invisiblehand

Couldn't one ascribe some blame of the Portland bike lane deaths last year to the bike lane?

genec

Would the cyclist's movements have been the same whether the stripe was there or not? Since there is no way to determine that... there is no way to know.

Since cyclists tend to ride in the same place on the road whether the stripe exists or not, blaming stripes on the road for something that could have easily happened anyway, is somewhat ridiculous.

Script

Again, your inspirational way of responding leaves me breathless...
No wonder so many people choose to disagree with you even tho' they may know you are right.

Evidently my ignorance has enabled me to survive many years of significant cycling mileage with nary an incident.

Maybe dumbing down and putting a positive spin on your words would lead to something useful. Or do you think calling people childish, superstitious, ignorant, etc. makes them want to join your cause?

Please don't reply, I'll try to survive without your inspiration.

invisiblehand

Well ... there is plenty of speculation to go around here in bikeforums. If we limit our discussion to what we know with certainty then the discussion will be pretty short. The premise of a bike lane is that the stripes affect behavior; more specifically, the lateral positioning of autos and cyclists. I think that it is fair to say that a bike lane increases the probability that the cyclist will remain on the right while the auto -- truck in the two cases I am thinking about -- will remain on the left. In both cases that behavior contributed to the fatalities.

Bekologist

you need to blame the driver for failing to follow the rules of the road and using faulty equipment on his truck, invisible hand.

so now you'll accept that bike lanes affect behavior? I want to see some statistics on that . invisiblehand. how about you accept that portlands infrastructure and bike lanes directly affect greater numbers of bicyclists and the corresponding LOWERING of the indexed accident rate for bicyclists first.

invisiblehand

That is why I wrote contribute. Then again, the police seem to have concluded that the truck drivers were not at fault. Moreover, a cyclist that was riding behind Brett -- I chatted with him on the Bike Friday YAK group -- seems to have concluded that the truck driver in that case was not at fault either.

Just to be clear, I think that there is some bias in police reporting. But I don't think that it is a stretch to say that the design of the bike lanes/roads -- or perhaps the rules of Portland's roads -- at these locations were a factor in the fatalities.

Of course they affect behavior. The debate is whether that change is positive or negative or "close zero." As an example, from memory, I am thinking of the one that measured the lateral distance between the auto and cyclist on bike lane/no bike lane. What I recall is that the average distance was smaller with a bike lane but that the variance of the distance was greater without a bike lane. I don't recall whether the measured distances and their differences were meaningful.

What is the accident rate indexed for?

I have seen some of the evidence -- counts of cyclists at the bridge crossings -- that was suggestive that there was an increase in cyclists. Although if there were other changes at the time, the connection to bike lanes specifically and the number of reported cycling accidents would be noisy without more corroborating evidence. Whether the results can be generalized to other places would be another hurdle to leap.

Anyway, I really don't know much about Portland.

John Forester

Genec's comment refers to the fatal accident cases of cyclists overtaking on the right-hand side of right-turning motor vehicles.

Genec is arguing that since typical American cyclists are so deludedly ignorant that they insist on overtaking on the right-hand side of right-turning motor vehicles, the bike-lane presence cannot be condemned. I regard Genec's argument as one more of the numerous foolishly ideological defenses of a system that has no reasonable basis.

There are two aspects of this issue: the extent to which the bike-lane program increases the tendency to overtake in this dangerous manner, and the extent to which the bike-lane program reduces the tendency to overtake in the safe manner.

The public believes that bike lanes make cycling much safer and easier. The safety observation can be observed daily in Portland, where the bikeway program advocates write that their bike-lane system has reduced the car-bike collision rate. So long as a cyclist believes that superstition, that cyclist is going to stay in the lane when he should not. It is reasonable to conclude that this bike-lane superstitious propaganda adds to the pre-existing fear of same-direction motor traffic that tends to keep ill-informed cyclists close to the edge of the road when they should not so remain.

The obvious countermeasure to cyclists overtaking on the dangerous side of right-turning vehicles is instruction in vehicular cycling. As has been so frequently demonstrated, the conflicts between bike-lane advocacy and vehicular-cycling advocacy are deep and many. The popular support and official production of bike-lane programs is detrimental to improving the behavior of cyclists in the way that would produce the greatest reduction of car-bike collisions.

randya

show me an actual quote or source where this has been claimed. No one in Portland is making the claim that bike lanes make cyclists safer, the only claims that have made are (1) that more cyclists on the roads make cycling safer, and (2) that more facilities lead to more people cycling.

John Forester

Your argument was the following: "And help me understand this 'negotiation' you refer to. In my experience, I've never been able to 'negotiate' without some type of direct communication such as talking or typing or writing. I'm sure eye contact or a wave is a great negotiating tool, but I prefer something more concrete than that. I'm unwilling to risk life and limb by assuming that by looking and waving a motorist will understand my 'negotiation'."

I describe your argument as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues. Instead of offering methods of communication that are obviously impossible for moving traffic interactions, which your suggested talking, typing, and writing are, you could have simply asked: "How does the cyclist recognize that his negotiation has succeeded?"

I do not know whether your ignorance was real or merely pretended in order to denigrate vehicular cycling. But dealing with people who put up such absurd arguments day after day makes one choose to describe those arguments as accurately as possible.

Helmet Head

Okay, so, given a wide lane, say 16', you're saying that motorists will try to "add" a lane, meaning they will try to create a second line of traffic near the edge of the road, but, if there is a bike lane stripe present, they are much less likely to do so. You're saying this as if the problem with motorists creating two lines of traffic within one wide lane is obvious. But the problem is not obvious to me. Do you mean that precludes you from using the margin space to pass the traffic on the right when traffic is slow/stopped? In that situation I wait my turn, pass on the left, or split lanes, depending on the situation. What's the problem?

That's sounds great, except, as IH has pointed out, if we limit ourselves to known facts based on sound studies we would not have much to talk about here. Not only that, but we'd have very little basis on which to decide how to ride in traffic. But, the dearth of such facts is the reality, and we still must ride, and do our best to be as safe and effective as we can be. So, we consider anecdotal evidence from others in addition to our own experience, and read and write books and talk about them in order to expand our knowledge and confirm what we learn and confirm as much as possible.

Anecdotal evidence is much better than nothing when it's all you've got. Human beings basically survived on nothing but anecdotal evidence for almost all of our history. Those who ignored anecdotal evidence probably were weeded out. Say a buddy eats a mushroom, became violently ill, and dies - do you ignore this as anecdotal evidence or do you avoid that variety of mushroom and tell others in your tribe about it? Again, it's far from perfect, but anecdotal evidence is much better than nothing. It's why I avoid riding in door zones, for one, and try to ride in a manner that maximizes my conspicuousness and vantage as much as is reasonably possible.

Helmet Head

That explains why you do it, and is understandable, but, Script has a point. Treating others derogatorily -- regardless of how justified it may or may not be -- is probably not a very effective manner to win them over to whatever position it is that you may be trying to persuade others to recognize and appreciate.

If one was to write a book called, say, Promoting Effective Cycling, deriding others and what they have to say would probably not be one of the methods covered, I would think.

The Human Car

Q: What does it mean when a driver has his turn signal on?


...




A: It's broken.

invisiblehand

I just want to write that there are sound studies. That is, the researchers do what they can with the data. The data, however, often cannot support the strong statements that we want to make without modeling assumptions.

Helmet Head

That's true, but I think it's much more important than merely wanting to make strong statements - it's about wanting to ride bikes safely and effectively, and not wanting others to be dissuaded from doing so based on false notions about what is or is not safe and effective.

Script

Your inability to reason is only superceded by your profound righteousness.

Pick the question you want to answer and pretend the others don't exist.

My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not.

If it pleases you to use derogatory descriptions for anyone that doesn't absolutely agree with your opinion that is your problem.

I started this thread with a sincere inquiry. You have taken advantage of it to promote an impossible-absolutist position.

Don't waste my time.

Helmet Head

If reason leads to the conclusion that someone with more than a modicum of traffic cycling experience has never experienced riding in a WOL, that's a certain indication that at least one of the premises upon which such an absurd conclusion is based, is false.

My questions in #460 stand.

Script

This is my thread... GO AWAY!

Allister

Don't be such a big girl's blouse. It's prefectly possible to safely operate in a bike lane with traffic turning across it, if everyone follows the rules. In my estimation, any problems Portland are experiencing, and I'm only going by the information and news reports from local riders that post here, are purely due to a lack of education in their proper use.

Seems to me 'Give way to through traffic in the bike lane' should be simple enough to learn for even the most dopey driver. And cyclists learning due prudence for crossing traffic isn't that hard to teach either. Have you even tried in your little program?

Helmet Head

Cyclists learning due prudence for crossing traffic is key to Forester's program, and is easy enough to teach once you get the cyclists in the class. Getting cyclists in the class is another issue.

As far as teaching motorists to "Give way to through traffic in the bike lane" that requires motorists to not only remember to recognize bike lanes, but to remember to look for and yield to traffic on their right before turning right, which is abnormal traffic behavior. You can make progress on this, i'm sure, but in the end it's just not normal habitual behavior in traffic, and for good reason. It's unnatural to route through traffic to the right of right turning traffic, and, so, it's unnatural to look for through traffic to the right of right turning traffic. Many drivers have a hard enough time remember to look for 1-2 mph pedestrians stepping into the intersection from the sidewalk before turning right; expecting these guys to remember to look for cyclists approaching at 20+ mph on their right is simply not reasonable.

Allister

Endlessly repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is normal traffic operation. It works well enough here. If you think that it's too hard to learn, hand in your car keys to the first police officer you see. You shouldn't be driving.

John Forester

You cannot help yourself but be nasty, can you. Here are your words: "My original challenge was to your statement regarding WOL's. I asked if you had ever experienced one and it is becoming evident that you have not."

I answer you politely. About 65 years of frequent use of wide outside lanes.Wide outside lanes were very common in California, though many have now been marked as bike lanes.

The Human Car

[Edit]In your style:
I describe your statement as being flippantly and ignorantly sarcastic, so much so that it should not be offered in a discussion group whose subject is supposed to be serious consideration of bicycle transportation issues.

ChipSeal

Curiously Allister, in Portland Oregon they fixed the deadly intersections by prohibiting right turns at them! Either a permanent ban with physical barriers or they installed "bike boxes" that keep motorists from turning until cyclists have cleared off in front of them.

In addition, the City of Portland’s Water Bureau has forbidden employees from turning right across a bike lane near their workplace:

The details can be found here:
https://bikeportland.org/2007/12/07/w...ler/#more-6138

So apparently it is too hard for Portland motorists to learn to yield to cyclists in a bike lane!

Allister

I was aware of that. A bit of an over-reaction in my opinion, but whatever works in preventing boneheads behind the wheel from killing people is fine by me.

LOL. Do you seriously think that counts as trying? It's a band-aid, knee-jerk solution that'll only solve the problem at that one intersection. A real solution in teaching the rules will need to involve more than paint or prohibiting certain turns.

Helmet Head

Turning traffic yielding to through traffic is way too broad a category to even be a traffic operation, much less be a normal one.

The specific type we're talking about here is right-turning traffic yielding to same-direction through traffic passing them on the right. That would be a specific traffic operation, but it's certainly not a normal one. I can't think of a single instance where that's ever required in traffic, except when bike lanes are painted to the right of traffic lanes from which right turns are allowed. That's why I say remembering to check for and yield to such "traffic" is abnormal behavior.