do is improve the behavior of most drivers most of the time. But you can't change the behavior of all (or even some) of the drivers ALL of the time. So the cyclist will always need to be careful with respect to right hooks (not to mention all the other hazards), even if drivers get better.

What we really need to ditch is that widely held notion within the bicycling culture that you can, or should be able to, ride on streets without worrying about vehicular traffic very much. That's just not true, especially anywhere where there are intersections and junctions. This is why Hurst puts so much influence on the concept of vigilance in his book, because he recognizes how little of that there is. And bike lanes, especially where there are frequent intersections and/or junctions, reinforce this idea that cycling in traffic can and should be somewhat carefree. It's nuts. And it's deadly.

No Brian. This is only about ending the BL stripe before intersection approaches where there is not a RTOL. No one is suggesting 'ripping out' bike lanes. Only ending the stripe.

I'm confused. By ripping out the strip, didn't you rip out the bike lane? Or is the bike lane now the asphalt bounded by the strip and not the other way around? You've taken the opposite stance before.

And, let me put it to you, why don't you narrow the lane while you are at it and force cyclists to merge? Why leave even the space for cyclists to potentially ride to the head of the line if this is such a bad action on the cyclist's part?