View Full Version : Prohibit right turns across bike lanes?
Brian Ratliff
12-03-07, 06:41 PM
You mentioned four examples of right-of-way laws and practices, but none are relevant to this discussion. The two laws/principles which are relevant are:
Turning traffic should not cross lanes of through traffic, and
Vehicles should not unnecessarily impede or obstruct turning traffic.
You have merely chosen to declare their irrelevance, though my point apparently stands without challenge.
...or follow Chip Seal's modest proposal to ban right turns when there's a bike lane.
Unless you have a better idea?
I believe that ChipSeal has already indicated that his was not such a "modest proposal" in the reductio ad absurdum sense, but was really more of a way to open the box to solve an actual problem.
Allister
12-03-07, 06:42 PM
You do realize that the only way to NOT think of a bike lane as a right turn lane at an intersection is to NOT think of bikes as vehicles? And you do know that when you talk about "exceptions" that allow a cyclist to leave the bike lane, you're saying that bikes are vehicles only part of the time, that is, when the "exceptions" apply? After all, if they must inhabit a special lane, then they are special creatures, not in the same class as the other creatures. Does it bother you that "America's Bicycle City" does not consider bikes unequivocally to be vehicles?
Now you're just being silly.
Brian Ratliff
12-03-07, 06:52 PM
...
You do realize that the only way to NOT think of a bike lane as a right turn lane at an intersection is to NOT think of bikes as vehicles? And you do know that when you talk about "exceptions" that allow a cyclist to leave the bike lane, you're saying that bikes are vehicles only part of the time, that is, when the "exceptions" apply? After all, if they must inhabit a special lane, then they are special creatures, not in the same class as the other creatures. Does it bother you that "America's Bicycle City" does not consider bikes unequivocally to be vehicles?
Let's run with this for a second and assume that you are right in your analysis above and examine why we want bicycles legally defined as vehicles in the first place. What does it get us? The vehicular cyclist might suggest that, by being vehicles, a bicycle is legally given access to the rest of the roadway. Okay, but what if something that was not a vehicle was explicitly given access to the roadway, on at least a limited and well relevant way?
There is nothing that I sense in the arguments that I've heard that there is anything to be gained by being a "vehicle" unless there is some privilege that is to be gained from it. If the privilege is gained by some other means, does it matter the designation? Are we similarly worried that walkers are classified as pedestrians? Should we care, as long as the rules governing whatever the law chooses to refers to a walker or a cyclist make sense and work reasonably well?
For me, it matters not at all that me and my bicycle are defined in some certain way or another. I just want to get around my city in an efficient manner on my bicycle and not be harassed and not have my freedom limited. The litmus test is not "am I a vehicle". The litmus test is: "can I get to where I want to go in an efficient, hassle free, and safe manner on my bicycle".
Besides, for the discussion of Oregon, this is all irrelevant. Bicycles are explicitly defined to be vehicles with all the rights and duties that pertain, plus a few to take into account some obvious differences between bicycles and cars. Are these few differences in law important? As long as it passes my litmus test above, I do not care. Bike lanes, and the laws pertaining to them, have not contradicted my test and have made my cycling less stressful to boot.
I just want to get around my city in an efficient manner on my bicycle and not be harassed and not have my freedom limited.
Some people would consider a ticket for leaving the bike lane a limitation of their freedom. Likewise not leaving the bike lane and getting right hooked by a truck.
[Addendum: This is really more an issue of safety than of freedom or semantics. Right of way laws have the function of increasing safety and efficiency of the roads.]
ChipSeal
12-03-07, 08:56 PM
There are four general principals from which all traffic law flows. (Some count five, but I have conflated two into one.)
1) Traffic travels on the right. In the English speaking world, if you have an accent, traffic travels on the left. Kinda weird, I know! ;)
2) First use has ROW.
A) Traffic entering a roadway must yield.
B) Traffic must yield when merging into another lane.
3) Speed positioning. Slower traffic to the right for un-accented English speakers.
4) Destination positioning. Turn right from the right lane, left from the left lane and through traffic in the center lane.
When portions of the road are constructed in ways that violate these principals, it nearly always introduces hazards and conflicts.
NRT would eliminate the hazard created when putting a through lane to the right of a right turn lane. (Destination positioning.) It would return the bike lane to compliance with basic traffic flow principals.
Bekologist
12-03-07, 09:51 PM
can I still take the right on my bike? ;)
what a specious (or was it ill-intentioned?) semantic exercise.
I think getting road users to follow the rules of the road, which include motorists not right hooking bicyclists to their right, regardless of pavement striping, makes MORE sense.
DieselDan
12-03-07, 09:51 PM
There are four general principals from which all traffic law flows. (Some count five, but I have conflated two into one.)
1) Traffic travels on the right. In the English speaking world, if you have an accent, traffic travels on the left. Kinda weird, I know! ;)
2) First use has ROW.
A) Traffic entering a roadway must yield.
B) Traffic must yield when merging into another lane.
3) Speed positioning. Slower traffic to the right for un-accented English speakers.
4) Destination positioning. Turn right from the right lane, left from the left lane and through traffic in the center lane.
When portions of the road are constructed in ways that violate these principals, it nearly always introduces hazards and conflicts.
NRT would eliminate the hazard created when putting a through lane to the right of a right turn lane. (Destination positioning.) It would return the bike lane to compliance with basic traffic flow principals.
Is it me, or is it funny someone from Texas is spouting "accented" and "non-accented" English?
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 07:32 AM
There are four general principals from which all traffic law flows. (Some count five, but I have conflated two into one.)
1) Traffic travels on the right. In the English speaking world, if you have an accent, traffic travels on the left. Kinda weird, I know! ;)
2) First use has ROW.
A) Traffic entering a roadway must yield.
B) Traffic must yield when merging into another lane.
3) Speed positioning. Slower traffic to the right for un-accented English speakers.
4) Destination positioning. Turn right from the right lane, left from the left lane and through traffic in the center lane.
When portions of the road are constructed in ways that violate these principals, it nearly always introduces hazards and conflicts.
NRT would eliminate the hazard created when putting a through lane to the right of a right turn lane. (Destination positioning.) It would return the bike lane to compliance with basic traffic flow principals.
The problem for any cyclist on any road is that, for a cyclist who is generally slower than other traffic at all times, principles 3 and 4 conflict directly. Vehicular cycling has us changing lanes at intersections to get to where we want to go. But notice that, even while lane changing in any vehicle is more risky than steady state driving/cycling, vehicular cycling has the cyclist changing lanes much more often than any driver does. This makes it more risky for a cyclist and creates more turbulence in the traffic flow.
Of course, bike lanes solve none of this; they merely formalize principles 1 through 3 as they apply to bicyclists. I'm just pointing out that, from a safety standpoint, even your four (or five) basic traffic principles creates conflicts and contradictions when they are applied to a cyclist moving slower than the bulk of traffic.
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 07:33 AM
Is it me, or is it funny someone from Texas is spouting "accented" and "non-accented" English?
I guess that means that in Texas, they drive and ride on the left. Funny :D.
They could try for a local option provision. There are plenty of cities in Oregon who would be overjoyed to be able to ban cyclists from certain streets. In fact one of the whackjobs who has announced his candidacy for Portland mayor has promised to pursue such an agenda.
You've got to understand that with the exception of one Republican legislator out of Ashland who's a roadie, the state legislature is a pretty hostile body towards cyclists. The only exceptions are most of the representatives from Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis. Outside certain parts of the I-5 corridor, the state is quite rural, and just want bikes to disappear from the roads completely.
OK I have not been following this thread completely... But I am jumping in here for a second to consider this situation. I don't know the mayoral candidate, or the agenda concerned.
But... let's consider the ramifications of banning cyclists from certain roads... is that really all that bad a thing if there is reciprocation in say banning motorists from some other roads?
Right now cyclists and peds are generally banned from limited access freeways. (actually cyclists are not banned unless the road is signed... and in CA most of the freeways are in fact so "signed.") My point is that perhaps to improve the flow of traffic along arterial paths, maybe cyclists should be banned from some streets. But at the same time, motorists could also be banned from certain roads that are ped and cyclist friendly... The basic idea is that access to any area has to be guaranteed, but doesn't have to be the exact same road surface.
Now of course access to all the businesses along a route would have to be permitted... and likely this may be accomplished via a parallel road or MUP.
Just a thought for discussion.
The problem for any cyclist on any road is that, for a cyclist who is generally slower than other traffic at all times, principles 3 and 4 conflict directly. Vehicular cycling has us changing lanes at intersections to get to where we want to go. But notice that, even while lane changing in any vehicle is more risky than steady state driving/cycling, vehicular cycling has the cyclist changing lanes much more often than any driver does. This makes it more risky for a cyclist and creates more turbulence in the traffic flow.
Of course, bike lanes solve none of this; they merely formalize principles 1 through 3 as they apply to bicyclists. I'm just pointing out that, from a safety standpoint, even your four (or five) basic traffic principles creates conflicts and contradictions when they are applied to a cyclist moving slower than the bulk of traffic.
The relative slowness of bikes is the entire reason that we travel to the right, whether a bike lane is provided or not. This is totally in keeping with the rules of the road. Making a turn across another lane is not in keeping with the rules of the road, although it is the law in Oregon. Is this law, if practiced and enforced, beneficial or harmful to cyclists, or does it not make a difference? That's the question that you haven't approached in this entire discussion. I'm starting to grasp that you just don't understand the issue here, or the implications.
The relative slowness of bikes is the entire reason that we travel to the right, whether a bike lane is provided or not. This is totally in keeping with the rules of the road. Making a turn across another lane is not in keeping with the rules of the road, although it is the law in Oregon. Is this law, if practiced and enforced, beneficial or harmful to cyclists, or does it not make a difference? That's the question that you haven't approached in this entire discussion. I'm starting to grasp that you just don't understand the issue here, or the implications.
OK so look at the flip side... in CA motorists are required to merge into BL before making turns... but the reality is that few motorists know this and fewer still do it.
Go you one further... right only turn lanes are pretty obvious things to use and motorists use them on a regular basis... yet I have on a few occasions been confronted by motorists who don't enter the ROTL when I am in there, and instead either work to go around me (turning right from outside the ROTL) or just freak out and freeze just outside the ROTL while trying to figure out what to to. (the latter situation quite funny actually as they should just do the obvious, and merge in behind me.)
The problem is not the bike lanes... it is the motorists who refuse to treat us like equal users of the road.
Do what you want with paint, and laws... how do we get motorists to do the right thing?
oscaregg
12-04-07, 09:11 AM
Maybe Portland cyclists should take to carrying false ID in case of tickets for these unreasonable situations.
ChipSeal
12-04-07, 01:14 PM
Maybe Portland cyclists should take to carrying false ID in case of tickets for these unreasonable situations.
Misrepresenting who you are to a constable is a crime.
Being ticketed for lawful behavior has redress: Talk to a judge. Don't become un-lawful and present false ID.
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 01:16 PM
^^^
Yea, this turns a simple traffic ticket into a night in jail. (...or worse)
John Forester
12-04-07, 05:04 PM
snips
Vehicular cycling is great. I use it extensively; I have to to get around on the roads around here. But it is not the long term answer. It cannot be, because it asks too much from cyclists and too little from drivers. It demands near perfect judgement from cyclists, and it absolves drivers from all responsibility. Isn't one of the more interesting complaints from primarily vehicular cyclists about drivers who are "too nice", those who stay behind them too long or who yield their right turn to avoid turning across the cyclist's path? Witness my signature on the bottom of each post. I, too, am a vehicular cyclist and I want each and every car to just allow me to direct them around me, me being the director and they being the cattle. I prefer it this way, because when I lack a sheltered area of the road, I, the vulnerable one, must be the one who directs those around me because I cannot trust that these drivers know what to do around me.
For the reason of this burden that vehicular cycling places on individual cyclists, vehicular cycling will never catch on as a standard, official way of cycling. The overall cyclist population must have sheltered areas on the road, and these sheltered areas must be protected by rules and by strong enforcement of these rules. There is no excuse to right hook a cyclist at speed. A grand majority of the time, the car must pass the cyclist first before the right hook - there is no question that the driver can see the cyclist. At stopped right hand turns, there is no excuse for a driver to not see a cyclist that is positioned next to it. A trucker who is driving in a dense city with pedestrians and cyclists around must not have blind areas which can hide a cyclist or pedestrian. On an official level, you know, the level of city or state law, the burden must not be placed solely on the cyclist's shoulders. The drivers must be given some official responsibility, and the best way of doing this is to place and enforce sheltered areas of the road and the road network in the form of bike lanes, bike paths, and bike boulevards.
Brian, you state the following about vehicular cycling:
" It demands near perfect judgement from cyclists, and it absolves drivers from all responsibility."
Vehicular cycling demands no more judgment by cyclists than does driving a car. Certainly, the cyclist has the option of lateral placement within a lane, but that is not difficult, but he does not have some of the other judgmental requirements that a motorist has, so it probably evens out. Vehicular cycling certainly does not absolve motorists of any responsibility; they have the responsibility of obeying the rules of the road, just as cyclists do.
You state: "I want each and every car to just allow me to direct them around me, me being the director and they being the cattle. ... For the reason of this burden that vehicular cycling places on individual cyclists, vehicular cycling will never catch on as a standard, official way of cycling."
You are no vehicular cyclist, because vehicular cycling has no requirement for directing all other traffic. That is both impossible and unreasonable. Traffic works because drivers know how to operate and largely do so. Of course, when driving either a motor vehicle or a bicycle, it is good advice to observe the movements of the traffic that might threaten you, so that if you observe a driver who is disobeying the rules of the road you can have the best chance of avoiding the consequences of his mistake. However, that has nothing to do with trying to direct all other traffic. It appears to me that you have placed yourself, in your own mind, in a position of feeling inferior, so that you have to attempt to ward off those with the power to oppress you.
You state: "A trucker who is driving in a dense city with pedestrians and cyclists around must not have blind areas which can hide a cyclist or pedestrian." That's both physically impossible and largely unnecessary for cyclists and pedestrians who obey the rules, rules of the road for cyclists and pedestrian rules for pedestrians.
You base your argument about the need for sheltered areas of the road upon the supposed necessity for those cyclists who do not use such sheltered areas to direct all the traffic around them. That necessity does not exist; it is not in law, and it is not in the description of vehicular cycling. And those sheltered areas, as you call them, are not entirely sheltered, so that those ill-informed cyclists who assume that they are sheltered can come to grief in the ways that started this discussion. That's the trouble with "sheltered areas", and your argument for their need has just been shown to be bogus.
Oregon's 'no merge' law is a stupid idea and really bad for bicyclists. It violates more than one basic traffic principle, makes right hooks more, not less, likely and encourages both motorists and bicyclists to engage in dangerous practices.
Merging into a lane is safer than turning across it. Oregon has it backward. The law should require or encourage motorists to merge into a bikelane before turning (as many states do).
Right-hooks are relatively easy to avoid-- don't pass vehicles on the right (except under rare circumstances and with due caution).
Oregon law violates the first-come, first-served pinciple, too, by requiring motorists to wait for bicyclists behind them before making a turn. Worse than that, it encourages bicyclists to pass a right-turning motorist on the right. That's both a bad idea and a bad practice to get into.
Of course, Oregon law violates destination positioning at intersections, too. While they're at it, they should legalize turning any direction from any lane as long as you yield first.
Bicycle advocates should be working to get the silly, bass-ackward, yeild to the wrong vehicle and turn from the wrong lane law changed because it's downright dangerous.
So Portland bicylists ride up behind a motorist that they know is turning right, ride into and through the blind spot and into the motorist's intended path? If you want a recipe for a right hook, that's it. It doesn't matter what the law says about mirrors. You can't legislate the elimination of the blind spot. Right side mirrors are harder to adjust and harder to use than left side mirrors. The most difficult place for motorists to check is behind and to the right -- in some vehicles it's darn difficult.
Bike lanes need not violate any basic traffic principles but, combined with Oregon's stupid 'no merge' law, they certainly do.
Oregon essentially has a mandatory right-hook law. It basically says, "Don't merge, hook". Aargh! What were they thinking?
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 06:05 PM
^^^
I'm not sure where you are coming from here, but in my experience, what you describe is not how a right hook develops. Right hooks are not caused by a car stopping before a right turn and the cyclist running up beside them. Right hooks, from what I've seen, are caused because drivers are trying to make the turn in front of a cyclist and misjudges the turn. Correct behavior, whether the requirement to merge into the bike lane exists or not, is to wait behind the cyclist and yield to the cyclist before the intersection. In all the right hooks that I've seen start to develop (they've all stopped short by intervention by myself), the car, had the merge been required, would have merged into me as they were starting their turn as they were still in the process of passing me.
Requiring a car to merge into the bike lane does nothing to aleviate right hooks, as the cause is not what you think it is. A right hook is a misjudgement in timing and a misjudgement on the part of the motorist of the cyclist's speed. Neither one of these misjudgements are prevented by requiring a merge. If a motorist starts past the cyclist, then realizes that they've misjudged and need to let the cyclist pass, then the result is still that they end up stopping out in the lane and waiting for the cyclist to pass on the right.
Whether the cyclist passes on the right or not is up to the cyclist. It is definitely not good practice to pass to the right of a right turning vehicle. But regardless, the above construct of how a right hook develops is wrong. Requiring a merge is to solve the wrong problem.
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 06:34 PM
Brian, you state the following about vehicular cycling:
" It demands near perfect judgement from cyclists, and it absolves drivers from all responsibility."
Vehicular cycling demands no more judgment by cyclists than does driving a car. Certainly, the cyclist has the option of lateral placement within a lane, but that is not difficult, but he does not have some of the other judgmental requirements that a motorist has, so it probably evens out. Vehicular cycling certainly does not absolve motorists of any responsibility; they have the responsibility of obeying the rules of the road, just as cyclists do.
There are lots of generalities here, but no substance. From what you wrote I cannot form a judgement one way or another to this statement's correctness.
You state: "I want each and every car to just allow me to direct them around me, me being the director and they being the cattle. ... For the reason of this burden that vehicular cycling places on individual cyclists, vehicular cycling will never catch on as a standard, official way of cycling."
You are no vehicular cyclist, because vehicular cycling has no requirement for directing all other traffic. That is both impossible and unreasonable. Traffic works because drivers know how to operate and largely do so. Of course, when driving either a motor vehicle or a bicycle, it is good advice to observe the movements of the traffic that might threaten you, so that if you observe a driver who is disobeying the rules of the road you can have the best chance of avoiding the consequences of his mistake. However, that has nothing to do with trying to direct all other traffic. It appears to me that you have placed yourself, in your own mind, in a position of feeling inferior, so that you have to attempt to ward off those with the power to oppress you.
You don't know me, and I doubt that you'd suggest that someone who practices vehicular cycling techniques is not a vehicular cyclist. But whatever. On point, what's all this talk then about taking a lane to gain passing distance and forcing motorists to fully change lanes? Is this not part of "vehicular cycling"? Do you agree with Helmet Head's techniques of riding in the middle of the lane to gain notice and not yielding ground until he detects a yielding from the motorist from behind?
I actually agree with you mostly here. Vehicular cycling generally does not require any extra burden on cyclists that isn't already on a driver. But what of right hooks? Commonly suggested practice is for cyclists to yield their right of way by moving laterally across the road to more fully take the lane so they don't get right hooked. Since there is a traffic principle that suggests that straight moving traffic implicitly has the right of way with relation to traffic merging into or crossing their path, is it not an extra burden for the cyclist to have to merge into the adjacent traffic stream to avoid being right hooked by a car who doesn't yield to the straight moving traffic? Isn't this just yielding to the notion that might makes right and cars cannot be trusted to yield the right of way as the law demands?
You state: "A trucker who is driving in a dense city with pedestrians and cyclists around must not have blind areas which can hide a cyclist or pedestrian." That's both physically impossible and largely unnecessary for cyclists and pedestrians who obey the rules, rules of the road for cyclists and pedestrian rules for pedestrians.
You base your argument about the need for sheltered areas of the road upon the supposed necessity for those cyclists who do not use such sheltered areas to direct all the traffic around them. That necessity does not exist; it is not in law, and it is not in the description of vehicular cycling. And those sheltered areas, as you call them, are not entirely sheltered, so that those ill-informed cyclists who assume that they are sheltered can come to grief in the ways that started this discussion. That's the trouble with "sheltered areas", and your argument for their need has just been shown to be bogus.
Responding to the first sentence: Cyclists on a road with no bike lanes are kind of a strange creature, don't you think? Stay with me here before you get all flustered with the politically correct crap. Cars, they take up a full lane, and their position in a lane is without question; they are where they are and to move laterally is a discrete motion from one lane to the next. Cyclists, on the other hand, are a bit of a hybrid. They float within a lane. They might be biased to the right, such as law requires and most cyclists, vehicular cycling practice notwithstanding, practice as something of default position; and when positioned to the right, it is generally accepted that a car doesn't have to fully change lanes to pass. But then a cyclist might move over a foot or two. Or he might move over a whole lot on not much notice, taking the full lane. The lateral lane positioning of the cyclist is not discrete at all, but is continuous. The cyclist might be using one lane, half the lane, just the right edge, or he might even be splitting lanes, riding on the line and allowing traffic to pass on both sides.
The bike lane adds a descrete lane position for the cyclist. I say that cyclists have to "direct traffic" around them. Well, because their lane position is continuous and not discrete, then the cyclist does, in practice (even if you don't call it that for politically correct reasons), "direct traffic" around them by choosing where in the continous variation of lane positions that is offered, they are. This is a tool that experienced cyclists can use, primarily to avoid rising the ire of motorists while still riding on the roadway, but it is also a burden. A burden that no other vehicle on the road bears.
Responding to the last part of your paragraph: That a bike lane is not physically sheltered is of no significance. Surface streets are divided by a median line, which also carries only legal weight. It works as well as is needed. Bike lanes work in the same manner - as long as the laws are enforced.
donnamb
12-04-07, 09:02 PM
OK I have not been following this thread completely... But I am jumping in here for a second to consider this situation. I don't know the mayoral candidate, or the agenda concerned.
But... let's consider the ramifications of banning cyclists from certain roads... is that really all that bad a thing if there is reciprocation in say banning motorists from some other roads?
That's an interesting thought, Gene. Would you trust this (http://bikeportland.org/2007/11/27/new-mayoral-candidate-lays-out-a-different-path-for-bikes/) guy (http://bikeportland.org/2007/11/27/mr-watzig-responds-to-feedback-on-his-bike-platform/) to pick the right roads to remove cyclists from?
donnamb
12-04-07, 09:10 PM
^^^
I'm not sure where you are coming from here, but in my experience, what you describe is not how a right hook develops. Right hooks are not caused by a car stopping before a right turn and the cyclist running up beside them. Right hooks, from what I've seen, are caused because drivers are trying to make the turn in front of a cyclist and misjudges the turn. Correct behavior, whether the requirement to merge into the bike lane exists or not, is to wait behind the cyclist and yield to the cyclist before the intersection. In all the right hooks that I've seen start to develop (they've all stopped short by intervention by myself), the car, had the merge been required, would have merged into me as they were starting their turn as they were still in the process of passing me.
Requiring a car to merge into the bike lane does nothing to aleviate right hooks, as the cause is not what you think it is. A right hook is a misjudgement in timing and a misjudgement on the part of the motorist of the cyclist's speed. Neither one of these misjudgements are prevented by requiring a merge. If a motorist starts past the cyclist, then realizes that they've misjudged and need to let the cyclist pass, then the result is still that they end up stopping out in the lane and waiting for the cyclist to pass on the right.
In my experience with the law as it stands in Oregon, I have one point of potential conflict. If motor vehicles are allowed to merge into the bike lane, I end up with multiple points of potential conflict, as different motorists are going to begin the merge in different places. Given that our city blocks are just 200 feet long, they'd be merging all over the block. That's what they do when they're no bike lane, and I doubt having a bike lane there would make any difference. Once they're allowed to be in bike lanes anytime they want, they're not going to care that there's even one there. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to want that.
I'm not sure where you are coming from here, but in my experience, what you describe is not how a right hook develops. Right hooks are not caused by a car stopping before a right turn and the cyclist running up beside them.
Right hooks can be caused motorists that are initially stopped. Cars can accelerate quickly, and the point is, nobody should be making a right turn from a lane to the left of a through lane, which is what a bike lane usually is.
Right hooks, from what I've seen, are caused because drivers are trying to make the turn in front of a cyclist and misjudges the turn.
BUT:
It is more difficult to judge the speed of a cyclist when you are stopped than if you are traveling in the same direction and need only judge relative speed.
It can be extremely difficult to judge the speed of a cyclist when you are stopped and looking in a side-view mirror.
Correct behavior, whether the requirement to merge into the bike lane exists or not, is to wait behind the cyclist and yield to the cyclist before the intersection.
And what you just described is a merge (you said, "yield to the cyclist before the intersection," which means that the motorist is moving because, if they're stopped, they won't get to the intersection :D).
In all the right hooks that I've seen start to develop (they've all stopped short by intervention by myself), the car, had the merge been required, would have merged into me as they were starting their turn as they were still in the process of passing me.
You are speculating about what would have happened without actually knowing. Merging is much easier and safer than turning across a lane. If a car is merging, a cyclist generally has lateral space in which to move. If a car is crossing, as in a turn, the road in front of the cyclist may suddenly be completely blocked.
Requiring a car to merge into the bike lane does nothing to aleviate right hooks...(snip)
If a motorist starts past the cyclist, then realizes that they've misjudged and need to let the cyclist pass, then the result is still that they end up stopping out in the lane and waiting for the cyclist to pass on the right...
Balderdash! You seem to be ignoring the fact that both the motor vehicle and the bicycle are moving. The motorist need only a.) cease moving right and b.)slow down to slightly less than the speed of the bicyclist. There is no need to stop.
Whether the cyclist passes on the right or not is up to the cyclist. It is definitely not good practice to pass to the right of a right turning vehicle...
I definately agree with that last sentence.
But regardless, the above construct of how a right hook develops is wrong. Requiring a merge is to solve the wrong problem.
I disagree.
Successful right hooks require surprise. If a bicyclist knows a motorist is about to turn, the hook is pretty easy to avoid. Perhaps the best way for a motorist to surprise a cycist is by staying left for too long, leading the bicyclist to think the motorist may be going straight. Even if the motorist is stopped, their intention may be unclear. A motorist merging right is a clear indication that something is happening.
As a cyclist, I sure don't want motorists turning right from 6 feet away from the curb. It drives me nuts. If a motorist is turning right, I want them either on my right or in front of me.
Any law that requires right-turning motorists to be on the left of bicyclists is a bad law for cyclist.
BTW, giving bicycists the ROW in a bike lane is unnecessary. Vehicles in a lane already have ROW over same direction traffic not in the lane.
On the surface Oregon's mandatory right hook law (which is what a 'no merge' law amounts to) may seem to give bicyclist ROW but a.) it's ROW that bicyclists already have and b.) the law mandates dangerous behavior.
Brian Ratliff
12-04-07, 11:41 PM
^^^
How do you enforce this merge? Honestly, to me, I don't see a practical difference, other than, if you advocate for a merge, it will likely to be used as an excuse to use the bike lane to drive up along side of traffic to make a right turn at a busy up intersection. Heaven forbid a cyclist be in the way of a car trying such a maneuver.
Right hooks are done by cars making right turns at speed. At speed, cars don't make turns from the curb, regardless of the legal requirement, because the turn radius is too sharp (I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - I noticed that you conveniently skipped that part of my comments). So I'm not seeing a difference here, other than, perhaps, making an excuse for cars which did not do their duty and yield to a cyclist.
Your comments above also contain an error. It is extremely difficult to judge the speed of a moving cyclist from a moving car. This is because the brain must make three speed/distance judgements. The first for yourself. The second is for the cyclist with relation to the yourself. The third is to calculate the speed of the cyclist with respect to the ground so you can make a judgement of the timing between the time it takes you (in the car) to reach the intersection vs. the time it takes the cyclist to reach the intersection. This is why you have to stop at a stop sign. If you are stopped, only one speed calculation needs to be made, which makes that calculation more accurate because uncertainties in your calculations don't pile up upon each other.
And I take issue with your characterization that right hooks require surprise. A right hook is purely a question of timing. You are here, the motorist is there, and the motorist starts turning across your path. How to you avoid this? If you discover it fast enough, you can turn with the motorist or you can accelerate and catch the motorist's attention, i.e. get in-front of them. Or you can hit your brakes. All of these are extreme evasive maneuvers. The defensive way of avoiding right hooks is to move out of a far right position. The policy level way of avoiding right hooks is to require motorists to not turn in-front of cyclists, i.e. they have to yield.
As for turning cars 6 feet from the curb: given a car's length of 12 or more feet, 6 feet is a pretty tight turning radius. You cannot legislate physics. Despite a law in California dictating exactly what you are advocating, motorists still end up doing exactly as Oregon motorists do. There is not much you can do about this.
FWIW, when you yield to a vehicle on a track which you are going to cross, it does not mean that the yielding vehicle has to stop. It merely means that the yielding vehicle must cross the track behind the vehicle occupying that track. And why would you be judging the speed of the cyclist from the rearview mirror? If you are already stopped, then you wait until the cyclist passes (now, if the cyclist is defensive, then he/she won't pass, obviously, but sometimes it is inevitable), or you wait until the cyclist gives up the right of way by merging into the lane or stopping. None of these require a speed judgement. And if you are making a moving right turn, for heaven's sake, you are coming up from a position behind the cyclist most likely (if not, then the previous comments apply), so you shouldn't get in front of the cyclist in the first place (hence, you yield).
(PS. Sorry about the salad-ish post with your ideas being addressed all over the place. I usually can organize my replies better if you avoid replying to my posts sentence by sentence. Otherwise, your running commentary leads to my running commentary, but in the order which I notice things, not necessarily in the order which you wrote them.)
ChipSeal
12-05-07, 12:12 AM
Responding to the last part of your paragraph: That a bike lane is not physically sheltered is of no significance. Surface streets are divided by a median line, which also carries only legal weight. It works as well as is needed. Bike lanes work in the same manner - as long as the laws are enforced.
"You base your argument about the need for sheltered areas of the road upon the supposed necessity for those cyclists who do not use such sheltered areas to direct all the traffic around them...And those sheltered areas, as you call them, are not entirely sheltered, so that those ill-informed cyclists who assume that they are sheltered can come to grief in the ways that started this discussion. That's the trouble with "sheltered areas", and your argument for their need has just been shown to be bogus.
Brian, I think you have mis-understood what Mr. Forester was driving at. In a post from page one you spoke of the need in Portland for "sheltered areas" for bicycles on the road, which I (and apparently Mr. Forester as well) understood as meaning "bike lanes".
We don't see bike lanes as "sheltered space", a "refuge" or even safer than normal travel lanes. In fact, we think bike lanes expose cyclists to greater peril than no bike lanes at all. As such, we are alarmed at these notions, for we think that uninformed cyclists can be lulled into a false sense of security in the bike lane.
I think that Tracey Sparling was victimized by this. She rode up alongside a cement truck that was stopped at a light in a right turn/through lane. She apparently stopped in the drivers blind spot, safe and secure in the bike lane. If she thought that she was in a safe position because of the bike lane, then that notion is a contributing factor in her tragic death.
The hazards that cyclists are exposed to increase as they ride closer to the curb. That bike lanes make cyclists safer is, to our minds, a myth, and a dangerous notion as well.
Does that change your interpretation of Mr. Forrester's last paragraph?
Allister
12-05-07, 12:26 AM
We don't see bike lanes as "sheltered space", a "refuge" or even safer than normal travel lanes. In fact, we think bike lanes expose cyclists to greater peril than no bike lanes at all. As such, we are alarmed at these notions, for we think that uninformed cyclists can be lulled into a false sense of security in the bike lane.
I still don't understand why this isn't fearmongering, but supporting bikelanes is.
Brian Ratliff
12-05-07, 07:51 AM
@ChipSeal
See, you keep on using special cases to prove your point. At the particular intersection that the incident occurred, perhaps having no bike lane at all and a narrow lane might have helped. But having the truck merge into the bike lane would not have helped at all. Trucks all have to swing wide. Had the truck been next to the curb, a pedestrian might have been hurt as the rear wheels ran up onto the sidewalk! I'm astonished that there are so many people here wanting cars to merge into the bike lane yet they will not answer to the physics of the issue.
Let's not use exceptions and extremes to prove a point. Use the average value.
You have a street, a bike lane, an intersection. A car and a bike. Car wants to turn right. Car comes up from behind the cyclist, makes his turn in front of the cyclist and right hooks him or her. Who's right of way was violated and who made the mistake? That is the question that the legislators and roadway engineers have to consider. The bicyclist was running on a straight line course. The motorist turned across the cyclist's path. The motorist is required to yield to the cyclist, which means the turn must be made behind him. Thus, the motorist made the mistake and broke the rules.
Is the motorist prone to making this mistake because of how bike lanes are constructed? Well, perhaps. But you have your four principles and principles 3 and 4 are in direct conflict - bike lane or no the cyclist must position him or herself somewhere. You'd have the cyclist moving all over the place in an effort to obey these conflicting principles based on what kind of traffic is around them at the time. That hardly sounds like having equal right and equal responsibilities on the road.
Alternatively, you'd have the motorist merge into the bike lane. But physics doesn't allow for this, so making such a requirement is basically useless. Perhaps you make the road wider at right turn intersections, so that the motorist can merge into the bike lane and make their turn while still maintaining a reasonable turning radius. Now you have a right turn only lane, basically, which is what we use at many intersections here in Oregon, especially the new ones.
Ask yourself this. Would any of the vehicular cycling approved approaches prevent Ms. Sparling's accident? How about a WOL? The truck still needs to swing wide to make the turn. The bicyclist will still be tempted to move up to the intersection on the right. How about a narrow lane? Perhaps Ms. Sparling would not be on the road at all, in that case. But the vehicular cyclists don't care about that. They only want "competent" cyclists on the road. How do you legislate competency? Remember, we are not talking about defensive cycling, we are talking about policy level stuff where the ones setting the policy have to make sure that the rules work for everyone, not just enthusiasts. Why, the only way I know of for a government to legislate competency is to issue a license that can only be obtained after taking a test. Would you support a license for cycling?
That's an interesting thought, Gene. Would you trust this (http://bikeportland.org/2007/11/27/new-mayoral-candidate-lays-out-a-different-path-for-bikes/) guy (http://bikeportland.org/2007/11/27/mr-watzig-responds-to-feedback-on-his-bike-platform/) to pick the right roads to remove cyclists from?
Probably not... but that wasn't my point... my point is that perhaps there are roads that should be given fully over to motor traffic... but only in trade for roads given fully over to cyclists.
I am willing to trade poor cycling streets (or very auto centric streets... to look at it from another perspective) for streets designed to be bicycle centric. Bike Boulevards are one thing, but what if (through a committee... not a single individual) certain streets could be "traded" in the manner I am suggesting, such that cyclists get exclusive use of certain areas, or perhaps a one way road is split in half down the length and cyclists get say a full 10 feet... Where as certain other roads such as 50+MPH arterials are given fully over to motorists.
This would not be done lightly, and the result should not be to exclude anyone from any area, but to simply improve the flow of traffic and greatly enhance the safety for all users... with emphasis on the latter. The ultimate goal would be to have a complete network for cyclists that mirrors the current network for motorists. And yes, I know we have rights to the "current network for motorists..." but as yet, no one has bothered to inform the motorists... ;)
***************************************************
The mayoral candidate on the other hand has no vision... and assumes that the majority users should just get status quo... without considering the positive aspects of increasing cycling ridership in his area... unless Gerhard Watzig gets a clue and understands the lack of long term sustainability of "paving over the world" for single passenger cars... then he is not qualified as a leader.
BTW his vision of licensing cyclists clearly shows his lack of understanding about licensing and what little revenue such a scheme would bring... motorists pay very little toward their infrastructure, even with licensing, registration, and gas taxes.
This post focuses on some of my objections to a 'no merge' law, ignoring as much as possible the endless pointless debate regarding the existance of bike lanes.
The turn radius issue
1. Motorists shouldn't be making right turns at speed, anyway. It's a roadway, not a frickin' racetrack. The proper way to make a right turn is to get to the right side of the road, slow down and check for people in the crosswalk or other hazards before completing the turn. Right turns should be made with caution, not speed. They can be made with caution from a position near the curb because road users behind the turning motorist are required to stop, if necessary, thus eliminating any need of the turning motorist to try to either beat them to the turn or be forced to yield to them (this is fundamental and basic traffic negotiation; to people trying to reinvent the wheel here, I have a newsflash: a square wheel doesn't work very well).
2. With the exception of some really large vehicles (busses, concrete trucks, tractor-trailers. etc.), the turning radius of most vehicles is small enough to permit a turn from fairly close to the curb. I regularly see large SUVs get at least partially into a 4 foot bike lane before tuning into a driveway. Granted, they can't get right next to the curb but, then, they don't have to. If they get just one wheel in the bike lane, they're in the bike lane and I have a good idea what they're up to. If need be and the coast is clear, I can pass them on the left. If they stop out in the traffic lane, it's hard for me to know what they're doing. They could be turning left or their vehicle may have broken down, to name just a couple of possibilities. If I determine that they are turning right, I have no good options. I could stop. I could throw caution to the wind and keep going, hoping they see me and don't hit me. What I can't do is what I'd really like to do: pass them on the left.
Judging relative speed
1.) A motorist attempting a merge need not judge absolute speed; all they need to know is relative speed, which is fairly simple. Either the motorist is gaining on / passing the cyclist, or they aren't. There's no need for any mental calculation. It only requires a skill that all motorists should have. Hopefully, there aren't a lot of motorists out there who can't tell if they're going faster or slower than same-direction traffic in the adjacent lane.
2.) A motorist stopped to the left of a bike lane and attempting to turn right could well be trying to judge the speed of an approaching bicyclist by looking in the right side mirror. "Why?", you ask. To determine if the turn can be safely made before the cyclist gets to the intersection (gap acceptance) or to determine if the bicyclist is going to stop and yield ROW. Lots of luck! "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
How do you enforce this merge?
Good question. The answer is: you don't.
A mandatory merge law is thus little different from any number of other unenforceable mandatory laws.
I'd like to withdraw my advocacy of a mandatory merge law. While I'd prefer a mandatory merge law to a mandatory no-merge law, what I like better than either of those options is for there to be no bike-lane specific merging law at all. This is the case in Missouri and I like it. Both merging and turning are covered by traffic regulations which apply in general lanes and turns (most bike-specific laws are unnecessary anyway; in many cases, they merely duplicate more general laws). A mandatory merge law is probably harmless. A mandatory no-merge law is a bad idea; it makes the safest behavior illegal.
The basic principles are already well establised: a.) Right turns should be made from the right-most lane, from as close to the curb as practical and b.) It's illegal to enter a lane without first confirming that it is safe to do so. Nothing else is really needed.
Surprise
If a know that a motorist passing me is about to turn right, all I need to do is slow down and let them do it.
Right hooks are relatively easy to avoid as long as there aren't idiots making right turns from a left lane (which is generally unexpected) and as long as the bicyclist doesn't believe they're entitled to some special kind of right-of-way by virtue of being in a mythical protected space.
(Edit: change 'left' to 'right' (typo))
Ask yourself this. Would any of the vehicular cycling approved approaches prevent Ms. Sparling's accident? How about a WOL? The truck still needs to swing wide to make the turn. The bicyclist will still be tempted to move up to the intersection on the right. How about a narrow lane? Perhaps Ms. Sparling would not be on the road at all, in that case. But the vehicular cyclists don't care about that. They only want "competent" cyclists on the road. How do you legislate competency? Remember, we are not talking about defensive cycling, we are talking about policy level stuff where the ones setting the policy have to make sure that the rules work for everyone, not just enthusiasts. Why, the only way I know of for a government to legislate competency is to issue a license that can only be obtained after taking a test. Would you support a license for cycling?
Nobody can say for sure what would have prevented he accident. However, it did occur when the cyclist was operating in good faith that the Oregon laws would protect her. That is, she believed that she should not leave the bike lane at the intersection because that's prohibited by Oregon law. Second, she believed that the truck would not enter the bike lane because that's also prohibited by Oregon law. She therefore (presumably) felt safe because the law was being followed.
In a different state, the rider might not feel confined to the bike lane, or at least will feel free to follow the good defensive practice of not riding to the right of a vehicle that will potentially turn right across her path. Additionally, there is a chance, at least, that the driver will merge right before turning, which might give the rider additional room for safety.
The meta-point is that the two Oregon laws do not actually confer much protection from a concrete truck, although an inexperienced rider might feel protected. Much better protection is provided by the rider's vehicular knowledge and defensive riding practices are better protection, with or without a bike lane stripe. Also conferring good protection are the standard rules of the road, as long as they're not monkeyed with by well-meaning legislators.
As for requiring a license for cycling. Most people already possess a document that required a test of their basic knowledge of the rules of the road. The knowledge displayed in a driving test is easily transferred to "driving" a bike.
ChipSeal
12-05-07, 03:14 PM
@ChipSeal
See, you keep on using special cases to prove your point. At the particular intersection that the incident occurred, perhaps having no bike lane at all and a narrow lane might have helped. But having the truck merge into the bike lane would not have helped at all. Trucks all have to swing wide. Had the truck been next to the curb, a pedestrian might have been hurt as the rear wheels ran up onto the sidewalk! I'm astonished that there are so many people here wanting cars to merge into the bike lane yet they will not answer to the physics of the issue.
Let's not use exceptions and extremes to prove a point. Use the average value.
You have a street, a bike lane, an intersection. A car and a bike. Car wants to turn right. Car comes up from behind the cyclist, makes his turn in front of the cyclist and right hooks him or her. Who's right of way was violated and who made the mistake? That is the question that the legislators and roadway engineers have to consider. The bicyclist was running on a straight line course. The motorist turned across the cyclist's path. The motorist is required to yield to the cyclist, which means the turn must be made behind him. Thus, the motorist made the mistake and broke the rules.
Is the motorist prone to making this mistake because of how bike lanes are constructed? Well, perhaps. But you have your four principles and principles 3 and 4 are in direct conflict - bike lane or no the cyclist must position him or herself somewhere. You'd have the cyclist moving all over the place in an effort to obey these conflicting principles based on what kind of traffic is around them at the time. That hardly sounds like having equal right and equal responsibilities on the road.
Alternatively, you'd have the motorist merge into the bike lane. But physics doesn't allow for this, so making such a requirement is basically useless. Perhaps you make the road wider at right turn intersections, so that the motorist can merge into the bike lane and make their turn while still maintaining a reasonable turning radius. Now you have a right turn only lane, basically, which is what we use at many intersections here in Oregon, especially the new ones.
Ask yourself this. Would any of the vehicular cycling approved approaches prevent Ms. Sparling's accident? How about a WOL? The truck still needs to swing wide to make the turn. The bicyclist will still be tempted to move up to the intersection on the right. How about a narrow lane? Perhaps Ms. Sparling would not be on the road at all, in that case. But the vehicular cyclists don't care about that. They only want "competent" cyclists on the road. How do you legislate competency? Remember, we are not talking about defensive cycling, we are talking about policy level stuff where the ones setting the policy have to make sure that the rules work for everyone, not just enthusiasts. Why, the only way I know of for a government to legislate competency is to issue a license that can only be obtained after taking a test. Would you support a license for cycling?
A few points. I point to the tragic incident involving Tracey Sparling to suggest that Miss Sparling may have acted more cautiously if she recognized the peculiar dangers presented by bike lanes. She was not moving when she was hit, according to eyewitnesses. She was not run over. She was either pushed away from the truck or she stumbled while trying to move away. Her head struck the curb, causing the fatal injury. (No helmet.) Many bicycle advocacy groups foster the notion that bike lane will make streets safe for bicycling. It is a shame when they do. It is not true.
The intersection she was killed on is narrow in all directions. Such an intersection could not be built with todays standards. It is a sharp turn. Intersections today are built with wide sweeping turns in comparison- to allow for safe turns by commercial vehicles. It is a narrow lane. It would continue to be a narrow lane even if the bike lane were removed. It would be a good intersection to consider a NRT ordinance, don't you think? (Because of it's location, it would be impossible to fix with a engineering solution.)
If Tracy Sparling were riding in a vehicular manner, taking the lane, she would not have ridden up alongside the truck.
Yes, Oregon's bike lane law does force the safe cyclist to "move all over the place." This is being safe for the conditions, one of which is not passing on the right when a motorist can enter a road or driveway. The law directs cyclists to leave the bike lane in those situations as indicated by the exceptions to the MBL law. (The education of cyclists on this point is sadly being actively eroded by the practices of PoPo.) All the difficulties of educating mis-informed cyclists to become "competent" cyclists can be avoided in one fell swoop by a NRT law!
So what's it to be Brian? The status quo?: Cyclists ignorant to bike lane hazards- Ah! But they at least feel safe and comfortable!- and an acceptable casualty rate? The hard work?: Teaching cyclists to use safe practices to minimize the real hazards they face? Less liberty?: Add more laws to fix the unintended consequences of previous laws, namely NRT?
John Forester
12-05-07, 04:53 PM
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Brian, you state the following about vehicular cycling:
" It demands near perfect judgement from cyclists, and it absolves drivers from all responsibility."
Vehicular cycling demands no more judgment by cyclists than does driving a car. Certainly, the cyclist has the option of lateral placement within a lane, but that is not difficult, but he does not have some of the other judgmental requirements that a motorist has, so it probably evens out. Vehicular cycling certainly does not absolve motorists of any responsibility; they have the responsibility of obeying the rules of the road, just as cyclists do.
Brian:
"There are lots of generalities here, but no substance. From what you wrote I cannot form a judgement one way or another to this statement's correctness."
So, Brian, you cannot form a judgement as to whether or not drivers are obligated to obey the rules of the road, which was the main point of my paragraph? But then, you agree further down the page.
Originally Posted by JF
You state: "I want each and every car to just allow me to direct them around me, me being the director and they being the cattle. ... For the reason of this burden that vehicular cycling places on individual cyclists, vehicular cycling will never catch on as a standard, official way of cycling."
You are no vehicular cyclist, because vehicular cycling has no requirement for directing all other traffic. That is both impossible and unreasonable. Traffic works because drivers know how to operate and largely do so. Of course, when driving either a motor vehicle or a bicycle, it is good advice to observe the movements of the traffic that might threaten you, so that if you observe a driver who is disobeying the rules of the road you can have the best chance of avoiding the consequences of his mistake. However, that has nothing to do with trying to direct all other traffic. It appears to me that you have placed yourself, in your own mind, in a position of feeling inferior, so that you have to attempt to ward off those with the power to oppress you.
Brian:
You don't know me, and I doubt that you'd suggest that someone who practices vehicular cycling techniques is not a vehicular cyclist. But whatever. On point, what's all this talk then about taking a lane to gain passing distance and forcing motorists to fully change lanes? Is this not part of "vehicular cycling"? Do you agree with Helmet Head's techniques of riding in the middle of the lane to gain notice and not yielding ground until he detects a yielding from the motorist from behind?
I actually agree with you mostly here. Vehicular cycling generally does not require any extra burden on cyclists that isn't already on a driver. But what of right hooks? Commonly suggested practice is for cyclists to yield their right of way by moving laterally across the road to more fully take the lane so they don't get right hooked. Since there is a traffic principle that suggests that straight moving traffic implicitly has the right of way with relation to traffic merging into or crossing their path, is it not an extra burden for the cyclist to have to merge into the adjacent traffic stream to avoid being right hooked by a car who doesn't yield to the straight moving traffic? Isn't this just yielding to the notion that might makes right and cars cannot be trusted to yield the right of way as the law demands?
Originally Posted by JF
You state: "A trucker who is driving in a dense city with pedestrians and cyclists around must not have blind areas which can hide a cyclist or pedestrian." That's both physically impossible and largely unnecessary for cyclists and pedestrians who obey the rules, rules of the road for cyclists and pedestrian rules for pedestrians.
You base your argument about the need for sheltered areas of the road upon the supposed necessity for those cyclists who do not use such sheltered areas to direct all the traffic around them. That necessity does not exist; it is not in law, and it is not in the description of vehicular cycling. And those sheltered areas, as you call them, are not entirely sheltered, so that those ill-informed cyclists who assume that they are sheltered can come to grief in the ways that started this discussion. That's the trouble with "sheltered areas", and your argument for their need has just been shown to be bogus.
Brian:
Responding to the first sentence: Cyclists on a road with no bike lanes are kind of a strange creature, don't you think? Stay with me here before you get all flustered with the politically correct crap. Cars, they take up a full lane, and their position in a lane is without question; they are where they are and to move laterally is a discrete motion from one lane to the next. Cyclists, on the other hand, are a bit of a hybrid. They float within a lane. They might be biased to the right, such as law requires and most cyclists, vehicular cycling practice notwithstanding, practice as something of default position; and when positioned to the right, it is generally accepted that a car doesn't have to fully change lanes to pass. But then a cyclist might move over a foot or two. Or he might move over a whole lot on not much notice, taking the full lane. The lateral lane positioning of the cyclist is not discrete at all, but is continuous. The cyclist might be using one lane, half the lane, just the right edge, or he might even be splitting lanes, riding on the line and allowing traffic to pass on both sides.
The bike lane adds a descrete lane position for the cyclist. I say that cyclists have to "direct traffic" around them. Well, because their lane position is continuous and not discrete, then the cyclist does, in practice (even if you don't call it that for politically correct reasons), "direct traffic" around them by choosing where in the continous variation of lane positions that is offered, they are. This is a tool that experienced cyclists can use, primarily to avoid rising the ire of motorists while still riding on the roadway, but it is also a burden. A burden that no other vehicle on the road bears.
Responding to the last part of your paragraph: That a bike lane is not physically sheltered is of no significance. Surface streets are divided by a median line, which also carries only legal weight. It works as well as is needed. Bike lanes work in the same manner - as long as the laws are enforced."
So, Brian, you think that a bike lane space is just as much a sheltered space, because it has a stripe and a law, as is each half of the roadway, which also has a stripe and a law. Yes, indeed, more similar than you seem to imagine, for in each case a driver has freedom to use that space when it is necessary for normal traffic operation. Drivers can cross or enter bike-lane space whenever the rules of the road require them to do so, as has been the evidence in the two car-bike collisions that have been discussed in this section.
It is true, Brian, that I don't know you, but I read what you write. When you write about the need to direct all the other drivers near you, that is not only not vehicular cycling but demonstrates the lack of confidence that generally goes with vehicular cycling.
Oh, I see now that you don't intend to try to direct all other drivers near you, but only those overtaking you. Probably you thought that your wording was self-explanatory. Well, it is to one who is obsessed by same-direction motor traffic, but it wasn't to me, who does not suffer from that obsession. Yes, it is true that a cyclist has choice of position within the lane, but that is not difficult and it doesn't matter much in most locations which choice the cyclist makes. Where the lane is narrow, and where there is much right-turning traffic from a right-and-straight lane, are the two most significant locations.
I have never worried about same-direction motor traffic; those drivers have the responsibility of overtaking me safely, and it is my only responsibility to keep a straight course and not swerve into their paths. Certainly if I recognize that I am delaying traffic from behind and it is safe to move over to give them width in which to pass, I will do so. But, mostly, I just leave overtaking me up to them to do it safely. I do not recall any instance in which squealing brakes or a swerving car demonstrated that its driver saw me only at the last instance, and, of course, I have never been hit from behind.
And, no, I do not feel that cyclists on a road without a bike lane are some kind of strange creature, and I have seen no signs that motorists think so, either. Motorists might try to discriminate, but that's because of a rather different kind of difference.
You advance the argument that there is a general principle that traffic going straight has the right-of-way over traffic that is turning. That is a correct statement, and it proves why bike lanes should not be built, because they put straight-through traffic in the location where traffic turns across it.
Note that there are at least two kinds of right hook car-bike collision. One kind can generally be described as when the motorist overtakes the cyclist and turns across his path. The other kind can generally be describes as when the cyclist overtaking the motorist on the wrong side discovers that the motorist is turning right. It is useless to say that the motorist must yield to the bicycle traffic, because the motorist is largely unable to look for it, being obliged to look elsewhere to make his turn safely. As I have been writing for decades, when facilities are designed that require drivers to violate the rules of the road, they are, almost certainly, dangerous.
Helmet Head
12-05-07, 05:24 PM
For the record, I have never argued that the technique I use and advocate -- during gaps in traffic even on roads with WOLS and bike lanes of "riding in the middle of the lane to gain notice and not yielding ground until I detect a yielding from the motorist from behind" -- is part of "standard" vehicular cycling. To be clear, it is not contrary to vehicular cycling to pick a lateral position within the curbside third of the lane, when riding between intersections, "about 3 feet to the right of where overtaking traffic travels", and simply follow that track, regardless of whether faster same-direction traffic is present or not (but not ignoring other conditions that warrant moving laterally, of course). My personal preference is to be more "involved" if you will, and relies on establishing and maintaining more rearward situational awareness, but it's a preference. It's not mandated by vehicular cycling principles.
By the way, while I do generally not move aside from my primary "centerish" riding position until I get a sign that faster traffic behind me closing the gap has noticed me, it is not true that I will never move aside until I detect yielding. In other words, once they are close enough I will move aside whether they indicate they've noticed me or not. But this is fairly rare, probably happening less than 5% of the time (don't hold me to that, it's just a guess - I've never actually tracked this; the main point is most of the time what happens is they do slow down a tad and/or adjuste laterally, and then I move aside).
At any rate, this thread is about intersections and their approaches, where standard vehicular cycling principles dictate choosing lateral positioning according to destination positioning rules.
Allister
12-05-07, 11:01 PM
For the record, I have never argued that the technique I use and advocate -- during gaps in traffic even on roads with WOLS and bike lanes of "riding in the middle of the lane to gain notice and not yielding ground until I detect a yielding from the motorist from behind" -- is part of "standard" vehicular cycling. To be clear, it is not contrary to vehicular cycling to pick a lateral position within the curbside third of the lane, when riding between intersections, "about 3 feet to the right of where overtaking traffic travels", and simply follow that track, regardless of whether faster same-direction traffic is present or not (but not ignoring other conditions that warrant moving laterally, of course). My personal preference is to be more "involved" if you will, and relies on establishing and maintaining more rearward situational awareness, but it's a preference. It's not mandated by vehicular cycling principles.
At least you admit that your method isn't taught as part of 'standard' VC practices. You've come up with this all on your own, based on what? 2 years experience. What makes you think your advice is better than anyone else's on this forum, especially when it contradicts the majority of experienced cyclists on these forums?
Bekologist
12-05-07, 11:50 PM
this is off topic, but i'm curious as to how well helmet's panache act plays out at night- it's close to the shortest days of the year up north here, allister. I was on a lunch time ride today about 3:30-5:00 and it is getting dark EARLY. I think it's dark for most of america's evening commutes. I was glad to have lights at 3:30 this afternoon.
how many night time miles are you putting on a week during the winter, helmet?
Allister
12-06-07, 12:10 AM
this is off topic, but i'm curious as to how well helmet's panache act plays out at night- it's close to the shortest days of the year up north here, allister. I was on a lunch time ride today about 3:30-5:00 and it is getting dark EARLY. I think it's dark for most of america's evening commutes. I was glad to have lights at 3:30 this afternoon.
how many night time miles are you putting on a week during the winter, helmet?
I'm more curious how it plays out in heavy traffic like in my 'lanesplitting' video, but he was curiously silent when I posted that too.
ChipSeal
12-09-07, 03:31 AM
Maybe us Texan's have more influence then I thought! Portland's Water Bureau has banned their vehicles from making a right turn onto a popular access road to their main facility due to the possibility of right hooking cyclists.
"As part of a proactive effort to increase bike safety around their Interstate facility, The City of Portland’s Water Bureau will issue a mandate to employees next week that prohibits all their vehicles from using N Wheeler Avenue.
Wheeler used to provide convenient access to the Water Bureau’s main Interstate facility, but this move comes in light of a growing concern for bike safety and potential collisions with bicycles at the notoriously dangerous intersection of at Wheeler, Broadway, and Flint Avenues...
Instead of turning right (north) onto Wheeler from Broadway, Guard says they will mandate that drivers go down to Larabee and enter the Interstate facility from N Tillamook Street"
If this is the start of a trend I intend to take credit for it! :D
The details can be found here:
http://bikeportland.org/2007/12/07/water-bureau-says-no-more-vehicles-on-wheeler/#more-6138
Edit: punctuation error
ChipSeal
03-17-08, 02:01 PM
More and more folks in Portland Oregon are coming around to my view on this. :p This is a reader response to BikePortland's story on the installation of their first bike box:
"Stripes- Steveo; I see your logic in thinking the bike box is not useful, as you "make yourself visible just by pulling up until you are stopped just in front of the car". However, at that intersection, and at many others, the current problem is that many right-turning motorists wanting to make that right turn onto 7th, encroach into the bike lane, and into the crosswalk, as they are preparing to turn. Their head is usually turned to the left only, because that is the direction that oncoming traffic they are looking for a gap in is coming from. So a) it can be really hard, and really dangerous, trying to squeeze past the car to get in front in their field of vision when they are hogging the bike lane. and b) with a right turn movement allowed, even if you are in front/to the side of them, they sometimes don't see you until they are gunning the gas, as their head has been looking left, and not right.
Bike boxes will solve both of those problems, by banning right hand vehicle turns.
Don't be the last one to come around to the correct thinking on this issue! :p
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.