The most recent fatality of a cyclist in the Raleigh area was a driver who pulled out in front of her from a side street as she was descending a hill on the main road. From today's paper:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/631042.html I used to ride on this hill regularly when I worked in west Raleigh. One can easily reach 35 mph coasting. I always turned right onto the side street, Farm Gate, near the bottom of the hill, but this cyclist was going straight. The lane is wide on the downhill lane/direction, and I don't know where she was in the lane, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the far-right location of a typical striped bike lane if I were going straight. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...wloc=addr&om=1 The most common fatalities in the Raleigh area, which is mostly urban/suburban, involve intersections or darkness. We haven't had any fatalities in Cary on record as far as I can find, but our most common reported injury crashes are intersection related. |
Yeah... I was trying to stay away from that point, but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion. |
Originally Posted by sggoodri
The most recent fatality of a cyclist in the Raleigh area was a driver who pulled out in front of her from a side street as she was descending a hill on the main road. From today's paper:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/631042.html I used to ride on this hill regularly when I worked in west Raleigh. One can easily reach 35 mph coasting. I always turned right onto the side street, Farm Gate, near the bottom of the hill, but this cyclist was going straight. The lane is wide on the downhill lane/direction, and I don't know where she was in the lane, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the far-right location of a typical striped bike lane if I were going straight. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...wloc=addr&om=1 The most common fatalities in the Raleigh area, which is mostly urban/suburban, involve intersections or darkness. We haven't had any fatalities in Cary on record as far as I can find, but our most common reported injury crashes are intersection related. When descending at speed I move out into the middle of the lane. |
Originally Posted by rando
can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by rando
Yeah... I was trying to stay away from that point, but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion. |
Originally Posted by John Forester
You should study the Cross statistical study of car-bike collisions before you sound off on this subject. Or, since getting a new copy is difficult, see my detailed analysis of Cross's statistics in Bicycle Transportation, which is easily available.
|
bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.
Originally Posted by Rando
but the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion. I'd agree. the dangers are overstated by the shrill & zealous anti-facilities crowd on Bike Forums. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.
I'd agree. the dangers are overstated by the shrill & zealous anti-facilities crowd on Bike Forums. |
sad to see you attempt to refute the obvious, jhon.
|
whoo hoo! a Bek/JF pissing match! I feel like my little thread has arrived!
John, thanks for jumping in to argue completely off-topic points. I'd expect no less. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
bicyclists and motorcyclists get left hooked regardless of their lane position, steve.
The subject collision in Raleigh was a near-side drive-out, not a left hook. Operating farther from the curb is helpful for reducing the danger of near-side drive-outs, because it greatly increases the cyclist's conspicuity to the driver at the side street, increases the time and distance the side-street driver must travel to enter the cyclist's path, and increases the amount of room the cyclist has to maneuver. In my own city, the number of right-side cyclists struck by drive-outs is similar to the number struck by left crosses. (The number of left-side cyclists on sidewalks struck by drive-outs is about five times higher.) The total number of intersection collisions is about fifteen times the number of overtaking collisions. The hazards posed by less effective intersection negotiation on sidewalks or curbside are not so great as to warrant prohibiting such behavior or trying to make people feel bad for operating that way. But, assuming we care about reducing collision risks among cyclists who are willing to listen, it is sensible that we encourage operating on the right half of the roadway, avoiding suddently swerving in front of overtaking traffic close enough to create a hazard, but operating in a visible location at junctions. It is also sensible that we avoid employment of traffic control devices (such as curbside bike lanes through intersections and signage of sidewalks as two-way bike paths) that encourage operation contrary to this benevolent advice. |
Of course, the bottom line in all this discussion is, "how do you ride?"
Forget about bike lanes for a minute. Do you exercise additional care at intersections? I do. |
I keep a heads up at intersections, but am certainely not compelled to be in the middle of the road for each and every curb cut and driveway...
by the way, steve, bike lanes encourage road cycling versus sidewalk riding, and bike lanes buffered away from the curb help encourage a more visible road position from average bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone.... |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
by the way, steve, bike lanes encourage road cycling versus sidewalk riding, and bike lanes buffered away from the curb help encourage a more visible road position from average bicyclists than wide outside lanes alone....
|
Originally Posted by Laika
whoo hoo! a Bek/JF pissing match! I feel like my little thread has arrived!
John, thanks for jumping in to argue completely off-topic points. I'd expect no less. |
yes, john, intersection dangers are overstated in this forum by anti-accomodationalists.
Originally Posted by Rando
.... the shrill keening of anti-facilities zealots about the dangers of intersections and door zones seems to be mostly used, to great effect (they think) in their
arguments as "proof" that facilities are dangerous. can these places be dangerous? yeah. is the danger overstated by some? oh, yeah. in my opinion. Are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated in this forum? YES. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
yes, john, intersection dangers are overstated in this forum by anti-accomodationalists.
And I find Noisebeams' quacky insistence bike lane stripes HAVE TO END 200 feet before all intersection and CURB CUT fearmongering in the extreme. Are the dangers of intersection negotiation overstated in this forum? YES. |
data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.
should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!! |
200 ft? not 150? or 250?
I remember back at a time, that the "200 ft" rule was used by noisebeam and others simply as a retorical device to get someone to agree that there is no purpose for a bike lane stripe at all. After all, as the argument went, if you fragment the bike lane with the "200 ft rule", then you'd have nothing left at all and might as well eliminate the bike lane line all together. But then again, the driveway to the local kwiki mart was considered an intersection, even if it did only attract a car an hour. I am gaining the strong impression that, while there is an underlying order to the traffic system in the US, it is so littered with exceptions and novelties (where else on the road are vehicles asked to share lanes at speed?), that almost anything can be made to work and people will learn to work it. It's just a matter of exposure and the driver's manual. Just as you have to teach people what an unprotected left turn is, you just have to teach people how to deal with the possibility of a cyclist in the bike lane when making a turn into a driveway. And, similarly, teach cyclists the somewhat modified (as compared to car drivers) techniques for dealing with little inconsistencies stemming from the large speed differential. Oregon's drivers manual and bicycling manual are examples of how the word might be spread. In other words, it's kind of like what scientists have found out about diets. It doesn't really matter what diet you are on, as long as you stick to it and the diet works towards the goal of reducing body fat. Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists. |
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
In other words, it's kind of like what scientists have found out about diets. It doesn't really matter what diet you are on, as long as you stick to it and the diet works towards the goal of reducing body fat. Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists.
Moreover, I find it consistent conceptually with more cyclists leading to greater safety. In this case, it would be the idea that cyclists and motorists need to figure out how to negotiate traffic together. If you have more cyclists, motorists get more practice resulting in smoother interaction. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.
should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!! Sorry for the interruption. Back to your scheduled programming. |
Originally Posted by John E
When I can reasonably do so, I avoid intersections with uncontrolled high-speed merges and diverges, such as the mouths of many freeway access ramps.
It's just wrong to put people in this situation. The simple fix, but not very effective, is to put "yield" signs instead of "merge" signs for entering traffic. The real solution is to reengineer and rebuild to make the merge into a perpendicular junction with traffic light or "stop" sign. Obviously, bike lanes will provide no protection or guidance in these all too common intersections. Bike lanes = quick "fix" -- for traffic designers who are too lazy or too cheap to make roads that can be used by everybody. |
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
snips Similarly, it doesn't matter what paradigm a city chooses to accomodate cyclists, as long as it is consistent and works positively toward the goal of accomodating cyclists. |
Originally Posted by Bekologist
data? it's anecdotal, not evidence, in regards to forum banter.
should I be applying metrics to noisebeams' unrealistic, unecessary fears of intersection negotiation that drive his stalwart posts about '200 feet before all intersections and curb cut?' :lol: hilarious!!! |
bwuaghhahahaha. :roflmao: "knows of no streets that don't accomodate cyclists"... worthless rhetoric.
'legality' does not denote 'bikeability', safety, or rideability by the bulk, the majority of bicyclists, john. the majority of who are likely aware on how to ride bikes according to the rules of the road. there's a lot of ability levels in bicyclists that know how to ride, john. bicyclists are NOT dividable into two camps consisting of competant/incompetant, despite your best smear tactics. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.