Are you happier without bike facilities?

[invisiblehand]

Show me some data to support your implication that a bike lane stripe has caused even one accident.:mad:

Couldn't one ascribe some blame of the Portland bike lane deaths last year to the bike lane?

[genec]

Couldn't one ascribe some blame of the Portland bike lane deaths last year to the bike lane?

Would the cyclist's movements have been the same whether the stripe was there or not? Since there is no way to determine that... there is no way to know.

Since cyclists tend to ride in the same place on the road whether the stripe exists or not, blaming stripes on the road for something that could have easily happened anyway, is somewhat ridiculous.

[Script]

Your answer shows your ignorance of normal traffic operation. For example, when changing lanes one must yield to those in or approaching in the lane you desire to enter. However, that person may decide to yield to your request, whether that request is transmitted by a car's turning signal, by a outstretched arm, or by a turned head. The driver changing lanes must not move laterally simply because he has made such a signal, but only when that signal has been seen, acknowledged, and agreed to. If you are the driver who wants to change lanes, the proof that such a negotiation has succeeded is that the other driver slows down to make a place for you. It's that simple, much simpler than the explanation.

Again, your inspirational way of responding leaves me breathless...
No wonder so many people choose to disagree with you even tho' they may know you are right.

Evidently my ignorance has enabled me to survive many years of significant cycling mileage with nary an incident.

Maybe dumbing down and putting a positive spin on your words would lead to something useful. Or do you think calling people childish, superstitious, ignorant, etc. makes them want to join your cause?

Please don't reply, I'll try to survive without your inspiration.:rolleyes:

[invisiblehand]

Would the cyclist's movements have been the same whether the stripe was there or not? Since there is no way to determine that... there is no way to know.

Well ... there is plenty of speculation to go around here in bikeforums. If we limit our discussion to what we know with certainty then the discussion will be pretty short. The premise of a bike lane is that the stripes affect behavior; more specifically, the lateral positioning of autos and cyclists. I think that it is fair to say that a bike lane increases the probability that the cyclist will remain on the right while the auto -- truck in the two cases I am thinking about -- will remain on the left. In both cases that behavior contributed to the fatalities.

[Bekologist]

you need to blame the driver for failing to follow the rules of the road and using faulty equipment on his truck, invisible hand.

so now you'll accept that bike lanes affect behavior? I want to see some statistics on that :D. invisiblehand. how about you accept that portlands infrastructure and bike lanes directly affect greater numbers of bicyclists and the corresponding LOWERING of the indexed accident rate for bicyclists first.

[invisiblehand]

you need to blame the driver for failing to follow the rules of the road and using faulty equipment on his truck, invisible hand.

That is why I wrote contribute. Then again, the police seem to have concluded that the truck drivers were not at fault. Moreover, a cyclist that was riding behind Brett -- I chatted with him on the Bike Friday YAK group -- seems to have concluded that the truck driver in that case was not at fault either.

Just to be clear, I think that there is some bias in police reporting. But I don't think that it is a stretch to say that the design of the bike lanes/roads -- or perhaps the rules of Portland's roads -- at these locations were a factor in the fatalities.

so now you'll accept that bike lanes affect behavior? I want to see some statistics on that :D. invisiblehand. how about you accept that portlands infrastructure and bike lanes directly affect greater numbers of bicyclists and the corresponding LOWERING of the indexed accident rate for bicyclists first.

Of course they affect behavior. The debate is whether that change is positive or negative or "close zero." As an example, from memory, I am thinking of the one that measured the lateral distance between the auto and cyclist on bike lane/no bike lane. What I recall is that the average distance was smaller with a bike lane but that the variance of the distance was greater without a bike lane. I don't recall whether the measured distances and their differences were meaningful.

What is the accident rate indexed for?

I have seen some of the evidence -- counts of cyclists at the bridge crossings -- that was suggestive that there was an increase in cyclists. Although if there were other changes at the time, the connection to bike lanes specifically and the number of reported cycling accidents would be noisy without more corroborating evidence. Whether the results can be generalized to other places would be another hurdle to leap.

Anyway, I really don't know much about Portland.

[John Forester]

Would the cyclist's movements have been the same whether the stripe was there or not? Since there is no way to determine that... there is no way to know.

Since cyclists tend to ride in the same place on the road whether the stripe exists or not, blaming stripes on the road for something that could have easily happened anyway, is somewhat ridiculous.

Genec's comment refers to the fatal accident cases of cyclists overtaking on the right-hand side of right-turning motor vehicles.

Genec is arguing that since typical American cyclists are so deludedly ignorant that they insist on overtaking on the right-hand side of right-turning motor vehicles, the bike-lane presence cannot be condemned. I regard Genec's argument as one more of the numerous foolishly ideological defenses of a system that has no reasonable basis.

There are two aspects of this issue: the extent to which the bike-lane program increases the tendency to overtake in this dangerous manner, and the extent to which the bike-lane program reduces the tendency to overtake in the safe manner.

The public believes that bike lanes make cycling much safer and easier. The safety observation can be observed daily in Portland, where the bikeway program advocates write that their bike-lane system has reduced the car-bike collision rate. So long as a cyclist believes that superstition, that cyclist is going to stay in the lane when he should not. It is reasonable to conclude that this bike-lane superstitious propaganda adds to the pre-existing fear of same-direction motor traffic that tends to keep ill-informed cyclists close to the edge of the road when they should not so remain.

The obvious countermeasure to cyclists overtaking on the dangerous side of right-turning vehicles is instruction in vehicular cycling. As has been so frequently demonstrated, the conflicts between bike-lane advocacy and vehicular-cycling advocacy are deep and many. The popular support and official production of bike-lane programs is detrimental to improving the behavior of cyclists in the way that would produce the greatest reduction of car-bike collisions.

[randya]

The public believes that bike lanes make cycling much safer and easier. The safety observation can be observed daily in Portland, where the bikeway program advocates write that their bike-lane system has reduced the car-bike collision rate.

show me an actual quote or source where this has been claimed. No one in Portland is making the claim that bike lanes make cyclists safer, the only claims that have made are (1) that more cyclists on the roads make cycling safer, and (2) that more facilities lead to more people cycling.

[John Forester]

Again, your inspirational way of responding leaves me breathless...
No wonder so many people choose to disagree with you even tho' they may know you are right.

Evidently my ignorance has enabled me to survive many years of significant cycling mileage with nary an incident.

Maybe dumbing down and putting a positive spin on your words would lead to something useful. Or do you think calling people childish, superstitious, ignorant, etc. makes them want to join your cause?

Please don't reply, I'll try to survive without your inspiration.:rolleyes:

Your argument was the following: "And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'."

I describe your argument as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues. Instead of offering methods of communication that are obviously impossible for moving traffic interactions, which your suggested talking, typing, and writing are, you could have simply asked: "How does the cyclist recognize that his negotiation has succeeded?"

I do not know whether your ignorance was real or merely pretended in order to denigrate vehicular cycling. But dealing with people who put up such absurd arguments day after day makes one choose to describe those arguments as accurately as possible.

[Helmet Head]

I mean miles of wide lane that alternate between numbers of vehicles abreast, not just at intersections. You picked the easy rationale...people wanting to turn right or left and 'squeezing' by another vehicle. My experience has been that in the presence of a bike stripe, people will not generally try to squeeze by but in the absense of that stripe, they will choose to 'add' a lane.:rolleyes:

Okay, so, given a wide lane, say 16', you're saying that motorists will try to "add" a lane, meaning they will try to create a second line of traffic near the edge of the road, but, if there is a bike lane stripe present, they are much less likely to do so. You're saying this as if the problem with motorists creating two lines of traffic within one wide lane is obvious. But the problem is not obvious to me. Do you mean that precludes you from using the margin space to pass the traffic on the right when traffic is slow/stopped? In that situation I wait my turn, pass on the left, or split lanes, depending on the situation. What's the problem?


I completely disregard anecdotal data. You are welcome to disregard my experience as well. 'Anecdotal' and 'experience' are ways to justify positions in the absence of facts. Whenever one starts referencing 'anecdotal' or 'my experience' my ***** alarm goes off. :)

You admit conjecture than say it is 'more sound'?

Why use facts for a position when you can use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?:D
That's sounds great, except, as IH has pointed out, if we limit ourselves to known facts based on sound studies we would not have much to talk about here. Not only that, but we'd have very little basis on which to decide how to ride in traffic. But, the dearth of such facts is the reality, and we still must ride, and do our best to be as safe and effective as we can be. So, we consider anecdotal evidence from others in addition to our own experience, and read and write books and talk about them in order to expand our knowledge and confirm what we learn and confirm as much as possible.

Anecdotal evidence is much better than nothing when it's all you've got. Human beings basically survived on nothing but anecdotal evidence for almost all of our history. Those who ignored anecdotal evidence probably were weeded out. Say a buddy eats a mushroom, became violently ill, and dies - do you ignore this as anecdotal evidence or do you avoid that variety of mushroom and tell others in your tribe about it? Again, it's far from perfect, but anecdotal evidence is much better than nothing. It's why I avoid riding in door zones, for one, and try to ride in a manner that maximizes my conspicuousness and vantage as much as is reasonably possible.

[Helmet Head]

Your argument was the following: "And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'."

I describe your argument as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues. Instead of offering methods of communication that are obviously impossible for moving traffic interactions, which your suggested talking, typing, and writing are, you could have simply asked: "How does the cyclist recognize that his negotiation has succeeded?"

I do not know whether your ignorance was real or merely pretended in order to denigrate vehicular cycling. But dealing with people who put up such absurd arguments day after day makes one choose to describe those arguments as accurately as possible.
That explains why you do it, and is understandable, but, Script has a point. Treating others derogatorily -- regardless of how justified it may or may not be -- is probably not a very effective manner to win them over to whatever position it is that you may be trying to persuade others to recognize and appreciate.

If one was to write a book called, say, Promoting Effective Cycling, deriding others and what they have to say would probably not be one of the methods covered, I would think.

[The Human Car]

Your answer shows your ignorance of normal traffic operation. For example, when changing lanes one must yield to those in or approaching in the lane you desire to enter. However, that person may decide to yield to your request, whether that request is transmitted by a car's turning signal, by a outstretched arm, or by a turned head. The driver changing lanes must not move laterally simply because he has made such a signal, but only when that signal has been seen, acknowledged, and agreed to. If you are the driver who wants to change lanes, the proof that such a negotiation has succeeded is that the other driver slows down to make a place for you. It's that simple, much simpler than the explanation.

Q: What does it mean when a driver has his turn signal on?


...




A: It's broken.



:D

[invisiblehand]

That's sounds great, except, as IH has pointed out, if we limit ourselves to known facts based on sound studies we would not have much to talk about here.

I just want to write that there are sound studies. That is, the researchers do what they can with the data. The data, however, often cannot support the strong statements that we want to make without modeling assumptions.

[Helmet Head]

I just want to write that there are sound studies. That is, the researchers do what they can with the data. The data, however, often cannot support the strong statements that we want to make without modeling assumptions.
That's true, but I think it's much more important than merely wanting to make strong statements - it's about wanting to ride bikes safely and effectively, and not wanting others to be dissuaded from doing so based on false notions about what is or is not safe and effective.

[Script]

Your argument was the following: "And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'."

I describe your argument as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues. Instead of offering methods of communication that are obviously impossible for moving traffic interactions, which your suggested talking, typing, and writing are, you could have simply asked: "How does the cyclist recognize that his negotiation has succeeded?"

I do not know whether your ignorance was real or merely pretended in order to denigrate vehicular cycling. But dealing with people who put up such absurd arguments day after day makes one choose to describe those arguments as accurately as possible.

Your inability to reason is only superceded by your profound righteousness.

Pick the question you want to answer and pretend the others don't exist.

My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not.

If it pleases you to use derogatory descriptions for anyone that doesn't absolutely agree with your opinion that is your problem.

I started this thread with a sincere inquiry. You have taken advantage of it to promote an impossible-absolutist position.

Don't waste my time.:)

[Helmet Head]

Your inability to reason is only superceded by your profound righteousness.

Pick the question you want to answer and pretend the others don't exist.

My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not.

If it pleases you to use derogatory descriptions for anyone that doesn't absolutely agree with your opinion that is your problem.

I started this thread with a sincere inquiry. You have taken advantage of it to promote an impossible-absolutist position.

Don't waste my time.:)
If reason leads to the conclusion that someone with more than a modicum of traffic cycling experience has never experienced riding in a WOL, that's a certain indication that at least one of the premises upon which such an absurd conclusion is based, is false.

My questions in #460 stand.

[Script]

If reason leads to the conclusion that someone with more than a modicum of traffic cycling experience has never experienced riding in a WOL, that's a certain indication that at least one of the premises upon which such an absurd conclusion is based, is false.

My questions in #460 stand.

This is my thread... GO AWAY! :D

[Allister]

There are two aspects of this issue: the extent to which the bike-lane program increases the tendency to overtake in this dangerous manner, and the extent to which the bike-lane program reduces the tendency to overtake in the safe manner.

Don't be such a big girl's blouse. It's prefectly possible to safely operate in a bike lane with traffic turning across it, if everyone follows the rules. In my estimation, any problems Portland are experiencing, and I'm only going by the information and news reports from local riders that post here, are purely due to a lack of education in their proper use.

Seems to me 'Give way to through traffic in the bike lane' should be simple enough to learn for even the most dopey driver. And cyclists learning due prudence for crossing traffic isn't that hard to teach either. Have you even tried in your little program?

[Helmet Head]

Don't be such a big girl's blouse. It's prefectly possible to safely operate in a bike lane with traffic turning across it, if everyone follows the rules. In my estimation, any problems Portland are experiencing, and I'm only going by the information and news reports from local riders that post here, are purely due to a lack of education in their proper use.

Seems to me 'Give way to through traffic in the bike lane' should be simple enough to learn for even the most dopey driver. And cyclists learning due prudence for crossing traffic isn't that hard to teach either. Have you even tried in your little program?
Cyclists learning due prudence for crossing traffic is key to Forester's program, and is easy enough to teach once you get the cyclists in the class. Getting cyclists in the class is another issue.

As far as teaching motorists to "Give way to through traffic in the bike lane" that requires motorists to not only remember to recognize bike lanes, but to remember to look for and yield to traffic on their right before turning right, which is abnormal traffic behavior. You can make progress on this, i'm sure, but in the end it's just not normal habitual behavior in traffic, and for good reason. It's unnatural to route through traffic to the right of right turning traffic, and, so, it's unnatural to look for through traffic to the right of right turning traffic. Many drivers have a hard enough time remember to look for 1-2 mph pedestrians stepping into the intersection from the sidewalk before turning right; expecting these guys to remember to look for cyclists approaching at 20+ mph on their right is simply not reasonable.

[Allister]

As far as teaching motorists to "Give way to through traffic in the bike lane" that requires motorists to not only remember to recognize bike lanes, but to remember to look for and yield to traffic on their right before turning right, which is abnormal traffic behavior.

Endlessly repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is normal traffic operation. It works well enough here. If you think that it's too hard to learn, hand in your car keys to the first police officer you see. You shouldn't be driving.

[John Forester]

Your inability to reason is only superceded by your profound righteousness.

Pick the question you want to answer and pretend the others don't exist.

My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not.

If it pleases you to use derogatory descriptions for anyone that doesn't absolutely agree with your opinion that is your problem.

I started this thread with a sincere inquiry. You have taken advantage of it to promote an impossible-absolutist position.

Don't waste my time.:)

You cannot help yourself but be nasty, can you. Here are your words: "My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not."

I answer you politely. About 65 years of frequent use of wide outside lanes.Wide outside lanes were very common in California, though many have now been marked as bike lanes.

[The Human Car]

I answer you politely. :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

[Edit]In your style:
I describe your statement as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues.

[ChipSeal]

Endlessly repeating ["remembering to look for and yield to traffic on their right before turning right, is abnormal traffic behavior"] doesn't make it any more convincing.

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is normal traffic operation. It works well enough here. If you think that it's too hard to learn, hand in your car keys to the first police officer you see. You shouldn't be driving.

Curiously Allister, in Portland Oregon they fixed the deadly intersections by prohibiting right turns at them! Either a permanent ban with physical barriers or they installed "bike boxes" that keep motorists from turning until cyclists have cleared off in front of them.

In addition, the City of Portland’s Water Bureau has forbidden employees from turning right across a bike lane near their workplace:

"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"

The details can be found here:
http://bikeportland.org/2007/12/07/w...ler/#more-6138

So apparently it is too hard for Portland motorists to learn to yield to cyclists in a bike lane! :p

[Allister]

Curiously Allister, in Portland Oregon they fixed the deadly intersections by prohibiting right turns at them!

I was aware of that. A bit of an over-reaction in my opinion, but whatever works in preventing boneheads behind the wheel from killing people is fine by me.

So apparently it is too hard for Portland motorists to learn to yield to cyclists in a bike lane!

LOL. Do you seriously think that counts as trying? It's a band-aid, knee-jerk solution that'll only solve the problem at that one intersection. A real solution in teaching the rules will need to involve more than paint or prohibiting certain turns.

[Helmet Head]

Endlessly repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is normal traffic operation. It works well enough here. If you think that it's too hard to learn, hand in your car keys to the first police officer you see. You shouldn't be driving.
Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.

The specific type we're talking about here is right-turning traffic yielding to same-direction through traffic passing them on the right. That would be a specific traffic operation, but it's certainly not a normal one. I can't think of a single instance where that's ever required in traffic, except when bike lanes are painted to the right of traffic lanes from which right turns are allowed. That's why I say remembering to check for and yield to such "traffic" is abnormal behavior.

[Allister]

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.


Sorry if it's too simple and clear for you.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, Allister, it's too simple and clear for me. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's not about me, it's about all the drivers and the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).

[Allister]

it's about ... the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).

Thousands?! Ye gods, there's a veritable killing field out there. You'd think we'd hear about it more often.

Pulling numbers out of your arse, especially ones as patently ridiculous as that, doesn't bolster your argument. And you think the bikelane advocates are scaremongers? Oh the irony.

[Script]

You cannot help yourself but be nasty, can you. Here are your words: "My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not."

I answer you politely. About 65 years of frequent use of wide outside lanes.Wide outside lanes were very common in California, though many have now been marked as bike lanes.


Thanks for the polite answer. :)

Sorry about being nasty, I learned it from some guy who constantly denigrates anything said that does not toe his party line. :D

Why were they marked with bike lanes? Perhaps because of the discovery that the average motorist does not know how to handle an invitation to figure out where to be on a road with 'extra' room?

Goes right to my point of WOL's being used as two lanes by many at their convenience.

[Allister]

Goes right to my point of WOL's being used as two lanes by many at their convenience.

I don't see a lot that wide though. Most are not wide enough for two cars, but plenty wide for a car and bike. Do you have a lot of such roads in your area? Sounds like they need some striping.

[The Human Car]

Anyway, it's not about me, it's about all the drivers and the dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of cyclists who are injured or killed annually when these drivers fail to engage in abnormal traffic behavior (like thinking of - much less checking for - through traffic passing them on the right prior to them turning right).

For me the issue is more about the problems of mixing big trucks with bicycle traffic but if we are to speculate in what is causing cyclists deaths and trying to fix that problem, we should be focusing on the problems associated mid-block as that's where 67% of bicycle traffic fatalities are. The problem at intersections is minor in comparison.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx

[Script]

I don't see a lot that wide though. Most are not wide enough for two cars, but plenty wide for a car and bike. Do you have a lot of such roads in your area? Sounds like they need some striping.

They're probably not as wide as you imagine...just wide enough for confused or agressive drivers to either mistake what to do or purposely use the width to pass a vehicle with the audacity to be in their way. :)

Those that have been striped do not seem to have the same issue. Drivers appear to be much less willing to cross a line to make an illegal pass; and most also try to stay in the lane as described by the striping.

[Script]

For me the issue is more about the problems of mixing big trucks with bicycle traffic but if we are to speculate in what is causing cyclists deaths and trying to fix that problem, we should be focusing on the problems associated mid-block as that's where 67% of bicycle traffic fatalities are. The problem at intersections is minor in comparison.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx

Perhaps you said it better as my post was unable to communicate a similar position. :)

[Bekologist]

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.

The specific type we're talking about here is right-turning traffic yielding to same-direction through traffic passing them on the right. That would be a specific traffic operation, but it's certainly not a normal one. I can't think of a single instance where that's ever required in traffic, except when bike lanes are painted to the right of traffic lanes from which right turns are allowed. That's why I say remembering to check for and yield to such "traffic" is abnormal behavior.

why the misunderstanding? are you being deliberately obtuse?

you think turning traffic yielding to thru traffic is too broad to be an 'operation'? How about, its a basic rule of the road.

And try a little harder, head. you can't think of a single instance a motorist has traffic to its right and wants to turn right? How about, EVERY TIME A MOTORIST IS IN AN INSIDE LANE!

OH my gosh- middle lanes of roads are not vehicular because you can't turn right from them without crossing a lane of potentially thru traffic......


quit the hyperbole. motorists are CONSTANTLY in lanes other than ones they want to turn from, and have to look and yield to traffic to THEIR right before crossing a lane and turning.....

[noisebeam]

why the misunderstanding? are you being deliberately obtuse?

you think turning traffic yielding to thru traffic is too broad to be an 'operation'? How about, its a basic rule of the road.

And try a little harder, head. you can't think of a single instance a motorist has traffic to its right and wants to turn right? How about, EVERY TIME A MOTORIST IS IN AN INSIDE LANE!

OH my gosh- middle lanes of roads are not vehicular because you can't turn right from them without crossing a lane of potentially thru traffic......


quit the hyperbole. motorists are CONSTANTLY in lanes other than ones they want to turn from, and have to look and yield to traffic to THEIR right before crossing a lane and turning.....

Where is is legal to right turn from the inside lane and cross the outside lane? Right turns in most states to be legal must be made from the right most lane or from as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway.

Al

[Bekologist]

al- real simple.

two lanes. wether they are preferred class lanes is irrelevant.

vehicle on inside lane wants to turn right. motorist needs to look and yield to traffic to the outside, look and yield before getting across that lane.

Basic rules of the road - you can't cross a lane without looking and yielding.

[noisebeam]

al- real simple.

two lanes. wether they are preferred class lanes is irrelevant.

vehicle on inside lane wants to turn right. motorist needs to look and yield to traffic to the outside, look and yield before getting across that lane.

Basic rules of the road - you can't cross a lane without looking and yielding.

I think you are mixing up merging into lanes with crossing them.

Al

[Bekologist]

nope. vehicles are constantly 'out of lane position' and forced to look and yield to traffic in a lane further over crossingm yielding, merging or turning.....

basic rules of the road DEMAND IT.

[noisebeam]

nope. vehicles are constantly 'out of lane position' and forced to look and yield to traffic in a lane further over crossingm yielding, merging or turning.....

basic rules of the road DEMAND IT.

Once again where is it legal to cross over another lane (other than a bike lane and in rare cases bus lanes) to make a right turn? Crossing a lane to make a right turn is an abnormal traffic pattern.

Al

[Bekologist]

let's not try to beat it to death, eh al?

I was just pointing out how there are commonplace and everyday situations on the road when motorists have to look and yield to traffic in lanes further over before making a turn. wether they need to enter the lane, use it as a travel lane, merge into it or otherwise turn across it is ancillary to my point.

[genec]

Once again where is it legal to cross over another lane (other than a bike lane and in rare cases bus lanes) to make a right turn? Crossing a lane to make a right turn is an abnormal traffic pattern.

Al

Well, in most places you are supposed to merge into that lane... only in Oregon are you supposed to "cross it."

[The Human Car]

I think you are mixing up merging into lanes with crossing them.

There is a bit of controversy on how motorists are supposed to execute a right turn when a bike lane is present. There is an animation of two methods here: http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2007/10/right_of_way_animation.html

LAB endorses the California style (merge and then turn.) I believe the Oregon law requiring drives to cross a bike lane is not the standard model used in the states. So unless specified I personally feel that the merge and turn can be assumed but that's just me.

[noisebeam]

let's not try to beat it to death, eh al?

I was just pointing out how there are commonplace and everyday situations on the road when motorists have to look and yield to traffic in lanes further over before making a turn.

You were accusing another poster of being obtuse when they clearly spelled out the reason turning across bike lanes is different than any other traffic flow. It seems to be you are intentionally trying to blur the line between merging into the outside lane and then turning vs. turning across the outside lane from the inside.

So once again there are situations every day where motorists have to look and yield to other traffic before merging into the lane it is in. There is no everyday situation (except the case of bike lanes) where motorists have to look and yield to traffic before turning across the lane it is in.

Al

[noisebeam]

Genec, THC,
I am aware of the different requirements for right turning when bike lanes are present in OR/AZ vs. CA. The laws are different because there is a difference between turning across vs. merging and turning and the laws attempt to clarify which method is correct/legal for the areas the law covers. Merging and turning is a normal traffic pattern. Turning across is not.
Al

[ChipSeal]

There is a bit of controversy on how motorists are supposed to execute a right turn when a bike lane is present. There is an animation of two methods here: http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2007/10/right_of_way_animation.html

LAB endorses the California style (merge and then turn.) I believe the Oregon law requiring drives to cross a bike lane is not the standard model used in the states. So unless specified I personally feel that the merge and turn can be assumed but that's just me.

Depending on the vehicle and the radius of the turn at the intersection. Long vehicles such as trucks and busses may not be able to merge into a bike lane and then execute a right turn without encroaching onto the sidewalk.

[Allister]

I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.

[John Forester]

I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.

Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.

[Allister]

Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.

And you're ingoring the fact that I've ridden through intersections to the right of potential right turning traffic, with and without bikelanes, hundreds, if not thousands of times in perfect safety. The times I've been left hooked is few (less than once a year), and those that did try either made it with me only needing to brake, or they backed off when they figured they weren't going to make it. I have never once actually been hit by a left crossing car. The drivers I share the road with on a daily basis seem to have figured it out. Maybe American motorists are just too stupid.

I've even made left turns from the right lane across through car traffic on the bike. It's just a matter of picking the gap, and not being concerned about having to brake a bit earlier for the turn. I don't know why you think it's so damn hard.

[invisiblehand]

I have no argument that looking for bikes in the bikelane isn't habitual for many people, but it's not that hard to learn and remember, nor is is contrary to any 'normal' traffic operation, the shrill whining from the VC peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The point is, it is a basic rule to give way to through traffic when turning - show me a rule that contradicts it - but due to the relative rarity of these events, many drivers simply haven't formed the habit. Forming good scanning habits is a fundamental requirement of safe driving, and anyone arguing that drivers should never have to adjust to new conditions with new habits is a fool. Whether or not it's 'normal' is irrelevant, it's just the safest and simplest way to reduce conflict at this type of intersection, or at least have someone to penalise when conflict occurs. If there are still problems at some intersections, only then should expensive engineering solutions be considered.

Personally, I reckon the simplest way to remind drivers is with signage admonishing them to give way to traffic in the bikelane when turning. It fits in with the established system, and is easy enough to follow. I don't see why compliance wouldn't be high, but if it isn't, simply start ticketing people.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the VCists do love a good drama.

It is hard for me to quantify the change in risk from having drivers turn right across bike lanes; but I think that it is more difficult than you describe for drivers to change habits. More generally, if we think about most accidents, all it would take to avoid them is a little more care and patience. Yet people make silly mistakes all of the time. My opinion is that cars waiting to the left to make a right-hand turn is just another small hurdle for a driver to make another silly mistake.

Hmmmm, did the passage make any sense?

[genec]

Allister, your have ignored human capabilities, known as human factors in the trade, when you argue that all it takes is instruction to look for traffic approaching behind you when turning right (or left in your nation). The analysis that this movement places much more strain on the turning driver's abilities was done and published more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, even before this analysis, standard road design and standard traffic operating rules had developed in just this way as the result of practical experience.

Uh John, more then 30 years ago when the "analysis" and "argument" was made, the typical auto did not have mandatory right hand side mirrors... which make checking a lane behind and to the right quite easy these days.

Your argument is therefore null and void. Times have changed. Give up the Hupmobile... :rolleyes: