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:
It is correct that when I first made that analysis I was thinking largely in terms of arc of vigilance. However, that also implies that the driver's mind has to consider what its eyes see. The turn across, rather than the merge first, still requires more mental consideration, starting with checking the mirror and then considering what is seen. Also, I know that I don't trust the outside mirrors to tell me that no traffic is present; they tell if some traffic is present, which is useful information, but, as the driving instructors teach, if nothing shows in the mirror, still make a direct look.
Therefore, I conclude that the direct turn across is still more dangerous than the merge before turning. And it is probably less effective, also, because with the merge first the turning driver does not have to stop, while with the turn across he must stop if bicycle traffic is there.
Helmet Head
03-26-08, 10:06 AM
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.
I take exception to describe merge and then turn as the "California style". Yes, that's what the law requires, but it's not how most drivers behave.
This is important because it illustrates that even when the law requires it, drivers tend not to do it, because this too is unnatural. That is, it is unnatural to merge into what is for all intents and purposes to the driver to be a striped shoulder or gore, even if the stripe is dashed rather than solid.
Yes, they will merge into that space if it's expedient to do so (just as they will encroach into a striped shoulder or gore when that's the expedient thing to do), but if there really is no apparent reason to merge into the bike lane, and, ironically, if any cyclists are present in the vicinity, they avoid it, and turn across it at the intersection, "Oregon/Arizona style".
So yes, if drivers in CA followed the law and merged into the bike lane prior to reaching their turn, they would not have to remember to check back on their right before turning right. But since it's unnatural to do that, they generally don't, and, so, even in CA drivers need to remember to do this in order to avoid right hooking cyclists who are encouraged by the bike lane to marshal on and pass the slowing motorist on the right.
None of us have the data to prove the behavior of cyclists passing slowing motorists on the right at intersection approaches would be reduced if bike lane stripes were eliminated at least 100 feet prior to any place where a right turn can be made, and that the behavior of right turning motorists leaving a 4-5 foot buffer space on their right until reaching the intersection would also be reduced by such stripe elimination, but it seems quite obvious to me that it would.
I am happier for the improved safety and treatment of cyclists at intersections without bike lane facilities as compared to intersections with bike lane facilities.
genec
03-26-08, 10:08 AM
It is correct that when I first made that analysis I was thinking largely in terms of arc of vigilance. However, that also implies that the driver's mind has to consider what its eyes see. The turn across, rather than the merge first, still requires more mental consideration, starting with checking the mirror and then considering what is seen. Also, I know that I don't trust the outside mirrors to tell me that no traffic is present; they tell if some traffic is present, which is useful information, but, as the driving instructors teach, if nothing shows in the mirror, still make a direct look.
Therefore, I conclude that the direct turn across is still more dangerous than the merge before turning. And it is probably less effective, also, because with the merge first the turning driver does not have to stop, while with the turn across he must stop if bicycle traffic is there.
My mirrors allow me to have a very wide view of objects on the right side of my car; like most such mirrors, they are convex, thus allowing a wider angle of view then that offered by a flat mirror. Drivers need only develop the habit of actually using the mirror and regularly glancing at it, as they should all other mirrors, and indicators in and around their vehicle... of course this means they should not be distracted by such things as cell phones and Starbucks... neither of which was readily available 30 years ago. Of course they may need a bit more time to check all these mirrors, windows and gauges, so perhaps motorists should slow down... 30 years ago the mandatory speed limit was 55MPH and no higher; today even arterial roads may have speed limits over 55MPH.
Oddly enough, 30 years after the last "gas crisis" we are still having "issues" with gasoline...
Perhaps a better solution is needed. I tend to agree that a merge and turn is better than a direct turn... but then these traffic situations have only been studied for 30 years or so...
The Human Car
03-26-08, 12:24 PM
I take exception to describe merge and then turn as the "California style". Yes, that's what the law requires, but it's not how most drivers behave.
But that's only half the problem, things would be cool if we can get cyclists to merge with the motorists but that seems to be not how most cyclists behave either. It seems to me if there is space to the right most cyclists will filter to the front, bike lane or not. This is a major problem on how society in general views proper right hand turn behavior with a cyclists riding rightmost in a lane (bike lane or not.)
What I am wondering is if there is a difference between curbside bike lanes and bike lanes that come off of a parking lane as the latter sort of gets the cyclists in a better road position and motorists would generally feel funny making a right turn that far out.
So far my experience in the City with bike lanes coming off of a parking lane (I don't know if we have any curb side bike lanes) is a 100% compliance of motorists that wait behind me before getting into the right hand turn lane.
Helmet Head
03-26-08, 12:40 PM
But that's only half the problem, things would be cool if we can get cyclists to merge with the motorists but that seems to be not how most cyclists behave either. It seems to me if there is space to the right most cyclists will filter to the front, bike lane or not. This is a major problem on how society in general views proper right hand turn behavior with a cyclists riding rightmost in a lane (bike lane or not.)
What I am wondering is if there is a difference between curbside bike lanes and bike lanes that come off of a parking lane as the latter sort of gets the cyclists in a better road position and motorists would generally feel funny making a right turn that far out.
So far my experience in the City with bike lanes coming off of a parking lane (I don't know if we have any curb side bike lanes) is a 100% compliance of motorists that wait behind me before getting into the right hand turn lane.
When, after the point where curb parking is allowed, a door zone bike lane stays "out there", to the left of the normal "right turn zone", and doesn't jog over to the curb, , then yes, it does do a relatively good job of encouraging cyclist behavior that makes right hooks less likely.
I think this illustrates that driver behavior is much less than half the problem. As most if not all of the participants in this discussion know, the behavior of the cyclist is what determines more than anything else the related behavior of the motorists around them, regardless of the presence of the stripe. But the majority of cyclists don't understand this, and the stripe misguides them into thinking all they have to do is ride in the bike lane, and let the motorists worry about the rest. They just luck out if the bike lane doesn't place them to the right of potentially right turning traffic.
I'm surprised that you're not sure if you have any curbside bike lanes. Most of our bike lanes are on roads without curbside parking, and so guide through cyclists along the curb up to the intersection (though the stripe usually becomes dashed about 30' prior to the intersection), placing the cyclist to the right of potentially right turning motorists in the outside "right or straight" lane.
Bekologist
03-27-08, 09:05 AM
and where would most bicyclists be without the bike lane stripe, head? THE EXACT SAME POSITION. not you and us assertive vc, but the vast majority of bicyclists.
however, if the intersection is big enough to call for RTO lanes, placement of a bike pocket to the left of all right turning traffic improves an intersection, EVEN for the most diehard of vehicularists, and does NOT contradict vehicular rules of the road while on your bike.
Happier WITH.
and Barry's mention of buffered parking bike lanes put most bicyclists out in a much better road position than weaving in and out of all the parked cars.
Happier WITH.
The Human Car
03-27-08, 10:07 AM
and where would most bicyclists be without the bike lane stripe, head? THE EXACT SAME POSITION. not you and use assertive vc but the vast majority of bicyclists.
however, if the intersection is big enough to call for RTO lanes, placement of a bike pocket to the left of all right turning traffic improves an intersection, EVEN for the most diehard of vehicularists, and does NOT contradict vehicular rules of the road while on your bike.
Happier WITH.
and Barry's mention of buffered parking bike lanes put most bicyclists out in a much better road position than weaving in and out of all the parked cars.
Happier WITH.
You make a good point about the problems of weaving in and out of parked cars. Do we have any good data or speculation on why mid-block fatalities are more prevalent then intersection fatalities?
JF makes an argument that bike lanes should have have a slightly higher crash rate then non-bike lane roads by adding a slight increase at intersections and subtracting a slight decrease in rear end-collisions. But if you start subtracting the improved safety for weaving, wrong way riding and sidewalk riding using JF's logic you should come up with that bike lanes should show a slight improvement in safety.
John Forester
03-27-08, 03:53 PM
and where would most bicyclists be without the bike lane stripe, head? THE EXACT SAME POSITION. not you and us assertive vc, but the vast majority of bicyclists.
however, if the intersection is big enough to call for RTO lanes, placement of a bike pocket to the left of all right turning traffic improves an intersection, EVEN for the most diehard of vehicularists, and does NOT contradict vehicular rules of the road while on your bike.
Happier WITH.
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even with the positioning to which you refer. the bike lane contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
The Human Car
03-27-08, 04:47 PM
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even with the positioning to which you refer. the bike lane contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even without bike lanes to which you refer. Lane sharing/staying right contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
Helmet Head
03-27-08, 06:00 PM
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even without bike lanes to which you refer. Lane sharing/staying right contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
Lane sharing/staying right does not contradict the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists, though it does for through and left-turning cyclists (contradicting the principle of destination positioning). But that's a cyclist behavior problem that's need to be corrected.
With bike lanes at intersections it's the facility, the engineering itself, that contradicts the rules of the road, and serves as an official sanction of behavior that contradicts the rules of the road (for right-turning motorists as well as for through and left-turning cyclists).
Can you really not see and appreciate the enormous difference?
Allister
03-27-08, 07:37 PM
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even with the positioning to which you refer. the bike lane contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
How did you even qualify as an engineer? In all my years in the field, I've never come across anyone so rigid, dogmatic and devoid of imagination as you. Stay out of the subject if you're so incapable of recognising good design when you see it.
John Forester
03-27-08, 08:38 PM
You shouldn't be presenting so silly an argument. Even without bike lanes to which you refer. Lane sharing/staying right contradicts the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists and left-turning cyclists, and, in most cases, contradicts the rules of the road for changing lanes.
Well, of course, a cyclist who doesn't follow the rules of the road disobeys them, which is what you are saying. However, without a bike-lane stripe to confuse the issue, there is no indication that the cyclist should disobey the rules of the road. With a bike-lane stripe, somebody with some movement has the choice of obeying the stripe and disobeying the rules of the road, or of disobeying the strip in order to follow the rules of the road.
John Forester
03-27-08, 08:49 PM
How did you even qualify as an engineer? In all my years in the field, I've never come across anyone so rigid, dogmatic and devoid of imagination as you. Stay out of the subject if you're so incapable of recognising good design when you see it.
Well, Allister, I am pleased to learn that you have learned so much about my career. I have advanced knowledge in four or five different fields of science and engineering, and my work in engineering has been recognized as being the product of original thought beyond the typical bounds. It is precisely because I am an original and creative thinker that I am able to recognize the defects in the typical popular designs, and it is because I have the confidence in my knowledge and the personal security for doing right that I choose to present that which is better.
The Human Car
03-27-08, 10:48 PM
Lane sharing/staying right does not contradict the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists, though it does for through and left-turning cyclists (contradicting the principle of destination positioning). But that's a cyclist behavior problem that's need to be corrected.
With bike lanes at intersections it's the facility, the engineering itself, that contradicts the rules of the road, and serves as an official sanction of behavior that contradicts the rules of the road (for right-turning motorists as well as for through and left-turning cyclists).
Can you really not see and appreciate the enormous difference?
Right now what I see is 50% of bike/car crashes are our fault, with wrong way, sidewalk riding, weaving in and out of parked cars, pulling out driveways and running stops being the major contributers. In engineering you generally try and solve the big problems first and given the above problem set bike lanes are not an unreasonable attempt to solve (just) these major problems. Of course the real issue is the facts as we have them bike lanes have made no significant difference. The reason that has been put forth is bike lanes do nothing to significantly change the default behavior of cyclists. Or we could assert that the reason why bike lanes are placed the way they are is because that is the default position of cyclists. All I have come to appreciate is that there is no difference other then the comfort factor for cyclists.
The Human Car
03-27-08, 11:13 PM
Well, of course, a cyclist who doesn't follow the rules of the road disobeys them, which is what you are saying. However, without a bike-lane stripe to confuse the issue, there is no indication that the cyclist should disobey the rules of the road. With a bike-lane stripe, somebody with some movement has the choice of obeying the stripe and disobeying the rules of the road, or of disobeying the strip in order to follow the rules of the road.
Well of course a WOL disobeys the rules of the road, which is what you are saying. However, without a bike-lane stripe to clarify the issue, there is no indication that the cyclist should disobey the rules of the road to stay right. Without a bike-lane stripe, somebody with some movement has the choice of obeying the stay right and disobeying the rules of the road, or of disobeying the stay right in order to follow the rules of the road.
I bit awkward word replacement attempt but my points are:
It is a silly argument that bike lanes increase safety.
It is a silly argument that bike lanes decrease safety.
What is needed is to free cyclists' mind from the right side of the road or the bike lane stripe.
The same "think" of obeying/disobeying the implied engineering is applicable with and without bike lanes, nether is natural or the default behavior.
Allister
03-27-08, 11:15 PM
Well, Allister, I am pleased to learn that you have learned so much about my career.
I'm only going by what I see here.
It is precisely because I am an original and creative thinker that I am able to recognize the defects in the typical popular designs, and it is because I have the confidence in my knowledge and the personal security for doing right that I choose to present that which is better.
:rolleyes:If you say so. All I've seen is a cranky old man set in his ways.
The Human Car
03-27-08, 11:23 PM
Lane sharing/staying right does not contradict the rules of the road for right-turning cyclists, though it does for through and left-turning cyclists (contradicting the principle of destination positioning). But that's a cyclist behavior problem that's need to be corrected.
I forgot to answer this bit. There is a huge problem with a cyclists and motor vehicle sharing the same lane (traveling side-by-side) while executing a right hand turn, if you need more detail on this let me know.
Almost all of this conversation comes down to cyclist behavior problem that's need to be corrected, especially without bike lanes (and even with bike lanes.) No road design defaults to improved cyclists safety.
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 01:01 AM
Right now what I see is 50% of bike/car crashes are our fault, with wrong way, sidewalk riding, weaving in and out of parked cars, pulling out driveways and running stops being the major contributers. In engineering you generally try and solve the big problems first and given the above problem set bike lanes are not an unreasonable attempt to solve (just) these major problems. Of course the real issue is the facts as we have them bike lanes have made no significant difference. The reason that has been put forth is bike lanes do nothing to significantly change the default behavior of cyclists. Or we could assert that the reason why bike lanes are placed the way they are is because that is the default position of cyclists. All I have come to appreciate is that there is no difference other then the comfort factor for cyclists.
I won't disagree with that.
My argument is that the solution must ultimately come from changing how people (primarily cyclists and potential cyclists) think about what is proper/appropriate/safe behavior when cycling in traffic, and the existence of bike lanes inhibits that from happening.
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 01:11 AM
I forgot to answer this bit. There is a huge problem with a cyclists and motor vehicle sharing the same lane (traveling side-by-side) while executing a right hand turn, if you need more detail on this let me know.
I agree sharing a lane during a turn should be avoided, but starting a right turn near the curb (in the bike lane) is not violating the rules of the road. The problem with sharing lanes during turns, by the way, is another topic that I think Franklin covers better than Forester or Hurst.
Almost all of this conversation comes down to cyclist behavior problem that's need to be corrected, especially without bike lanes (and even with bike lanes.) No road design defaults to improved cyclists safety.
We agree the root problem is cyclist behavior that needs to be corrected.
But the mere existence of facilities that encourage the behavior that needs to be corrected, and discourage the corrected behavior, both of which bike lanes do, hinder our ability to bring about these changes in cyclist behavior.
Perhaps more importantly, just as supporting bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for "supporting bicycling", opposing bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for recognizing that "bike lanes encourage/reinforce the very behavior that we should be trying to discourage".
In other words, the level of opposition to bike lanes within the cycling community is a rough measure of how well this problem is understood and appreciated. Right now it's looking pretty grim, but I'm optimistic.
The Human Car
03-28-08, 06:58 AM
...my work in engineering has been recognized ...
You are like a writer who has written one of the best movies of all times and then wrote one of the worst movies of all times. One cannot conclude that you are a good writer or a good engineer from your past work.
Fear&Trembling
03-28-08, 08:02 AM
:rolleyes:If you say so. All I've seen is a cranky old man set in his ways.
"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory".
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thompson
I-Like-To-Bike
03-28-08, 08:06 AM
You are like a writer who has written one of the best movies of all times and then wrote one of the worst movies of all times. One cannot conclude that you are a good writer or a good engineer from your past work.
Actually more like a writer who believes he has written the best book of all times; and further believes that all other writers' work should be written just like it. And the Original Great Writer shall be the one and only judge of what books are to considered "good" and which authors are "competent." Any book readers who disagree are to be considered suffering from some sort of psychological problem, inferiority complex, or superstition.
Script
03-28-08, 08:15 AM
I agree sharing a lane during a turn should be avoided, but starting a right turn near the curb (in the bike lane) is not violating the rules of the road. The problem with sharing lanes during turns, by the way, is another topic that I think Franklin covers better than Forester or Hurst.
We agree the root problem is cyclist behavior that needs to be corrected.
But the mere existence of facilities that encourage the behavior that needs to be corrected, and discourage the corrected behavior, both of which bike lanes do, hinder our ability to bring about these changes in cyclist behavior.
Perhaps more importantly, just as supporting bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for "supporting bicycling", opposing bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for recognizing that "bike lanes encourage/reinforce the very behavior that we should be trying to discourage".
In other words, the level of opposition to bike lanes within the cycling community is a rough measure of how well this problem is understood and appreciated. Right now it's looking pretty grim, but I'm optimistic.
I hesitate to join this conversation but, in essence, I agree with most of what you say here. :)
I do have an issue with using bike facilities versus no facilities as the key to improved conditions overall. Certainly if all cyclists followed the rules of the road all the time( and motorists did so as well), there would be no need for any 'special' facilities.
I'm now preparing to be labeled for being anti-biker. My experience has been that the staunchest VC'ers as well as the staunchest BL'ers would do well to look inwardly.
I've been doing more group riding, for the sake of experiment, and find that with both types of advocates, rules of the road only apply some of the time. And the timing has mostly to do with convenience or laziness. Yeah, it could be argued that no biker is lazy but if that were true, how come so many have trouble doing something so simple as recognizing signs and signals?
I picked up a group yesterday and heard complaints that the the two-way stops on the route they were taking gets in the way of their progress. There have been occasions where they actually had to put a foot down and stop for cross traffic.
And how about the lead rider that thinks a hand signal indicating that a car should wait, even though it may have arrived at an intersection simultaneously, should be enough to authorize everyone following to proceed.
In instances where there is no bike lane, I've watched bikers move up along the right side of a line of traffic if there was any possible way to squeeze through. Is there something about priority that is confusing to them?
These are not the 'childish' cyclists described elsewhere. These are people that are out riding every day.
What looks most grim to me is the chance that motorists will ever think most cyclists will follow the rules when the 'regulars' constantly don't.
The misfortune is spending all this time talking as if it were a technical issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.:(
So who do we educate???
genec
03-28-08, 08:33 AM
What is needed is to free cyclists' mind from the right side of the road or the bike lane stripe.
As long as there is an issue of "faster same direction traffic" and a mindset that slow traffic must keep to the right... cyclists will always tend to stick to the right side of the road, stripe or no stripe.
Get ride of "faster same direction traffic" and the problem is solved automatically.
Designing surface streets with 55MPH posted speed limits does not solve the problem.
genec
03-28-08, 08:48 AM
So who do we educate???
The interesting thing is that some that rant the most about cyclists' education are themselves hearty believers in exactly some of the very issues you mentioned... and they justify it by saying it is consistent with the "spirit" of the rules of the road.
***********************************************
To take another tack however, bear in mind that the laws of the road and traffic control devices are designed with motorists in mind, not cyclists. That bit of laziness you mentioned is not so much laziness, but an effort to maintain efficiency by preserving inertia. Every stop wastes energy. Now oddly enough, this has been somewhat recognized for motorists, and the result was "right turn on red." Of course those right turn on red laws, while reducing waste for motorists also increased the accidents between motorists and peds and cyclists.
Only one state that I am aware of has recognized the issue of the design of traffic devices being primarily for motorists and has modified the law for cyclists... Idaho.
See http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.
(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section
49-643, Idaho Code.
(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not
less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before
turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand
is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 08:53 AM
Designing surface streets with 55MPH posted speed limits does not solve the problem.
You keep saying this and I agree. I also haven't seen anyone else directly disagree.
I estimate that reduced speed limits to below 55mph for surface streets in suburban/urban areas would be welcomed by pretty much all cycling advocates.
Al
genec
03-28-08, 08:58 AM
Therefore, I conclude that the direct turn across is still more dangerous than the merge before turning. And it is probably less effective, also, because with the merge first the turning driver does not have to stop, while with the turn across he must stop if bicycle traffic is there.
I won't disagree with you there... as the merge and turn allows for a smoother interface between cyclists and motorists... But how to convince motorists that merge and turn is the proper method? Far too often I see motorists doing wide fast turns (and thus disobeying the law that a motorist should move close to the curb to make a turn), and this happens regardless of the existence of bike lanes.
This all goes right back to motorists not following the rules of the road. Heck, I have even seen motorists making right turns from the second lane over... just to avoid merging with cyclists riding centered in the right lane... that clearly is a situation where the cyclist is behaving quite vehicular, but is "violated" by a motorist.
genec
03-28-08, 09:00 AM
You keep saying this and I agree. I also haven't seen anyone else directly disagree.
I estimate that reduced speed limits to below 55mph for surface streets in suburban/urban areas would be welcomed by pretty much all cycling advocates.
Al
Hey, so we all have a common goal... :eek: That seems like a first to me!!! :beer::beer::beer:
Do we start the petitions now to repeal the 85% rule?
I-Like-To-Bike
03-28-08, 09:03 AM
So who do we educate???
First you should figure out who comprises this nebulous "we" group of educators allegedly prepared to educate "who" on bicycling issues. And what are "We's" qualifications or previous results from cycling education programs. Besides arrogance and wishful thinking.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 09:09 AM
Hey, so we all have a common goal... :eek: That seems like a first to me!!! :beer::beer::beer:
Do we start the petitions now to repeal the 85% rule?
I dunno if we do. I estimate there is no objection from cyclists as to the end result, but there may be objection in making this a cycling advocacy priority though. If it was a top goal I wonder how the motoring public would think of cycling advocates (finally coming together :) ) and using their now massive clout ;) to make motoring slower. (If only in appearance, not in practice)
I comment on this mainly as this thread is about facilities and there is grand debate there, but when you keep bringing up lowering speed limits I can't see how it fits in.
Stricter SL enforcement would be a higher priority for me. I am fine with 45mph SL arterials, but not fine that the enforcement speed limit is 56mph.
Al
genec
03-28-08, 09:57 AM
I dunno if we do. I estimate there is no objection from cyclists as to the end result, but there may be objection in making this a cycling advocacy priority though. If it was a top goal I wonder how the motoring public would think of cycling advocates (finally coming together :) ) and using their now massive clout ;) to make motoring slower. (If only in appearance, not in practice)
I comment on this mainly as this thread is about facilities and there is grand debate there, but when you keep bringing up lowering speed limits I can't see how it fits in.
Stricter SL enforcement would be a higher priority for me. I am fine with 45mph SL arterials, but not fine that the enforcement speed limit is 56mph.
Al
Frankly it all boils down to this... we don't need facilities (good or bad) if we can all share the road together. I have often found that 25MPH areas such as residential streets and downtown corridors work quite well for cyclists. Nothing else is needed.
As road speeds increase, the faster same direction laws fall into place and eventually cyclists cry for some separation scheme.
Lower road speeds and that cry goes away. So indeed, road speeds and facilities go hand in hand.
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 10:21 AM
I hesitate to join this conversation but, in essence, I agree with most of what you say here. :)
I do have an issue with using bike facilities versus no facilities as the key to improved conditions overall. Certainly if all cyclists followed the rules of the road all the time( and motorists did so as well), there would be no need for any 'special' facilities.
I'm now preparing to be labeled for being anti-biker. My experience has been that the staunchest VC'ers as well as the staunchest BL'ers would do well to look inwardly.
I've been doing more group riding, for the sake of experiment, and find that with both types of advocates, rules of the road only apply some of the time. And the timing has mostly to do with convenience or laziness. Yeah, it could be argued that no biker is lazy but if that were true, how come so many have trouble doing something so simple as recognizing signs and signals?
I picked up a group yesterday and heard complaints that the the two-way stops on the route they were taking gets in the way of their progress. There have been occasions where they actually had to put a foot down and stop for cross traffic.
And how about the lead rider that thinks a hand signal indicating that a car should wait, even though it may have arrived at an intersection simultaneously, should be enough to authorize everyone following to proceed.
In instances where there is no bike lane, I've watched bikers move up along the right side of a line of traffic if there was any possible way to squeeze through. Is there something about priority that is confusing to them?
These are not the 'childish' cyclists described elsewhere. These are people that are out riding every day.
What looks most grim to me is the chance that motorists will ever think most cyclists will follow the rules when the 'regulars' constantly don't.
The misfortune is spending all this time talking as if it were a technical issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.:(
So who do we educate???
:beer:
The experience you describe is very typical.
This is exactly why I think we need to focus on existing "experienced" riders, like your group cyclists (and, presumably, many of the members of this forum), first. If we can't can't get them to understand and appreciate these concepts, there is no way we'll get them to adopt them. The good news is that if we can get the regular core (if you will) cyclists to appreciate and adopt these concepts, by the people-are-sheep principle, they should spread from there.
And I am optimistic about this, because we have logic and reason on our side.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 10:21 AM
Frankly it all boils down to this... we don't need facilities (good or bad) if we can all share the road together. I have often found that 25MPH areas such as residential streets and downtown corridors work quite well for cyclists. Nothing else is needed.
As road speeds increase, the faster same direction laws fall into place and eventually cyclists cry for some separation scheme.
Lower road speeds and that cry goes away. So indeed, road speeds and facilities go hand in hand.
I wish it was that simple in terms of advocacy agreement. Today you list a threshold of 25mph. I've also heard 45mph.
Here is how I would like to see 'it':
-No bike lanes stripes on 25mph roads
-Wide outside lanes on roads >35mph (which doesn't mean roads less than 35mph should not have them)
-OK to stripe part of the wide outside lane as a bike lane on roads 45mph and greater, but with no stripe 100-200' before any intersection, the stripes should create a wide bike lane (that is greater than AASTHO minimum width) and a with highly regular and long term well funded maintenance (sweeping) plan.
So yes, the speed of a road should be considered in facilities design - but the call for reducing urban surface street speed limits to below 55mph is and should be totally independent of facilities - that was my point.
Al
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 10:24 AM
As long as there is an issue of "faster same direction traffic" and a mindset that slow traffic must keep to the right... cyclists will always tend to stick to the right side of the road, stripe or no stripe.
Get ride of "faster same direction traffic" and the problem is solved automatically.
Designing surface streets with 55MPH posted speed limits does not solve the problem.
Slower traffic keeps right is a fundamental vehicular rule of the road and it's a good one.
It's relevant to cycling on a 35 mph just as much as it applies on a 55 mph, so I don't understand why you're so hung up on "high speed" roads.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 10:29 AM
Slower traffic keeps right is a fundamental vehicular rule of the road and it's a good one.
It's relevant to cycling on a 35 mph just as much as it applies on a 55 mph, so I don't understand why you're so hung up on "high speed" roads.
I want a WOL or a shoulder on 55mph roads if for just having room for getting out of the way of a driver who does not see me despite my centerish lane position. On a 35mph road there is more time and opportunity to deal with a same direction driver who does not appear to notice.
Al
The Human Car
03-28-08, 11:14 AM
We agree the root problem is cyclist behavior that needs to be corrected.
But the mere existence of facilities that encourage the behavior that needs to be corrected, and discourage the corrected behavior, both of which bike lanes do, hinder our ability to bring about these changes in cyclist behavior.
Perhaps more importantly, just as supporting bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for "supporting bicycling", opposing bike lanes is symbolic or iconic for recognizing that "bike lanes encourage/reinforce the very behavior that we should be trying to discourage".
In other words, the level of opposition to bike lanes within the cycling community is a rough measure of how well this problem is understood and appreciated. Right now it's looking pretty grim, but I'm optimistic.
The mere existence of facilities that encourage the behavior that needs to be corrected is exactly why roads without bike lanes have been targeted to be fixed and why this is a problem in the first place. There has been some acknowledgment that bike lanes coming off a parking lane may function better then a curb side bike lane. So I'll assert that there are some percentage of bike lanes that:
Help a given situation
Are (mostly) harmless in a given situation
Help one situation but hurt another
With the latter I don't think it has been proven yet that engineering can't fix it.
So far my position and thought process goes something like this:
Extra width is desirable
If there were only 10' and 14'-15' lanes I could stop here but road widths in-between I think cause problems as not being clear on whether the lane is side by side sharable or not, so lanes that are side by side sharable need to be clarified somehow.
Stripes are desirable
Stripes help clarify where and how a motor vehicle driver can safely pass a cyclist. If the cyclists is on one side of the stripe the driver can pass in their lane and if on the other side the driver has to do a lateral shift in order to safely pass. And stripes can be used to fix the problem mentioned above.
How to mark the area to the right of the stripe problem
This area is where I think the bulk of the hornet nest lies. Marking the area as a bike ghetto area can have negative repercussions and marking that bikes belong on the road can have positive repercussion. I lack the tools to determine what side if any overpowers the other side.
Locally we have major issues with nondescript lanes or curb lanes. Most people call these things bike lanes anyway and the lack of the bike designation means they get striped to the right of right hand turn lanes and can end without notice (most disconcerting when they end around a right hand bend in the road) and other issues that make bike lane problems look lame. So I see the bike lane designation as one way to fix those problems.
Too many current road designs are not used safely by cyclists and it is as much the fault of the road design as it is the cyclists for their lack of training and this has to change on both sides, engineering and education. I see the lack of strong advocacy for good and desirable bike facilities among the anti-bike lane crowd as shooting themselves in the foot. A WOL should clearly be a WOL and a NOL should clearly be a NOL as they dictate two separate kinds of cyclists and motorists interactions. If I remember JF's argument correctly he claims that a VC can safely navigate a NOL, WOL and everything in between. We'll ya but that's not advocating good engineering and without good strong alternate engineering advocacy it all sort of slides down to supporting bike lanes. IMO a (12'-)13' lane is not a WOL nor a NOL and can create more problems then most bike lanes when we are talking about a non VC trained cyclists.
There are tons of negative stuff in both the anti-bike lane VC camp and the bike lane camp and I really do not see any clear villain or savor in any of this debate.
genec
03-28-08, 11:18 AM
I wish it was that simple in terms of advocacy agreement. Today you list a threshold of 25mph. I've also heard 45mph.
Here is how I would like to see 'it':
-No bike lanes stripes on 25mph roads
-Wide outside lanes on roads >35mph (which doesn't mean roads less than 35mph should not have them)
-OK to stripe part of the wide outside lane as a bike lane on roads 45mph and greater, but with no stripe 100-200' before any intersection, the stripes should create a wide bike lane (that is greater than AASTHO minimum width) and a with highly regular and long term well funded maintenance (sweeping) plan.
So yes, the speed of a road should be considered in facilities design - but the call for reducing urban surface street speed limits to below 55mph is and should be totally independent of facilities - that was my point.
Al
Actually we are in full agreement. See that wasn't that hard. We are especially in agreement over the 25MPH areas.
As for 55MPH (or over 45MPH), there really isn't any reason that surface streets should be signed at anything over 45.
genec
03-28-08, 11:19 AM
I want a WOL or a shoulder on 55mph roads if for just having room for getting out of the way of a driver who does not see me despite my centerish lane position. On a 35mph road there is more time and opportunity to deal with a same direction driver who does not appear to notice.
Al
Bingo... plus at higher speeds motorists tend to treat the roads as freeways and come to expect freeway like movement and responses.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 11:21 AM
Actually we are in full agreement.
We may be, but this proposal gets lots of negative feedback (without any specifics of why) from many cycling advocates, some on BF. I am not sure why.
Al
genec
03-28-08, 11:32 AM
We may be, but this proposal gets lots of negative feedback (without any specifics of why) from many cycling advocates, some on BF. I am not sure why.
Al
Uh, cause they are motorists too?
noisebeam
03-28-08, 11:35 AM
Uh, cause they are motorists too?
I don't want to name names, but these folks are often rabidly anti-motorist, so I don't think that is it.
Al
The Human Car
03-28-08, 11:50 AM
We may be, but this proposal gets lots of negative feedback (without any specifics of why) from many cycling advocates, some on BF. I am not sure why.
If it helps any you have my support of your proposal.
genec
03-28-08, 11:50 AM
I don't want to name names, but these folks are often rabidly anti-motorist, so I don't think that is it.
Al
I don't know... it was a guess on my part. Seems to me slowing down autos should be goal for all cyclists.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 11:54 AM
I don't know... it was a guess on my part. Seems to me slowing down autos should be goal for all cyclists.
Ok, we are mixed up in what we are talking about. There were two different items we were in agreement with. The first (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6420414&postcount=528) was reduced SLs, the second (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6421302&postcount=537) was the facilities proposal I made. I was only discussing that second area of agreement and wondering why other advocates find it problematic.
Al
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 11:54 AM
I don't know... it was a guess on my part. Seems to me slowing down autos should be goal for all cyclists.
It is for me, when I need them to slow down (like for an intersection approach, merge approach, or for a left turn). Then I adjust my behavior so that it causes them to slow down.
But I have no desire to slow them down when it doesn't matter to me.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 12:08 PM
Here is a photo of a recently completed project to paint the paths red that connect the bike lanes on each side of an intersection. In this case it was a good thing as the only thru lanes are for bicycles only. Motorist must turn left or right and the red lane help clarify to left turning motorists that cyclists can and will go thru intersection.
However it was marketed (in part, not solely) as "...drivers too often veered into lanes reserved for bicyclists, said Amanda Nelson, a Tempe transit spokeswoman. “This will further define who belongs where,” Nelson said."
Now look at the post-red path implementation and where the school bus driver who is turning right is positioned:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/breaking/0326tr-bikelanes0327.jpg
A cyclist coming up fully within the bike lane next to the turning bus will be wiped out by the rear end of the bus swinging well into the bike lane as it turns.
And the public feedback? "'I'm sure militant bicycleweiners will still feel entitled to ride out in the middle of the road [despite the bike lane]"
So once again a bike lane stripe will never keep motorist out of the space it defines, yet the lane and the marketing "define who belongs where" reinforces the incorrect message that cyclist must stay in it.
Al
John Forester
03-28-08, 12:15 PM
I won't disagree with you there... as the merge and turn allows for a smoother interface between cyclists and motorists... But how to convince motorists that merge and turn is the proper method? Far too often I see motorists doing wide fast turns (and thus disobeying the law that a motorist should move close to the curb to make a turn), and this happens regardless of the existence of bike lanes.
This all goes right back to motorists not following the rules of the road. Heck, I have even seen motorists making right turns from the second lane over... just to avoid merging with cyclists riding centered in the right lane... that clearly is a situation where the cyclist is behaving quite vehicular, but is "violated" by a motorist.
The bike-lane stripe is just one more method of convincing motorists to make the turn across instead of the merge before turn, and therefore inhibiting proper operation.
genec
03-28-08, 12:34 PM
The bike-lane stripe is just one more method of convincing motorists to make the turn across instead of the merge before turn, and therefore inhibiting proper operation.
Ah ha, then once again it comes down to training motorists properly. Especially in light of bike lanes that are in fact "dotted," to use the CalTrans term, and actually end well before the intersection... In these cases, there is no BL to confuse the motorists... they simply chose poor behavior anyway.
noisebeam
03-28-08, 12:36 PM
Especially in light of bike lanes that are in fact "dotted," to use the CalTrans term, and actually end well before the intersection...
Which is it? Is the bike lane stripe dotted at intersection approaches or does the bike lane end?
Al
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 12:46 PM
Ah ha, then once again it comes down to training motorists properly. Especially in light of bike lanes that are in fact "dotted," to use the CalTrans term, and actually end well before the intersection... In these cases, there is no BL to confuse the motorists... they simply chose poor behavior anyway.
Oh, please. If you pay much attention at all to driver behavior in and around San Diego you know a dotted stripe inhibits proper merging into the too-narrow-for-a-car space it demarcates by right-turning motorists nearly as much (if not as much) as does a solid stripe.
If a bike lane is continued with a dotted stripe it does not end until the dotted stripe ends.