View Poll Results: What do you recommend to the governor? (see OP)
Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
12.50%
Use the "ped model" (OR & AZ): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
18.75%
End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
0
0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll
Vehicular model or Ped model?
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Vehicular model or Ped model?
Say the governor's office contacts you and asks you the following question:
We are looking into revising the law with respect to motorist and cyclist behavior at intersections with bike lanes. What do you recommend?
At an intersection where the rightmost/outside lane can be used for straight or right destination, and there is a bike lane painted to the right of it:
1) Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
2) Use the "pedestrian model" (OR and AZ use now): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
3) At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
4) At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
5) End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
6) End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
7) Other (please specify)
We are looking into revising the law with respect to motorist and cyclist behavior at intersections with bike lanes. What do you recommend?
At an intersection where the rightmost/outside lane can be used for straight or right destination, and there is a bike lane painted to the right of it:
1) Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
2) Use the "pedestrian model" (OR and AZ use now): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
3) At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
4) At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
5) End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
6) End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
7) Other (please specify)
Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-26-07 at 10:29 PM.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.
#3
Senior Member
Drivers should merge into the bike lane before turning right; bike lanes should be eliminated prior to intersections as much as possible.
#7
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.
The laws in (1) and (2) are assumed to apply at any intersection where a right turn is authorized, so that would include driveways.
Where the terms "minor intersection" or "all intersections" are used, driveways are included.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*
#9
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M_S
I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*
But the dynamics are totally different when it involves bicyclists in the bike lane rather than peds on the sidewalk. Here are the reasons:
- The pedestrian is relatively static (relative to the moving motorist). When a motorist looks, where a pedestrian is or isn't is not going to change much over the next few seconds. If the corner is empty a second before the motorist gets to the intersection, there is not going to be a pedestrian there a second later when the motorist is turning right (barring situations where there particularly bad obstructions). The cyclist is not relatively static: at 15 mph a cyclist covers 22 feet per second. Right turning motorists are usually moving significantly slower than 15 mph the last few seconds before turning right.
- The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be unexpected.
- The pedestrian can basically stop instantaneously, and move laterally very quickly. The cyclist cannot stop nearly as quickly and is unable to move laterally without also moving forward.
#10
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.
#11
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
chocolate
Chocolate pie, breakfast of ex champions.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#12
Non-Custom Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,613
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My advice to the governor's office:
Bike lanes in the center of the road. Auto traffic to the right. At lighted intersections, the sequence for green lights would be bikes and pedestrians, left-turning autos, straight travelling autos. 400 pound weight limit on cars. Compressed air every 3 miles.
Bike lanes in the center of the road. Auto traffic to the right. At lighted intersections, the sequence for green lights would be bikes and pedestrians, left-turning autos, straight travelling autos. 400 pound weight limit on cars. Compressed air every 3 miles.
#13
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
#14
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car
I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
https://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...UTCD-Part9.pdf
In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car
I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,
If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05
And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.
This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.
#17
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I voted other because you had no option for chocolate.
#18
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by John Forester
Originally Posted by The Human Car
... but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections. ...
I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.
I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.
#19
BF's Level 12 Wizard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret mobile lair
Posts: 1,425
Bikes: Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Another smoke and mirrors poll.
<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>
You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>
You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
__________________
Shameless plugs:
Work
Photography
Vanity
Shameless plugs:
Work
Photography
Vanity
Originally Posted by Bklyn
Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.
#20
Cycle Year Round
Originally Posted by SingingSabre
Another smoke and mirrors poll.
<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>
You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>
You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car
The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.
I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.
I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.
I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.
I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.
#23
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.
If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.
In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.
So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.
#24
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.
#25
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.
So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.
So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.
So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road? Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire. Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.
One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.