View Poll Results: Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?
Yes, those users should be included, within reason.
14
32.56%
No, anyone travelling on the road for should be expected to know the rules.
29
67.44%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll
Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Yup, and slower traffic; people tended to have windows rolled down (air conditioning was a luxury, as was FM radio), cell phones did not exist, and the highest speed limits were 65MHP, soon to be lowered to 55MPH on interstate freeways.
Think about that.
Just for reference, I'm talking about 1965... This movie was made in 1963... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
SUVs did not exist, although muscle cars did... but your average mom was more likely driving a station wagon and no one had their seat belts fastened. Often families only owned one car. There were fewer cars on the road altogether.
Think about that.
Just for reference, I'm talking about 1965... This movie was made in 1963... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
SUVs did not exist, although muscle cars did... but your average mom was more likely driving a station wagon and no one had their seat belts fastened. Often families only owned one car. There were fewer cars on the road altogether.
#27
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
https://www.driverstechnologyassociat.../seatbelts.htm
Of course wearing of seat belts was another story.
My first car, a 1962 Buick LeSabre had seat belts. My sisters first car, a 1964 Chevy had seat belts. (these were 10 year old used cars by the time we got them.)
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
That would be nice, wouldn't it? It is worth noting that most of the European countries put more of just this type of emphasis on bicycling education than we do here. So I invite you to get certified as a bicycling instructor and join us in reaching out to the school systems with this education. Unfortunately, most moms and dads don't bother, and some don't even know it themselves.
Where can one go to get certified, and how much does it typically cost, and how often does one need to get recertified?
#29
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In Texas, things defined as "traffic" in our statutes includes "herded animals, either singly or in a group". How would your engineers design a road to accommodate cattle?
Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.
Those engineers were making crazy talk!
Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.
Those engineers were making crazy talk!
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: western Washington
Posts: 606
Bikes: Stella
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?"
Not sure how the weird placement of the through bike lane / right turn lane fits into that question. And, not sure how many of the rules of the road it should be presumed that road users don't know, either. But, can we assume that a motorist who is not very aware of bicycles' place on the road can at least be assumed to think that "bikes belong in bike lanes", and maybe would be able to look for a cyclist in the bike lane, if the driver had to cross the bike lane to get to their right turn lane? (ok, sorry there, that business of them looking for us is problematic)
Bike boxes - that's going to take some training. Not so wild about how they basically encourage filtering, but on the other hand, getting the bikes out front makes them easier to see, and it's hard to run over someone that you can see, right? (oops)
I can see why that movie from 1963 isn't being shown anymore ... after all, several times the narrator said that the kids should be riding their bikes just like someone would drive a car (!!!). Or, maybe it's the monkey/evolution business. Perhaps someone should create a video featuring monkey-suited SUV and sportscar and truck drivers ...
On perhaps a more serious note, "dumbing down" of design, to handle some of the less able road users, is clearly a basic part of the roadway engineers' job; it's an implicit factor of safety. Even if the safety feature isn't used all of the time, it needs to be there. Buildings have fire exits and are designed to resist earthquakes, but there aren't fires all the time, nor earthquakes.
Not sure how the weird placement of the through bike lane / right turn lane fits into that question. And, not sure how many of the rules of the road it should be presumed that road users don't know, either. But, can we assume that a motorist who is not very aware of bicycles' place on the road can at least be assumed to think that "bikes belong in bike lanes", and maybe would be able to look for a cyclist in the bike lane, if the driver had to cross the bike lane to get to their right turn lane? (ok, sorry there, that business of them looking for us is problematic)
Bike boxes - that's going to take some training. Not so wild about how they basically encourage filtering, but on the other hand, getting the bikes out front makes them easier to see, and it's hard to run over someone that you can see, right? (oops)
I can see why that movie from 1963 isn't being shown anymore ... after all, several times the narrator said that the kids should be riding their bikes just like someone would drive a car (!!!). Or, maybe it's the monkey/evolution business. Perhaps someone should create a video featuring monkey-suited SUV and sportscar and truck drivers ...
On perhaps a more serious note, "dumbing down" of design, to handle some of the less able road users, is clearly a basic part of the roadway engineers' job; it's an implicit factor of safety. Even if the safety feature isn't used all of the time, it needs to be there. Buildings have fire exits and are designed to resist earthquakes, but there aren't fires all the time, nor earthquakes.
#31
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
In Texas, things defined as "traffic" in our statutes includes "herded animals, either singly or in a group". How would your engineers design a road to accommodate cattle?
Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.
Those engineers were making crazy talk!
Outside of new immigrants, I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't understand the basics of traffic. As a child, I observed enough traffic by being a passenger in a car to know what to expect from a very early age.
Those engineers were making crazy talk!
#32
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Bek, I have in mind specific facilities which seem to me to go against the normal rules of the road for vehicles which I assume a bike has more operational characteristics in common with than with pedestrians, even when operated by Class B and C bicyclists.
The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane. This violates the vehicle principle that right turns be made as close as possible to the curb, because it encourages even the right-turning cars to stay left of through bicyclists. It also encourages the through bicyclists to pass on the right of potentially right-turning cars. We have all heard on these forums of cyclists being injured and killed in this situation, especially when large trucks and/or poor sightlines are present.
The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane. This violates the vehicle principle that right turns be made as close as possible to the curb, because it encourages even the right-turning cars to stay left of through bicyclists. It also encourages the through bicyclists to pass on the right of potentially right-turning cars. We have all heard on these forums of cyclists being injured and killed in this situation, especially when large trucks and/or poor sightlines are present.
Another example I would give is bike boxes. It is my understanding that for vehicles (and again, I'm including bicycles as vehicles from an operational standpoint, even though they are not legally defined as such in all states), it is well-established that early merging is safer than late merging, when merging is required. Bike boxes discourage early merging.
virtual bike boxes- road space ahead of a large stopline in conjunction with a large crosswalk - provide the same operational advantages to vehicular cyclists that have filtered for safety and operational/visibility reasons to the head of the line.
I'm not saying that cyclists need to be able to consciously define phrases like "destination positioning" and "early merging" to use the road. But standard motor vehicular road design uses principles like these, and I don't think the physics of them changes just because bicycles are added to the mix. So to the extent that I sense bicycle infrastructure that goes against these principles being justified because we don't have to expect that bicycle operators know common sense rules like that you don't turn left from the right of other traffic, or you don't make sudden turns as you are entering the intersection, strikes me as dumbing down the roads at the expense of safe operation, as well as ******ing the natural progression of B and C cyclists into A cyclists.
BTW, I was already somewhat familiar with the A/B/C designations, although I don't think I have read this source document before.
BTW, I was already somewhat familiar with the A/B/C designations, although I don't think I have read this source document before.
Last edited by Bekologist; 10-10-09 at 11:04 PM.
#33
Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your local or state level advocacy groups may also offer their own more limited certifications. For instance, the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, where I live, has a Bicycle Safety Educator program where they train you to present their curriculum to 4th and 5th graders, and then will also pay you to do so through a funding contract with the Maine DOT. They also provide materials for working with middle-school students in after-school bicycle clubs. Maybe your area has something similar, I don't know, but you can probably find out with a little research.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Mandatory seat belt installation occurred in the US in 1965; many manufactures had already began installing them, with Ford leading the way in the US.
https://www.driverstechnologyassociat.../seatbelts.htm
Of course wearing of seat belts was another story.
My first car, a 1962 Buick LeSabre had seat belts. My sisters first car, a 1964 Chevy had seat belts. (these were 10 year old used cars by the time we got them.)
https://www.driverstechnologyassociat.../seatbelts.htm
Of course wearing of seat belts was another story.
My first car, a 1962 Buick LeSabre had seat belts. My sisters first car, a 1964 Chevy had seat belts. (these were 10 year old used cars by the time we got them.)
I think you're off by 3 years. From what I've found it was 1968 when seatbelts became mandatory equipment.
When did seat belts become mandatory equipment on United States motor vehicles?
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required automobile manufacturers to install lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts for front seats in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until 1984, when the first state laws were passed mandating seat belt use. At present, there are 48 states in which it is illegal for a driver or passenger to travel without a seat belt (the exceptions are Maine and New Hampshire). Of those 48 states, 10 have primary enforcement, meaning that police can stop and ticket a motorist simply for not wearing a seat belt. The other 38 states with seat belt laws have secondary enforcement, meaning that police can only ticket people not wearing seat belts if they pull the car over for some other reason.
As of 1996, 75 percent of automobile occupants in states with...
https://www.answers.com/topic/when-di...motor-vehicles
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required the installation of lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until after 1984, when the first state laws were introduced that penalized drivers and passengers who did not use the device. As of the late 1990s, 68 percent of automobile occupants regularly use their seat belts.
#35
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Yes, cars had them but they weren't mandatory.
I think you're off by 3 years. From what I've found it was 1968 when seatbelts became mandatory equipment.
When did seat belts become mandatory equipment on United States motor vehicles?
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required automobile manufacturers to install lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts for front seats in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until 1984, when the first state laws were passed mandating seat belt use. At present, there are 48 states in which it is illegal for a driver or passenger to travel without a seat belt (the exceptions are Maine and New Hampshire). Of those 48 states, 10 have primary enforcement, meaning that police can stop and ticket a motorist simply for not wearing a seat belt. The other 38 states with seat belt laws have secondary enforcement, meaning that police can only ticket people not wearing seat belts if they pull the car over for some other reason.
As of 1996, 75 percent of automobile occupants in states with...
https://www.answers.com/topic/when-di...motor-vehicles
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required the installation of lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until after 1984, when the first state laws were introduced that penalized drivers and passengers who did not use the device. As of the late 1990s, 68 percent of automobile occupants regularly use their seat belts.
I think you're off by 3 years. From what I've found it was 1968 when seatbelts became mandatory equipment.
When did seat belts become mandatory equipment on United States motor vehicles?
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required automobile manufacturers to install lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts for front seats in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until 1984, when the first state laws were passed mandating seat belt use. At present, there are 48 states in which it is illegal for a driver or passenger to travel without a seat belt (the exceptions are Maine and New Hampshire). Of those 48 states, 10 have primary enforcement, meaning that police can stop and ticket a motorist simply for not wearing a seat belt. The other 38 states with seat belt laws have secondary enforcement, meaning that police can only ticket people not wearing seat belts if they pull the car over for some other reason.
As of 1996, 75 percent of automobile occupants in states with...
https://www.answers.com/topic/when-di...motor-vehicles
The U.S. National Highway Safety Bureau first required the installation of lap belts for all seats and shoulder belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. However, most Americans did not regularly use safety belts until after 1984, when the first state laws were introduced that penalized drivers and passengers who did not use the device. As of the late 1990s, 68 percent of automobile occupants regularly use their seat belts.
And yeah it took a long time before the general public took to wearing them.
But bottom line... traffic was different then, when I learned how to ride a bike, and did it regularly as a kid. Traffic was different in the late '70s too, when I was car free. Remember speed limits did not exceed 55MPH. Now local connectors and arterial roads have 55 and 65MPH speeds... and more traffic.
These days, in spite of my experience, distracted drivers scare the poop out of me. I have had more close calls in the past 3-4 years than I like. And my reaction times are NOT getting better.
I don't like cycling in the city much these days. Country, and paths, and off road... no problem; but mixed fast traffic in exburbs**... NOT GOOD. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
Does that make me someone who "doesn't know the rules of the road???" Not by a long shot. But I do want better facilities... fewer autocentric roads that are focused on moving fast, vice safe. There has been some recognition of this locally... some roads have been calmed. (gee, wonder why...) But this is a slow process, and it was slow in recognition. But indeed, traffic engineers have recognized that frankly some roads are dangerous.... especially for peds... hence the frequent sad display of this sign...
Com'on, why do we even need that sign... have motorists forgotten rule one... Don't run over the people? Sheesh.
**exburbs... not quite sure what to call this... it is not suburbs with long arterial roads, nor is it dense city with city grids, it is the stuff in between, with high speed roads, lots of strip malls, and far too much heavy fast traffic.
#36
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Hey to get back to John Brooking's OP... I really do feel that road users should know at least some basic rules.
But at the same time, I don't feel roads should be geared to one type of user, but should consider all users.
But at the same time, I don't feel roads should be geared to one type of user, but should consider all users.
#37
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
ChipS, you did forget one little detail... too too TOO many kids today are wrapped up in their stupid little video games, handhelds too, and get easily bored if they're not pushing buttons at a rate of 100x per minute. They don't have the attention span to learn traffic laws/rules/flow by looking out the window... and considering the way most folks drive today, it'd just be exacerbating the problem! Yikes!
#38
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,535 Times
in
1,045 Posts
ChipS, you did forget one little detail... too too TOO many kids today are wrapped up in their stupid little video games, handhelds too, and get easily bored if they're not pushing buttons at a rate of 100x per minute. They don't have the attention span to learn traffic laws/rules/flow by looking out the window... and considering the way most folks drive today, it'd just be exacerbating the problem! Yikes!
Nothing like calling out a pile of irrelevant stereotype BS - to NOT make an argument about youth, cycling, the topic thread, or anything else coherent.
#39
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,535 Times
in
1,045 Posts
And all without bike lanes, presumably.
Rhetoric aside, I appreciate hearing more about your background. It's always good to attach some humanity to an online discussion participant. I have some attachment to Philadelphia myself, some remote family connections, and I actually had heart surgery at the Children's Hospital there, but still I've only been there a few times, so I don't know it well. Seems like a nice city, though. We toured Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell once.
Rhetoric aside, I appreciate hearing more about your background. It's always good to attach some humanity to an online discussion participant. I have some attachment to Philadelphia myself, some remote family connections, and I actually had heart surgery at the Children's Hospital there, but still I've only been there a few times, so I don't know it well. Seems like a nice city, though. We toured Constitution Hall and the Liberty Bell once.
Note: When I used to ride to Independence Hall as a kid, the Liberty Bell was still on the ground floor. . There was no special building for it and of course none of the hysterical security rigmarole as there is now. I'd park my bike almost right in front of the same door that Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson entered to sign the Declaration of Independence. I find biking near the current security maze quite depressing now.
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931
Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
[Ignore the word "for" in the second choice, it's left over from an edit and I can't change it now.]
I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.
That had never occurred to me before, that as a road designer, you wouldn't necessarily assume that people using the road, even on a bike, knew the rules of the road. Follow them, that's obviously a different story. But it seems frankly a bit crazy to me that you would design a road treatment without assuming that the users knew the basics of driving.
To me, this is an insight as to how bicyclists really are viewed as a completely different class of users from motor vehicle drivers by many traffic engineers, and helps explain why complaints about facilities conflicting with normal rules of the road don't get as much traction as the proponents of bicyclists as vehicle drivers would like.
I was in a meeting about facilities yesterday with some local bike people and traffic engineers, and the engineers said something that rather surprised me. We were talking about the fact that they see their job description as designing roadways for all potential users, and they included in that audience, cyclists who may not have a driver's license or know the rules of the road.
That had never occurred to me before, that as a road designer, you wouldn't necessarily assume that people using the road, even on a bike, knew the rules of the road. Follow them, that's obviously a different story. But it seems frankly a bit crazy to me that you would design a road treatment without assuming that the users knew the basics of driving.
To me, this is an insight as to how bicyclists really are viewed as a completely different class of users from motor vehicle drivers by many traffic engineers, and helps explain why complaints about facilities conflicting with normal rules of the road don't get as much traction as the proponents of bicyclists as vehicle drivers would like.
Back in the late 1960's the local police department in my town had a booklet, this booklet contained a complete copy of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, with the sections that applied to bicycles in bold type. They gave them out in schools, typically in April or May as the bicycle season was getting started. This was in small town Ontario, where drivers were polite and motor vehicle and bicycle interactions were typically limited to younger riders. Because I first got one of these when I was around 8, I actually knew the rules of the road, long before I learned to drive.
Designing roads so that those who do not know the rules of the road specifically, can still use the road is an ideal. Some older drivers may have forgotten more then most new drivers know, and the exact rules of the road my vary from place to place. For example to turn right, when facing a red light is legal in Ontario, but not in Quebec. However they can also make the information more readily available
For example if there is a local bicycle map, printing the rules of the road as applies to bicycles in the margins would be helpful, making such information available in public service announcements and newspapers would also be helpful. Also helpful is information regarding driving around bicycles, in PSAs and newspaper adverts. A whole chapter of the drivers handbook should be dedicated to driving around bicycles, ebikes and other "green" transportation methods.
#41
Commuter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Consider this travel lane design:
Essentially, this is what the bike lane in this intersection is. (If you imagine both of these being through/right lanes, that would be exactly what it is, except the rightmost one is for optional use by bikes only.) Obviously what's wrong here is that the design routes some through traffic to the right of some right-turning traffic. The term "destination positioning" refers to the fact that when traffic is going in different directions, left turners should be to the left of other traffic, right turners to the right, and through traffic in between. Most drivers haven't heard the term "destination positioning", but I would expect that traffic engineers would consider this a "rule of the road", because their general lane design always reflects it. Why are bikes treated differently?
The answer I get most often is that some cyclists are not comfortable riding further into the lane to go straight, which is obviously true. My argument with the design, besides its poor safety record, is that it also teaches them the opposite of destination positioning. So if you consider destination positioning a rule of the road, albeit a subconscious one for most drivers (maybe "principle" would be a better word), the design both violates it and discourages the learning of it.
The engineer's position that he's designing for all cyclists, including those who don't know the rules of the road, implies to me that he's thinking that it's possible to create a design in which the rules of the road don't matter and cyclists don't have to learn them. That's what bothers me. I don't think such a design exists today, and I'm doubtful that it ever can. The laws of physics don't change according to vehicle mode.
On perhaps a more serious note, "dumbing down" of design, to handle some of the less able road users, is clearly a basic part of the roadway engineers' job; it's an implicit factor of safety. Even if the safety feature isn't used all of the time, it needs to be there. Buildings have fire exits and are designed to resist earthquakes, but there aren't fires all the time, nor earthquakes.
#42
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
John, to that engineer and anyone else planning to design mixed use roads (all surface streets), I suggest they get on a limited power moped (and actual bicycle would be much better) and use the roads to get a feeling how cyclists might and could handle the traffic situations and any road markings they are proposing.
Just yesterday I was driving a truck that had an engine problem... it would not go over 50MPH. I was on an interstate freeway. The reactions of motorists (even with hazard lights on) was simply eye opening, and somewhat disappointing. Some drivers simply do not look ahead, nor plan ahead... and their reactions to a slow moving vehicle is quite scary.
Just yesterday I was driving a truck that had an engine problem... it would not go over 50MPH. I was on an interstate freeway. The reactions of motorists (even with hazard lights on) was simply eye opening, and somewhat disappointing. Some drivers simply do not look ahead, nor plan ahead... and their reactions to a slow moving vehicle is quite scary.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The 'enlightened' City of Portland, LAB platinum-level bicycle friendly city, actually thinks that this is a good design for cyclists, and that by painting the bike lane green the right turning motorists will know to look for and yield to through cyclists on their right. I say, EPIC FAIL.
But the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals actually agrees with the city and the LAB and recently gave a national award to the city's Traffic Engineer for his advocacy of these designs.
But the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals actually agrees with the city and the LAB and recently gave a national award to the city's Traffic Engineer for his advocacy of these designs.
Last edited by randya; 10-18-09 at 08:02 PM.
#44
Sputnik - beep beep beep
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 481
Bikes: '12 Jamis Coda Elite '09 Jamis Sputnik, '07 Jamis Eclipse, '13 Brompton M6R.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
1) We live in an area with a high percentage of immigrants, who, if they know the rules, often don't follow them.
2) Police are far to busy with drug busts and other drama to bother with traffic infractions. If they did, people would quickly learn and obey the rules.
2) Police are far to busy with drug busts and other drama to bother with traffic infractions. If they did, people would quickly learn and obey the rules.
#45
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?
I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.
In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.
It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?
The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.
If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.
But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.
And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.
When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.
Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.
Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.
The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.
I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.
In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.
It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?
The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.
If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.
But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.
And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.
When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.
Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.
Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.
The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931
Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?
I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.
In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.
It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?
The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.
If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.
But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.
And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.
When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.
Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.
Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.
The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.
I was actively involved with a traffic idea, I'll call it for want of a better term, called Transplan 2010 in Winnipeg for a couple years. One of my complaints, from the perspective of a person who was new to the city, was their use of Route Numbers and road names. In Winnipeg the road names change every few blocks, and I think the worst street for that has something like 6 different names. So they decided to pick certain roads/routes that went right through the city fairly seamlessly and give them Route Numbers instead. Trouble was that these Route Numbers were chosen randomly. There was no order to them or anything. Route 96 might be in the furthest north part of the city, Route 112 might be through the centre, and Route 89 might be in the furthest south, with all sorts of random numbers chosen for routes in between.
In addition to that, they had no signage. You'd be driving along and all you'd get is a tiny sign hidden behind some foliage indicating either Route 96 or a street name, but never both.
It was quite challenging to drive in Winnipeg and even Winnipegers almost seemed to pride themselves on the fact that most newcomers got badly lost. So I brought all that up in the meetings, and happened to talk to the guy who came up with the route system. It was supposed to make getting around Winnipeg easier, but they should have made a plan before randomly assigning numbers to whatever they figured was a route. One of his comments was that he had the routes all memorized. That's great for him ... but what about for someone who has never been to the city before?
The whole Transplan 2010 thing didn't amount to much, but I did notice that more and larger signs appeared giving both the route number and the street name so that it was easier to get around.
If you're making a traffic plan, you have to make it for people who have never been to your city before ... and who don't know the specific rules of the road in your city, or province, or state. This is especially true in this "global economy" where you might have people moving to your city from all over the world.
But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.
And having said that, I think more education and testing should be done to help people know the rules of the road.
When I was in elementary school, at about the age of 10 we were required to take a bicycle course as a part of one of our other classes. The main part of that course was all about road signs and other road rules. I thought it was great then, and I still do. I already knew most of that stuff, but it taught us in a formal way.
Then at the age of 15 I got my Learner's Licence ... a written test (done on the computer, even back in those days) which entitled me to be able to drive with another qualified driver. Again, I thought that was a great idea because the test was all about the rules of the road.
Now here's the thing ... I would not be opposed to having a law which requires drivers to take a written (computer) test on the rules of the road every 5 or 10 years. They wouldn't have to take the driving part of the test, because to me that had very little to do with road rules and a lot more to do with handling a piece of machinery. But they would have to take the written test.
The written test would, of course, be updated as road laws change ....... and would also include sections about the rules and rights of cyclists, pedestrians, and other potential road users.
If you fail the written test, you need to take it again, if there are 25 questions on the test, then there should be categories of similar questions, the computer randomly picks from each category. This way a driver could take the test 4 times, and have only a few duplicate questions. The position of the answers also is randomly selected, for pick the correct answer type questions. The advantage of a computerized test is that it could be designed so that if your not fluent in English then there are a selected collection of other languages that can be tested in.
If a driver fails the written test, the first time, they should be required to repeat the test, but also submit to an eye test, peripheral vision test and a road test, before their licence is renewed.
#47
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
john- you're blowing smoke.
this
is NOT that picture. you have begun to misinform this forum. find a diagram of how the proposed intersection is really being designed.
the intersection treatment you describe, not fallaciously illustrate, IS vehicular and appropriate and ridable by both people that DO know these empheral 'rules of the road' and those that may not.
you want bicyclists to stay off some roads until they are trained? how distinctly unpopulist of you.
even the federal highway administration recognizes that ALL roads need to be designed with bikes in mind as part of the transportation mix.
not your lousy, elitist "they can't handle the motor vehicle traffic so i want to discourage bicyclists from using public rights of way and people from travelling under their own locomotion freely in this country."
pretty lame, buddy.
this
Originally Posted by johnbrooking
The facility under discussion locally is a bike lane extending up to a signalized intersection stop line with dashing, to the right of a combined through/right turn travel lane.
the intersection treatment you describe, not fallaciously illustrate, IS vehicular and appropriate and ridable by both people that DO know these empheral 'rules of the road' and those that may not.
you want bicyclists to stay off some roads until they are trained? how distinctly unpopulist of you.
even the federal highway administration recognizes that ALL roads need to be designed with bikes in mind as part of the transportation mix.
not your lousy, elitist "they can't handle the motor vehicle traffic so i want to discourage bicyclists from using public rights of way and people from travelling under their own locomotion freely in this country."
pretty lame, buddy.
Last edited by Bekologist; 10-18-09 at 09:01 PM.
#48
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
john,
you're an league cycling instructor, aren't you?
you're familiar with THIS
Smart Cycling, bicycle friendly communities and Bikelanes
then, eh?
an excerpt...
so, dashing the stripe like you describe IS kosher!
you're an league cycling instructor, aren't you?
you're familiar with THIS
Smart Cycling, bicycle friendly communities and Bikelanes
then, eh?
an excerpt...
Originally Posted by LAB
.... There is a clear and general principle that vehicles turning or changing lanes have the responsibility to make sure they can make the turn safely and not cross the path of another roadway user – we must expect motorists to follow this principle when crossing a bike lane to make a turn just as when they cross a sidewalk, crosswalk and/or shoulder. If a motorist hits a bicyclist (or if another cyclist hits a cyclist when turning) it suggests they have failed to take this basic precaution. (this is true in both the presence and absence of a bike lane, btw- bek)
....On roads with higher volumes of right turning traffic and through cyclists, the manuals typically suggest the bike lane stripe be dashed in advance of the intersection to allow cyclists and motorists to merge to the appropriate place for their intersection maneuver – and a bike pocket at the intersection, to the left of the right turn lane, can help guide cyclists to the best spot for safe through travel as well as alerting motorists to the place where they can expect cyclists to be.
....On roads with higher volumes of right turning traffic and through cyclists, the manuals typically suggest the bike lane stripe be dashed in advance of the intersection to allow cyclists and motorists to merge to the appropriate place for their intersection maneuver – and a bike pocket at the intersection, to the left of the right turn lane, can help guide cyclists to the best spot for safe through travel as well as alerting motorists to the place where they can expect cyclists to be.
Last edited by Bekologist; 10-18-09 at 09:54 PM.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
<Snip>
But I wonder how many cyclists here really know the rules of the road in their area and specifically know the part of their local highway act that pertains to bicycles. I haven't looked up Australia's yet, but I have seen parts of it. I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to ride without a helmet here ... and I think a bell is required as well. In Alberta, cyclists needed to ride with a bell and could be ticketed if they didn't have one. In Alberta also, cyclists are not allowed to have more than 2 headlights. Why not? Who knows, but that's what it says.
<snip>
PRO-ELITE
What about lights mounted to the helmet such as this one?
ELITE
On the first one the lamps share a battery but are independently switchable. And obviously on the helmet mounted one the it's one bulb, one battery, one switch. Do they count housings, switches, or bulbs?
Is there any limit to the number of taillights that one can have on their bike?
#50
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Would this count as one or two headlights?
On the first one the lamps share a battery but are independently switchable. And obviously on the helmet mounted one the it's one bulb, one battery, one switch. Do they count housings, switches, or bulbs?
Is there any limit to the number of taillights that one can have on their bike?
On the first one the lamps share a battery but are independently switchable. And obviously on the helmet mounted one the it's one bulb, one battery, one switch. Do they count housings, switches, or bulbs?
Is there any limit to the number of taillights that one can have on their bike?
It appears that the act (the whole Vehicle Equipment Regulations act, not just this bit about cycling equipment) is under review at the moment and has not been replaced by an updated one yet. However, it says this:
"Bicycle equipment
99(1) A person shall not ride a bicycle at night time unless the bicycle has the following:
(a) at least one headlamp but not more than 2 headlamps;
(b) at least one red tail lamp;
(c) at least one red reflector mounted on the rear.
(2) A person shall not ride a bicycle unless the bicycle has a brake."
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/reg...-322-2002.html
The new traffic acts etc. are here, and the bit above should be in in the Traffic Safety Act - Vehicle Equipment Regulations link, but as I said, it appears that the act is under review because it isn't there just now.
https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/556.htm
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery