Advocacy & Safety - cycling instructor killed while taking the lane - discussion

In another thread from this weekend the death of a highly regarded and prolific bicycling advocate and cycling instructor was reported to Bike Forums.

thread here

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=561203

He died in a bike/car collision while bicycling and making a left turn on a high speed roadway.

more details here

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1604320.html



However skilled BR was, the principles of what he taught -vehicular cycling - failed him or he failed to effectively cycle vehicularily at the tragic moment he was stuck by oncoming traffic.

Before any of you jump on me, I mean the upmost respect for BR. Nontheless I am interested in discussing the particulars of the incident.

Some questions I have. Did BR use a mirror? perhaps use of a mirror to monitor overtaking traffic would have freed BR up to monitor oncoming traffic more effectively.

Was overtaking traffic part of the compounding difficulties for the cyclist?

If traffic was tight oncoming, why didn't BR wait in the road until traffic was clear? was overtaking traffic pressuring BR to make a turn he felt unsure of? Did he not want to stop in a 50mph traffic lane to let oncoming traffic pass?

I can think of several engineering mitigations to the elements that led to this tragedy. a couple general traffic, and a couple bike specific fixes.

The tragedy of a cycling instructor killed executing a vehicular left turn on a highway speed road is an example of the tenets of vehicular cycling education and autocentric infrastructure failing even a experienced cyclist in the face of heavy traffic and high speed differentials.

It's hard to believe tht he turned left in front of oncoming traffic. I'd withhold judgment about the merits of VC in the case until the facts are clearer.

As I said on that thread, a case of apparent mistaken judgment by an individual does not support or condemn an entire ideology, whether that ideology is VC or mode-specific facilities. VC does not claim to offer 100% protection. Anyone can make a mistake, even a fatal one, in the general roadway as well as in a bike lane. How many fatal right and left hooks have happened to bicyclists in bike lanes at intersections in the last year?

We may never know exactly what happened, or why. Even if it appears that Bruce mistakenly turned in front of an oncoming car, as seems to be the case so far, that does not condemn VC, because VC does not advocate that. Many people safely and effectively wait in the middle of the road to make a vehicular left turn all the time, even in heavy high speed traffic. I highly doubt that someone as experienced as Bruce would feel pressured to take such a risk due to traffic behind him. In fact, VC argues against feeling threatened from behind, daytime overtaking collisions being rare and all that. He would know that it was much more risky to go ahead and cross than to wait.

So what happened? We don't know. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he misjudged speeds. Maybe the motorist did not see him and happened to speed up at the same time that Bruce decided he had time to make it. As I said, we may never know.

Regardless, using a single case to argue for or against an ideology is bad logic. Only valid statistics count, and we all know how hard those are to come by in this field.

I'm still interested in discussing the case. make some assumptions, there's a lot of transparency in this incident - BR made a left turn into vehicle with ROW.

mechanics of the accident rule out the 'motorist overtaking - cyclist swerved' scenario and the nightime 'didn't see the cyclist' dynamics.

I'm thinking more along the lines of: high speed roadway, heavy oncoming and overtaking traffic, hesitancy to hold the lane and bad timing.

I've been in similar circumstances before, I've even crashed due to this. I know the sticky dynamics of high speed, high volume roads and left turns. I also can see several possible assists to make these types of tenuous road and traffic dynamics less dangerous to cyclists.

To expect cyclist education to be the primary way for society to accomodate cyclists on autocentric public rights of way is truly the 1 percent solution for managing cycling as transportation.

Cycling education and training failed BR this weekend in the types of riding conditions that represent barriers to cycling for the general population. There are obstructionists to better planning for bikes as transportation, many are LCI instructors like BR was.

You might want to wait until after the Apex police have given the results of accident investigation to the widow before starting this discussion. The police are still asking for witness accounts.

Before an accident reconstruction, discussion would be speculation.

yes, speculative discussion of a bicycle accident.

there are already some fundaments in order on which to base the discussion.

yes, speculative discussion of a bicycle accident.

Oh, you mean the usual A&S drivel that nobody particularly cares to hear anymore?

-Kurt

As I said on that thread, a case of apparent mistaken judgment by an individual does not support or condemn an entire ideology, whether that ideology is VC or mode-specific facilities. VC does not claim to offer 100% protection. Anyone can make a mistake, even a fatal one, in the general roadway as well as in a bike lane. How many fatal right and left hooks have happened to bicyclists in bike lanes at intersections in the last year?

We may never know exactly what happened, or why. Even if it appears that Bruce mistakenly turned in front of an oncoming car, as seems to be the case so far, that does not condemn VC, because VC does not advocate that. Many people safely and effectively wait in the middle of the road to make a vehicular left turn all the time, even in heavy high speed traffic. I highly doubt that someone as experienced as Bruce would feel pressured to take such a risk due to traffic behind him. In fact, VC argues against feeling threatened from behind, daytime overtaking collisions being rare and all that. He would know that it was much more risky to go ahead and cross than to wait.

So what happened? We don't know. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he misjudged speeds. Maybe the motorist did not see him and happened to speed up at the same time that Bruce decided he had time to make it. As I said, we may never know.

Regardless, using a single case to argue for or against an ideology is bad logic. Only valid statistics count, and we all know how hard those are to come by in this field.

Actually, in my opinion, this tragic case of autocentric roads and cyclist training failing a LAB cycling instructor is a damning condemnation of the views on cycling held by Triangle Roadway Bicycling and the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving.

John Forester might suggest riding a bit more road sneak, perhaps taking up no space on the road until such a time a left turn can be made safely. I can think of a couple of engineering fixes that mitigate this. paint is cheap.

I understand this is a tragic occurance and am not making light of this, but the death of a cycling instructor making a vehicular left is noteworthy.

This (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Apex+Peakway,+Apex,+NC&sll=35.642545,-79.013028&sspn=0.023646,0.055661&ie=UTF8&ll=35.72143,-78.865185&spn=0.011811,0.027831&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.721426,-78.865297&panoid=C_X6nJdJ30nXDGbbtJbDMA&cbp=12,89.82,,0,5) would seem to be the intersection, I think. (Google calls the intersecting road "Cardinal Parkway" before it becomes the Apex Peakway, but the only other place the Peakway crosses Salem is at North Salem Street, so I think this must be the correct location. Locals are welcome to correct me.)

Beke, thanks for keeping things civil and starting a new thread, and I appreciate your points. I just think that your argument that Rosar made the mistake because he felt pressured from behind is precisely what you ask us to make, an assumption, and one that I would not agree with. I think you are basing your argument on conjecture and your own experience.

I also disagree that cyclist education is a 1 percent solution. It may still be a minority solution, and we can discuss that, but I refuse to believe it is 1%. We know that the majority of adults can be educated to obey the rules of the road most of the time when driving a car. Granted there are special challenges (barriers, if you prefer) to driving a bike on the same roads, but 1%? No, it's more than that. In any case, additional education is still required to safely use areas that have bike-specific facilities, especially at intersections, so why not put your effort there anyway? I think that would be BR's approach.


this tragic case of autocentric roads and cyclist training failing a LAB cycling instructor is a damning condemnation of the views on cycling held by Triangle Roadway Bicycling and the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving

I have no more than a passing familiarity with their views, but again, how does a possibly honest mistake by one person condemn the views that that person held, when his mistake (assuming it was his mistake) is not what those views advocate? Are you saying it proves that it is not possible? What about the thousands of times that people do this successfully, some of them probably at this very intersection? There is no evidence to suggest anything more than that no method for making bicycling safe is 100% effective, and that people are still capable of making mistakes no matter what you do. We knew that.


John Forester might suggest riding a bit more road sneak, perhaps taking up no space on the road until such a time a left turn can be made safely.

I have no idea where you get that from.


I can think of a couple of engineering fixes that mitigate this. paint is cheap.

If I've posted the correct intersection in Google Streetview, how in the world would you do anything with paint in that narrow roadway? Traffic calming or a traffic light, maybe, but neither of those are bicycle-specific.

This (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Apex+Peakway,+Apex,+NC&sll=35.642545,-79.013028&sspn=0.023646,0.055661&ie=UTF8&ll=35.72143,-78.865185&spn=0.011811,0.027831&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.721426,-78.865297&panoid=C_X6nJdJ30nXDGbbtJbDMA&cbp=12,89.82,,0,5) would seem to be the intersection, I think.

If I've posted the correct intersection in Google Streetview, how in the world would you do anything with paint in that narrow roadway? Traffic calming or a traffic light, maybe, but neither of those are bicycle-specific.

Are you serious? a "narrow roadway?"




there's about 20 feet of extra road to the right of the double yellow without even encroaching more of that ample public right of way. Protected bike island, a protected pocket island, or a general turn lane, traffic calming that includes bike lanes and bike pockets along the road, a reduction of speed with new painted signs, signs and street emphasis could all help mitigate turning bicycle traffic at this intersection.

but the those NC coalitionists would stand against most of what I just mentioned on general "too bike specific" principles.

Are you serious? a "narrow roadway?"




there's about 20 feet of extra road to the right of the double yellow without even encroaching more of that ample public right of way. Protected bike island, a protected pocket island, or a general turn lane, traffic calming that includes bike lanes and bike pockets along the road, a reduction of speed with new painted signs, signs and street emphasis could all help mitigate turning bicycle traffic at this intersection.

but the those NC coalitionists would stand against most of what I just mentioned on general "too bike specific" principles.

???? The stuff to the right of the one lane going the direction the cyclists were is called "grass" around here. That wide section on the other side of the road is only about 1/4 mile long, then disappears. Making it like you describe would require paving another lane the entire length of the road.

The lesson I've learned from a few of these incidents is that group rides are dangerous. In Boise an experienced rided died in a group ride too. When I was a USCF rider there were so many close calls I quit riding in large groups on the open road. People start taking chances to stay in the pack, then someone get hurt/killed. Intersections are the worst, half the group makes the light, the other half has to make a good choice, someone always pushes their luck.

You might want to wait until after the Apex police have given the results of accident investigation to the widow before starting this discussion. The police are still asking for witness accounts.

Before an accident reconstruction, discussion would be speculation.

How often do we actually get the results of an investigation? This may be the best info we get.

according to the sign at the side of the road, it is posted at 45MPH... just before that rise on the road... I wonder how fast the honda driver crested that hill... headed for the fateful intersection...

The tragedy of a cycling instructor killed executing a vehicular left turn on a highway speed road is an example of the tenets of vehicular cycling education and autocentric infrastructure failing even a experienced cyclist in the face of heavy traffic and high speed differentials.

We don't know exactly what Bruce did or didn't do, and perhaps never will.

But we can be sure that the Chief VC Mathematician and followers (who juggle and manipulate numbers and definitions to show the effectiveness of VC education in lowering cycling risk "80% reduction!") will flatly state that BR was not practicing Vehicular Cycling at the time of his accident.

By their definition and circular logic process, anyone who has an accident would have not had that accident if only they were cycling vehicularly; any accident is proof that the cyclist wasn't cycling vehicularly. Any cyclist involved in an accident is no longer considered a vehicular cyclist and vehicular cycling maintains its remarkable safety record.

The lesson I've learned from a few of these incidents is that group rides are dangerous. In Boise an experienced rided died in a group ride too. When I was a USCF rider there were so many close calls I quit riding in large groups on the open road. People start taking chances to stay in the pack, then someone get hurt/killed. Intersections are the worst, half the group makes the light, the other half has to make a good choice, someone always pushes their luck.

I concur that group rides can be dangerous, precisely because of the right-of-way ambiguity at intersections. When I rode with the Los Angeles Wheelmen in the 1970s, we were not so concerned about maintaining a tight peloton -- if a light changed or if conflicting traffic appeared at a left turn such as this, we would usually simply allow ourselves to get broken into smaller groups. Some folks think a peloton should be treated as a single vehicle, and most of today's group riders seem to feel this way, but this gets problematic when oncoming motorists perceive the cyclists as individuals and expect the later arrivals to yield right-of-way, as required by law.

????


?????? you think the municipality can't do anything with that extra road pavement to restripe the intersection, or expand use of the unpaved right of way?

give me a paint gun and two hours and I'd have a painted bike island in the middle protecting narrow road users at that intersection. give me some concrete, another day and I'd make it a protected median island turn pocket.

passable by cars, protects the bikes.

Other engineering mitigations possible there, the Triangle Bike Coalition and the NC "bike driving" crewe would stand opposed to most of it.

I also disagree that cyclist education is a 1 percent solution. It may still be a minority solution, and we can discuss that, but I refuse to believe it is 1%


what is it - the 1.2 percent solution?

mixing bikes and cars on narrow laned high speed roadways is a 1 percent solution to planning for bikes in the transportation mix.

I'm sorry, autocentric transportation grids represent a huge barrier to participation in bicycling for Americans. high speed, high volume, narrow-laned roads will only ever be ridden on by an extreme minority of citizens despite cyclist "education" and the cycling conditions there are fraught with peril due the closing speeds and speed differentials.

A one percent solution unless communities better plan for bikes,
with enhancements for bicycle transportation including bicycle specific on street infrastructure.

A cycling instructor killed on a high speed roadway - as he reportedly was so intent on monitoring traffic behind him he pulled a fatal left turn into oncoming traffic - IS indicative of the failings of an autocentric road system and the expectations of cyclist education to ensure safe bicycling.

Sounds to me like he mis judged the speed of oncoming traffic, or took a chance and got killed.

However skilled BR was, the principles of what he taught -vehicular cycling - failed him or he failed to effectively cycle vehicularily at the tragic moment he was stuck by oncoming traffic.


Cycling education and training failed BR this weekend in the types of riding conditions that represent barriers to cycling for the general population.


Actually, in my opinion, this tragic case of autocentric roads and cyclist training failing a LAB cycling instructor is a damning condemnation of the views on cycling held by Triangle Roadway Bicycling and the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving.

I'm calling "foul" here. You have already made your conclusion prior to the facts (and the discussion). You are spinning the discussion to favor your opinion.

It should be clear that it's nearly impossible to draw a conclusion from one single rare event (of which the facts are not completely known).

====================


killed on a high speed roadway as he reportedly was so intently monitoring traffic overtaking he pulled a fatal left turn into oncoming traffic is indicative of the failings of an autocentric road system and the expectations of cyclist education to ensure safe bicycling.

Who is saying that anything "ensures" safety?

I say we do away with all cycling education and wait (many decades) for the "autocentric" road system to be improved!

(I think you need both and you are going to wait a very long time, maybe forever, for the second to happen.)

give me some paint and a couple hours and I'd mitigate intersection conflicts at the scene of the accident to make turning left there much easier for vulnerable road users, njyaker.

don't HAVE to wait decades- but infrastructure obstruction efforts in NC undertaken by some from the NC 'bike driving' crewe WILL ****** cyclist safety there.

What you are trying to claim is that the death of one cyclist who practiced vehicular cycling somehow proves that vehicular cycling is the wrong solution, because this person evidently was not able to follow it safely 100% of the time. Why then does the death of a cyclist in a bike lane not prove that bike lanes are the wrong solution, because a cyclist is not able to use them safely 100% of the time? Human beings have failures in judgement either way. If you want to argue from example which system is more generally safe and reliable, you have to expand your sample pool, and then we are talking statistics (again <sigh>).

I myself am not necessarily arguing against making some infrastructure changes at this intersection. I think you are conflating all vehicular cycling proponents with inflexible infrastructure obstructionists. Some are, some aren't, most vary by degree. That's a different discussion than just "this proves that VC is a failure." The latter conclusion is what I'm objecting to. It's too general a statement to make from a single example.

Error correction: According to a friend of mine, a left turn only lane does now exist at this intersection, after the Google photo was taken and after my last trip through that area. My apologies for making an incorrect claim. I will leave the rest of this post intact.

Bekologist's posts and title in this thread are as disrespectful as they are ignorant.

South Salem Street is a rural two lane road with narrow lanes. There is no left turn pocket at its intersection with Apex Peakway, which Ts into it.

There is intermittent redevelopment on the road including near this intersection. It is slated to be widened per the transportation plan, so when development occurs on the street, the developer is required by the town build to the new curb and gutter and pave a wide paved shoulder to fill the expanded roadway section. In many cases this leaves a short section of wide shoulder next to two narrow lanes, which seems like a waste because it cannot provide a left turn pocket or additional lane width for passing cyclists. However, unless the city or state buys additional property around the site, they do not own enough land to properly engineer a new travel lane configuration. With major shortages in the state and city budgets, this is unlikely to change.

Any traffic engineer or vehicular cyclist knows that the appropriate engineering approach to remove conflicts between a waiting left-turning vehicle operator and overtaking through traffic is to provide a left turn pocket, aka left turn only lane, so that through traffic passes on the right. This allows the left turning driver to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic without social pressure from drivers waiting behind or possible conflict with drivers passing on the left.

We cannot conclude at this time what caused my friend to turn in front of an oncoming car. We can only speculate if a left turn only lane would have reduced social pressure from following drivers or improved sight lines around the 50 or so bicyclists who were continuing straight ahead in the lane in front of him that curved gently to the right prior to the intersection. However, the left turn only lane is the only credible engineering improvement related to improved safety and reduced traffic friction for left turns on this type of road. This is a not an "autocentric" enginering design but a universal improvement for all vehicular traffic. It is one that I am sure the traffic engineers would like to provide for all drivers, but without money to re-engineer every intersection incrementally, there is only so much they can do.

We don't know exactly what Bruce did or didn't do, and perhaps never will.

But we can be sure that the Chief VC Mathematician and followers (who juggle and manipulate numbers and definitions to show the effectiveness of VC education in lowering cycling risk "80% reduction!") will flatly state that BR was not practicing Vehicular Cycling at the time of his accident.

By their definition and circular logic process, anyone who has an accident would have not had that accident if only they were cycling vehicularly; any accident is proof that the cyclist wasn't cycling vehicularly. Any cyclist involved in an accident is no longer considered a vehicular cyclist and vehicular cycling maintains its remarkable safety record.

Too true. And the "other side" often does the same thing. It's best to avoid a pot-kettle debate whenever possible.

Bekologist's posts and title in this thread are as disrespectful as they are ignorant.

South Salem Street is a rural two lane road with narrow lanes. There is no left turn pocket at its intersection with Apex Peakway, which Ts into it.

There is intermittent redevelopment on the road including near this intersection. It is slated to be widened per the transportation plan, so when development occurs on the street, the developer is required by the town build to the new curb and gutter and pave a wide paved shoulder to fill the expanded roadway section. In many cases this leaves a short section of wide shoulder next to two narrow lanes, which seems like a waste because it cannot provide a left turn pocket or additional lane width for passing cyclists. However, unless the city or state buys additional property around the site, they do not own enough land to properly engineer a new travel lane configuration. With major shortages in the state and city budgets, this is unlikely to change.

Any traffic engineer or vehicular cyclist knows that the appropriate engineering approach to remove conflicts between a waiting left-turning vehicle operator and overtaking through traffic is to provide a left turn pocket, aka left turn only lane, so that through traffic passes on the right. This allows the left turning driver to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic without social pressure from drivers waiting behind or possible conflict with drivers passing on the left.

We cannot conclude at this time what caused my friend to turn in front of an oncoming car. We can only speculate if a left turn only lane would have reduced social pressure from following drivers or improved sight lines around the 50 or so bicyclists who were continuing straight ahead in the lane in front of him that curved gently to the right prior to the intersection. However, the left turn only lane is the only credible engineering improvement related to improved safety and reduced traffic friction for left turns on this type of road. This is a not an "autocentric" enginering design but a universal improvement for all vehicular traffic. It is one that I am sure the traffic engineers would like to provide for all drivers, but without money to re-engineer every intersection incrementally, there is only so much they can do.

Out of respect, Bek started this thread... to avoid this discussion in first thread.

Bek has NOT said that a left turn pocket was at the intersection, merely that one might have made the difference and it would not be that difficult to install. However most likely a left turn pocket on this isolated road has a much lower priority than some new freeway lane somewhere in the state. (pure speculation on my part)... that level of priority IS "autocentric."

Regarding the idea of "social pressure," I know of at least one VC advocate that calls that "pressure" "cyclist inferiority syndrome..." and cites it as an ailment of our society... are you implying that even a VC instructor may be the victim of that shop worn ailment?

I myself have to wonder at the speed of the approaching vehicle on that 45MPH road.

And last, one has to consider that no matter how VC we are, "rights" never trump physics.

Tom Vanderbilt attributes this type of accident mostly to human perceptual distortion of the speed of oncoming traffic. We just haven't evolved to be very good at judging the time available to make left turns. This is true whether we're driving a car or a bike. Left turn pockets may not be very effective at preventing this type of accident, which is highly lethal to both drivers and cyclists.

We prefer to have something or somebody concrete to blame in this type of tragedy. However, in this case the only thing to be blamed may be our own evolutionary development as a species.

don't HAVE to wait decades- but infrastructure obstruction efforts in NC undertaken by some from the NC 'bike driving' crews WILL ****** cyclist safety there.
That's one state. Your comments where not limited to that one state. Anyway, are they going to improve it everywhere in that one state anytime soon? Beyond it being a complete guess on your part, do you have any support for cycling education being a "1% solution"?

Tom Vanderbilt attributes this type of accident mostly to human perceptual distortion of the speed of oncoming traffic. We just haven't evolved to be very good at judging the time available to make left turns. This is true whether we're driving a car or a bike. Left turn pockets may not be very effective at preventing this type of accident, which is highly lethal to both drivers and cyclists.

We prefer to have something or somebody concrete to blame in this type of tragedy. However, in this case the only thing to be blamed may be our own evolutionary development as a species.

I agree... "Traffic" is a great read regarding some of the foibles and limitations of humans trying to control high speed vehicles... It also tends to shoot some huge holes in some of the "theories" introduced here on BF from time to time.

and again, I still wonder about the speed of the oncoming driver...

That's one state. Your comments where not limited to that one state. Anyway, are they going to improve it everywhere in that one state anytime soon? Beyond it being a complete guess on your part, do you have any support for cycling education being a "1% solution"?

"cycling education as a 1% solution..." can you cite anywhere where cycling education alone is the "cure" to getting more than just over 1% of the population on bikes regularly?

How often do we actually get the results of an investigation? This may be the best info we get.

Why would any body wait when they can just make stuff up?


"cycling education as a 1% solution..." can you cite anywhere where cycling education alone is the "cure" to getting more than just over 1% of the population on bikes regularly?
I can't but I haven't made any such claim. I'd say I have no idea! Regardless, "Bekologist's" initial post was seriously flawed.

How often do we actually get the results of an investigation? This may be the best info we get.


Why would any body wait when they can just make stuff up?

And let's bear in mind that the investigators themselves are likely motorist biased...

And let's bear in mind that the investigators themselves are likely motorist biased...
I would not disagree but that doesn't excuse people here from making stuff up.

====================


Tom Vanderbilt attributes this type of accident mostly to human perceptual distortion of the speed of oncoming traffic. We just haven't evolved to be very good at judging the time available to make left turns. This is true whether we're driving a car or a bike. Left turn pockets may not be very effective at preventing this type of accident, which is highly lethal to both drivers and cyclists.

We prefer to have something or somebody concrete to blame in this type of tragedy. However, in this case the only thing to be blamed may be our own evolutionary development as a species.

Smart comment. Vanderbilt is also pro-bicycle. (The book is on my queue but I'm already aware of some of the perceptual problems.)

====================


and again, I still wonder about the speed of the oncoming driver...
And anybody turning across traffic should be aware that cars often speed. (It's quite possible that speed was a contributing factor.)

The car may of also had its right turn signal activated.

Error correction: According to a friend of mine, a left turn only lane does now exist at this intersection, after the Google photo was taken and after my last trip through that area. My apologies for making an incorrect claim. I will leave the rest of this post intact.



Bek has NOT said that a left turn pocket was at the intersection, merely that one might have made the difference and it would not be that difficult to install. However most likely a left turn pocket on this isolated road has a much lower priority than some new freeway lane somewhere in the state. (pure speculation on my part)... that level of priority IS "autocentric."

Regarding the idea of "social pressure," I know of at least one VC advocate that calls that "pressure" "cyclist inferiority syndrome..." and cites it as an ailment of our society... are you implying that even a VC instructor may be the victim of that shop worn ailment?

I myself have to wonder at the speed of the approaching vehicle on that 45MPH road.

And last, one has to consider that no matter how VC we are, "rights" never trump physics.

Adding a left turn only lane requires realignment of the lanes approaching the intersection on both sides; otherwise through traffic would be directed at the RTOL and the through lanes would need to swerve too sharply than would be appropriate for a 45mph road.

The required through lane realignment requires more right of way than the government owns. The fact that the property owner paid to widen one side of the street doesn't make the money for the rest of the widening project magically appear. The city/state prefers to get as much widening construction as possible be done by the property developers in order to save tax dollars. As a member of a neighboring city's P&Z board I've promoted an alternative approach where developers would pay the city in lieu of doing incremental widening so the city could provide contiguous, meaningful local street improvements with that money. However, the idea has not been adopted in either city.

Making motorists wait for oneself while waiting to turn left makes lots of people feel bad, including motorists and some cyclists. I don't think it would bother Bruce under these circumstances; I believe it is more likely that he was concerned that an impatient motorist would attempt to pass him on the left as he initiated his left turn. The police say that a witness reported seeing Bruce looking back over his left shoulder before he initiated the turn - something we teach in class. How preoccupied he may have been about a driver attempting to pass him after he signaled a left turn - and whether this distraction might have affected his scan forward - is impossible to say. There were about 50 cyclists ahead of him before he made his turn. I would like to learn if their position could have affected the visibility of oncoming traffic. This does not excuse failure to yield, but it might help explain an apparent perceptual error that has left a lot of us here in NC puzzled.

Bruce often used a mirror, but I don't know if he had one at the time, and I believe that he would not rely on a mirror to scan back immediately before turning left anyway, since it does not cover the wide area as reliably as a head turn glance.

Again, since his collision was with an opposite-direction vehicle and not a same-direction vehicle, there does not appear to be much or perhaps any bicycle-specific causation involved. This was a type of collision between drivers that happens surprisingly often between motorists, and sometimes results in intersection improvements after the fact to improve sight lines or provide turn pockets. Two weeks ago, while driving my car home through an intersection almost exactly like the one under discussion, a left-turning motorist coming from the opposite direction entered my lane and stopped directly in front of me. I think he mistakenly believed my lane, the opposite direction lane, was a left turn lane, since a wide paved shoulder on the other side placed my lane near the apparent center of the ROW. These are driving mistakes made by drivers affecting all other drivers. I think that vehicular cycling is the appropriate paradigm for analyzing and preventing them. By contrast, a pedestrian-based approach would mandate that the left turning traveler stay to the right and maintain over 180 degrees of vigilance before crossing both lanes at once. As a longtime pedestrian safety advocate, I know too well how much more difficult it is to engineer a better solution for that problem than providing a left turn pocket for the left turning driver.

Doesn't this go in the tactical analysis thread under VC?

The car may of also had its right turn signal activated.

Never turn into oncoming traffic assuming the oncoming car will make a right turn.

And anybody turning across traffic should be aware that cars often speed. (It's quite possible that speed was a contributing factor.)

That's the conclusion to which I am admittedly jumping, since we do not yet have all of the pertinent facts in this tragedy. A cyclist with Mr. Rosar's experience and expertise would presumably not have accepted too small a gap for an oncoming car traveling within the speed limit.

I have not read anything so far as a condemnation of vehicular cycling. Mr. Rosar violated the oncoming motorist's right-of-way, presumably because of an error in judgment, and the motorist's speed certainly could have been a contributing factor.

A case with incomplete facts and at least some personal emotion does not, in my estimate, make a good teaching tool.

Bek has NOT said that a left turn pocket was at the intersection, merely that one might have made the difference and it would not be that difficult to install. However most likely a left turn pocket on this isolated road has a much lower priority than some new freeway lane somewhere in the state. (pure speculation on my part)... that level of priority IS "autocentric."

actually, gene, beyond general left turn pocket I've specifically mentioned TWO types of BIKE SPECIFIC intersection mitigations for that type of T intersection -a painted split divide "bike pocket" and a divided narrow median with turn gap "pocket". I actually have a picture of my bike standing in a painted pocket at a T- intersection but I'll be damned if I can find it right now!

both have the advantage of protecting vulnerable road users at uncontrolled intersections on high speed roadways while allowing motorist egress.

Sgoodris' ignorant claim that municipalities cannot design roadways safer for bicyclists at this type of intersection is using an autocentric looking glass. i suggest communities can do much better than we see here in america. The NC "bike driving" mission to perpetuate wide lanes and no on road bike specificity is NOT the best solution to managing bikes in the transportation mix.

Perhaps, some communities lack political will to change public space. Actually, not so if you look at progressive communities in the USA that are more effective at facilitating bicycling as transportation.

In some cities cyclists form coalitions to fight against bike specific facilities like I've just mentioned above. You are right, though - autocentric roads planning is fundament. Autocentric road design results in roads more hazardous to even experienced cyclists and serve as huge barriers to Americans participation in cycling.

I think the best lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that stuff happens, even to the best of us...even if we are, or think we are, doing everything 'right'.

actually, gene, beyond general left turn pocket I've specifically mentioned TWO types of BIKE SPECIFIC intersection mitigations for that type of T intersection -a painted split divide "bike pocket" and a divided narrow median with turn gap "pocket". I actually have a picture of my bike standing in a painted pocket at a T- intersection but I'll be damned if I can find it right now!


I've seen such designs for intersections with non-motorized trails closed to auto traffic but open to bicycle traffic. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, both Bruce and I have advocated in favor of such designs, and our friend Wayne Pein has done paid research resulting in recommendations of such. You might also be interested to know that Bruce has advocated tirelessly in favor of providing median openings for cyclists and pedestrians to cross median-divided highways at locations where crossing is being closed to motorists. The NC 64 project between Cary and Apex is an example of this - the road is proposed by NCDOT to be converted into a "superstreet" with closures of cross streets that are important to cyclists, with alternate vehicular routes requiring long detours on the high speed road. Bruce and I have attended multiple public meetings to try to maintain convenient and safe bike/ped crossings at those locations. I've also lobbied heavily to maintain certain railroad crossing locations being closed to motorists to be left open to cyclists and pedestrians in order to avoid long detours onto high speed, heavy traffic arterials.

At an intersection that provides full access to all vehicle types, however, a bike-only facility could be problematic depending on its design by either having inadequate space to accommodate full size vehicles or by creating path conflicts between different vehicle types. I therefore invite you to show me a separated left turn facility that accommodates both automobile and bicycle traffic making left turns in a space smaller than a standard left turn pocket. The devil is in the operational details; we must first do no harm.

-Steve

At an intersection that provides full access to all vehicle types, however, a bike-only facility could be problematic depending on its design by either having inadequate space to accommodate full size vehicles or by creating path conflicts between different vehicle types.


and at an intersection that provides full access to all vehicle types, a facility geared to protect vulnerable road users isnt' automatically problematic because it doesn't accomodate full size vehicles.

Path conflicts? there's potential path conflicts between different vehicle types at EVERY INTERSECTION, steve. especially in wide lanes, ya? :rolleyes:


steve-

I understand you are too auto-addled to envision many bike- specific enhancements to transportation infrastructure. just because you haven't seen them in the MUTCD doesn't mean they cannot be designed or aren't ALREADY out there on the roads here or in other countries.

picture a narrow divided median. simplest design.

this is not a left turn pocket for cars and bikes, it is a cut thru for cars that provides a center road island for slower more vulnerable road users. it faciilitates car turns and provides a center road island for bikes. How does a semi transit a median? how does a motorcycle? cars would block the travel lane, trucks would block the travel lane just like they do now in turns, but bikes can grab some center space to chill in before cross traffic clears.

this type of road modifications wouldn't even take up much of the precious road width to which you seem stalwartly opposed to any possibility of change. The developer put in a narrow divided median on HIS road, why not the main line he was required to widen??? it would even have the side effect of requiring or facilitating traffic calming, and provide a pedestrian safety island as well.

Wouldn't it be awful if municipalities slowed vehicles down occasionally with traffic calming to favor bicyclist and pedestrian safety :rolleyes:? Steve- are you familiar with TEMPO 30 zones?




Another facility that might be totally unintended for bicyclists is a T intersection with split, emphasized intersection striping along the main line. the dividing line becomes a 'bulge' at the T.

I rode up on one a few years ago, and was very impressed. the side effect of it creating a safety pocket I could get off my bike, put down the kickstand in the midst of arterial traffic and snap a few pictures. I'll be damned if i can find them right now. this facility wasn't even intended to facilitate bike safety, yet it was very good for that IMO.

BR might not have chosen to wait in one however; group dynamics and expectations of yielding from oncoming traffic to a group of cyclists might still have colored his judgement.

Steve, you might not want to see that bike specific, on-road infrastructure can be much more developed than your 'cars first' roadway obsessions, but there are many more nuanced, bike favoring road enhancements beyond what your (flawed) vision lets you see.

The two types of road enhancements that favor bicyclists I mentioned above could have given BR some breathing room on the road that day, he could still be with us.

Steve, do you always look at paving thru the windshield? Stop the autocentricity.

steve-

I understand you are too auto-addled to envision many bike- specific enhancements to transportation infrastructure.

...

Can you even endorse a single bike specific facility, Steve, or do you always look at paving thru the windshield?

Go back and read my previous post. Repeat reading it until you conclude that I have already answered your question.

i can only conclude you are preserving pedestrian crosswalks on a major road expansion. :rolleyes:

did you also endorse bikelanes and bikelanes to the left of RTO traffic at major intersections for this road project, or your autocentric, wide lanes only, hook potential increasing designs?

go back and read my previous post. keep reading it until you realize there are ways to better facilitate bicyclist safety using on road, bike specific infrastructure designs than your 'cars first!' captain chrysler windshield visions.

i can only conclude you are preserving pedestrian crosswalks on a major road expansion.

No, there are no existing crosswalks or pedestrian signals at most of these locations I describe, despite my attempts to obtain them over the last 10 years. The existing road is 4-6+ lanes with a wide median, and the signalized locations not only lack enough clearance interval time for pedestrians, but they feature split phase timing that violates MUTCD requirements for signals at intersections that may be used by pedestrians. The signal sensors also fail to detect bikes. The intersection and signals are owned by NCDOT, not the city, and so I've been unable to get them changed even with some support from the city engineers.

NCDOT's proposal is to increase capacity on the arterial by closing the crossings and require all side street traffic to turn right and make U-turn in the wide median some distance down the road. Google "super street intersection" for pictures. A raised median barrier will prevent any vehicular traffic from crossing straight. NCDOT proposes a pedestrian crossing design that will greatly inconvenience pedestrians by requiring them to cross multiple road segments at multiple signal phases, taking a zig-zag path to go straight. I oppose their plan in favor of conventional, straight crossings and ped signals with fewer lanes to cross.

Bruce recommended that NCDOT provide an opening in the median barrier to allow cyclists to cross straight rather than taking the long detour route with the U-turn. Bicycle-specific infrastructure. NCDOT didn't seem very receptive. Meanwhile, I believe that a straight ADA-compliant pedestrian crossing would also provide a median opening for cyclists, albeit possibly in a different place than Bruce had in mind.

It's amusing to a lot of folks that you consider me auto-centric, when some of the local politicians consider me to be an anti-car bike/ped kook. The truth is somewhere in between.

I think the best lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that stuff happens, even to the best of us...even if we are, or think we are, doing everything 'right'.

With the understanding that we have a fuzzy picture of what happened, it does appear to support R. Hurst's emphasis on awareness. As you suggest Chip, some of the best executed strategies can be thwarted by a single error. Personally, I fail to see this as an indictment of VC. Instead I see it as a reminder that each of us can and do make mistakes.

With regard to an earlier post, I don't see group rides as dangerous per se. And they probably increase the visibility of cyclists. However, only based on my own experiences, it seems to bring out the worst in us. That is, it changes our choices since there is more emphasis on staying with the group instead of riding safely. I find this particularly so during fast group rides where pacelines result in a big improvement in performance.

Mirror. Left side of helmet. No smashy.

and at an intersection that provides full access to all vehicle types, a facility geared to protect vulnerable road users isnt' automatically problematic because it doesn't accomodate full size vehicles.

Path conflicts? there's potential path conflicts between different vehicle types at EVERY INTERSECTION, steve. especially in wide lanes, ya? :rolleyes:


steve-

I understand you are too auto-addled to envision many bike- specific enhancements to transportation infrastructure. just because you haven't seen them in the MUTCD doesn't mean they cannot be designed or aren't ALREADY out there on the roads here or in other countries.

picture a narrow divided median. simplest design.

this is not a left turn pocket for cars and bikes, it is a cut thru for cars that provides a center road island for slower more vulnerable road users. it faciilitates car turns and provides a center road island for bikes. How does a semi transit a median? how does a motorcycle? cars would block the travel lane, trucks would block the travel lane just like they do now in turns, but bikes can grab some center space to chill in before cross traffic clears.

this type of road modifications wouldn't even take up much of the precious road width to which you seem stalwartly opposed to any possibility of change. The developer put in a narrow divided median on HIS road, why not the main line he was required to widen??? it would even have the side effect of requiring or facilitating traffic calming, and provide a pedestrian safety island as well.

Wouldn't it be awful if municipalities slowed vehicles down occasionally with traffic calming to favor bicyclist and pedestrian safety :rolleyes:? Steve- are you familiar with TEMPO 30 zones?




Another facility that might be totally unintended for bicyclists is a T intersection with split, emphasized intersection striping along the main line. the dividing line becomes a 'bulge' at the T.

I rode up on one a few years ago, and was very impressed. the side effect of it creating a safety pocket I could get off my bike, put down the kickstand in the midst of arterial traffic and snap a few pictures. I'll be damned if i can find them right now. this facility wasn't even intended to facilitate bike safety, yet it was very good for that IMO.

BR might not have chosen to wait in one however; group dynamics and expectations of yielding from oncoming traffic to a group of cyclists might still have colored his judgement.

Steve, you might not want to see that bike specific, on-road infrastructure can be much more developed than your 'cars first' roadway obsessions, but there are many more nuanced, bike favoring road enhancements beyond what your (flawed) vision lets you see.

The two types of road enhancements that favor bicyclists I mentioned above could have given BR some breathing room on the road that day, he could still be with us.

Steve, do you always look at paving thru the windshield? Stop the autocentricity.

You've got me intrigued with the painted islands you're describing. I've seen lanes separated by the diagonal white line painted area before. Would this be something like a bike lane to the right of a left turn only lane? If it was just in between the through lanes like a regular median, I'd be worried about a car coming around me on my right for a left turn while I was trying to turn left.

You've got me intrigued with the painted islands you're describing. I've seen lanes separated by the diagonal white line painted area before. Would this be something like a bike lane to the right of a left turn only lane? If it was just in between the through lanes like a regular median, I'd be worried about a car coming around me on my right for a left turn while I was trying to turn left.

I too am wondering, but I picture not much more than a "fat line" created by some clever striping...

Of course I could be wrong on this, but I too am intrigued by the idea.

The irony of the "fat line" of course is the old Forester insistence that a cyclist could "road sneak" by simply riding the line almost anywhere.

Error correction: According to a friend of mine, a left turn only lane does now exist at this intersection, after the Google photo was taken and after my last trip through that area. I will try to visit the site asap to confirm, look at the sight lines, and think some more about what could have happened. It is a really terrible, tragic mystery.