Google sponsored links
How valid is the data presented by Forrester regarding Effective Cycling? Most of the data he presents is pre 1993... And Forrester claims that Vehicular Cycling started back in the 20s... certainly the roads and autos were quite different then.
Hiles of course argues various points for and against Effective Cycling in his paper written in 1996. His claims of accident types are considerably different from Forrester.
The bulk of John Allen's writing is pre 2000... much of which was done in the late '80s.
So my real question here is, with today's roads and drivers, and in particular the autos being used today with cell phones and other distractions... are there "revisions" of VC that should be undertaken and observed by the cyclists of the New Millennium?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I don't think so. At least not much. Vehicular cycling seems to be based on the premise that most road users behave in a relatively predictable way. Are there a larger number of negligent car drivers on the road today? I don't know. Car drivers in general do SEEM to be more aggressive and negligent (for example, putting on make-up, reading, eating, using a cell phone, etc. while driving). But I have no evidence to support that. Maybe someone does. However, compared to how pedestrians act on sidewalks and on paths, car drivers in general are still much more predictable and to a certain degree hold to traffic patterns dictated in part by traffic law that has not changed very much. I haven't studied the traffic law from 20, 30, 40 or more years ago, but I am sure it hasn't changed much. Very few states require that car drivers retake the written traffic law test and driving test later in life though reminders/refresher tests could be useful.
Books and their contents can become "dated". That's why we (Atlanta Bicycle Campaign) and other organizations associated with the League of American Bicyclists TEACH Effective Cycling/BikeEd classes with updated information. We periodically review the materials we use and change our curriculum as needed.
Many people don't realize that about 40% of the class time in on the bike, practicing emergency maneuvers and riding in traffic. Its not just sitting in a classroom or reading a book.
Experience is the best teacher!
How valid is the data presented by Forrester regarding Effective Cycling? Most of the data he presents is pre 1993... And Forrester claims that Vehicular Cycling started back in the 20s... certainly the roads and autos were quite different then.
The data is just used to determine which of the competing theories is the most valid. Data may come and go, but the best theory lasts until someone comes up with one that has even greater objective validity. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been any good scientific research (i.e., good application of the scientific process) that gives another "bicycling for transportation" theory greater validity.
So my real question here is, with today's roads and drivers, and ... autos ... are there "revisions" of VC that should be undertaken and observed by the cyclists of the New Millennium?
No more so than clipless pedals and integrated brake/shift levers do. Even though some of the details of the transportation environment have changed, the fundamental principles (which are what the theory of Vehicular Cycling is based on) have not.
I would think that higher road speeds might be one area where the data of the not too distant past has changed and could effect VC type riding.
And distractions... Cell phones did not even exist in the early 90s and have only come into common use in the last 7-8 years... (outside the datapoints of all the authors I mention) this could effect the response time of drivers when encountering cyclists in their paths.
Are there more automotive rear end accidents today? That alone might be a guiding factor.
I don't follow you. The principles are still the same: "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." And, as stated in the 6th edition's preface, "that principle should guide all decisions about cycling affairs." We all need to be aware of our surroundings. You, as well as the rest of us, know that offensive people drive and use cell phones, mess with their radios, and primp themselves while driving (and sometimes all at once.) But we know this and should, as cyclists and drivers, take precautions: Assume the dumb asses aren't aware of us, whether we're on a bike OR in a car. I'm not sure how revising the vehicular code would change anything. We all should be playing by the same rules now.
"Vehicular cycling" principles will become outdated only when cyclists are forced off the roads.
I never read the entire book but there's one concept I totally disagree with Forrester on and that's his disregard for the rear blinky. I don't know what the conditions of rear blinky's were in the 70's but they are very effective and can save your life today. Forrester thinks you become a bull's eye for drunk drivers and you're better off without a rear light. I don't think Forrester considers a steady rear blinky to be of any value. This is wrong.
Drivers do respond to the blinky and the more the better. Although Forrester is all for the front head lamp, he disregard the rear blinky and this in my opinion is outdated and dangerous information.
I also disagree with Forrester's opinion the Dahon folding bike which is vastly imporved over the years. He doesn't update his website and his overall opinion on 20 'inch wheel folders is outdated.
Forrester will become outdated when someone else produces better research and analysis. I'm open to arguments that he's wrong (his suggestion to drill holes in your bike to add grease is wacky), but I haven't seen any well-researched challenges to his vehicular cycling theories. For the most part, his critics study how cyclists feel rather than what makes cyclists safe.
I think it is still relevant, traffic rules have not changed.
The only dated part of the book is when he describes his commuting cycling apparel-- double-knit polyester pants!
Forrester will become outdated when someone else produces better research and analysis. I'm open to arguments that he's wrong (I think his ideas about drilling holes in your bike to add grease are wacky), but I haven't seen any well-researched challenges to his vehicular cycling theories. For the most part, his critics study how cyclists feel rather than what makes cyclists safe.
Was Forresters work ever held to peer review? Was any of his analysis tested by anyone else?
Does he even practice what he preaches?
And again my basic premise is simply based on Forrester using data of the 70s (I believe most of his stats are dated 1976), how valid might be this data be today with road engineers constantly updating the speed and density of vehicles on the road? Go you one further... A couple years back there was a system tested on Hiway 15 in the San Diego area that robotically drove cars at a fixed distance from each other and at hiway speeds... if this system is ever employed wide scale... will it look for bicyclists? (even stoplights don't look for cyclists today) So don't deny that road conditions cannot change that would invalidate Forrester. Granted, this has not happened yet...
Just food for thought.
Was Forresters work ever held to peer review? Was any of his analysis tested by anyone else?
Does he even practice what he preaches?
And again my basic premise is simply based on Forrester using data of the 70s (I believe most of his stats are dated 1976), how valid might be this data be today with road engineers constantly updating the speed and density of vehicles on the road? Go you one further... A couple years back there was a system tested on Hiway 15 in the San Diego area that robotically drove cars at a fixed distance from each other and at hiway speeds... if this system is ever employed wide scale... will it look for bicyclists? (even stoplights don't look for cyclists today) So don't deny that road conditions cannot change that would invalidate Forrester. Granted, this has not happened yet...
Just food for thought.
These are fair criticisms, but what research out there is better? I did not seek out Forrester because I was a vehicular cyclist. But I think VC theories are correct because I have not seen anything better prove a different result.
Forrester's method is to figure out the dangers to cyclists, and then to see what cycling techniques, laws, and traffic signals enhance or mitigate those dangers. That appears to be the most valid measure out there.
I was very skeptical of Effective Cycling when I first started reading the debates about how best to accomodate cyclists on the road. I do think some EC'ers are as unthinking as some bike-lane-everywhere'ers. (I also think many EC'ers turn Forrester's bike lane skepticism into a dogma far more inflexible than Forrester would support.) But show me something better. I may be persuaded.
Vehicular cycling and specifically the integration of bicycles into the main traffic flow works absolutely brilliantly on lower-speed roads, with speed limits of up to 30mph/50kph or perhaps 35mph/60kph. Many of the principles of vehicular cycling work very well on fast roads, as well, but we cannot afford to be in denial about the very real dangers of faster traffic.
Over 35 years of serious cycling, I have seen a small, but troubling, increase in motorist hostility and brashness and a similar decrease in motorist attentiveness. I have also seen new subdivisions laid out with pockets of culs-de-sac interconnected by prime arterials, despite the fact that bicyclists and pedestrians fare better on well-connected grids of streets with right-angled intersections controlled by stop signs and traffic signals.
My strategy for staying alive and promoting cycling is:
1) ride in a lawful vehicular fashion MOST of the time;
2) ride in a courteous, safe, defensively alert fashion ALL of the time;
3) use judicious hybrid / pedestrian-style maneuvers where I deem it is safer to do so (I depart from Serge and Forester here.);
4) petition local government for bicycle-sensitive traffic controls;
5) petition local government persistently, politely, and assertively for bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly road design (I have been flamed by hard-core vehicular cyclists for referring to certain intersections, such as Montezuma @ Fairmount, S/B Gilman Dr. @ S/B I-5 or E/B Mira Mesa Bl. @ S/B I-805, as "deathtraps." I am tired of being told that the problem in these cases is my skill level, rather than motorist behaviour and the design of the intersections themselves.);
6) spread the word that cycling is fun, healthful, economical, and practical. (There is safety in numbers. The more cyclists we have out on the streets, the better our chances of being noticed and anticipated by motorists. This runs counter to Forester, who holds a somewhat elitist view toward who should be cycling.)
(I also think many EC'ers turn Forester's bike lane skepticism into a dogma far more inflexible than Forrester would support.) Email exchanges with him indicate that he is pretty dogmatically opposed to bike lanes.
Vehicular cycling and specifically the integration of bicycles into the main traffic flow works absolutely brilliantly on lower-speed roads, with speed limits of up to 30mph/50kph or perhaps 35mph/60kph. Many of the principles of vehicular cycling work very well on fast roads, as well, but we cannot afford to be in denial about the very real dangers of faster traffic.
Very true. Traffic is steadily becoming faster and driver's attentions are being diverted by an increasing number of distractions. It's a wonder there aren't more accidents.
5) petition local government persistently, politely, and assertively for bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly road design (I have been flamed by hard-core vehicular cyclists for referring to certain intersections, such as Montezuma @ Fairmount, S/B Gilman Dr. @ S/B I-5 or E/B Mira Mesa Bl. @ S/B I-805, as "deathtraps." I am tired of being told that the problem in these cases is my skill level, rather than motorist behaviour and the design of the intersections themselves.);
I've encountered many intersections that have apparently been designed & constructed by planners with their heads up their butts. How else would a person explain increased numbers of accidents at particular intersections? Vehicular cycling zealots love to hear themselves spout off if you ask me. Just get out & ride. Use common sense & you'll be fine.
I keep hearing about VC'ers being responsible for dangerous intersections, but even most bike-lane-everywhere advocates agree that bike lanes do very little to make intersections safer. In fact, bike lanes usually have the opposite effect. Which is why even the pro-bike-lane-nearly-everywhere AASHTO standards (which permit too-narrow bike lanes) say bike lanes must end before intersections.
4) petition local government for bicycle-sensitive traffic controls;
5) petition local government persistently, politely, and assertively for bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly road design (I have been flamed by hard-core vehicular cyclists for referring to certain intersections, such as Montezuma @ Fairmount, S/B Gilman Dr. @ S/B I-5 or E/B Mira Mesa Bl. @ S/B I-805, as "deathtraps." I am tired of being told that the problem in these cases is my skill level, rather than motorist behaviour and the design of the intersections themselves.);
Your item 4 is one that alone demonstrates the lack of bicycle sensitivity in San Diego... While the local government representive states that "all roads that can handle bike lanes do have bike lanes..." I have seen roads added in the last 10 years that yes, were striped, but nothing was done about adding the latest technologies to sense bicycles at lights, so bikes are still stranded at red lights.
There is a classic example of this on Vista Sorrento Parkway... near my office... a straight only bike lane sandwiched between two auto lanes with sensors. BTW this street is less than 10 years old and the faded stripes and BIKE LANE stencils exemplify the attention to infrastructure in this area (or lack thereof).
Item 5 is a good list of bad roads... especially EB MiraMesa... that area is risky to walk... even with walk controls. Montezuma @ Fairmont... now that deserves extra attention... while there is a nice bridge in the area to allow avoidance of freeway on ramps... the actual curve just prior to that bridge is a joke... and it is not as if improvement couldn't easily be fit in... there is plenty of room. On the SB side I was terribly disappointed that there was no provision made off of the bike ramp to access Fairmont. Nope... you just have to cross the Montezuma exit... sigh. All they had to do was add a cut and ramp from the EB Montezuma ramp to SB Fairmont. Some engineer really blew it there. This is like so many Bike Lanes in the area that simply dump right into "no man's land" narrow streets with parked cars.
Genec's post is probably the most useful kind of bike lane discussion you can have. Take a look at a specific stretch of road and ask, "What is the most safe and efficient way for cyclists to traverse it." Then, you have to look at the minute details of alternative designs. Unfortunately, I don't think traffic planners (or cyclist advocates) are really doing the hard analysis.
On the other hand, the city planners quote ("all roads that can handle bike lanes do have bike lanes") shows one of the stupidest ways to do planning--prescribe bike lanes wherever you can squeeze one in.
Genec's post is probably the most useful kind of bike lane discussion you can have. Take a look at a specific stretch of road and ask, "What is the most safe and efficient way for cyclists to traverse it." Then, you have to look at the minute details of alternative designs. Unfortunately, I don't think traffic planners (or cyclist advocates) are really doing the hard analysis.
On the other hand, the city planners quote ("all roads that can handle bike lanes do have bike lanes") shows one of the stupidest ways to do planning--prescribe bike lanes wherever you can squeeze one in.
Thanks DC... surprising to hear that from you. And yes, I fully agree with you regarding stupid planning methods.
But that is what it really comes down to... good traffic engineering... not blanket bike lanes nor blanket "no bike lanes." Frankly, I have seen abysmal planning for autos in certain areas that just leaves me shaking my head. There are places I won't even drive... much less ride a bike. :eek:
Bad engineering is bad engineering. Period.
I am not dogmatically opposed to bike lanes. I'm just very skeptical. A bike lane is a traffic engineering tool, but it is, in my opinion, greatly overprescribed. If you do the analysis of how to get cyclists across any given stretch of road, bike lanes will rarely (notice I did not say "never") be the best alternative.
And getting back to the topic, I think it would be helpful for Forrester to do a new edition of his book. If he did nothing else, he helped focus the debate over how to discuss bicycle transportation.
Genec's post is probably the most useful kind of bike lane discussion you can have. Take a look at a specific stretch of road and ask, "What is the most safe and efficient way for cyclists to traverse it." Then, you have to look at the minute details of alternative designs. Unfortunately, I don't think traffic planners (or cyclist advocates) are really doing the hard analysis.
How can anyone look at ANY road and ask, "What is the most safe and efficient way for cyclists to traverse it" and EVER conclude that the answer to that is a 5 foot wide fixed/static channel?
The point is that the answer to the question is ALWAYS "it depends". The most safe and efficient way on any road for cyclists to traverse ALWAYS DEPENDS on the circumstances. What is the speed of the traffic? How much traffic is there? What is the speed of the cyclist? What is the cyclist's destination? What is the condition of the pavement and amount of obstacles and debris on it? Etc. etc. It is the dynamic answers to these questions that determines the safe and efficient way. The only thing constant in the answer is that it's always changing. The idea that you could somehow delineate one fixed path that happens to coincide with "the safest and most efficient" path for cyclists to traverse a reasonable amount of the time is patently absurd. That's the fundamental problem with bike lanes.
As to the question of whether EC is out of date, the answer is no, and many have already explained all the reasons why. Sure, some of the equipment information might be, but the truth of the essentials about safe cycling in traffic are timeless, as are the fundamental rules of the road on which they are based.
By the way, the same principles apply on fast roads the same as they apply on roads with slower traffic.
Serge
By the way, the same principles apply on fast roads the same as they apply on roads with slower traffic.
Serge
In spite of the lack of reaction room/time for a vehicle moving at 50 MPH or worse 65 MPH. <--- this latter speed comes from just noticing that Kearny Villa Road just got a speed upgrade to 65MPH.
I want you to convince me that a driver going 65 MPH will see a cyclist just as easily as a driver going 25 MPH... and have the reaction room to respond.
Then while you are at it take a look at this thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=83981)
A city road is posted at 65mph? Are you sure? I don't think that's legal.
I want you to convince me that a driver going 65 MPH will see a cyclist just as easily as a driver going 25 MPH... and have the reaction room to respond.
Obviously a driver going 65 mph needs more time to respond to something or someone in his path than someone driving 25 mph.
But roads with higher speed limits are designed with better sight lines, wider lanes, etc.
65 mph is generally the speed limit on most freeways. To bump it up to 70 mph both the DOT and CHP must approve.
On the other hand, KV Rd has great sight lines and no intersections, so if any city road is going to be set to 65 mph, that would be an appropriate one. It also has very wide lanes.
I know a cyclist was killed there a few years ago by a drifting motorist, but it is still too rare to worry about.
Serge
Obviously a driver going 65 mph needs more time to respond to something or someone in his path than someone driving 25 mph.
But roads with higher speed limits are designed with better sight lines, wider lanes, etc.
65 mph is generally the speed limit on most freeways. To bump it up to 70 mph both the DOT and CHP must approve.
On the other hand, KV Rd has great sight lines and no intersections, so if any city road is going to be set to 65 mph, that would be an appropriate one. It also has very wide lanes.
I know a cyclist was killed there a few years ago by a drifting motorist, but it is still too rare to worry about.
Serge
I don't set the speed limits... I was just as shocked to see it as you are trying to explain that "it cannot be so as it is a city street." Yup, 65MPH. Go take a look. This is Kearny Villa road... just to the east of Miramar Air Station. Parallels hiway 15. Take Miramar Road east and then KV south. You'll love Miramar road down that way... no bike lanes... you have to take a lane on this crowded 50MPH road.
KV road has the same old bike lanes, no new stripes... actually it is a fun fast spin road as it is nearly flat and has few interuptions. Personally I ride further off the road than the bike lane stripes... but then I have fat tires on my commuter.
This road used to be 45MPH... then 55MPH... now 65MPH.
There are two ways to get from Clairmont Mesa to points north... one is Genesee... posted at 45 MPH and hilly, the other is Kearny Villa Road... it was a nice bike road... Some road engineer obviously did a survey and found that folks were speeding up and down this thing at 65 and changed the sign... Idiot! So much for bike support in San Diego.
BTW the worst part is that the road narrows in two areas... along with the bike lane... putting a cyclist in harms way... at 65MPH. Also there is a freeway on- ramp at the southern end that a cyclist has to cross... (where the cyclist was killed previously) so much for "no intersections." There are at least two.
Now auto traffic gets to aim at cyclists at 65MPH vice the almost uh, sane speed of 55MPH.
This supports my questions of whether VC type riding can work when this sort of "road engineering" is going on. Road speeds were typically lower when Forrester wrote his book. I think newer, faster autos combined with the aforementioned "engineering" are turning the roads into new unforeseen hazards.
The freeway shoulder is safer. It is at least a consistent width with well defined lanes!
Kevin Costner, in the movie, "Field of Dreams," was told by a spirit-voice, "You build it and they'll come."
If you build a bike lane adjacent to curbside parking, will they come? Should they come??
They will come. They should know better.
In most situations, I'm not sure that road speeds *are* increasing. In urban environments, clog is clog, it still mooches along under 20mph - granted there are phones now and they're a real hazard, but still, being vehicular works out safer than not. I haven't lost any teeth since I worked that one out :)
Good ideas and good reasoning never go out of date. So, the idea that it MIGHT be possible to design a road and a set of rules that allows vehicles and bicycles to share the road remains a good one.
My problem, is I live in a city run by corrupt, incompetent politicians (another was arrested for taking bribes on city contracts today). They build roads at inflated prices that are unsafe for motor vehicles, and waaay unsafe for cycling. Typical is a FOUR lane road that is a little wider than THREE buses. That means that wide vehicles have their right side wheels next to the curb, and their left wheels running in the adjacent lane. Posted at 35 mph, and traffic can be running at 50 mph. No place to be riding a bike.
I live in a fast-growing suburb that has doubled in size every ten years, now at a population of over 100,000 people. Lots of our roads are new roads, many of which are 4-lane thoroughfares posted 45 mph, often with heavy traffic.
Cyclists here have studied six years of recent car-bike collision data provided by the local police. The crash data agrees very well with Forester's data and analysis in Effective Cycling. That is, the vast majority of collisions here are intersection related, much of them exacerbated by "non-vehicular" cycling, particularly sidewalk cycling, contra-flow cycling, and failure of cyclists to yield to oncoming traffic before crossing streets. Only a small percentage (3 out of 75) of the car-bike collisions were of the much-feared motorist-error-in-overtaking variety; in each case the cyclist was riding on the rightmost edge of a narrow (<12' wide) lane and was passed too closely by a wider-than-average vehicle such as a trailer or van. Two of these roads were rural 2-lane roads; another was a 4-lane arterial built before the outside lane width standard was increased from 11' to the present 14'. Our city has a large population of recreational cyclists who use many of the 4-lane 45 mph thoroughfares, often in groups taking up an entire lane, but these have not resulted in rear-end collisions. When drivers realize that they must change lanes to pass, they do so immediately or slow down and wait until it is clear; they do not appear to have difficulty seeing cyclists in the middle of the lane far enough ahead to accomplish this safely. There were no cyclist fatalities in the 6 years of data studied (and no cyclist fatalities in memory in this city either).
It's my conclusion that cyclists here who act as drivers of vehicles, following the rules of the road and using techniques such as those described by John Forester, John Allen and John Franklin, do fare much better than those cyclists who operate as "pedestrians on wheels" or who practice "leftover cycling" by always trying to avoid using those parts of the roadway that other drivers may want to use.
Kevin Costner, in the movie, "Field of Dreams," was told by a spirit-voice, "You build it and they'll come."
If you build a bike lane adjacent to curbside parking, will they come? Should they come??
No. That is not a bike lane... that is stupid road engineering... and has no place on the road.
They will come. They should know better.
In most situations, I'm not sure that road speeds *are* increasing. In urban environments, clog is clog, it still mooches along under 20mph - granted there are phones now and they're a real hazard, but still, being vehicular works out safer than not. I haven't lost any teeth since I worked that one out :)
I agree with this regarding inner cities... but outlying areas are being built up with bad fast roads that almost defy driving them much less using VC methods to ride them. These roads need some other treatment... EC does not effectively cover 55 and 65 MPH roads with narrow lanes... Oh sure, there are touted methods... but actual freeways are safer.
That means that wide vehicles have their right side wheels next to the curb, and their left wheels running in the adjacent lane. Posted at 35 mph, and traffic can be running at 50 mph. No place to be riding a bike.
These roads need some other treatment... EC does not effectively cover 55 and 65 MPH roads with narrow lanes... Oh sure, there are touted methods... but actual freeways are safer.
Only a small percentage (3 out of 75) of the car-bike collisions were of the much-feared motorist-error-in-overtaking variety; in each case the cyclist was riding on the rightmost edge of a narrow (<12' wide) lane and was passed too closely by a wider-than-average vehicle such as a trailer or van.
Alan says narrow lanes (with no shoulder) amount to "No place to be riding a bike". Gene seems to agree by stating that "These roads need some other treatment".
But Stephen points out that bike-car collisions on such roads are rare, and, when they occur, it inevitably involves a cyclist employing "leftover cycling" -- riding as far to the right as possible despite the narrowness of the lane, and thus, encouraging dangerous within-lane passing by motorists -- as opposed to riding vehicularly and taking the lane.
It seems to be that everyone is right. Alan and Gene are right about such roads being "no place to be riding a bike" for "leftover cyclists". But Stephen is also right that such roads are perfectly safe and fine (and, I would add, even quite enjoyable) for cyclists riding in the vehicular manner.
Serge
. . . Cyclists here have studied six years of recent car-bike collision data provided by the local police. The crash data agrees very well with Forester's data and analysis in Effective Cycling. . . .
It would be helpful (and a lot of work) if the cyclists who did the study produced a rigorous paper on their findings. That would allow supports and critics alike to verify the conclusions and use the information in other debates.
Alan says narrow lanes (with no shoulder) amount to "No place to be riding a bike". Gene seems to agree by stating that "These roads need some other treatment".
But Stephen points out that bike-car collisions on such roads are rare, and, when they occur, it inevitably involves a cyclist employing "leftover cycling" -- riding as far to the right as possible despite the narrowness of the lane, and thus, encouraging dangerous within-lane passing by motorists -- as opposed to riding vehicularly and taking the lane.
It seems to be that everyone is right. Alan and Gene are right about such roads being "no place to be riding a bike" for "leftover cyclists". But Stephen is also right that such roads are perfectly safe and fine (and, I would add, even quite enjoyable) for cyclists riding in the vehicular manner.
Serge
In VC the only way to ride these 50MPH roads with narrow lanes is by taking a lane... that is the safest way. This must be negotiated with drivers... per Forester. Per personal observations and per Forester... the negotiation time at 50 MPH is dramatically reduced. Yes, it can be done, but it is difficult and often quite stressful. That hardly amounts to "fun" in my book. Further the fact that the rider is doing perhaps no more than 20MPH in a lane parallel to 50MPH traffic means that the adjacent traffic may pour into the vacuum left in front of the cyclist... presenting the cyclist with constantly merging traffic in front of them.
It can be done, but I question the "fun" aspect.
I define fun as fast spin cycling down a shady country lane... although others might define fun as riding nude in front of the RNC through tear gas... so to each their own. :D
It would be helpful (and a lot of work) if the cyclists who did the study produced a rigorous paper on their findings. That would allow supports and critics alike to verify the conclusions and use the information in other debates.
Here's the full report for the Cary, NC (suburb with 100,000 people) data that I described:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/collisions/cary2003.pdf
Here's the full report for Chapel Hill, NC (a nearby college town):
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/collisions/ch2000.pdf
These provide a good analysis of the collision data to understand where and how they happened, with the main concluding recommendation being that cyclists should be discouraged from sidewalk cycling, especially contra-flow cycling, and should follow vehicular rules on the roadway.
-Steve
50 mph roads with narrow (12' or less) lanes, include no wide curb lane, and no shoulder, are very rare. Even 65mph KV Rd does not apply - as it has wide outside lanes AND a shoulder.
But, yes, on such a hypothetical road taking the rightmost lane is the proper method. Motorists coming from behind will change lanes to pass if possible, but, if not, will have to slow from 55mph to 20 mph and proceed behind the cyclist. And if they come upon a pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection they will have to stop entirely, all 6 lanes or whatever. So what?
I do enjoy all kinds of riding in all kinds of conditions, including all kinds of traffic conditions. It's all good, it's all enjoyable. Your mileage may vary. You may not find it "fun" to take a lane on a multi-lane fast arterial, but I do, And in any case it not being enjoyable is significantly different from saying it's not safe or "it's no place for a bike".
And not finding it "fun" certainly doesn't justify spending millions of tax dollars on these types of roads to build "facilities" that will make it "fun" for a few cyclists. If the motorists who comprise the vast majority want to spend the money to widen the lane to accomodate their ability to pass cyclists easier, that's something else again (though I still believe these tax dollars could be put to much better use, most notably for lowering taxes).
Serge
...Motorists coming from behind will change lanes to pass if possible, but, if not, will have to slow from 55mph to 20 mph and proceed behind the cyclist. And if they come upon a pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection they will have to stop entirely, all 6 lanes or whatever. So what?
You may live in "Fantasy Land", but you clearly do not live in Houston, Texas. Texans drive big vehicles. A Suburban is an "average" size vehicle in Houston, surrrounded by big trucks and Hummers. A red-blooded Texan driving 55 mph through my neighborhood is NOT going to change lanes or slow down, or stop for someone on a bike. The guy on the bike most get OUT of the way or die...the driver won't even get a ticket for running over a cyclist.
You keep spewing nonsense that most folks recognize as nonsense. But, if anyone takes you seriously, and attempts riding a bike down a Houston road where vehicles are moving 40 mph to 50 mph - well, God rest THEIR soul...
In VC the only way to ride these 50MPH roads with narrow lanes is by taking a lane... that is the safest way. This must be negotiated with drivers... per Forester. Per personal observations and per Forester... the negotiation time at 50 MPH is dramatically reduced. Yes, it can be done, but it is difficult and often quite stressful. That hardly amounts to "fun" in my book.
I prefer riding on narrow-lane 50 mph roads over not bicycling to my destination at all. But I prefer wide-lane 50 mph roads over narrow-lane 50 mph roads. The latter is more pleasant. It might be safer, too, but I can't prove that, and I don't want anyone marginalizing my cycling on the unpleasant roads because I need to use them to reach my destinations of choice. Access rights are a higher priority to me than enjoyment or even maximum safety.
Claiming an entire lane on a narrow-lane road is easy regardless of posted speed; one need not pay any attention to drivers behind, and the passing drivers rarely cause difficulty. The occasional harassment can be unpleasant, but I've never heard the squealing of brakes behind me. The possibly difficult part is changing lanes in fast and heavy traffic, for instance to turn left. The negotiation time is indeed shorter or nonexistent; one must wait for a large enough gap to complete the lane change with room to spare for drivers to see and slow. These gaps are harder to come by when the traffic is fast and heavy. I've always been able to find a gap in time for a left turn on 4-lane roads, but on a 6-lane road the difficulties become compounded and one can get stuck in the second lane waiting to get into the inside lane, with traffic passing on both sides. That's unpleasant enough that I try to avoid situations where I cannot cross all the lanes at once in a really large gap.
You may live in "Fantasy Land", but you clearly do not live in Houston, Texas. Texans drive big vehicles. A Suburban is an "average" size vehicle in Houston, surrrounded by big trucks and Hummers. A red-blooded Texan driving 55 mph through my neighborhood is NOT going to change lanes or slow down, or stop for someone on a bike. The guy on the bike most get OUT of the way or die...the driver won't even get a ticket for running over a cyclist.
You keep spewing nonsense that most folks recognize as nonsense. But, if anyone takes you seriously, and attempts riding a bike down a Houston road where vehicles are moving 40 mph to 50 mph - well, God rest THEIR soul...
Lots of people say the same things about North Carolina that you do about Houston. But what you describe, drivers intentionally rear-ending cyclists at high speed, doesn't happen. I bike commute on 45 mph roads, and on some sections I take the entire lane. I have not even been honked at during commute hours, although I have been honked at on weekends.
I've been to Houston, and I wouldn't want to live there for a variety of reasons including the local anti-cycling culture and the unpleasant road designs. But even aggressive SUV drivers don't want to deal with causing a rear-end collision, especially a fatal one that will result in a bike stuck under their vehicle and forcing them to stop anyway. Ironically, aggressive drivers find it easier to harass and assault cyclists riding on the edge of the lane than cyclists riding in the center of the lane, because the cyclist in the center of the lane has more space to evade them and a driver straddling the lane line to assault them is much more conspicuous to everyone.
50 mph roads with narrow (12' or less) lanes, include no wide curb lane, and no shoulder, are very rare. Even 65mph KV Rd does not apply - as it has wide outside lanes AND a shoulder.
And an intersection for a freeway on ramp... and the shoulder and and wide outside lanes go away in at least one spot.
But, yes, on such a hypothetical road taking the rightmost lane is the proper method. Motorists coming from behind will change lanes to pass if possible, but, if not, will have to slow from 55mph to 20 mph and proceed behind the cyclist. And if they come upon a pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection they will have to stop entirely, all 6 lanes or whatever. So what?
Hypothetical... try Miramar road... far east end, just before it intersects with KV road. Try it at say 4:00 in the afternoon. Now that is FUN.
I do enjoy all kinds of riding in all kinds of conditions, including all kinds of traffic conditions. It's all good, it's all enjoyable. Your mileage may vary. You may not find it "fun" to take a lane on a multi-lane fast arterial, but I do, And in any case it not being enjoyable is significantly different from saying it's not safe or "it's no place for a bike".
Yup different strokes... I guess some folks enjoy playing in mud too... I like clear clean water.
And not finding it "fun" certainly doesn't justify spending millions of tax dollars on these types of roads to build "facilities" that will make it "fun" for a few cyclists. If the motorists who comprise the vast majority want to spend the money to widen the lane to accomodate their ability to pass cyclists easier, that's something else again (though I still believe these tax dollars could be put to much better use, most notably for lowering taxes).
Serge
Or building stadiums, or funding the pension accounts, eh? :D Very local joke folks... sorry.
50 mph roads with narrow (12' or less) lanes, include no wide curb lane, and no shoulder, are very rare.
That statement depends on region. This may be true on the west coast, but in the east many or even most roads have outside lanes that are 12' or narrower and no shoulder. In NC, most of our older 45-55 mph state highways (2-lane) have 11' lanes and no shoulders; some have 10' or even 9' lanes. Many older cities have standard outside lane widths of 11'. In Raleigh, some of the busiest thoroughfares have 9' outside lanes next to curbs.
Cary, NC recently upgraded its outside lane specification to 14', but it will take a long time before many new road projects with such a specification start getting built.
50 mph roads with narrow (12' or less) lanes, include no wide curb lane, and no shoulder, are very rare.
BS. In my neck of the woods they're called county routes.
I've been to Houston, and I wouldn't want to live there for a variety of reasons including the local anti-cycling culture and the unpleasant road designs. But even aggressive SUV drivers don't want to deal with causing a rear-end collision, especially a fatal one that will result in a bike stuck under their vehicle and forcing them to stop anyway. Ironically, aggressive drivers find it easier to harass and assault cyclists riding on the edge of the lane than cyclists riding in the center of the lane, because the cyclist in the center of the lane has more space to evade them and a driver straddling the lane line to assault them is much more conspicuous to everyone.
The Houston police do NOT treat a dead cyclist as "an assault". In every case where a cyclist is killed on a road where the flow of traffic is 40 mph to 70 mph, the driver does not even get a ticket. The news story usually includes a sentence to the effect of "Police are investigating whether the man (it is ALWAYS a MAN) riding the bike was intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs..." And, indeed, anyone who rides a bike in Houston on such a road WOULD most likely BE intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs.
I am amazed at the number of people on this forum who confuse "the right to ride a bike" with the "right to commit suicide". Women in Houston do not get killed riding their bikes. They don't confuse "theory" and "reality".
But what you describe, drivers intentionally rear-ending cyclists at high speed, doesn't happen.
No, but they'll throw crap at you or buzz you at very unnerving proximity & speed. Or in one case a female friend related to me, reach out and try to get a grab.
50 mph roads with narrow (12' or less) lanes, include no wide curb lane, and no shoulder, are very rare. If the motorists who comprise the vast majority want to spend the money to widen the lane to accomodate their ability to pass cyclists easier, that's something else again (though I still believe these tax dollars could be put to much better use, most notably for lowering taxes).
Serge
From Freedom From Fear: (http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html)
"A very small number of motorists are unsafely and unsuccessfully passing cyclists and the ensuing crashes are sideswipes that result in mostly minor injuries. Fortunately there is a way that you can reduce the tendency for motorists to pass unsafely. None of these overtaking crashes occurred on roads with wide curb lanes, bike lanes or paved shoulders. They happened on narrow lanes. And the law says that when the lane is narrow you are allowed to leave the right-most side and ride toward the middle."
Thats all I have been asking for... wide curb lanes on high speed roads... is it really too much to ask for?
I prefer riding on narrow-lane 50 mph roads over not bicycling to my destination at all. But I prefer wide-lane 50 mph roads over narrow-lane 50 mph roads. The latter is more pleasant. It might be safer, too, but I can't prove that, and I don't want anyone marginalizing my cycling on the unpleasant roads because I need to use them to reach my destinations of choice. Access rights are a higher priority to me than enjoyment or even maximum safety.
Claiming an entire lane on a narrow-lane road is easy regardless of posted speed; one need not pay any attention to drivers behind, and the passing drivers rarely cause difficulty. The occasional harassment can be unpleasant, but I've never heard the squealing of brakes behind me. The possibly difficult part is changing lanes in fast and heavy traffic, for instance to turn left. The negotiation time is indeed shorter or nonexistent; one must wait for a large enough gap to complete the lane change with room to spare for drivers to see and slow. These gaps are harder to come by when the traffic is fast and heavy. I've always been able to find a gap in time for a left turn on 4-lane roads, but on a 6-lane road the difficulties become compounded and one can get stuck in the second lane waiting to get into the inside lane, with traffic passing on both sides. That's unpleasant enough that I try to avoid situations where I cannot cross all the lanes at once in a really large gap.
Perhaps the most important thing I learned from reading Effective Cycling is how, instead of waiting "for a large enough gap", to create the gap where you need one. Forester does not put it in those terms, but if you apply his negotiated/merge techniques on these types of roads, that's what happens.
We've already established that claiming an entire (right-most) lane is easy regardless of posted speed. Once the lane is claimed and you need to start merging left, just move near the left edge of this claimed lane and look back. In fast traffic you probably have to also stick out your arm. You're not indicating that you are moving left - you are indicating that you would like to move left, and you are asking for permission to do so. Some will ignore the request. Others will assume that you're moving left and will slow down. Still others will recognize what you are doing and also slow down to your speed to let you in. At any rate, motorists will slow down for you and let you in. Now the rightmost lane that you originally claimed is available for fullspeed motorist travel. In the mean time, you have claimed the second lane, and are now moving to the left edge to prepare to negotiate a merge into the third lane. This process is repeated until you are in the left turn lane, regardless of how many lanes there are. The only way the number of lanes matters is in determining how soon you have to start the merge-left process.
At no time are you passively waiting for a gap. You are actively creating one, by looking back and signaling with your left arm. And the whole time you are moving left, there is a motorist behind you "blocking". Never do you move out in front of someone who has not granted you the right-of-way first. This works for me regardless of the posted speed.
Serge
Thats all I have been asking for... wide curb lanes on high speed roads... is it really too much to ask for?
In my opinion, yes, it's too much for a cyclist to ask for. It's too much because it is not necessary for safe transportation by bicycle, and safe transportation is the only purpose of the roadway system, and the only legitimate purpose of any related funding. Wide curb lanes are not necessary for safe bicycle transportation because a cyclist can always "take the lane" if it is too narrow to be safely shared, and that is safe to do regardless of the posted speed.
In contrast, asking for detectors at signalled intersections that respond to cyclists is not asking for too much. First of all, they are necessary for safe transportation, as the only reasonable alternatives are running a red or doing a two-part cyclist/pedestrian hybrid turn, both of which entail additional risk. Secondly, the cost of altering or replacing a signal detector to respond to cyclists is a fraction of the cost of widening roads.
Serge
In my opinion, yes, it's too much for a cyclist to ask for. It's too much because it is not necessary for safe transportation by bicycle, and safe transportation is the only purpose of the roadway system, and the only legitimate purpose of any related funding. Wide curb lanes are not necessary for safe bicycle transportation because a cyclist can always "take the lane" if it is too narrow to be safely shared, and that is safe to do regardless of the posted speed.
Serge
Serge, I have cited Forester, "Freedom From Fear" and Allen in various threads and have shown where they all indicate that there is indeed increased danger at higher speeds in narrow lanes... you always respond in the same "NO LANES" manner... touting that all lanes are "bike lanes." I will also admit that the danger is not from overtaking type accidents... but simply in misjudgements by drivers that can, in the aforementioned close quarters, lead to accidents.
I find it quite amusing that while all the "experts" do recognize and find exceptions and note difficulties on certain road types, you dogmatically deny this.
I believe this is where we disconnect. We will never see eye to eye on this.
... On the other hand, KV Rd has great sight lines and no intersections, so if any city road is going to be set to 65 mph, that would be an appropriate one. It also has very wide lanes. KVR also has at least one deathtrap freeway-style offramp/diverge, made much worse by the increased speed limit. There was absolutely no need or justification for raising the speed limit to 65. Motorists have a superb alternative, known as Interstate 15; cyclists have virtually no time-effective alternative to KVR.
... I know a cyclist was killed there a few years ago by a drifting motorist, but it is still too rare to worry about. Yes, it IS too rare to worry about, unless your name is Larry Mahr. Tell his widow and progeny that the problem is too rare to worry about.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.