Google sponsored links
The graph on the police report sums it up pretty well.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6852/picture3wo4.png
Basically, I was cruising through a green, and a pickup failed to yield.
He got cited.
I got taken to the hospital by paramedics.
My bike is done. My jeans are done. My tibial plateau is broken.
I scraped up my arms pretty well, lost enough blood on scene that the cops used hydroxide on the cement. I bruised more or less everything. I was flipped upside down and went flying. It was crazy.
But, other than that, I'm ok.
His fender is broken. I dented his hood/grill. I broke in his windshield.
Just thought I'd share for discussion.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Good thing he got a ticket. Talk to a lawyer - you've got a good claim. Glad you're OK.
Above all else, best wishes for a speedy and thorough recovery.
This is similar to my one encounter with a motor vehicle, almost exactly 31 years ago, except the motorist was turning left into a driveway.
In which city is this particular intersection of Broadway and Euclid?
How fast were you going?
Were there any other relevant circumstances, such as rising or setting sun, inclement weather, etc?
Were you well lighted (at night) or wearing bright colors (daytime)?
The motorist has been cited -- this is a very good first step. Make sure he gets a point or two against his driving record. Do not settle with the claims adjuster, who is paid to pressure you into making a fast and somewhat low settlement, until you know the full extent of your injuries, your medical prognosis, and your material losses (bike, clothing, etc.). Have every recommended medical test done, and keep a detailed set of records, including travel expenses, lost work days, and your time. Press aggressively for an equitable settlement, which generally translates to 3 or 4 times your total medical expenses for pain and suffering, assuming no permanent impairments.
Is there anything you could have done to mitigate the impacts of the collision on yourself, such as a quick turn to the right?
.
...But, other than that, I'm ok....
Glad to hear that
(much sarcasm included)
Would that Euclid be in northeast ohio?
:eek:It sure happens fast, doesn't it?:eek:
Lawyer up and heal fast. Get photos of his vehicle if you can.:D
oh, that's a tough one. Glad you're "okay" but whew! it sounds serious. Heal well and hang in there through the recovery process. I hope you're back on the bike in no time.
Thanks for the kind words.
This Broadway and Euclid was in Tucson, AZ.
I was going 22-23 MPH, I would estimate, however I did not have a cyclocomputer on that bike.
I was well lighted, and it was at night. I had a blinking rear reflector, as well as a front light.
I was trying to do the quick get out of the accident, by turning right, but he kept driving...
The claims adjuster wants to settle, and my mom suggested we settle with that, but submit my receipt for my Trek Madone 5.2 SL instead of the Kilo TT I was on :-P
I get to finally see the ortho today.
glad you're ok. Hope you heal up well.
First, definitely get a personal injury attorney. You're in no rush.
Don't sign anything or do any interviews with their adjuster until you talk to an atty. I suspect their first offer will be well below what you'd get in court and below later offers. Any conversations their adjuster has will be solely to discredit you or reduce the value of your claim.
Don't submit your madone receipt. That's called fraud and you could do jail time and tank your entire case by destroying your credibility if you get caught. When they see a receipt for a toy/bike that costs that much they may ask questions and you don't want to put yourself in a hole. Remember anything you write here can be used in civil court. I'd recommend deleting details from your posts. Your pain & suffering will likely exceed the actual damages even if it was a madone.
Good luck with the ortho & recovery.
The claims adjuster wants to settle, and my mom suggested we settle with that, but submit my receipt for my Trek Madone 5.2 SL instead of the Kilo TT I was on :-P
I have no advice on whether to settle or not, but a definite opinion on insurance fraud. DON'T DO IT!!!
I am not a lawyer, but based on my understanding, talking about something is conspiracy, so you may have just published about your conspiracy to commit insurance fraud...
Watch what you say or write whenever you are involved in legal matters.
Just thought I'd share for discussion.
It was 100% the motorists fault. No question about it.
Left crosses are to me the most concerning possibility in similar driving conditions/road layout as Tucson.
You had a headlight. That helps. I bought the brightest one reasonable for my budget a 10W HID and have it aimed near parallel to road surface, not pointing down for a spot 15' in front of me on the road as most other set-ups I've seen.
When riding thru intersections like this I stay away from the right most thru lane edge unless there are faster vehicles going with me thru the intersection. These faster vehicles act as the visual deterrent from the potential left turning vehicle.
When there are not faster vehicles I do not ride in the far right bike lane. I ride left biased in the right most thru lane.
The combination of being where motorists tend to look and higher than normal cyclist visibility help to reduce the chance of a left cross. Nothing can eliminate it, a common accident for car/car collisions is the left cross here in Phx-metro, drivers are too eager to jump a gap and make errors in assessing the conditions.
Wishes for the best recovery and in receiving fair honest compensation for your actual losses.
Al
When riding thru intersections like this I stay away from the right most thru lane edge unless there are faster vehicles going with me thru the intersection. These faster vehicles act as the visual deterrent from the potential left turning vehicle.
When there are not faster vehicles I do not ride in the far right bike lane. I ride left biased in the right most thru lane.
The combination of being where motorists tend to look and higher than normal cyclist visibility help to reduce the chance of a left cross. Nothing can eliminate it, a common accident for car/car collisions is the left cross here in Phx-metro, drivers are too eager to jump a gap and make errors in assessing the conditions.
Good advice, Al.
Adam, I wonder if you could tell us what role, if any, the bike lane played in you choosing to ride where you were riding, as opposed to riding where Al is suggesting.
The bike lane is part of the right turn ONLY lane. A left turning motorist is going to look at the through lanes for vehicles which keep them from making their left turn. Because the cyclist was in the right turn ONLY lane (as dictated by the bike lane), the motorist was far less likely to see the cyclist. Chalk another one up for bike lanes.
But for those who love bike lanes, what is one more casualty.
Adam, before answering, consider the motivation behind the question.
Serge has already determined that the bike lane encouraged you to "use an inferior position when the space they demarcate happens to coincide with inferior positioning given the current conditions."
http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5645925&postcount=390
I'm not quite sure what Pete's motivation is to try and sabotage our ability to try and get an honest and unbiased answer to the question.
By the way, Adam, I don't fault you for the crash in any way, and I'm very glad that this incident is not appropriate to reference in the "bike lane deaths" thread. I do fault the traffic engineers, and especially the so-called "bike advocates" who support these facilities that encourage inferior positioning (especially inferior when faster same direction is not present) at the approaches to intersections and junctions.
Now that my nefarious :rolleyes: motivations have been brought to light, I wonder if you'd ever heard of or read about the type of lane positioning advice provided by noisebeam and CB HI above prior to starting this thread.
The bike lane is part of the right turn ONLY lane. A left turning motorist is going to look at the through lanes for vehicles which keep them from making their left turn. Because the cyclist was in the right turn ONLY lane (as dictated by the bike lane), the motorist was far less likely to see the cyclist. Chalk another one up for bike lanes. ...
If being in the bike lane automatically puts one into a right-turn-only lane, then the city traffic engineer is partly responsible for this collision.
This unfortunate event is not necessarily an effective argument against a bike lane located between a right-turn-only lane and the rightmost main through lane.
I've been left crossed multiple times while in the driving lane... I was once left crossed while attempting a left turn from a left turn lane with a green light (Yes, the motorist ran a red light to do so)
No amount of positioning will protect you from EVERY idiot out there.
Heal fast, and good luck dealing with the crooks... I mean, insurance company.
Take your time before settling the claim. You'll probably want to at least consult with an attorney, if not retain one.
Take plenty of photos of your bike and of your injuries. Keep taking photos of your injuries over time to document how long they take to heal.
Be as honest as you can with the insurance company, but don't give in to pressures to settle. Given the extent of your injuries you could be looking at med bills for quite a while.
And, finally, "pain and suffering" is your paycheck. You'll most likely get a shockingly large check for that (at least $10,000, in addition to your lost time at work, replacement bike, and all med/ambulance bills). Don't let them low-ball you...if you think they are, lawyer up.
If being in the bike lane automatically puts one into a right-turn-only lane, then the city traffic engineer is partly responsible for this collision.
This unfortunate event is not necessarily an effective argument against a bike lane located between a right-turn-only lane and the rightmost main through lane.
Look at the diagram in the OP, John. It is a typical bike lane that you support - adjacent to and to the LEFT of the right only lane, yet still to the right of where oncoming left-turners are paying most of their attention in terms of looking for traffic to which they need to yield.
To significantly reduce (not eliminate - that's not possible) the likelihood of being in this type of crash, follow noisebeam's lane positioning advice above.
I've been left crossed multiple times while in the driving lane... I was once left crossed while attempting a left turn from a left turn lane with a green light (Yes, the motorist ran a red light to do so)
No amount of positioning will protect you from EVERY idiot out there.
Heal fast, and good luck dealing with the crooks... I mean, insurance company.
No one is arguing that best practices in lane positioning will ever protect anyone from EVERY idiot out there.
But best practices in lane positioning, as outlined by noisebeam above, can make a big difference in significantly reducing the likelihood of being overlooked in a situation like this.
These are the words from the OP: "Basically, I was cruising through a green, and a pickup failed to yield. ".
What's missing, of course, is the driver's failure to NOTICE the cyclist. Unless he happened to be a homicidal maniac, that's why he failed to yield.
In looking at the police report diagram and a real world photo of the accident scene, The bike lane is to the left of the RTOL and not a part of it.
You are apparently blinded by your fear/hatred of bike lanes.
Actually I was going to get on CBHI's case as the BL is not part of the RTOL in the accident diagram.
However in the photo you provided the BL is marked inside the RTOL area, as it goes inside the line made by right edge of the outer lane before the additional RTOL pavement extends. That is, the left side BL stripe is a continuation of the rightmost lane stripe prior to the RTOL.
Anyway, inside or outside the RTOL is somewhat irrelevant. The best place for a cyclist to be when there is no faster same direction traffic is left biased in the outer full width thru lane.
Al
Look at the diagram in the OP, John. It is a typical bike lane that you support - adjacent to and to the LEFT of the right only lane, yet still to the right of where oncoming left-turners are paying most of their attention in terms of looking for traffic to which they need to yield.
To significantly reduce (not eliminate - that's not possible) the likelihood of being in this type of crash, follow noisebeam's lane positioning advice above.
There's nothing wrong with the intersection.... I had my car destroyed in an identical accident...
Are you trying to tell me that I was using inferior lane positioning while driving and that's why I got hit????
:boggles:
In looking at the police report diagram and a real world photo of the accident scene, The bike lane is to the left of the RTOL and not a part of it.
You are apparently blinded by your fear/hatred of bike lanes.
http://paradigmhosting.net/images/euclid.jpg
Look closer, Pete. Given that the RTOL starts about where the dashing begins, the bike lane IS part of the RTOL, albeit it is painted along the left edge of the RTOL. The bike lane is carved right out of the RTOL, and should be treated accordingly. I think that's what CB HI meant.
Actually I was going to get on CBHI's case as the BL is not part of the RTOL in the accident diagram.
However in the photo you provided the BL is marked inside the RTOL area, as it goes inside the line made by right edge of the outer lane before the additional RTOL pavement extends. That is, the left side BL stripe is a continuation of the rightmost lane stripe prior to the RTOL.
Al+1 exactly.
Actually I was going to get on CBHI's case as the BL is not part of the RTOL in the accident diagram.
However in the photo you provided the BL is marked inside the RTOL area, as it goes inside the line made by right edge of the outer lane before the additional RTOL pavement extends. That is, the left side BL stripe is a continuation of the rightmost lane stripe prior to the RTOL.
Al
Umm... that's because the rightmost lane stripe prior to the RTOL was the left side of the BL. DUH.
What the hell do you want them to do? Move the bike lane over by the left turn lane?
:boggle:
You people are INSANE.
Whoa, so glad you're "okay" and I wish you a speedy recovery. I hope you get a fair settlement on this. :/
There's nothing wrong with the intersection.... I had my car destroyed in an identical accident...
Are you trying to tell me that I was using inferior lane positioning while driving and that's why I got hit????
:boggles:
Please identify, by color, what part of,To significantly reduce (not eliminate - that's not possible) the likelihood of being in this type of crash... you do not understand.
What the hell do you want them to do?
I would suggest this striping:
http://optionnz.com/users/afs/euclid2.jpg
Look at the diagram in the OP, John. It is a typical bike lane that you support - adjacent to and to the LEFT of the right only lane, yet still to the right of where oncoming left-turners are paying most of their attention in terms of looking for traffic to which they need to yield.
To significantly reduce (not eliminate - that's not possible) the likelihood of being in this type of crash, follow noisebeam's lane positioning advice above.
OK, I feel a poll coming on. On a 55mph prime arterial with bike lanes and augmented intersections with right turn only lanes, such as much of Palomar Airport Road, how many of us really feel it is safer to ride in the center of the rightmost main travel lane than in the bike lane? I suppose I can almost be swayed to HH's "position" when traffic is light, but in heavy traffic I am glad to have the option of the bike lane. The presence of significant motor traffic in any or all of the three main travel lanes will reduce my chances of being left-crossed.
Incidentaly, this is also why I so adamantly oppose "cluster" traffic signals, which permit left turns when opposing traffic has a green light, and why I think conventional red and green left turn arrows, with left turns prohibited when opposing traffic has a green light, are beneficial to cyclists. Yes, we all see motorists running red left arrows, but at least they slow down or stop first. There are no guarantees in life, but I think this improves our odds of survival.
One more thought -- negotiate your best settlement, without signing anything, before contacting an attorney. Otherwise, you will have no way whatsoever to judge the attorney's effectiveness. Would you rather keep all of a $20K settlement (my admittedly completely wild guess, based on my own $3K settlement 30 years ago for concussion, double clavicle fracture, and totalled Reynolds 531 frame) or 60% of a $30K settlement?
I would suggest this striping:
http://optionnz.com/users/afs/euclid2.jpg
And you just, with one fell swoop, relegated 90% (or more) of cyclists to going straight through the intersection from a right turn only lane.
Good job. ;) I'm sure that will help immensely.
Take your time before settling the claim. You'll probably want to at least consult with an attorney, if not retain one.
Take plenty of photos of your bike and of your injuries. Keep taking photos of your injuries over time to document how long they take to heal.
Be as honest as you can with the insurance company, but don't give in to pressures to settle. Given the extent of your injuries you could be looking at med bills for quite a while.
And, finally, "pain and suffering" is your paycheck. You'll most likely get a shockingly large check for that (at least $10,000, in addition to your lost time at work, replacement bike, and all med/ambulance bills). Don't let them low-ball you...if you think they are, lawyer up.
Agreed. I've been through this. You may not necessarily need a lawyer if the insurance claims adjuster is fair. In my case, they paid up the bike and clothing immediately. They covered all my medical expenses as I incurred them. I took a variety of medical tests and consulted with several physicians in order to determine whether I might suffer any long-term effects. When each answered with an almost-definite, "No," I felt I could entertain a settlement offer. The adjuster made a 5-figure offer that floored me since I would most likely have no long-term problems. I took the money and signed the release form...a lawyer may have likely secured more money, but they'd take about 1/3 for their fee, which would have probably left me with the same result. Keep legal counsel in mind, but just see how things move along (both healthwise and financially) before making any major decisions -- keep your options open as long as you can, seek good medical care from several sources and try to be as certain as possible before signing/accepting anything.
Also, let the adjuster know about any lifestyle activities this injury may inhibit or preclude. The adjuster in my case considered the fact that I apparently enjoyed riding my bike to work every day. He also took into account that I'm a competitive runner that tends to place top 10-15 overall and top 3 in my age group in races. He told me that these were two factors in why my initial offer was substantial -- I was unable to participate, thus I deserved more compensation.
OK, I feel a poll coming on. On a 55mph prime arterial with bike lanes and augmented intersections with right turn only lanes, such as much of Palomar Airport Road, how many of us really feel it is safer to ride in the center of the rightmost main travel lane than in the bike lane? I suppose I can almost be swayed to HH's "position" when traffic is light, but in heavy traffic I am glad to have the option of the bike lane. The presence of significant motor traffic in any or all of the three main travel lanes will reduce my chances of being left-crossed.
Incidentaly, this is also why I so adamantly oppose "cluster" traffic signals, which permit left turns when opposing traffic has a green light, and why I think conventional red and green left turn arrows, with left turns prohibited when opposing traffic has a green light, are beneficial to cyclists. Yes, we all see motorists running red left arrows, but at least they slow down or stop first. There are no guarantees in life, but I think this improves our odds of survival.
There is no need for a poll, John, you're just not reading very carefully. Al, CB HI, and I all agree that in heavy traffic the appropriate lane positioning is in the space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane. Though it should be noted that the SPACE would still be there if the intersection is restriped without a bike lane per noisebeam's modified photo. What do you think of that?
Anyway, we could have significantly reduced the number of posts in this thread if you had read the OP and noisebeam's reply before posting. Please read this carefully:
When riding thru intersections like this I stay away from the right most thru lane edge unless there are faster vehicles going with me thru the intersection. These faster vehicles act as the visual deterrent from the potential left turning vehicle.
When there are not faster vehicles I do not ride in the far right bike lane. I ride left biased in the right most thru lane.
The combination of being where motorists tend to look and higher than normal cyclist visibility help to reduce the chance of a left cross. Nothing can eliminate it, a common accident for car/car collisions is the left cross here in Phx-metro, drivers are too eager to jump a gap and make errors in assessing the conditions.
Now, obviously, there was no same direction faster traffic present, or the left-turner would have seen them and yielded (most likely), or proceeded anyway and crashed into them too (much less likely but still possible to which bmclaughlin807 is eager to attest).
Here is another example of a bike lane as part of the RTOL.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
Here is another example of a bike lane as part of the RTOL.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
That is NOT part of the RTOL. It is located to the LEFT of a RTOL, just as a through traffic lane would be...
If you get rid of the bike lane altogether then the vast majority of cyclists are going to go through the intersection from the right turn only lane.
Not only that, but that's what will be EXPECTED... by motorists and law enforcement alike.
See this thread for one small example:
Pulled over (and ticketed!) for using the center of a narrow lane (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335730)
Edit: In your picture, it really doesn't matter whether the lane is there or not... that's where the majority of cyclists are going to be. (Just looked at the larger version)
My biggest issue would be how narrow the portion accorded for cyclists is at the island... It's too small and I'd be left of the line, slightly.
There's that bike lane fear/hatred again.
Why is so hard for you to understand and appreciate the desire to reduce the likelihood of experiencing this:
I got taken to the hospital by paramedics.
My bike is done. My jeans are done. My tibial plateau is broken.
I scraped up my arms pretty well, lost enough blood on scene that the cops used hydroxide on the cement. I bruised more or less everything. I was flipped upside down and went flying. It was crazy.
Incidentaly, this is also why I so adamantly oppose "cluster" traffic signals, which permit left turns when opposing traffic has a green light, and why I think conventional red and green left turn arrows, with left turns prohibited when opposing traffic has a green light, are beneficial to cyclists.
That configuration is beneficial to motorists too...a lot of really nasty intersection accidents are caused when impatient drivers' misjudge the gap and try to make their left in front of high speed oncoming traffic.
Where I live, the "left on arrow only" is the standard....probably about 90% of intersections are set up that way, and I think it helps.
And you just, with one fell swoop, relegated 90% (or more) of cyclists to going straight through the intersection from a right turn only lane.
Good job. ;) I'm sure that will help immensely.
Traffic engineering should not be guided by the likely behavior of the incompetent.
That is NOT part of the RTOL. It is located to the LEFT of a RTOL, just as a through traffic lane would be...
Agreed - there are three lanes in that photograph. The leftmost is the through lane for most traffic, the center is a bike lane for going straight, and the right one is the RTOL.
That is NOT part of the RTOL. It is located to the LEFT of a RTOL, just as a through traffic lane would be...
If you get rid of the bike lane altogether then the vast majority of cyclists are going to go through the intersection from the right turn only lane.
Not only that, but that's what will be EXPECTED... by motorists and law enforcement alike.
See this thread for one small example:
Pulled over (and ticketed!) for using the center of a narrow lane (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335730)
Edit: In your picture, it really doesn't matter whether the lane is there or not... that's where the majority of cyclists are going to be. (Just looked at the larger version)
My biggest issue would be how narrow the portion accorded for cyclists is at the island... It's too small and I'd be left of the line, slightly.http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
Notice how the bike lane/RTOL smack right into the pedestrian island, unless of course you actually make a right turn. I would love to watch you ride straight into the pedestrian island.
What happened to the bike lane at the right turn?
You all are funny.
Bike lane argument, check.
Amateur analysis, check.
Claims regarding reading comprehension, check.
I think all we have left is for certain someones to threaten other certain someones with the Ignore List.
OP, I'd consider following this thread further only if you have a thick skin. **** happens, and there are things to learn from it, but after a page and a half, you've now got yourself an ideological war that's been being waged for the last two years. You've already heard what there is to say on the subject regarding the public debate. If you want candid advice, ask several people by PM what they'd do to help you avoid this situation. All you are going to get out of the public forum at this point is a bunch of political and ideological posturing.
That's an apples and oranges comparison as that bad lane doesn't compare to the Tucson lane that is being discussed.
Right. The pictured lane IS a bad lane... the Tucson lane appears fine to me...
As to the OP:
In my opinion there's not a lot you could have done differently that would have LIKELY helped... maybe brighter lights... MAYBE being in the lane to the left might have helped slightly... then again maybe if you'd moved left you'd get rear ended by someone not paying attention... or even worse, by some road-raging ass pissed off because you're now slowing him down.
I'd have been riding in the bike lane at the intersection... regardless of traffic conditions.
Take a lesson from defensive driving and just be aware that that motorist waiting to make a left turn might do something stupid and watch for it... other than that there's not really much you can do. You're NEVER going to be 100% safe while out on a bike... 43,000 dead in auto "accident's" every year proves that.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.th.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp03395bj8.jpg)
Notice how the bike lane/RTOL smack right into the pedestrian island, unless of course you actually make a right turn. I would love to watch you ride straight into the pedestrian island.
What happened to the bike lane at the right turn?
How is this related to anything again? I didn't seem to see that there was a similar situation in the OP post.
Agreed - there are three lanes in that photograph. The leftmost is the through lane for most traffic, the center is a bike lane for going straight, and the right one is the RTOL.
...the Tucson lane appears fine to me...
Then why does the bike lane not maintain lateral position through the intersection (right next to the through lane)?
http://paradigmhosting.net/images/euclid.jpg
Wow. No useful post after the 9th one.
To the OP: DO NOT USE YOUR MADONE RECEIPT. The money you'll get from pain/suffering should be more than enough to buy a few of them. Use the Madone and you could be getting jack**** + jail time.
Traffic engineering should not be guided by the likely behavior of the incompetent.
I have two issues with this statement:
1: He extended the bike lane line as a dotted line for the motorists to cross over to make their right turn... Cyclists riding to the right of said line are going to continue on their path, Which is now a RTOL.
2: Given the way he painted the intersection, I'd travel straight through the intersection from the leftmost portion of the RTOL... it's something that I do on a VERY regular basis... it reduces turbulence at the intersection and reduces friction with drivers... ESPECIALLY on a high speed road.... No cyclist wants to merge into 55+ mph traffic to pass through an intersection only to have to merge right just the other side... it significantly increases the chances of a rear-end collision between car and cyclist and also greatly increases the chance of a road rage incident due to slowing down the cagers.
I consider myself far from being 'incompetent' on the bike... and anybody that has EVER ridden with me will vouch for my competency.
Wow. No useful post after the 9th one.
Why thank you. What was not useful in post #10? Nearly the first post to give suggestion as to how to reduce chances of such incident in the future.
The OP asked for discussion, not necessarily only legal advice.
Al
If your question is about the Tucson lane the obvious answer is that after the intersection the road changes from three through lanes to four through lanes with the addition of a car pool lane on the right side.
You're suggesting that the bike lane maintain lateral position through the intersection which would put it between the curb lane and the second through lane.
Silly.So you like bike lanes that weave through intersections. Now that is a silly and dangerous design. Nice way to get hit by the right turn on red car from the side street.
No one is arguing that best practices in lane positioning will ever protect anyone from EVERY idiot out there.
But best practices in lane positioning, as outlined by noisebeam above, can make a big difference in significantly reducing the likelihood of being overlooked in a situation like this.
In my experience, lane position has only a modest effect on the likelihood of other road users noticing a cyclist. Not a 'big difference.' Rider speed is a much more significant factor. Clothing seems to be a more significant factor. Lighting is a much more significant factor, and this guy had the right lighting.
I've been overlooked in every possible lane position, in every possible lane, and I know of countless incidents of fellow cyclists being overlooked while in central and left lane position. Motorcyclists and cars and hulking trucks obviously get overlooked all the time too, so let's not pretend, as cyclists, that we somehow become magically much more visible just by moving five feet over in the street. Those who think a central lane position will make a big difference in their visibility need to get out more.
And yet what do we hear from this crew time and time again? Your lane position must have been the underlying reason for the collision. What else do we hear? Not much. Not only is it wrong, it's boring.
Move left. Not because it will make people notice you -- it won't. Move left because it is a good place to be when people don't notice you.
Robert
I have two issues with this statement:
1: He extended the bike lane line as a dotted line for the motorists to cross over to make their right turn... Cyclists riding to the right of said line are going to continue on their path, Which is now a RTOL.
No I didn't. Look again. The dotted line I added is a continuation of the right side of the bike lane stripe/curb approaching the the RTOL. I erased the left side BL stripe. A cyclist in the BL before the RTOL would end up to the left side of the RTOL/dotted line if they kept a straight course and did not cross any lines.
2: Given the way he painted the intersection, I'd travel straight through the intersection from the leftmost portion of the RTOL... it's something that I do on a VERY regular basis... it reduces turbulence at the intersection and reduces friction with drivers... ESPECIALLY on a high speed road.... No cyclist wants to merge into 55+ mph traffic to pass through an intersection only to have to merge right just the other side... it significantly increases the chances of a rear-end collision between car and cyclist and also greatly increases the chance of a road rage incident due to slowing down the cagers.
Zero merging is required if the cyclist keeps a straight course from the BL before the RTOL. Imagine the the same layout with the left side of the BL stripe remaining, all that is gone is that left stripe.
Al
No I didn't. Look again. The dotted line I added is a continuation of the right side of the bike lane stripe/curb approaching the the RTOL. I erased the left side BL stripe. A cyclist in the BL before the RTOL would end up to the left side of the RTOL/dotted line if they kept a straight course and did not cross any lines.
Zero merging is required if the cyclist keeps a straight course from the BL before the RTOL. Imagine the the same layout with the left side of the BL stripe remaining, all that is gone is that left stripe.
Al
So... all you're doing is taking away the guiding lines? What's the point of that??? The cyclists (well... some of them) would be IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT....
The MAJORITY of cyclists (including me) will be to the right of the line... in the left most portion of the RTOL.
So... all you're doing is taking away the guiding lines? What's the point of that??? The cyclists (well... some of them) would be IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT....
The MAJORITY of cyclists (including me) will be to the right of the line... in the left most portion of the RTOL.
No - I added the dashed guiding line across the entrance to the RTOL.
So some cyclists will be in the same spot, so what? I may be too or I may not depending on traffic conditions. However the bike lane stripe does not change according to traffic conditions, so why re-enforce a place that is often less desirable?
Why would you use the RTOL to go straight if the only thing that changed is the stripe? That seems to be very irrational. The space to travel straight using the right most thru lane when there is faster traffic in the right most thru lane is still there.
Al
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.