Advocacy & Safety - Magazine Editor Blames Bike Lanes for Portland, OR Fatalities

More in the VC vs. "accomodations" wars.


Schubert’s column is just the tip of the sword in a prolonged duel for the hearts and minds of American cyclists, bike planners and traffic engineers. It’s being waged by a persistent and vocal group (commonly referred to as vehicular cyclists) who favor equal integration of cars and bikes (instead of finding ways to separate the two modes) and think anyone who throws a leg over a bike should be highly trained to play on a level playing field with motor vehicles

On the other side of the battlefield are bike planners and traffic engineers who use successes seen in cities like Portland, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen as their guide and see a direct correlation between building bike-specific infrastructure (like bike lanes, traffic-calming, bike-only signals, bike boxes) and increased ridership. On this side of the battle, the thinking is that, “if you build it, they will come” and to acknowledge the differences between bikes and cars while trying to make the experience for both as comfortable, safe, and efficient as possible.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/04/30/magazine-editor-blames-bike-lanes-for-portland-fatalities/

good article. Illustrates the marginalization of bicycling in the US by adhering to autocentric design policies, and how solutions and innovative approaches are shot down by the obstructionists, to the detriment of cyclists here. Boston now looking to Portland for ideas on how to increase modal share, interesting..... :D

If we are going to insist on VC'ing cyclists then we should DEMAND that motor vehicle drivers attend proper training classes too (36 hours in NC is all it takes to get a license)... Right now there are way to many cyclists that have no clue of even the most basic rules of the road, how do they plan to teach them VC? Get cycling specific infrastructure complete with cycle mounted police to educate and enforce.

Aaron:)

MA laws are greatly in favor of cyceling. Cites benfit from VC suburbs should have bike paths. or "W i D E bike lanes.

Did anyone here listen to the public radio interview with Schubert and Geller?

Did anyone here listen to the public radio interview with Schubert and Geller?

Here it is (http://stream1.opb.org:9000/tol/episodes/2008/0506.mp3), for anyone who wants to listen. (mp3 format)

Here it is (http://stream1.opb.org:9000/tol/episodes/2008/0506.mp3), for anyone who wants to listen. (mp3 format)

I did. Schubert claims that his primary point of the article was the "coffin corner" or bike lanes striped to the intersection.

By my reading of the article, he strays from addressing bike lanes striped to the intersection a bit by raising the VC education flag and a handful of other points. But from what I have read and heard about the two deaths, his point about the bike lanes striped to the intersection is appropriate. That is, almost everyone seems to agree that the bike lanes in these two instances were a factor. At least this is true with Geller, Portland Police Department, and Schubert.

How to address the issue is a different problem. Personally, I am interested to see whether the blue paint -- or whatever color they go with -- works. I recall that Portland uses this at other intersections. Was there an analysis of those intersections?

Arlington (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=qKy&resnum=0&q=Military+Rd+%26+Nelly+Custis+Dr,+Arlington,+VA+22207,+USA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title) has at least one -- that is, I recall one -- section where the bike lane is painted blue/purple at a place of conflict. When one travels east on Military Road switching to Nelly Custis Drive, there is a colored bike lane for such traffic.

More in the VC vs. "accomodations" wars. ...

I wonder whether the purported duel is as pervasive and extreme as some folks claim. I think most of us welcome certain well-designed forms of bicyclist accommodations, such as shoulders or wide outer lanes on prime arterials with or without bike lane demarcation, bicycle-sensing traffic signals, and bike lanes between through-only and right-turn-only lanes. Most of us also acknowledge or at least recognize the hazards posed to pedestrians and bicyclists by high-speed multi-lane free diverges, merges, and unions. In extremely heavy urban traffic congestion, most of us will filter up to a red light, whether or not a blue bike box has been painted on the asphalt, to avoid missing out on the next green cycle.

My position is relatively simple, in the sense that the smaller the speed differential between motorists and bicyclists, the more my philosophy resembles VC integration. At higher motor vehicle speeds, I want at least lateral separation and some form of safe accommodation at each major intersection. Where two free right turn lanes sweep 50mph traffic onto a freeway entrance or two fast freeway offramp lanes come in on the right side of a union, I'll look hard for a good alternate route every time.

By the way, I concur emphatically that a bike lane should not continue up to the right side of a right-turn-only or right-turn-optional lane.

I wonder whether the purported duel is as pervasive and extreme as some folks claim.

I think the VC folk are very vocal and tenacious...some to the point of religious zealotry (remember HH?).

Their strident advocacy does, I fear, impact on how these issues play out in the political realm.

I exchanged emails recently with some of the higher-ups in the California Bicycle Coaltion, asking whether it would be possible for them to promote a bill allowing cyclists to treat Stop signs like Yield signs (as they are currently allowed in Idaho and some other states).

Although their reply did not use the term "Vehicular Cyclist", the CBC rep said that they would expect pushback from "vocal cycling advocates" who would "object to any laws that treated cyclists differently than motorists". For that, and other reasons, they felt that it would not be feasible for them to promote an Idaho-style law in Calfornia.

So, in this case at least, VC advocates have effectively blocked an "accomodationist" law that could be of benefit to cyclists.

Yes, on almost any issue, there are extremists on both sides of any debate. I know a few folks who would favor banning bicyclists from public roads and many others who are afraid to cycle in traffic, and I know HH personally.

My point is simply that centrists need to speak up and to be heard, since we are too often the silent majority, or at least the silent plurality. I believe there are numerous examples of both good and bad bicycle accommodations out there, and I appreciate having a choice between using a public road and using a multiuse path.

___
"The truth is rarely found in the extremes."

regards the 'portland situation' of officially striping bikelanes up to intersections....

a 1999 Hunter study found that this road configuration statistically reduced conflicts for thru and right turning bicyclists...

I think john shubert is far off the mark. what a fearmonger, this 'portland model' has been shown to statistically reduce intersection conflicts.

But I'm still in favor of more developed redesigns to accomodate bicyclists at major intersections.

I think the issue of vocal members at both ends of the spectrum is a major problem in the US. Not just in cycling but all forms of government these days.

I personally believe both to be important. While I would prefer no accomodation to substandard accomodation, well planned bicycle accomodation can be a boon for getting more cyclists on the road.

But there are lots of miles of roads in the US. It is impractical to think we will see even a majority of roads get redesigned for proper accomodation anytime soon. Government just doesn't work that fast. So it is also important to be able to ride as part of traffic (and that all parties are properly trained to handle riding together).

-D

so, if a bike lane to the right striped to the intersection is shown to reduce conflicts between motorists and cars, arguably this is 'better', correct? substandard, perhaps in a cyclist like deraths' mind, but statistically safer for bicyclists.

so, despite the fearmongering of the vocal 'never on the right', shubert is complaining about an improvement over non-accomodated roads....

perhpas derath is right, it is unrealistic to expect improvments on the majority of roads in the USA anytime soon.

well, don't have to be. the majority of roads might be fine just the way they are, but communities that have accomodations for bicyclists on a very minor percentage of their streets see marked increases in the number of bicyclists. Seattle, for instance, sits at about 4% bike laned streets or less, yet is #4 in the country for big city bike commuting.

a plan of 5-10 percent accomodated transportation cooridors might be a sweet ratio of bike specific versus unaccomodated streets.

the 'portland configuration' is shown to be safer, however. shubert and the rest of the obstructionists are chasing ambulances and blowing smoke.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/99034.pdf

People are cycling in large numbers in Portland in spite of the badly designed bike lanes, not because of them. I personally see no reduction in potential right hook activity on the street of Portland by motorists as a result of the bike box installations. This is a story about Portland adopting one of the worst flaws of the Dutch system. The only possible benefit is a very slight increase in motorist awareness. Fact: cyclists riding too far to the right are hard to see, I sometimes miss seeing them myself when driving, luckily I haven't hit any yet.

so, if a bike lane to the right striped to the intersection is shown to reduce conflicts between motorists and cars, arguably this is 'better', correct? substandard, perhaps in a cyclist like deraths' mind, but statistically safer for bicyclists.[/

Depends on if you can read my mind I guess. Substandard to me would be a bike lane which is barely the width of a bike, located right in the door zone. Although it could be argued that even a bike lane such as that is a step in the right direction. I would imagine it becomes easier to lobby to make existing accomodations better than to get accomodations in the first place.

perhpas derath is right, it is unrealistic to expect improvments on the majority of roads in the USA anytime soon.

well, don't have to be. the majority of roads might be fine just the way they are, but communities that have accomodations for bicyclists on a very minor percentage of their streets see marked increases in the number of bicyclists. Seattle, for instance, sits at about 4% bike laned streets or less, yet is #4 in the country for big city bike commuting.

a plan of 5-10 percent accomodated transportation cooridors might be a sweet ratio of bike specific versus unaccomodated streets.

the 'portland configuration' is shown to be safer, however. shubert and the rest of the obstructionists are chasing ambulances and blowing smoke.

That is great, but I believe you are missing my point. I am certainly not saying something like "since we can't have 100% accomodation we should give up" I am simply stating that since you will likely have lots of un accomodated roads, the ability to ride as part of traffic is still important. I don't think of it as a either or. Both are important. Accomodation and training are both important.

-D

just going to reiterate the 411 on portland's bike lane designs that run up all the way to the intersection...

a 1999 Hunter study found that this road configuration statistically reduced conflicts for thru and right turning bicyclists... they reduced intersection conflicts.

could intersections be improved? possible. despite the shubert and fellow obstructionists' fearmongering however, the Portland configuration represents an improvement for cyclists over unaccomodated roads thru the reduction of intersection conflicts.

Do you have a link to the Hunter study?

yep. how do YOU feel about bicycle-specific infrastructure, DC commuter?

another very interesting statistic I culled from the 1999 Hunter study:

in a comparasion of the BL and WCL streets studied, roads with wide curb lanes had 15 percent sidewalk cycling, versus 2 percent on the bike laned streets. so bike lanes also encourage safety by getting cyclist off of the sidewalks and onto the streets.

maybe adventure cycling's editor prefers higher intersection conflicts and more sidewalk bicyclists??? he's a vc propagandist of the lowest order.

Adventure Cycling should demand that lying, misinformative editor John Schubert resign...

Do you have a link to the Hunter study?

I think that the link earlier in the thread is what Bek is referencing.

EDIT: If not, Bek should just provide an appropriate link.

The Hunter study I referenced, makes many conclusions about WCL (WOL) and BL including that there were systematic differences in road/intersection types with the two facilities in the study. For instance, WCLs tended to be on higher traffic and greater number of lane roads. Anyway, I think that it is an interesting read; but like any study with real world data, you should factor in a lot more variance/error than the typical ANOVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance) captures.

whatever invisible hand. don't let your doubting thomas ANOVA stance color reality; Hunter team DID study the variables....its in the paper.

They studied 5 or 6 specific and clearly defineable intersection types, and analyzed the data from examination in all types of the variables seen in the research....

the UNC/Hunter study made studied and researched conclusions from the data..... overall conclusion in comparing the different intersections showed, unequivocally,

five fold decrease in sidewalk cyclists, and a reduction in intersection conflicts with BL in the Portland configuration versus the WCL preffered by bicycling obstructionists like john schubert

whatever invisible hand. don't let the doubting thomas ANOVA stance affect the reality that the Hunter team DID study the variables....its in the paper.

They studied 5 or 6 specific and clearly defineable intersection types, and analyzed the data from examination in all types of the variables seen in the research....

the UNC/Hunter study made studied and researched conclusions from the data..... overall conclusion in comparing the different intersections showed, unequivecally,

five fold decrease in sidewalk cyclists, and a reduction in intersection conflicts with BL in the Portland configuration versus the WCL preffered by bicycling obstructionists like john schubert

OK. What about the study -- i.e., its qualities -- make it so strong?

Why do you think systematic differences between the roads and streets have no meaningful effect on the conclusions? Note that the authors suggest that this is a problem.

The language in their study is nowhere near as definitive as you seem to suggest. If you do believe their study then you will be interested in reading the following:

... conflict rates showed BL sites to have slightly higher (conflict) rates per entering bicyclist than WCL sites. ... Language in this font is mine.

Anyway, the available data fails to support meaningful statements about safety without a good deal of interpretation.

you can misquote the study as well as I , invisible hand. that conclusion was from before they decided to distill the looking at the different types of WCL/BL disignations..... upon further analyssis, the conclusion was a reduction in conflict in the BL over WCL streets.

I stand by the statement that the Hunter study shows"BL reduce intersection conflicts over WCL."

if you want to argue minutae, or the validity of sampling data or analysis, please start another thread about the vailidity of sampling data in the 1999 Hunter data...

the recent federal "increasing bicyclist safety" report also quotes the Hunter studys' conclusions and reiterated this fact..... I would consider this commonly accepted knowledge, albiet anathema to the vehement antiacomodationalists- and one the majority of bonifide bicycle tranportation engineers would conclude. Fearmongering obstructionists are not bound to reason, however.


I also stand by my statement John Schubert is misinforming his readers, ambulance chasing and fearmongering and should resign his ACA editorship.

you can misquote the study as well as I , invisible hand. that conclusion was from before they decided to distill the looking at the different types of WCL/BL disignations..... upon further analyssis, the conclusion was a reduction in conflict in the BL over WCL streets.

I stand by the statement that the Hunter study shows"BL reduce intersection conflicts over WCL."

if you want to argue minutae, or the validity of sampling data or analysis, please start another thread about the vailidity of sampling data in the 1999 Hunter data...

the recent federal "increasing bicyclist safety" report also quotes the Hunter studys' conclusions and reiterated this fact..... I would consider this commonly accepted knowledge, albiet anathema to the vehement antiacomodationalists- and one the majority of bonifide bicycle tranportation engineers would conclude. Fearmongering obstructionists are not bound to reason, however.


I also stand by my statement John Schubert is misinforming his readers, ambulance chasing and fearmongering and should resign his ACA editorship.

The point of my clip is that cherry picking specific statements is misleading. You can stand by your statements, but there is little evidence supporting them. My suggestion to anyone else is read the report for yourself.

The conclusion that "BL reduce intersection conflicts over WCL" has been qualified by the NCHRP.

I'm not 'cherry picking' anything.

Attempting to get back on topic..........

John Schubert is a fearmongering, misinformative ambulance chaser and obstructionist to safer road/community design for bicyclists in America. He should resign his position with Adventure Cyclist.

John Schubert is a thoughtful and interesting author on many topics in the bicycling world. I may not agree with his views in all cases, but I hope that he continues to write for Adventure Cyclist magazine.

Speedo

I wonder what john schubert's take is on, say, Wisconsin state policy of providing 3 foot shoulders on narrow highways, and five feet if bicycle traffic is significant? Would he postulate that concerns for bicyclists are overblown, there's no need to improve roads for bicycling?

'every lane is a bike lane' to yahoos like mr schubert, does that also mean 'no need to widen roads for bicyclists?'

i think schubert needs to hand in his badge.

"Striping a bike lane all the way to the intersection and making it illegal for cars to enter the bike lane means that, according to PDOT, there is only one conflict area to manage and educate around, versus an unpredictable, “conflict zone” that occurs if you allow cars to swoop over any time they’d like."

How in the world are some painted line supposed to prevernt this^^^^^^^^