"The most dangerous roundabout in America for bicyclists"
 

This is in Santa Cruz, where a cyclist has filed a lawsuit.

http://image.santacruzsentinel.com/a...l=1&exactW=800

Article in Santa Cruz Senile

That looks like at least 3 or 4 ways to die.

Well, at least they thoughtfully provide a sign to show how you are going to crash.:twitchy:

That is mucked up to say the least.

Only after the plaintiff fractured her hip...

I'm sorry, but how many times have we seen posts lambasting motorists for overrunning their sight lines.

I apply the same standard to bicyclists, especially experienced bicyclists who know how to cross tracks. It's not like tracks are camouflaged. I might be more sympathetic if the rider were a 13 year old new cyclist.

But that attitude might be the result of 50 years of riding on potholed roads with trolley tracks here and there, and becoming conditioned to keeping my eyes open.

BTW - if that's where the fall happened, the crossing angle is very acceptable, and a rider riding parallel to the marked lanes should not have fallen.

No, FB. I usually agree with you, but a clearly marked brand new bike path should be safe when ridden down its center parallel to its boundaries the first day it has been opened and the street swept. This bike lane would have caused a bad crash by even a skilled rider attempting that. Also this is Santa Cruz. Wet ocean air is a fact of life at least part of the day most of the year. This rotary is an accident waiting to happen (again). Also, I believe this is right after the exit of a rotary. In any rotary I have ridden with traffic, I have found my attention needs to be focused right there on the rotary and other traffic. Whatever the street looks like after I exit the rotary matters far less that the 15' right around me. I don't even look at signs in the rotary. Priorities. There is nothing a sign is going to tell me that is more important than where that car is right now.

I will give you that we should take nothing for granted. Not even that an expensive brand new bike lane is safe to ride in but many states and municipalities have ordinances that suggest strongly that those lanes are the appropriate place to ride.

The city wants off the hook. Didn't they approve this at the planning stage? Weren't they overseeing this project at least loosely? Did they consult any cycling organizations or experts?

I saw this and I have kept my mouth shut while Portland and its neighbor each had bike lanes crossing tracks in manners that were even worse. I haven't heard of serious injuries, but I have been told on crashes at one 4 mile frm my house many times over the years, more than a few by experienced cyclists. The other I rode as part of an organized ride. A street I had bypassed for years in favor of the next street over because of the trolley tracks. That ride, another rider crashed just behind me as I thought about just how poor that bike lane was run (and that the next street over was so much safer, leading me to ask "why?")

Ben

I saw the sniper in the back of the yellow Jeep as well. :D

I expected that I'd be an outlier here, and suspect that it's partly due to a different worldview, rather than the particulars.

However, if we take your "down the center" standard, the lane is safe, as it crosses the tracks at about 45°. This is very much better than rail crossings I see in the east which sometimes cross at between 5 and 10°.

I do agree that there's a small "defect" in the right side line which for some odd reason they opted to draw as a sweeping arc rather than a straighter line from curb to curb. But realistically, I wouldn't expect a rider to follow it that closely, rather that steering tor the exiting lane.

Repaint that line, and I'd give it my unconditional seal of approval.

One other minor point. IMO rather than a picture of a bike crashing, a clear instruction to cross the tracks at an angle might be more useful.

No I agree with you. Roads have all sorts of deadly sections for cars. Sharp corners, cross roads, all are signed to warn the driver and if the driver want's to take a 15MPH corner at 60 then they suck it up. Anyone who doesn't know rail crossings are dangerous for bikes probably shouldn't be on the road at all.

Not a lot of options, there, for how the road's lane is going to traverse that set of tracks. If one is going to ride the RH side line all the way, a bike tire is very likely to get caught in the rails. But anyone who's got more than one eye open to typical risks while riding shouldn't ever do that, of course.

That said, it's an accident waiting to happen. I can see how someone would think the city liable for putting folks in that position.

Better option, I'd think: re-route the lane by digging up about 15ft of that parking lot, to straighten the entry into that side road, avoiding the alignment with the rails.

Most Dangerous?

Hardly.

I would slow waaaay down and stay to the left of that bike lane, and then cross the tracks at 90 degrees.

Only dangerous for inexperienced riders.

Tyre width plays a big factor of course. People on racers would be the most at risk, but I would assume these would be the most experienced riders also


https://adolfodgre.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=339&h=190

Unless the lane was crowded, I'd approach that from the left and cross toward the right to try to get closer to 90 degrees. It's not that uncommon to see regular grade crossings at an angle like that. There's one near my house I encounter on most rides that's similar and I tend to ride across the lane there to get the preferred angle. But I'm probably more cautious than is really necessary.

We don't have tracks in roundabouts but plenty of tracks crossing the road at similar acute angles. That one looks safe if you just take the lane and start from the left side and aim for the gutter. As long as you're not turning when you cross the tracks it shouldn't be a problem. I'm always slightly nervous but have never had as much as a wobble crossing angled tracks wet or dry. I usually don't slow down and take them at a good speed.

I'd have to agree, that crossing just looks treacherous.

Google Maps

With all the sharrows, there appears to be an expectation that bikes will be riding through the roundabout. In fact, there is a bike path heading eastward (something that I haven't seen in roundabouts). Actually, a bidirectional bike path through the roundabout, most bizarre.

Anyway, I think they could have made this better with planning to include bicycles.

For the northbound bicycles, a path could have been added to peel them off of the roundabout parallel to the sidewalk, and proceed directly across the railroad tracks. Then create a landing zone on the north side of the tracks (bike path), which would then merge with traffic further down the block.

It might knock out the liquor store. Are those publicly or privately owned?

Wow

That sign is outstanding.

[QUOTE=gregf83;19669675]start from the left side and aim for the gutter./QUOTE]

That's the only way to "safely" approach it. The arrow needs to be shifted about 3 feet to the left, and the direction of the arrow about 40 degrees to the right. That sounds odd, but it might be enough of a cue for some riders to heed. If there was any kind of traffic coming up behind me, I'd get off and walk it, because I wouldn't want to be "weaving" across the lane.

An equivalent "most dangerous roundabout in Amsterdam for bicyclists"

One leg with two-way bicycle path - check.
Trolley tracks - check.

As you can see, the little one is completely terrified.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...s2woeg4f7.jpeg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...spprn44dd.jpeg

-mr. bill

First, I hate car-centric, two-lane roundabouts. Is it really necessary here? I don't know the area or the traffic counts so perhaps it is ... but I don't like it.

We can argue all day about whether the society / government should be held responsible or whether the cyclist has to be responsible for themselves given the conditions.

The question for me, then, and frankly I think it's better suited to this forum, is whether the roundabout is designed as well as it could be within reason. I don't think it is.

Let's start with the two-lane roundabout. A cyclist traveling in the sharrow lane who wants to travel west on Beach St would have to cross cars exiting onto Pacific Ave from the roundabout's inner lane. To me, that's not safe. Notice that there are two lanes exiting off the roundabout onto Pacific Ave. I suppose the cyclist, like a car, could merge into the inner roundabout lane but then why doesn't that lane offer a sharrow as well?

If the roundabout were reduced to a single lane all the way around, the above problem would be eliminated. Furthermore, the single lane could be moved closer to the center of the roundabout increasing the distance to the train tracks. This would allow a greater distance to develop a closer-to-perpendicular angle for cyclists exiting onto Pacific Ave. Notice that surrounding the planting bed in the center of the roundabout, there's what appears to be a paved ring with pictures of dolphins on it. By utilizing this paved area and part of the current inner lane as the only lane around the roundabout, there would be plenty of room to more safely address the train tracks hazard for cyclists exiting onto Pacific Ave.

The tracks are clearly an added risk for cyclists. This doesn't mean to say that the city automatically should have to pay anytime a hazard exists. Still, if the city's planners could do more to make the tracks safer, especially for less skilled cyclists, they should do all they reasonably can. Perhaps failure to do so should be the test of liability.

Having to crossing tracks at angles is not uncommon. I don't see a big issue here. Here is a local example I ride thru N/S several times a week, just line up bike so it is within +/-45deg approach angle.
Attachment 568883

I dislike one-lane roundabouts with essentially just a planter in the middle of an intersection. Why bother?

I think there is only one 2-lane roundabout nearby, and I go through it periodically. Usually at a full sprint on the bike, to get clear of it as quick as possible, but traffic seems to move through it smoothly, including myself on a bike.

The biggest problem with our local roundabout is exiting onto a median strip bike lane, especially when towing a trailer, requiring a series of precision right-angle turns, and maneuvering through narrow curb cuts and around railings. I've flipped my trailer there once or twice.

According to private traffic engineers I've been dealing with and also engineers and planners from MassDot (Massachusetts DOT), one lane roundabouts, if designed correctly, can offer two key benefits:

1. they can "calm" traffic (i.e. slow it down) and
2. they can increase the throughput of cars compared to a signaled intersection.

That intersection has what I've called a landing area, although perhaps reversed from the ones I typically encounter. It appears to allow bicycles to exit from the traffic lane, line up the approach to the RR track, then re-enter the lane without swinging wildly into the traffic lane.

That is one feature that the Santa Cruz roundabout is lacking. Adding an area for bicycles to recover after crossing the tracks would encroach on the sidewalk, and if that is a problem, then the sidewalk would need to be moved further onto liquor store property.

The City/State likely already exercised eminent domain on building the roundabout, so they could have made it bigger for safety, if they had desired. Of course, it would have had to be designed so cars would not mistake a bicycle pathway around the tracks as the same as a car route, leading them to exit from the road onto the sidewalk or into parked cars.