Advocacy & Safety - Boston Bike Lane In The Door Zone

In its effort to be more bike friendly, Boston has created a number of new bike paths on busy city roadways. You can't tell in the picture, but the space to the right of the bike path is all parking. The result is that the bike path is less than a foot from parked cars that typically line this street.

I nothink this is a potential disaster for bikers — the entire lane is squarely in the door zone of the parked cars! It is much safer for a biker to be in the lane, away from car doors, but now people will claim we should be in this dangerous bike path instead of taking the lane, which is a right guaranteed by state law.

Am I out of it, or is this a huge fail?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_idKIhdWTcuo/SpU42tzhZCI/AAAAAAAABvI/x0e4RZ_RRiw/s1600-h/DSC02574.jpg

Not sure I posted the pic correctly, but here is a link to a site with pics of the new lane.

http://bostonbiker.org/2009/08/26/new-bike-lane-on-columbus-ave/

I'm from out in the suburbs and usually take the T when I go into the big city. I've seen similar bike lanes in Cambridge. They look to me like doorings waiting to happen, but they seem to have a lot of people riding in them as opposed to riding out in the travel lane. Aside from your post, the responses in the link you posted were positive. It seems strange to me that people are happy about what looks like a dangerous situation. Maybe it's just so much better than it was before. I don't know what else to think.

Speedo

You may be interested in San Francisco's study on "Sharrows". Rather than place the cyclist in the door zone, they actually increased both the distance the bikes rode from the parked cars, and also the distance the drivers gave the cyclists when passing them.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf

Most designers have little idea about how on-street parking can affect bike lanes and the size of the "door zone" can vary widely, based on the width of the vehicle and the rider's courage/common sense with respect to how close he/she wants to shave that margin. Here are a few practical examples of where a safe riding position is when there are parked cars -- regardless of whether there is a bike lane striped there or not:

Door Zone Avoidance: (4-door car)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs

Avoiding the Door Zone (2-door car)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YixMuZpm88

Even in communities which have far-to-the-right and mandatory bike lane rules, you're not required to put yourself into danger from this sort of stuff.

The bike lanes shown by the OP does seem to have the problem that bike lanes have when next to parallel parking in general, namely the door zone problem. Not sure myself what the optimal solution is, although I did calculate that having a total of 14 rather than 12 ft to fit the parking and bike lane (with a marked "no-go" zone for the bike) is one solution. Individual car parking spaces can be marked so that any poorly parked cars stand out, letting cyclists know of the added hazard.

Not sure I posted the pic correctly, but here is a link to a site with pics of the new lane.

http://bostonbiker.org/2009/08/26/new-bike-lane-on-columbus-ave/

Thanks for the link. I commute year round early in the morning from Kenmore Square to Norwood (the reverse commute) so I have plenty of traffic-free riding, and I don't need no stinking bike lanes. :p (parody quote).

My rule for avoiding doors is, like a gun, assume every car is loaded with a occupant ready to spring out from either side, even the right side when the car is stopped at a traffic light, and ride accordingly.

Many bike lanes seem to be near the door zone here in downtown Portland. It is not a huge deal, as long as you are aware of your surroundings. I have noticed some drivers even wait until I pass before they open their door, which is rather courteous.

Scan ahead, always be aware. You should make it out okay.

City designers should be more aware of these problems in the future, though.

Another problem is that while pulling up to begin parallel parking, you have to creep through the bike lane and then stop and then back up...this gives plenty of time for a cyclist to come around the corner and ***** at you for being stopped in the bike lane. I got yelled at but responded with a quick, "just take the lane!". Cyclists and drivers both need to get over the idea that if there is a bike lane a bike can't stray from its lines.

NOt just doorzones, but bike lanes suffer from three other major problems:

1) Right hooks at intersections
2) Debris accumulation from unswept road ( higher chance of flats )
3) Getting hit by drifting multi-tasking drive

Taking the lane and using your mirror solves all these problems.

NOt just doorzones, but bike lanes suffer from three other major problems:

1) Right hooks at intersections
2) Debris accumulation from unswept road ( higher chance of flats )
3) Getting hit by drifting multi-tasking drive

Taking the lane and using your mirror solves all these problems.

4) Drains and other such items.

When I pull up at an intersection with a right-hand turn available, I pull far enough ahead to allow drivers to know I am there, in case they try to run me over. >:[

4) Drains and other such items.

When I pull up at an intersection with a right-hand turn available, I pull far enough ahead to allow drivers to know I am there, in case they try to run me over. >:[

When approaching an intersection with a right turn lane and/or a left turn lane and one or more lanes for through traffic I find it safer to stay in the lane for through traffic. Unless of course I happen to be making either a left or right turn at the time then I will move into the appropriate lane.

When approaching an intersection with a right turn lane and/or a left turn lane and one or more lanes for through traffic I find it safer to stay in the lane for through traffic. Unless of course I happen to be making either a left or right turn at the time then I will move into the appropriate lane.

Oh, I meant if I have to stop, and there happens to be no designated right turn lane. :)

Oh, I meant if I have to stop, and there happens to be no designated right turn lane. :)

Sorry, I thought when you said:

<quote>
When I pull up at an intersection with a right-hand turn available,
</quote>

That you meant that when you pulled up to a light at an intersection with a right hand turn lane.

just watch how far motorists move over next to parked cars. Around here, they go pretty wide around parked cars. Much further over than those bike lanes.

NOt just doorzones, but bike lanes suffer from three other major problems:

1) Right hooks at intersections
2) Debris accumulation from unswept road ( higher chance of flats )
3) Getting hit by drifting multi-tasking drive

Taking the lane and using your mirror solves all these problems.

Right you are. And bike lanes:

4) Position the cyclist where cross-traffic collisions are more likely, due to diminished sightlines and reduced cyclist conspicuity. Motorists don’t always look that far over to the side of the road.
5) Create an illusion of safety resulting in inattention blindness for both motorists and cyclists.
6) Encourage closer passes by overtaking motorists, a cruel irony since it is the unwarranted fear of overtaking collisions that has popularized these facilities.
7) Add costs to roadway construction and maintenance, money that would be better spent on education and enforcement for motorists and cyclists alike.
8) Reinforce motorists’ prejudices that cyclists do not belong on the road and provide vindication for the harassment of cyclists who are traveling on the roadway in a safe and lawful manner.
9) Help the motoring establishment keep cyclists out of the way, even if cyclists are made less safe in the process.
10) Earn federal highway transportations subsidies for states and local highway districts .

NOt just doorzones, but bike lanes suffer from three other major problems:

1) Right hooks at intersections
2) Debris accumulation from unswept road ( higher chance of flats )
3) Getting hit by drifting multi-tasking drive

Taking the lane and using your mirror solves all these problems.

Well, right hooks can take place with or without a BL. But a well-designed BL would have the line dashed before intersections, reminding motorists to either (1) merge first before turning, or (2) check that the BL is clear before turning.

I agree with the debris accumulation issue, although IMHO the problem is often overblown.

As for getting hit by an inattentive multi-tasking driver, well, the risk is there for someone taking the lane too.

Right you are. And bike lanes:

4) Position the cyclist where cross-traffic collisions are more likely, due to diminished sightlines and reduced cyclist conspicuity. Motorists don’t always look that far over to the side of the road.
5) Create an illusion of safety resulting in inattention blindness for both motorists and cyclists.
6) Encourage closer passes by overtaking motorists, a cruel irony since it is the unwarranted fear of overtaking collisions that has popularized these facilities.
7) Add costs to roadway construction and maintenance, money that would be better spent on education and enforcement for motorists and cyclists alike.
8) Reinforce motorists’ prejudices that cyclists do not belong on the road and provide vindication for the harassment of cyclists who are traveling on the roadway in a safe and lawful manner.
9) Help the motoring establishment keep cyclists out of the way, even if cyclists are made less safe in the process.
10) Earn federal highway transportations subsidies for states and local highway districts .

Are there actual, peer-reviewed studies that show an increase in cross-traffic collisions with a BL? Like everything bike oriented, it's actually notoriously hard to study because the BL tends to attract more (and less skilled) riders to the road. I seem to remember how some study showed a slight increase in relative safety with a BL; however, it may well be true that BL's actually do more for cars than bikes. Here's why.

If a bike is in the middle of a well-designed BL, and cars are passing, all the cars have to do is stay within the car lane, and there shouldn't be a problem. OTOH, if the BL weren't there, the cars may well have to slow down and work out a pass. Such would slow car traffic some.

When it comes to inattentive motorists, there is the counterargument that the existence of BLs would actually make them consider the existence of bikes anywhere. "Hey, what's that??"

I fully support educational efforts. IIRC at the end of quite a few BLs, there is a yellow or fluorescent green "Share the Road" sign (W11-1) which should get the point across. Let's face it. We'll never get the large volumes of cyclists that exist in places like Davis without building BLs on the major streets. It may not be right, but it's the truth.

Well, right hooks can take place with or without a BL.
As for getting hit by an inattentive multi-tasking driver, well, the risk is there for someone taking the lane too.

You are correct, but the odds are far less when taking the lane.

(With regard to getting hit by an inattentive driver)

You are correct, but the odds are far less when taking the lane.

How do you know that?

You are correct, but the odds are far less when taking the lane.

Source for the "odds"? For lane taking risk or bike lane risk or "odds" for anything else of safety relevance? Or are you just chanting the Mantra of Conventional Wisdom?

(With regard to getting hit by an inattentive driver)


How do you know that?

When I take the lane I am usually in the right tire patch, which puts many feet of space between me and the adjacent lane. Also most cars overtake me , few cars travel only in the passing lane. With my mirror I see this all unfold plenty in advance.

Source for the "odds"? For lane taking risk or bike lane risk or "odds" for anything else of safety relevance? Or are you just chanting the Mantra of Conventional Wisdom?

There are few studies on this because there is not much precedent. 7000 miles of riding this way and I feel very safe. Riding in bike lanes I do not feel safe. I look at the other people on this forum who ride this way and I can tell they are smart and cautious people. I trust their opinions. If you dont trust mine , that is fine, makes no difference to me.

When I take the lane I am usually in the right tire patch, which puts many feet of space between me and the adjacent lane. Also most cars overtake me , few cars travel only in the passing lane. With my mirror I see this all unfold plenty in advance.


There are few studies on this because there is not much precedent. 7000 miles of riding this way and I feel very safe. Riding in bike lanes I do not feel safe. I look at the other people on this forum who ride this way and I can tell they are smart and cautious people. I trust their opinions. If you dont trust mine , that is fine, makes no difference to me.

Odds and risk levels are not determined by opinions.

A handful of cherry picked and/or biased anecdotes establishes the "odds", or the risk levels, eh? :rolleyes:

It may be jes fine for y'all, but isn't worth spit for evaluating or managing cycling risk for individuals or populations of cyclists.

Are there actual, peer-reviewed studies that show an increase in cross-traffic collisions with a BL?
My assertion is based on my own experience of transportation cycling in an urban environment for the last fifty years.

Right Cross Threats:
When I used to ride too close to the edge of the roadway, I experienced numerous close calls with motorists pulling out from driveways and side streets on the right. Changing my position farther to the left, well out of the bike lane if one is present, when approaching these potential conflicts has all but eliminated this threat, presumably because I am positioned where they are looking.

Left Hook Threats:
Moving farther into the lane, again well out of the bike lane, at intersections conveys a clearer message to oncoming left turners that I am going straight through the intersection, and fewer motorists attempt to turn in front of me.

What I've managed to learn, and how I've applied it to help me survive on the road all these years, carries a lot more weight with me than the statistically questionable results of some peer-reviewed study.

My assertion is based on my own experience of transportation cycling in an urban environment for the last fifty years.

You must be a student or graduate of the Vehicular Cycling™ Brand Risk Evaluation School of Tunnel Vision and Extrapolations from Selected Anecdotes.

You must be a student or graduate of the Vehicular Cycling™ Brand Risk Evaluation School of Tunnel Vision and Extrapolations from Selected Anecdotes.

Nope, just the school of hard knocks. That's the one where knowledge is based on reality, not ideology.

Odds and risk levels are not determined by opinions.

A handful of cherry picked and/or biased anecdotes establishes the "odds", or the risk levels, eh? :rolleyes:

It may be jes fine for y'all, but isn't worth spit for evaluating or managing cycling risk for individuals or populations of cyclists.

You would place more faith in a single 'scientific study' than the cumulative opinions of experienced and intelligent cyclists? I think you have too much faith in science. People can create studies to prove any pre-conceived notion.

You could certainly create a scientific study to prove any anti-bike lane points, but it will cost a lot of money and time. Until that time comes, I am going with my own gut and the experiences of people I trust.

You would place more faith in a single 'scientific study' than the cumulative opinions of experienced and intelligent cyclists? I think you have too much faith in science. People can create studies to prove any pre-conceived notion.

You could certainly create a scientific study to prove any anti-bike lane points, but it will cost a lot of money and time. Until that time comes, I am going with my own gut and the experiences of people I trust.

Sounds great for determining your own actions or providing your personal opinion, but why not drop the unsubstaniated gibberish about "odds are far less when taking the lane"?

The most persuasive argument so far in favor of bike lanes is that it will encourage more riders which will eventually lead to better educated drivers and more civic support for cycling. This may be true, but a prominent Sharrow and share the road signs would seem to do the same thing.

As another anecdote, I was riding on Revere Beach, a two lane road without a bike lane, when a pedestrian darted out between two cars carrying ice creams and not paying any attention. As I was taking the lane, I dodged easily, but if I had been in a bike lane right next to cars, I would have creamed him. It seems to me that having more space to react is always better. Riding right next to cars (or the curb) just leaves you no where to go.

The most persuasive argument so far in favor of bike lanes is that it will encourage more riders which will eventually lead to better educated drivers and more civic support for cycling. This may be true, but a prominent Sharrow and share the road signs would seem to do the same thing.

As another anecdote, I was riding on Revere Beach, a two lane road without a bike lane, when a pedestrian darted out between two cars carrying ice creams and not paying any attention. As I was taking the lane, I dodged easily, but if I had been in a bike lane right next to cars, I would have creamed him. It seems to me that having more space to react is always better. Riding right next to cars (or the curb) just leaves you no where to go.

Very well said, I see plenty of curb huggers, and have to wonder what the hell they are going to do when someone or something darts out at them from their right. The most obvious is that they're gonna crash, and crash spectacularly.

Very well said, I see plenty of curb huggers, and have to wonder what the hell they are going to do when someone or something darts out at them from their right. The most obvious is that they're gonna crash, and crash spectacularly.

What does your crystal ball predict for the final score of the USC-Ohio State game?

What does your crystal ball predict for the final score of the USC-Ohio State game?

I am not sure why you are so obsessed with scientific studies? I don't see how any scientific study could replicate the thousands of miles I have ridden in myriads of traffic conditions and such. Do you need a scientific study to tell you not to tailgate, speed, run red lights etc. while driving? And even then I am sure you will find scientific studyies that defends both sides of every coin..

As I have said, the collective intelligence from experienced cyclists is infinitely more valuable than a single scientific study. If you are waiting for good scientific studies to tell you how to ride, then I suggest not holding your breath...

I am not sure why you are so obsessed with scientific studies? I don't see how any scientific study could replicate the thousands of miles I have ridden in myriads of traffic conditions and such. Do you need a scientific study to tell you not to tailgate, speed, run red lights etc. while driving? And even then I am sure you will find scientific studyies that defends both sides of every coin..

As I have said, the collective intelligence from experienced cyclists is infinitely more valuable than a single scientific study. If you are waiting for good scientific studies to tell you how to ride, then I suggest not holding your breath...

What you have done is select anecdotes and opinions from cyclists who agree with you and claimed your provincial selection of allegedly "experienced" cyclists posess the "collective intelligence" about the proper and/or safest way to do all things related to bicycling. Why should anyone believe your brand of "collective intelligence" over anyone else's anecdotes and guesswork?

What does your crystal ball predict for the final score of the USC-Ohio State game?

What do you think is going to happen when someone is hugging the curb and have a person or a dog or a car come at them from the right? Or even worse when that curb hugger has to try and avoid road debris or storm grates?

On the street that I live on there are two storm drains with their grates running in the direction of travel and these grates have slots in them big enough to trap a front tire causing the rider to crash. And even knowing where they are, one is at an intersection adjacent to a stop sign. And the other is further west slightly to the right of the center of the road/lane. I do my best to avoid that end of the road. But for a cyclist who is not familiar with that road they will eventually cause someone to have an accident.

Yes, I have contacted the Bicycle & Pedestrian coordinator's office and they are looking into getting the problem fixed.

I am not sure why you are so obsessed with scientific studies? I don't see how any scientific study could replicate the thousands of miles I have ridden in myriads of traffic conditions and such. Do you need a scientific study to tell you not to tailgate, speed, run red lights etc. while driving? And even then I am sure you will find scientific studies that defends both sides of every coin..

As I have said, the collective intelligence from experienced cyclists is infinitely more valuable than a single scientific study. If you are waiting for good scientific studies to tell you how to ride, then I suggest not holding your breath...

He does seem to put more stock and faith into them, then he does people with actual real world riding experience.

A very good suggestion.

Whoever designs these things must be:
a) stupid
b) someone who's never ridden a bicycle on the road
c) both

Here in Portland, Maine, I'd say about half of our bike lanes are in the door zone. I just ride in the regular lane, but I'd feel bad if some n00b who doesn't know any better gets doored while riding in the "safety" of the bike lane.

Whoever designs these things must be:
a) stupid
b) someone who's never ridden a bicycle on the road
c) both

Here in Portland, Maine, I'd say about half of our bike lanes are in the door zone. I just ride in the regular lane, but I'd feel bad if some n00b who doesn't know any better gets doored while riding in the "safety" of the bike lane.

I agree. I do hope you all have some sort of bike advisory committee that can push to get those poor lanes fixed, and to prevent their construction in the future. Alternatively, advocacy groups and clubs can certainly point things out to engineering or whoever designs these things.

In its effort to be more bike friendly, Boston has created a number of new bike paths on busy city roadways. You can't tell in the picture, but the space to the right of the bike path is all parking. The result is that the bike path is less than a foot from parked cars that typically line this street.

I nothink this is a potential disaster for bikers — the entire lane is squarely in the door zone of the parked cars! It is much safer for a biker to be in the lane, away from car doors, but now people will claim we should be in this dangerous bike path instead of taking the lane, which is a right guaranteed by state law.

Am I out of it, or is this a huge fail?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_idKIhdWTcuo/SpU42tzhZCI/AAAAAAAABvI/x0e4RZ_RRiw/s1600-h/DSC02574.jpg

I rode westbound on Beacon Street, last Friday afternoon. Beacon street also has the bike lanes now.
Very similar arrangement. Since it was a weekday, there are a few delivery vehicles parked in the lanes. The usual "trouble spots" on Beacon street are still there though: The bottleneck at Coolidge corner, and the haphazard parking space arrangement as you approach cleveland circle. Beware of cars backing out of these spaces, sometimes quickly.

Don't think I would go so far as to call it a huge fail yet. At least they trying, which is better then they've done in Boston in the past.

Almost all the bike lanes in Boston are set up just like this. I used to regularly ride on Beacon Street through Brookline (where the bike lane randomly starts and stops... go figure), and the bike lane is squarely in the door zone in places. However, all you needed to do was to ride the left edge of the bike lane, and so long as the cars weren't parked in the bike lane there was no issue (with doorings).

The real issue was the cabbies that were ALWAYS parked to the right of the bike lane and stomping the gas through it without any signal. At least if you are riding in the lane, you have some more space to avoid them.

EDIT: haha, beaten to it by trackhub

EDIT #2: Boston may not be perfect, but they do better than other places I have lived. The thing I miss most about Boston's bike accommodations are the smart light sensors for bikes. In Syracuse, you have to beg motorists behind you to come close enough to trip the sensor at many lights, otherwise you'll never get the signal to turn.

Sounds great for determining your own actions or providing your personal opinion, but why not drop the unsubstaniated gibberish about "odds are far less when taking the lane"?

Aren't we all here to learn from other's opinion and reasoning based on experience? Hardly anyone's gonna have a scientific study.

I don't think this statement is gibberish. That's his opinion and you can certainly ask how he gets to those odds.

For me, I agree with his statements that if you take the lane, drivers will notice you better -- whether they're behind you or are going to turn in front of you. Just ask yourself as a driver, when do I notice these cyclists better? When they're in the bike lane or when they're in the middle of the lane.

That's his opinion and you can certainly ask how he gets to those odds.

That is what I did, and apparently he got them by dreaming them up about bicycle risk, and has no idea what the "odds" actually are at all, nor does he have any idea how they might be credibly determined; but does have an opinion which he shares with those "experienced cyclists" who agree with him.