JohnBrooking

[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.

genec

OK, in all sarcasm I have to suggest, "why not," obviously streets are now driven upon by folks that don't know the rules of the road. Why should motorists have all the "privileges?"

Now I said that in sarcastic jest, as we all know that every driver is carefully, fully trained and tested and is fully knowledgeable about and in compliance with the rules of the road... OK OK... I'll stop.

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps if the OP would get around a bit he might notice that children and young teenagers often would like to use their bicycles to get somewhere. None of them have been licensed to be "Bicycle Drivers".

OP, Cycling and Bicycle Planning SHOULD consider more than your "Serious Club Cycling"/"Internet Bicycle Driving" pals.

JonathanGennick 

That approach makes good sense to me, actually. Ideally, you want people's reactions to flow naturally from the design of the road. The less you have to depend upon arbitrary rules, the better.

The road situation last year that perfectly illustrates the point. The state took a four-lane highway and divided it into two lanes going one way and one lane going the other, and a left-turn lane in the middle. Simple, right? Everyone knows what that yellow line means. And the lane markings were painted onto the road. All people had to do was to follow the rules.

Ah, but sadly, things weren't so simple. People expect symmetry. It became an every-day occurrence to see people driving in the left-turn lane thinking that it was a traffic lane. That was especially a problem in winter when the paint was covered by snow. After about year of never-ending problems, the state finally caved in and redid the road with one lane in each direction, and a center turn lane. All the problems went away, because the design was in line with driver-expectation. (A side benefit are the nice, wide, bike lanes that got added out of the leftover space).

I agree with your engineers.

genec

Wait you mean sidewalks were NOT designed as training grounds for children and young teens?

In reality perhaps bike paths should be the designated training grounds for new cyclists... and like any street, should include appropriate signs and markings.

A stripe down the middle and a "keep right" sign as well as an occasional stop sign might not be a bad thing.



Of course when motorists hit the road they are already "so well trained" who needs signs such as this

And this is a classic:

And how about this somewhat obvious sign for "well trained" motorists that know the "rules of the road..."

JonnyHK 

In order to "idiot proof" any system you do need to look at eventualities that are outside of your desired norms, so yes you do need to take into account the behaviour of people who do not follow the road rules (be that all rules or all the time).

Example being the delay in traffic signals that gives a red light to all sides of an intersection for a moment - the design accepting that people will run reds, so lets give them an extra moment before we launch the other stream of traffic at them.

However, all "idiot proofed" systems run up against some problems, usually a better designed idiot.

Bekologist

boy, john, i suspect that means directional signage in the bike lanes and sharrows so as to emphasize correct direction of travel.

similar to 'wrong way do not enter' signs at the wrong end of freeway ramps.....


hardly much more insidious than that, i'd suspect.


don't worry about it.

Be MORE concerned your city stay focused on providing considerate roadway designs for ALL types of bicyclists in your community not just your "A" team self-important desires.

have you read "Who is the design bicyclist?"

roadway planning for bicyclists is still predicated towards lawful road bicycling behavior.

JohnBrooking

ILTB, obviously children and young teens want to use their bikes to get around. Two of them are mine. At ages 9 and 11, I trust them on local streets, but they are not yet ready to tackle Main Street and arterials by themselves (although I have ridden with them in those places). Are there any bike facilities that will make such roads safe for them to ride unaccompanied? I don't believe that there are. Are you saying that we should still attempt to try, on the theory that children and young teens may nonetheless be trying to use them? Or will the design make them feel safer, thereby encouraging them to ride on a road which they are not really ready to ride on?

Bek, I wasn't familiar with a document by that name, but a Google search turned up https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/select.pdf (report FHWA-RD-92-073), is that what you mean?

genec

Bike facilities that can make them safe are separated bike paths that use under passes and overpasses. They use these all over Finland and they work quite well.

Of course the comment will be made that they "cannot be afforded" or it is too hard to design them into existing cities.... yet, if a new freeway was announced, or even adding lanes to an existing freeway, those same arguments seem to be resolved.

Other structures that can be incorporated are bike boulevards, which essentially render streets to resemble your local neighborhood residential roads.

The fact is many roads can be made less "auto centric" and thus safer for ALL road users. It is only the undeniable and overwhelming "need for speed" that causes any road to become less bike friendly.

Bekologist

yep, john, that that might provide some food for thought for you.who is the design bicyclist?

a "some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle traffic shouldn't be part of the design consideration" is an absurd argument against facilities design and development, john.

I-Like-To-Bike

Cycling on the street without any "training" in the "rules of the road" has always occurred to me.

I am saying that the premise of your OP statement is indicative of an VC advocacy that considers self described Trained Bicycle Drivers as the only cyclists worthy of consideration:
FWIW, I rode my bicycle to school (without parental guidance) starting in 3rd grade, and for at least 4 years through out the streets of Philadelphia before my 16th birthday and first drivers license. Including from my house in West Oak Lane to my grandmother's house and to the airport in South Philadelphia, to Independence Hall to hear JFK's address on July 4th, 1962, across the Ben Franklin Bridge to Camden and numerous visits to my friends houses in Kensington as well as lots of trips to the port to watch the ships.

JohnBrooking

I would say it's more like "some roads are too dangerous for riders like my kids, so bicycle riders who don't know the rules of the road shouldn't be part of the design consideration", on the assumption that the facility does not exist that makes such a road safe for those who don't know the rules. If you assume such a facility does exist (please include all intersections), then go ahead, design for my kids. But I'm skeptical.

Bike boulevards, paths, etc. are all great, provided they have minimum intersection interaction, but then that's not the same road any more.

I suppose I'm thinking mainly of bike lanes and their assorted intersection treatments, which is mainly what the discussion I was in yesterday was about.

genec

My parents did not allow me to ride a bike until I was nine years old, and then insisted that I attend the Bike Rodeo that was offered by the local fire department and the Schwinn dealer. The Bike Rodeo emphasized riding on the right and in the same direction of traffic, safe braking and turning and how to cross a busy street on a bike. Prior to the Bike Rodeo, I was only allowed to ride up and down my residential street. Afterward, I rode my bike to school regularly.

Does that Bike Rodeo constitute me becoming a Trained Bicycle Driver?

These parents also bought me my own car, later in life, on the provision that I pay for the insurance and all other expenses. It was a good lesson... I paid for the actual cost of the car several times over, and learned owning a car is not just about buying a hunk of metal, once.

Bekologist

do your kids understand 'the rules of the road"? if so, how does this prevent them from riding a bike in a bikelane?

you are obviously confused about AASHTO compliant bikelanes; they allow bicycling in accordance with the rules of the road. Bike facilities on road are not placed contrary to 'rules of the road'.

you are being vague about how or what you -or the traffic planners - mean by ' facilities designed for people that don't know the rules of the road' - what is that exactly and how are they designed that way???

I'm assuming they are referring to directional arrows, educational signage, etc?? bike lanes on the approach to major intersections to the left of right turn only lanes with emphasized crossover zones and 'yield to bikes' signs for motorists that "Don't know the rules of the road?"

maybe you mean -

since motorists don't know how to operate around bicyclists using the roadways should communities continue to plan for bikes as part of the transportation mix using preffered class lanes and other roadway enhancements that facilitate lawful road bicycling while enhancing safety?

JohnBrooking

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.

Bekologist

John -

what do you -or the traffic planners - mean by ' facilities designed for people that don't know the rules of the road' - what is that exactly and how are they designed that way???

I'm assuming they are referring to directional arrows, educational signage, etc?? bike lanes on the approaches of major intersections to the left of right turn only lanes with emphasized crossover zones and 'yield to bikes' signs for motorists that "Don't know the rules of the road?"

JohnBrooking

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.

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.

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.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe later; it is time for college football for the rest of the day.

genec

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.

randya

"Should facilities be designed for people who don't know the rules of the road?"

Are you talking about motorists?

Because they build all kinds of roads for motorists who don't know the rules of the road.

Those tests they take at the DMV to get their license? So simple they are no guarantee the motorists know anything about the rules of the road.

genec

Some good points, but bear in mind that we already do "dumb down" the roads for vehicle operators, with the inclusion of many signs and markers. (see the book "Traffic, why we drive the way we drive.") We also give preferential treatment to the flow of traffic in speed and control issues, over safety. The right on red rule and the 85% speed rule are demonstrations of this.

The reality is that we do not, in our road designs, treat all vehicles and operators equally. To expect that a law granting near equality will change the reaction of various vehicle operators to one another is denying the reality of human nature.

BTW I believe a bike lane to the right of a right turn lane is poor design and should not be done. I believe that the MUTCD shows bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes.

Digital_Cowboy

One thing that I think would help, is as I think has been said before. Mom and dad need to teach the kiddies the basics of bike riding, including the standard hand signals. Then the schools have bicycle rider ed classes. Where the students will be taught road sign recognition, traffic laws and advanced handling skills.

It would be modeled after the drivers ed classes. It would benefit cyclists because they would now know the rules of the road. And they would grow up (hopefully) to be better drivers as they would know that cyclists belong on the road. And as such (hopefully) would be more respectful to the cyclists they encounter on the road.

JohnBrooking

I assume you're referring to the law that all states already do have in some form ("Same rights and responsibilities", etc.). You may be right about human nature, but I know that I do ride with the expectation of equal treatment, and I don't see why we should be satisfied with designs that reinforce inequality. Of course, I don't always get equal treatment, but by and large I have found it to work. I realize some believe that it only works for Type A's, but surely we don't want to discourage B's and C's from evolving into A's over time. Most facilities don't hinder this development that much, but the ones I mentioned do, in my opinion.

To clarify, in this case it is not a right turn only lane, it is a combined through and right turn lane, then the bike lane. The recommendation in this case is ambiguous in both AASHTO and MUTCD, which both mainly discuss right turn only lanes. Whether the same recommendations also apply to through/turn lanes is unclear, although such lanes do have present the same possibility of conflict, albeit slightly lessened by the fact that not all of the motor vehicles are turning right. I maintain that it still goes against the rules of the road as I explained above, but the engineers were not convinced that that was good enough reason to not "provide cyclists their own space", rather than "abandon them" by ending the bike lane.

JohnBrooking

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.

Digital_Cowboy

It would be nice operators of motor vehicles would remember that. The other day my neighbor and I were headed to Gateway Mall, and were stopped 2nd or 3rd vehicle back from the stop light in the right lane. When some moron in a white pickup traveling down the left lane makes a right hand turn without slowing or stopping. Fortunately that fool didn't hit anyone. And sadly (but not too surprisingly) I have seen people make left hand turns from the right hand lane.