http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf
 
Has anyone written a critique of this? I searched the yahoo group buy came up
empty. I need to comment on a local board and would like to bolster my opinion
with that of the respected listmembers.
 
I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog in
that fight, but based on a quick scan it seems to present cycling's issues as
identical to pedestrians and appers to be fatally flawed with the
typical position that facilities are the answer and there just isn't enough
money being spent.
 
Thanks,
Tym Tucker
Arlington, TX

 

Well, the study could be worse - they do conclude that "Results to date suggest that sidewalks and multi-use trails pose the highest risk." Many, many of the "cars are evil crowd" think anything is better than mixing it up with the cars so it is nice to see multi-use trails and sidewalks being found the worse facilities in a literature review paper. I am interested in taking a look at some of the literature mentioned on multi-lane roundabouts. There is only one on the whole island where I live and it doesn't get very much traffic, but I'm not sure how well I would do trying to navigate some of the higher speed ones with a lot of traffic I've seen in the UK. Does anyone on the list have experience riding on this type of facility?

- John W.

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

Along these lines... ISTM, if you add uninformed novice cyclists to flawed
facilities (like bike lanes or side paths) that give them a false sense of
security, this would be the expected outcome.

And if you add desire to get cyclists off the road to any kind of injury data,
the conclusion will be "we need more facilities." No matter how much you have to
twist the logic.






--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/medicos-find-bike-injuries-are-increasin\
g-in-severity.php
>
> From the article:
> "If our data is a microcosm of what is going on nationally, we may be on
> the cusp of an injury epidemic," Dr. Kashuk remarked, noting that this
> small study was carried out in Denver, which has one of the most
> well-developed bicycle path networks in the USA. "If we are seeing an
> increase in injuries in a metropolitan area that has fairly mature bike
> infrastructure from the standpoint of bike pathways, there's reason for
> concern about what's happening in metropolitan areas that don't have
> that level of maturity."
>
> I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the infrastructure is
increasing the severity of the collisions?
>

Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation has presented his short view of the
Surface Transportation Bill developed by Oberstar. It is at the URL
given here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm2693.cfm

I do not think that this is outside the purview of chainguard, because
it describes what quite possibly will be the environment in which
vehicular cyclists will have to live and operate. As I see it, there is
likely to be considerable patriotic fervor for attempting to convert
typical American cities into Amsterdams, with, naturally, the full
panoply of bikeways to "make bicycle transportation possible." I have
written to Oberstar's staff, and received no hope. He is adamant about
the bikeway part of his plan. So, consider the future.

--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    forester@...
www.johnforester.com

 

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe.

That depends on what you mean by a 'separated bikepath'. If I understand correctly, bikepaths in US are built only at special locations with minimal intersections. Then there might be a trade-off between exrtemely rare but severe crashes with high speed motor traffic and the typical everyday MUP mayhem.

BUT, if you try to build an extensive transportational system of bikepaths, you will be installing them at normal locations with normal intersection densities, as has been done at many European countries. The evidence (for example Jensen Copenhagen paper, the London fatality study) strongly suggests that Euro style sidapath systems increase the number of severe and fatal crashes.

Kalle Mustonen
Helsinki
Finland

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe. The
> article does not give any hint of a cause. My questions are (1) What
> types of crashes tends to result in severe head trauma?

A couple points:  The press release of that study talked more about chest and
abdominal injuries than head injuries.

Yes, it mentioned head injuries and helmets, because (apparently) it's mandatory
to continue the false linkage of cycling with head injury.  But I'll note that
the press release, at least, did not use the words "severe head trauma." 
Instead, it said that "33 percent of 329 bicycle injury victims had a
significant head injury."

The difference between "significant" and "severe" may be important.  It's common
for the hand-wringing crowd to call every scratch above the neck a "significant
head injury."  This is precisely what Thompson, Rivara et. al. did in their 1989
study that (ludicrously) claimed 85% benefit for bike helmet use.  Cut ears and
scratched chins were recorded as "head injuries," and such minor wounds
dominated the data.

Let's remember that, contrary to today's received wisdom, bicycling is not and
never has been an unusual source of serious (i.e. consequential) head injury. 
Fewer than 1% of American head injury fatalities occur on bikes, and the
per-hour rate for cyclists has been found to be little different than for
motorists, and significantly better than for pedestrians.

- Frank Krygowski

Well, the study could be worse - they do conclude that "Results to date suggest
that sidewalks and multi-use trails pose the highest risk."  Many, many of the
"cars are evil crowd" think anything is better than mixing it up with the cars
so it is nice to see multi-use trails and sidewalks being found the worse
facilities in a literature review paper.  I am interested in taking a look at
some of the literature mentioned on multi-lane roundabouts.  There is only one
on the whole island where I live and it doesn't get very much traffic, but I'm
not sure how well I would do trying to navigate some of the higher speed ones
with a lot of traffic I've seen in the UK.  Does anyone on the list have
experience riding on this type of facility?

- John W.

Linkedin shows lots of Josh Levins, but it's probably this one:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/josh-levin/13/ab0/758

Josh Levin

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner at The National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Greater New York City Area



Bob Bayn        (435)797-2396      Security Team coordinator
   Stop by the "Security Bunker" in SER 301 to see our network
   visualizers showing the continual attacks by outsiders.
Office of Information Technology   at  Utah State University
________________________________________
From: chainguard@yahoogroups.com [chainguard@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Shanteau [RMShant@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Chainguard
Subject: [CG] National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental
Health paper

Josh Levin writes a glowing review of this flawed paper for Centerlines,
the biweekly newsletter of NCBW.

Anybody know who Josh Levin is?

Bob Shanteau

***
<http://www.bikewalk.org/cl/2009/nov/1111b.html#a4>
THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON BIKE CRASHES, INJURIES
By Josh Levin

Each year more and more evidence is gathered that shows the correlation
between increased bicycle safety as a result of increased access to
bicycle facilities. This literature review is no different in its
conclusion. What is revealing about this paper, titled The impact of
transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and injuries: a
review of the literature, is how extensive the review is. The literature
review looks at twenty-three papers that examine bicycle facilities at
intersections and along straightaways in Europe and North America. The
conclusion states what we in the bicycle community already know, more
bicycle facilities means less crashes and injuries.

While the conclusion is obvious, further examination of the data
revealed that not all bicycle facilities are equal in providing safety.
Obvious claims were made that clearly marked bike lanes and facilities
were safer than mixing bicyclists with on road traffic or off road
pedestrians. Yet separated cycle tracks that route cyclists around the
roundabout were proven to be far safer than a bike lane with traffic.
The reason being is due to errors associated with drivers searching for
automobiles but failing to “see” bicyclists. While the conclusion was
only applied to literature reviews of roundabouts from Europe, this can
be easily translated to busy American roads that have an excess of speed
and signage. Such road designs and conditions are death traps for
bicyclists.

To offset these dangers transportation planners must enlist a multitude
of tools. Even though bicycle lanes, paths, and tracks are key
components to safety so too are basics such as proper placement of
bicycle facilities. The claim that minor roads are safer than major
roads is not a groundbreaking revelation by any means. But creating a
bicycle boulevard trail system on minor roads like Portland, Oregon did
is more cost effective and less contentious than paving bike lanes on
every major road. Either way there is no single solution to providing
safety to bicyclists. In the end coordinated bicycle facilities and
policies will need to be in place to reduce crashes and injures.

The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and
injuries: a review of the literature
Environmental Health
Published October 21, 2009
<http://tinyurl.com/yk9r9gz>
***


------------------------------------

To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding address
shown below:
   Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
   Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
   Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
   Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com

Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
Yahoo! Groups Links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/news/8356367.stm

Kalle

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe.

That depends on what you mean by a 'separated bikepath'. If I understand
correctly, bikepaths in US are built only at special locations with minimal
intersections. Then there might be a trade-off between exrtemely rare but severe
crashes with high speed motor traffic and the typical everyday MUP mayhem.

BUT, if you try to build an extensive transportational system of bikepaths, you
will be installing them at normal locations with normal intersection densities,
as has been  done at many European countries. The evidence (for example Jensen
Copenhagen paper, the London fatality study) strongly suggests that Euro style
sidapath systems increase the number of severe and fatal crashes.

Kalle Mustonen
Helsinki
Finland

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 12:21 -0800, Peter Rosenfeld wrote:

> I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the
> infrastructure is increasing the severity of the collisions?

I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe. The
article does not give any hint of a cause. My questions are (1) What
types of crashes tends to result in severe head trauma? (2) Which of
these types, if any, have become more prevalent in Denver? (3) What
factors might be contributing to this? (4) How does the collision rate
compared to the amount of cycling activity. For all we know, it could be
caused primarily by an increase in cycling activity. The collisions per
cycling mile could even have decreased. Eli

Josh Levin writes a glowing review of this flawed paper for Centerlines,
the biweekly newsletter of NCBW.

Anybody know who Josh Levin is?

Bob Shanteau

***
<http://www.bikewalk.org/cl/2009/nov/1111b.html#a4>
THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON BIKE CRASHES, INJURIES
By Josh Levin

Each year more and more evidence is gathered that shows the correlation
between increased bicycle safety as a result of increased access to
bicycle facilities. This literature review is no different in its
conclusion. What is revealing about this paper, titled The impact of
transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and injuries: a
review of the literature, is how extensive the review is. The literature
review looks at twenty-three papers that examine bicycle facilities at
intersections and along straightaways in Europe and North America. The
conclusion states what we in the bicycle community already know, more
bicycle facilities means less crashes and injuries.

While the conclusion is obvious, further examination of the data
revealed that not all bicycle facilities are equal in providing safety.
Obvious claims were made that clearly marked bike lanes and facilities
were safer than mixing bicyclists with on road traffic or off road
pedestrians. Yet separated cycle tracks that route cyclists around the
roundabout were proven to be far safer than a bike lane with traffic.
The reason being is due to errors associated with drivers searching for
automobiles but failing to “see” bicyclists. While the conclusion was
only applied to literature reviews of roundabouts from Europe, this can
be easily translated to busy American roads that have an excess of speed
and signage. Such road designs and conditions are death traps for
bicyclists.

To offset these dangers transportation planners must enlist a multitude
of tools. Even though bicycle lanes, paths, and tracks are key
components to safety so too are basics such as proper placement of
bicycle facilities. The claim that minor roads are safer than major
roads is not a groundbreaking revelation by any means. But creating a
bicycle boulevard trail system on minor roads like Portland, Oregon did
is more cost effective and less contentious than paving bike lanes on
every major road. Either way there is no single solution to providing
safety to bicyclists. In the end coordinated bicycle facilities and
policies will need to be in place to reduce crashes and injures.

The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and
injuries: a review of the literature
Environmental Health
Published October 21, 2009
<http://tinyurl.com/yk9r9gz>
***

Does anybody live close enough to DC to attend this workshop? Note that
registration for the TRB Meeting is not required to attend the workshop.

Bob Shanteau


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     University Ped. and Bicycle Transportation Education
Workshop at the TRB Annual Meeting
Date:     Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:22:53 -0500 (EST)
From:     Jennifer Dill jdill@... <>
To:     rmshant@...

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Committees are hosting a workshop on University Pedestrian and Bicycle
Transportation Education at the TRB Annual Meeting.  The workshop will
be held on Sunday, January 10, 2010, from 9 a.m. to noon at the Marriott
Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC.  We hope that you can attend.
More details are provided below.

TITLE: University Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Education
DATE AND TIME: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 9 a.m. to noon
LOCATION:  Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW, Washington, DC
Registration for the TRB Meeting is not required to attend this workshop.

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:
This workshop will provide information about existing university
pedestrian and bicycle transportation courses.  It will explore
challenges and opportunities for improving non-motorized transportation
education and foster discussion about how professors, researchers,
students, advocates, and other professionals can contribute to better
pedestrian and bicycle education opportunities at the national and local
levels.  Workshop participants will have an opportunity to provide input
and discuss key topics in small breakout groups.

WORKSHOP LEADERS:
Rebecca Sanders, University of California-Berkeley
Laura Sandt, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Robert Schneider, University of California-Berkeley
Lynn Weigand, Portland State University

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:
*Understand how many university pedestrian and bicycle education courses
are currently being offered in the United States and abroad
*Understand the range of topics currently being covered in a sample of
pedestrian and bicycle education courses
*Understand the range of institutional arrangements that have been made
to offer pedestrian and bicycle education within university planning and
engineering programs
*Understand the challenges related to establishing new pedestrian and
bicycle courses within existing university structures
*Learn about what other pedestrian and bicycle course instructors
throughout the country are struggling with-from specific topics to
institutional barriers
*Learn about opportunities for integrating expertise from pedestrian and
bicycle practitioners into courses
*Help define the core competencies, central topics, or essential body of
knowledge necessary for bicycle and pedestrian practitioners

For further information please contact Bob Schneider,
rschneider@...

This came from Carl Scully, former "Roads Minister" in Australia, in a
piece titled "Cyclists do not have the same rights as motorists on
roads."  He seems genuinely puzzled as to why cyclists don't want to use
those nice separated facilities the government has so graciously
provided.  The article oozes paternalism as he speaks of cyclists almost
as petulant children.

The idea of vehicular cycling is so foreign to this man, it may as well
be in a dead language.  He cannot understand and he will make no effort
to understand.  And even worse, he was one of the people setting policy.

Ed W

============

LINK
<http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/cyclists-do-not-have-the-same-rights-\
as-motorists-on-roads-20091111-i8st.html>

"...I made it quite clear that I believed riding a bike on a road was
profoundly unsafe and that where I could I would shift them to off road
cycle ways.

I am still surprised as to how someone willingly gets on a bike and
takes a huge risk with cars, trucks and buses, often travelling well
over 80 km/h.

Motorists get fined for not wearing a seat belt and not strapping their
children in properly, for good reason. It is unsafe to be in a vehicle
without being belted in properly.

That leaves cyclists very vulnerable. No one would suggest it is safe
for pedestrians to be on the roadway, so why should it be any different
if a pedestrian gets on a bike?

...In rejecting the "we have a right to be on the road" mentality of
cyclists and their lobby groups, I also took a measured and balanced
policy position on how best to separate bicycles and vehicles from our
roads over time."

=============

LCI Eli Damon has documented his troubles with the law for controlling
his lane in Massachusetts on his Facebook page.
With his permission, I'm posting it here.

Serge

-------------------------
my legal troubles

  Monday, October 5, 2009 at 10:54am
Story #1:

On Saturday, August 22th at approximately 11:00AM, I was traveling West
on Route 9 in Hadley Massachusetts, approaching North/South Maple
Street. This is a four-lane, divided highway. I was in the outer,
westbound lane, in approximately the middle of the lane, excluding the
right-turn diverge area. From my extensive cycling experience and
training from the League of American Bicyclists (I am a certified
cycling instructor), I know that this position was necessary for
traveling safely and effectively on this road. As I passed a parking
lot on the right, a police officer, later identified as Patrolman
Mitchell Kuc, in a patrol car in the parking lot shouted through the
loudspeaker "Get out of the middle of the road!" Note that he did not
address me specifically, nor was I, in fact, in the middle of the road
so I assume that he wanted me to get off the road entirely. I could not
think of any reasonable response to to this so I continued on my way,
proceeding straight across North/South Maple Street. Officer Kuc
followed me in the patrol car and activated the siren. I pulled over
and stopped.

Officer Kuc claimed that it was illegal to ride a bicycle on a State
highway. I brought his attention to a State statute (Massachusetts
General Laws: Chapter 85: Section 11B) which contradicted his
accusation. He asked me if I had ID, which I did not have. He asked me
for my name and Social Security Number which I gave. He went back to his
car and returned with a statute book and pointed to a requirement to
move to the right to facilitate overtaking by other vehicles and accused
me of obstructing traffic and causing a hazard. I tried to explain that
the statute did not require me to move to the right to an extent that
would put me in unreasonable danger or in violation of the rules of the
road and that other vehicles had been passing me freely. I had, in fact,
been complying with this requirement by traveling in the outer (i.e.
right, travel) lane as opposed to the inner (i.e. left, passing) lane.
Officer Kuc then threatened to arrest me for disturbing the peace if I
continued on my way.

At some point in the conversation, Officer Kuc reported the situation
over his radio. At no point in the conversation did he state what he
believed to be a proper lane position under the circumstances.

I waited in the Home Depot parking lot and called a friend for advice.
Eventually I noticed that the patrol car was not present. I could not
think of anything to do except continue on my way. Fortunately, I did
not encounter him again on that trip. Note that a police officer is not
allowed to arbitrarily detain someone. If he believed that I had been
violating a traffic regulation, he could properly have written me a
ticket but he should have allowed me to continue on my way. But since he
had threatened to arrest me if I continued on my way, he was clearly
detaining me arbitrarily. This was also a problem in the other incidents
that I recount below.

I did encounter him again in the same place at about 10:30AM on
Saturday, September 12th. He pulled me over just past the Home Depot
driveway. He was accompanied by another officer in another car and he
spoke to me in a harsh, angry tone. He confiscated my bicycle and made
me walk to police station to retrieve it. Note that this also is not a
legitimate action for a police officer to take. I constitutes an
unreasonable search which forbidden by the Constitution. When he
returned my bicycle to me at the police station at about 11:00AM, he
admitted that I might have been acting lawfully but said, "I don't care
about the law." He said that regardless of whether my behavior was
lawful, he did not like it and he thought it was stupid. He told me he
would arrest me the next time and that if I rode in the middle of the
lane on any road in any town, he would find out about it and punish me.
Of course, this last part is absurd.

It was then very clear that, with the constant, looming threat of arrest,
I was not safe in Hadley. I am avoiding
traveling on Route 9 in Hadley while I await a resolution to this problem
but this is greatly inconvenient and humiliating. I have contacted
MassBike (i.e. the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition) and an ACLU lawyer
for help but nothing has happened yet.

Story #2

While I was waiting for help in resolving my problem with Officer Kuc, I
had another, even more serious encounter. However, before I recount it,
I would like to recount another incident that occurred on Monday,
October 13th of last year. I posted the following story to the MassBike
Pioneer Valley chapter email list on the night of the incident.

----------------
The saga continues. . . .

When we last left our hero, (i.e. me) a West Springfield police
officer had promised to mail him (me) a ticket for riding a bicycle on
Route 147. I never received that ticket so I assume that the officer
had been bluffing to cover for his ignorance of the statute.

Today, I was on my way to Agawam once more when I was pulled over by
another West Springfield police officer. This was on the exit ramp
from Route 5 South that connects to Route 147. The officer told me
that he was writing me a $200 ticket for riding a bicycle on Route 5.
He started to write the ticket but then changed his mind and left me
with a verbal warning to stay off of Route 5. His change of mind might
have been influenced by my calm yet forceful legal argument. But that
is not the end of the story.

On my way back through West Springfield, I was pulled over again. This
was Route 5 North somewhere near the Riverdale Shops. There were two
officers, each in their own car. One told me later that someone had
called the station after seeing me and that they were responding to
this call. To their credit they were very calm and polite throughout
the incident. Anyway, we had a tense but civil discussion about the
Massachusetts general laws and the finer points of traffic safety.
After about thirty minutes, they radioed the station to have someone
check the statute and received an (incorrect) confirmation that it is
illegal to ride a bicycle on a State highway.

At that point, one of the officers gave me an ultimatum. He said that
I could either walk to Holyoke or I could continue riding and get
arrested. He kept asking me for my choice and, not liking either option,
I kept telling him that I hadn't decided. This went on for about
fifteen minutes, when the they got another radio call from the
station. Someone had actually looked up the statute and found that it
did not prohibit riding a bicycle on a State highway. There was some
more discussion over the radio about the details of the statute and
another officer (I was told he was a captain!) arrived in another car.

They finally decided that they could write me a $20 ticket for not
having reflectors on my pedals or ankles. I checked later and found
that I did have pedal reflectors, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
However, the captain had argued that even if I had had pedal
reflectors, I would still be violating the statute since my cargo
concealed one of them. (This can't be right, can it? If it is then
panniers are illegal.)

So they wrote me a ticket but what then? They could not allow me to
ride a bike that they had just declared unfit. They might have
demanded that I walk and arrest me if I attempted to ride. However,
the captain thought it was too risky so he had one of the other
officers drive me, with my bike loaded in the trunk, to Hadley, which
had been my destination. This was about an hour after I had first been
pulled over.

So I spent an hour arguing with the police and got a bogus $20 ticket,
which I might not be able contest since I will be in Virginia/DC.
However, I did get a ride to Hadley and, most important, I got them to
thoroughly study the statute and admit that there is no law that
forbids riding a bicycle on a State highway. For this reason, I
consider my adventure to be a success for bicycle advocacy.

Eli
----------------

Now for the recent incident, which occured while traveling North on
Route 5 in West Springfield Massachusetts on Monday, October 28th at
approximately 7:30PM. Similar to the incident that occurred last year, I
was returning from the Big E (basically a state fair) in Agawam
Massachusetts when I was pulled over by a pair of police officers, each
in a separate patrol car, one of them later identified as Joseph Reed.

Similar to Officer Kuc, Officer Reed claimed that it was illegal to ride
a bicycle on a State highway and that I was obstructing traffic and
causing a hazard. He was very angry and I did not try to lecture him but
I did assert my right to the road. He asked a number of questions, which
I answered calmly and concisely. However, my answered seemed to make him
increasingly more angry and agitated and he repeated told me to shut up
while I was attempting to answer his questions. He put his face right up
close to my face and yelled at me for more than a full minute, during
which he asked me more questions that I attempted not to answer so as to
avoid angering him further. Much of what he said was quite insulting. He
clearly did not like that I rode a bicycle, that I lived in Amherst (a
town with politically progressive reputation), and that I knew something
about the law. Eventually, he asked me what the problem would be with
riding on the shoulder. I answered that it would be very dangerous. The
other officer, who had been silent until then, said, questioningly, "But
riding in the travel lane would not be dangerous?" I answered, "Yes."
Officer Reed handcuffed me and placed me under arrest, stating
disorderly conduct as the charge, and had me sit in the back seat of his
patrol car. I should point out that my behavior during this incident in
no way constituted a physical so handcuffs should not have been
necessary.

While riding in the patrol car, Officer Reed told me that I should stay
in Amherst. I asked whether he meant that did not have a right to travel
wherever I wanted. He responded dismissively.

We arrived at the police station and he led through a series of
corridors. One of the officers from the incident last year recognized me
and spoke to me, saying "I thought we told you to stay off of Route 5."
Apparently she completely misremembered the resolution of the incident.
I tried to remind her of this resolution when Officer Reed grabbed me by
my bicycle helmet and yanked me away. My possessions were inventoried
and confiscated. I was read my Miranda right and fingerprinted. I was
offered the opportunity to make a phone call. I called my mom and
summarize to her what had happened. Then I was locked in a cell.

After a while, I was removed from the cell and brought to table on which
were my possessions. A court clerk was waiting there to accept a payment
of bail. I paid him and he told me to be at the court house the next
morning to be arraigned. Officer Reed was also there. While I was
collecting my possessions, Officer Reed badgered me about taking too
long, which flustered me and made it more difficult to do so. Then
Officer Reed led me to the lobby of police station and presented me with
my bicycle and form to sign for its release. He badgered me about taking
too long to sign the form. My parents had come to meet me and I left
with them. Except for Officer Reed, everyone at the police station had
treated me calmly and politely but did not question Officer Reed's
behavior.

The next morning, I went to the Hampden County courthouse in Springfield
and, after waiting in the courtroom for about three hours, I was
arraigned on a charge of disorderly conduct. After being arraigned, I
was given an appointment for a pre-trial conference on November 10th and
a copy of Officer Reed's report on the incident. It claimed that,
while I was talking to the two police officers next to Route 5, I had
stepped into the road. This is false and, in fact,
impossible since both my bicycle and Officer Reed had been between me
and road. The report also also claimed that other drivers had been
honking their horns and "swerving" around me. It is true that other
drivers had been honking their horns, which any cyclist will attest
constitutes a threat. I am not certain whether the word "swerving" is
appropriate. What Officer Reed described as "swerving" could have been
legal and orderly overtaking. I cannot say either way. Obviously,
Officer Reed had taken no action with regard to the threatening and
allegedly erratic behavior of the other drivers. In fact, he had told me
while we were standing next to Route 5 that he had had to brake hard to
avoid colliding with a van that had been immediately ahead of him. This
implies that he had been encroaching on the van driver's rear right of
way (i.e. tailgating), which is illegal and dangerous, constituting a
violation of the rules of the road.

I have hired a lawyer to help me fight the disorderly conduct charge.
However, another encounter with the police before the case is resolved
will likely result in my bail being revoked, which means that I would
be held in jail until the case is resolved. Furthermore, even after
the case is resolved, the issue will remain unresolved. I will remain
unable to travel freely since an incessant threat of police
interference will be looming over me. Additionally, my recent
experiences with the police give me the impression that the general
problem is getting worse. Until my problem is fully resolved (the
specific problem with the Hadley and West Springfield police, not the
general problem), I will not be able to travel unescorted along
several important routes in the area. This severely limits my ability
to travel to many destinations.

----------------

response to Erich's question:

Erich: There are many reasons not to ride on shoulders in general. It
is part of the concept called "vehicular cycling", which I practice,
teach as a certified instructor, and advocate that everyone learn and
practice.

It is important to use the design features of the roads to guide you
along the correct path so that you do not end up repeatedly crossing
paths with or merging into high-speed traffic. This is especially
important on large, fast, and complicated roads, such as the ones in
question. Despite the popular myth, rear end collisions are quite rare
and are more likely to be caused by motorists drifting onto the should
to hit an unnoticed cyclist or by a cyclist being forced off of a
shoulder when the shoulder narrows, is interrupted by a driveway or
intersection, is is obstructed, than by a motorist plowing into a
cyclist that is directly ahead of them, which they are pretty certain
to notice. It is also common for motorists to misjudge or ignore the
amount of space needed to pass a cyclist safely. Close passing can be
prevented by taking a more assertive position on the road.

Most bicycle crashes do not involve other vehicles at all. They occur
when a cyclist hits a fixed object or an irregularity in the road
(e.g. sand, debris, parked car, edge of pavement). Such are common on
shoulders and uncommon in travel lanes. Travel lanes are also better
lit than shoulders. For example, on the part of Route 5 in West
Springfield where I was arrested, the shoulder had a guardrail on the
outside and a rumble strip on the inside. There might have been sand
there as well.

Of the bicycle crashes that involve cars, most occur at intersections.
It is important to be integrated into the flow of traffic so as to be
conspicuous, predictable, and assertive, and so that you can be sure
to end up in a good place when you get to the other side of the
intersection. For example, on the part of Route 9 in Hadley where I
threatened with arrest, there was a continuous series of traffic
lights, merges, diverges, right-turn lanes, etc. (that replace the
shoulder). Route 5 in West Springfield also matches this description.
If a cyclist is riding to far to the right (especially on the
shoulder) when they approach a diverge or right-turn lane, they are
faced with the choice of either going the wrong way, merging quickly,
or pulling over quckly and then cutting across traffic to get back in
the right place.

If you follow the rules, the road will guide you along the correct
path and you can go wherever you want to go whenever you want to go
there. You can travel completely freely (except when you get bullied
by cops), without obsessing over every detail of your route. And you
can travel very far and very quickly because you save the time,
effort, and stress that might otherwise be go into detecting every
specific danger you might encounter. Before I discovered vehicular
cycling, ten miles out and ten miles back was about as far as I could
go. Now I think nothing of making trips of twenty-five miles out and
twenty-five miles back.

----------------

In Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 302, 231 N.E.2d 201 (1967),
in regard to appellant Donald G. Chartrand, the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts defined "disorderly conduct" as follows: "A person is
guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public
inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or
tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively
coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to
any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor."
My conduct fails to meet even a single condition mentioned in this
definition, let alone the definition as a whole.

----------------

response to Steve's question:

My experience as a vehicular cyclist and my training as a League
Certified Instructor have taught me that if you use the right
equipment and follow the right rules, it is not especially dangerous,
regardless of the speed difference. Traffic works the same way for all
vehicles and the rules and safety principles are the same. I have
ridden on many different types of roads and at many different degrees
of assertiveness and I can see the effects plainly.

Any road that actually goes somewhere is a State highway and the
simplest and fastest route to a given destination is almost always a
large, fast one. Often, it is the only practical route to a given
destination, other routes being substantially slower, less direct, and
more complicated. Other routes also usually offer far less
flexibility. In the particular case of my trip home from Agawam (Story
#2), Route 5 was the only practical route (with the exception of
Interstate 91). The next best alternative is much longer and more
complicated, which means more inconvenience and more safety and
navigation concerns.

You mentioned Critical Mass, I do think that it plays something of a
positive role for bike advocacy. However, I am critical of Critical
Mass. I think it sends the wrong message to both motorists and
cyclists by disregarding the law and the rules of the road. I think
that lawful, vehicular cycling would have a much more powerful and
positive influence.

My primary purpose is not protest; It is practical travel, to get
where I want to go as efficiently as possible. That means speed,
simplicity, and flexibility. Too much planning, thinking, and worrying
not only makes the trip itself more difficult, stressful, and
time-consuming, it also increases the chances that I won't bother
making the trip at all. Thinking this way would make it very difficult
live a life with a healthy amount of physical and social activity. It
would represent severe, self-imposed limits on my work, home,
shopping, and entertainment options. Basically, I would be living the
stunted, crippled lifestyle that I lived up until four years ago, when
I first discovered vehicular cycling, instead of the free and active
lifestyle that I have become accustomed to since then.

Bob Sutterfield wrote:
>
>
> Has anybody analyzed this study, perhaps by converting their results
> to standard collision typologies?

I just quickly skimmed it, and the one thing that stands out for me is
that there is almost complete absence of light condition/darkness/unlit
bicyclist as a contributing factor, and I'm sure they would be
significant for some of the collisions.

Wayne

Contrast that with the approach to cycling and the good press by London's Mayor
Boris Johnson. Riding alone, for transportation, through the streets of a
not-so-nice area of London.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6901972.ece


Jack

Has anybody analyzed this study, perhaps by converting their results
to standard collision typologies?

The story is getting some traction:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/how-to-get-killed-on-a-bike.php
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2009/11/ft-collins-analyzes-bike-accidents.html
http://tinyurl.com/yl6r3aw is
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20091101/NEWS01/91029073/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE0\
2/Trends-and-lessons-emerge-from-review-of-Fort-Collins-bike--car-crashes

Study results:
http://www.coloradoan.com/assets/pdf/G2145791111.PDF

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

Hi all,

This is mostly for NRPhillips@... in Delaware, and is at least
somewhat redundant to other posts, which I skimmed as I wisked through
a week's worth of Chainguard digests.  But I think I've nailed the core
points quite succinctly, and therefore am taking the liberty of posting.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is categorically
unambiguous in its language.  The members of the National Committee on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle Technical Committee (myself
included) view this as a no-brainer.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (“AASHTO guidelines”)
are also quite clear.  Notably, I checked various editions of the
AASHTO guidelines, from the very first (1981) edition to the most
recent (1999), and all of them say the same thing.

What I don't understand is how these people in Delaware think they can
depart from established national practice, invent their own traffic
law, disrgard the support statements for why the law says what it says,
and not be on the thinnest of ice when an accident occurs.  I hope you
can make that clear to them.

Here's the language from the MUTCD Chapter 9:

<begin MUTCD quote>

Section 9C.04  Markings For Bicycle Lanes
Guidance:
Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes.
Support:
Pavement markings designate that portion of the roadway for
preferential use by bicyclists.  Markings inform
all road users of the restricted nature of the bicycle lane.
Examples of bicycle lane markings at right-turn lanes are shown in
Figures 9C-1, 9C-3, and 9C-4.  Examples
of pavement markings for bicycle lanes on a two-way street are shown in
Figure 9C-5.  Pavement symbols and
markings for bicycle lanes are shown in Figure 9C-6.
Standard:
If used, the bicycle lane symbol marking (see Figure 9C-6) shall be
placed immediately after an
intersection and at other locations as needed.  The bicycle lane symbol
marking shall be white.  If the bicycle
lane symbol marking is used in conjunction with other word or symbol
messages, it shall precede them.
If the word or symbol pavement markings shown in Figure 9C-6 are used,
Bicycle Lane signs (see
Section 9B.04) shall also be used, but the signs need not be adjacent
to every symbol to avoid overuse of
the signs.
A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right
turn only lane.
Support:
A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right
of a right turn lane would be
inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and would violate the
expectations of right-turning motorists.
Guidance:
When the right through lane is dropped to become a right turn only
lane, the bicycle lane markings should
stop at least 100 feet before the beginning of the right turn lane.
Through bicycle lane markings should resume
to the left of the right turn only lane.
An optional through-right turn lane next to a right turn only lane
should not be used where there is a through
bicycle lane.  If a capacity analysis indicates the need for an
optional through-right turn lane, the bicycle lane
should be discontinued at the intersection approach.
Posts or raised pavement markers should not be used to separate bicycle
lanes from adjacent travel lanes.
Support:
Using raised devises creates a collision potential for bicyclists by
placing fixed objects immediately adjacent
to the travel path of the bicyclist.  In addition, raised devices can
prevent vehicles turning right from merging
with the bicycle lane, which is the preferred method for making the
right turn.  Raised devices used to define
a bicycle lane can also cause problems in cleaning and maintaining the
bicycle lane.

<end MUTCD quote>

Note the key elements of this language.  It uses the magic word
"shall."  And it is a standard, not a suggestion.  (In the original
book, the boldface chapter headings underscore this.)

Here is the AASHTO language:

<begin AASHTO>

At signalized or stop-controlled intersections with right-turning motor
vehicles, the solid striping to the approach should be replaced with a
broken line with 0.6-m (2-foot) dots and 1.8-m (6-foot) spaces. The
length of the broken line section is usually 15m to 60m (50 feet to 200
feet).

(p. 25)

Bikelanes sometimes complicate bicycle and motor vehicle turning
movements at intersections. Because they encourage bicyclists to keep
to the right and motorists to keep to the left, both operators are
somewhat discouraged from merging in advance of turns. Thus, some
bicyclists may begin left turns from the right-side bikelane and some
motorists may begin right turns from the left of the bikelane. Both
maneuvers are contrary to established rules of the road and may result
in conflicts; however, these can be lessened by signing and striping.

(p. 25.27)

At intersections, bicyclists proceeding straight through and motorists
turning right must cross paths. Striping and signing configurations
which encourage crossings in advance of the intersection, in a merging
fashion, are preferable to those that force the crossing in the
immediate vicinity of the intersection. One example of such a
configuration is given in Figure 9. To a lesser extent, the same is
true for left-turning bicyclists; however, in this maneuver, most
vehicle codes allow the bicyclist the option of making either a
“vehicular style” left turn (where the bicyclist merges leftward to the
same lane used for motor vehicle left turns) or a “pedestrian style”
left turn (where the bicyclist proceeds straight through the
intersection, turns left at the far side, then proceeds across the
intersection again on the cross street). (See Figure 10.)

(p. 27)

<end AASHTO>

John Schubert
Coopersburg, PA
Limeport.org

 

"Predictable is not the same thing as predictably safe."

That's out-of-the-box-thinking genius... simple and obvious but most of us would not think of it ourselves.

To illustrate it in another context, motorist behavior with respect to a ninja bicyclist dressed in black riding at night without lights or reflectors on an unlit street during a new moon is predictable too... it's the same as when the bicyclist is not there.

To a cyclist, being predictable is not helpful in those situations where you're overlooked and need to be noticed,

like when approaching a potential right hook situation in a far right position, which is exactly what bike lanes

encourage.

Serge

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Bob Shanteau <RMShant@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I forwarded JohnB's question about whether a stripe makes a bicyclist
safer to Dan Gutierrez, and his analysis makes so much sense, I thought
I would post it to the list.

Bob Shanteau

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [CG] LA Times Articles]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:23:00 -0800
From: Dan Gutierrez <Dan.Gutierrez@Charter.Net>
To: 'Bob Shanteau' <rmshant@gmail.com>

JohnB wrote:
> When alone in a striped lane of any kind, I think the natural
> inclination is to drive in the center of that lane, to provide
> yourself equal buffer on both sides. Motorists as well as bicyclists
> in bike lanes do this. (Even DZBL's, as we know.) So when the
> bicyclist is within the same lane as the motorist, he or she is within
> the motorist's "zone of maximum surveilance", to use your term, and

> this tendency to center is usually (not always!) overridden. In this

> case, motorists leaves the bicyclist wildly varying amounts of room,
> sometimes way too much because they are nervous about not leaving
> enough. Or the lane is narrow, there is oncoming traffic, and the
> bicyclist is hugging the curb, so the car passes as close to the
> yellow line as they can but it may still be too close. Passing
> distance thus depends on a large variety of factors when the bicyclist
> is in the same lane, even if it's a wide lane. But again, when both
> drivers have their own lane, the centering-within-lane position is the
> default, regardless of the amount of actual room it leaves the
> cyclist. It's the same when both vehicles are cars.
>
> Make sense?

No Bob, this doesn't make sense. Predictable is not the same thing as
predictably safe! A motorist simply ignores what's in the bike lane and
travels as if the bike lane were an empty shoulder. This is quite
predictable, including the hook type turns at driveways and
intersections, since the motorist predictably avoids driving in the bike
lane, even at turns. This is why I dislike Andy's statement about a bike
lane taming traffic; it doesn't. Instead it makes traffic predictably
dangerous, particularly motorists who learn to ignore the bike lane and
the cyclists in it. OTOH, cyclists controlling lanes do "tame" traffic
by forcing it to be both predictable AND safe (queue or lane change to
pass).

- Dan -

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

The planners in Portland Maine have already demonstrated an inability to
paint AASHTO compliant width bike lanes, instead striping substandard
width. It's likely they considered the gutter pan part of bike lane
width, either not reading, mis-reading, or simply ignoring the AASHTO
Guidelines. Given that ineptitude or malfeasance, convincing them of
sensible intersection design is like trying to polish a turd.

Wayne

John and others,

Thanks for your extensive reply.  I had already seen AASHTO - given the frequent
and continuing violations I see locally, I am reaching John Forrester's
conclusion that it is not applied for bicycles.

I was also astounded that these planners could simultaneously say that
bicyclists have the right to use the road, but in the presence of a bike lane
they must yield the right of way to every motorist.

One planner (? no ID or affiliation shown) stopped listening when tried to
explain the Delaware code.  Another employee of DelDOT was open to a longer
discussion, and I did show him a copy of the code.  I think he was still going
to ask another bicyclist what he does.

(I've started carrying a copy of the relevant code since being stopped by city
police for trying to turn left from the left lane, as opposed to riding next to
the right curb as he thought legally required.)

I understand John Forrester's view that the "bicycle advocates" are committed
heavily to these lanes (I gather there is lots of funding in Philadelphia);
however, I was pulled over by a policeman who with no understanding of the law,
and my friend was deliberately pushed out of the lane by a motorist approaching
a red light who was irate and livid that a bicyclist going straight tried to use
an auto lane instead of staying in a bike lane to the right of the RTOL lane.

In short, my experience with these facilities is not neutral; planing for
incompetent bicyclists is threatening our right to ignore the paint and ride
safely.





--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "JohnB" <john@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>   Most people on this list are more knowledgeable than I am, but I'll go ahead
and give you my impression anyway, because only Bob has so far (although his was
a good answer), and I find myself with a few minutes in bed with my laptop
before turning the light off and feel like responding. However, I don't have the
AASHTO guide in front of me, and I'd probably get bogged down in minutiae if I
did, so I'm just going from memory.
>
>   The AASHTO Guide has always seemed foggy to me on its recommendations about
bike lanes at intersections, perhaps for the reasons conjectured by Bob. Of the
various possible lane configurations, it seems slightly clearer about those
where there is a RTOL, in saying that either the bike lane should end before the
intersection, or should continue with dashing in a way that it winds up to the
left of the RTOL at the intersection. This is pretty easy to do in a case where
the road widens to create a right turn only pocket, so the bike lane need only
keep going straight as the right turn only pocket opens up on its right.
>
>    It seems less clear about other situations, where the rightmost lane serves
both through and right turning traffic. My reading is that either the bike lane
should stop prior to the intersection, or the bike lane line becomes dashed. The
planners that I have been talking to recently talk as if they see the dashed
lane as the single standard, as if stopping the bike lane was not also possible.
My interpretation is more that the dashed line is recommended over a solid line,
if you should choose to continue the bike lane at all.
>
>    Standards are just suggestions, and in my limited experience, are routinely
ignored, either due to ignorance of the standard, or ignorance of the
considerations involved in deciding whether or not to follow it.
>
>    (1) Delaware: Sounds like a lot of ignorance you're fighting there. I don't
know Delaware law, but their interpretation of the law sounds suspicious on at
least two counts.
>
>    One, some states (such as Maine, where I live) have statute that right
turns must be made as close to the curb as practicable. It seems possible to me
that this implies that cars must merge through the bike lane in order to
position themselves as close to the curb as practicable. I guess, though, the
planners could be saying that since cars are not supposed to drive in the bike
lane, merging into it is not practicable, therefore the cars need to begin the
turn from the left of the bike lane. In fact, some laws (Oregon) codify that.
Whether or not that's a good idea is debatable, with most here I would imagine
arguing that it is not.
>
>    Second, their notion that bikes always have to yield to cars. Wow. I just
took a few moments to browse Delaware statute (bicycle statute seems to be
concentrated in http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc12/index.shtml ), and
I see no basis at all for that interpretation. It looks like bicycles are
defined as vehicles in Delaware, and §4193 gives the standard "all of the rights
and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle" language.
As such, there is no basis for right of way in any non-restricted lane to be
based on anything other than the normal right of way rules for all vehicles.
Even following an interpretation of bike lanes as giving bicyclists the right of
way in the bike lane, I don't see any statute at least in that section that
implies either that motorists are not allowed to merge into bike lanes for right
turns, or that bicyclists have different right of way in other travel lanes than
motorists. In fact, under §4198 (Left turns), it references the ability of
bicycles to make normal vehicular left turns (per §4152 in the general vehicle
code in Subchapter 6), for which of course you must merge through the general
travel lanes to the center of the road, per normal right of way rules. Yes,
bicyclists must yield to any overtaking traffic that is so close as to
constitute a hazard, just as motorists must. That is a general vehicle
requirement, not a bicycle-specific one.
>
>     §4196 is Delaware's "ride to the right" law. In an intersection, the need
to avoid being right-hooked constitutes a hazard from a moving vehicle, one of
the reasons listed that it might not be practicable to ride to the right. In
other words, you have a right to ride further into the road to encourage right
turning traffic behind you to pass on your right. Assuming of course you do not
violate the right of way of a vehicle about to overtake you, which is the same
duty you would have as a motorist.
>
>     As in Maine, I see nothing in Delaware statute explicitly referencing bike
lanes. It seems to me that in lack of a statute, many planners, policy makers,
and advocates must be just making stuff up in terms of what bike lanes allow and
don't allow to both cyclists and motorists. Hence my original question to this
list.
>
>    Dan Gutierrez interprets ride to the right as implying mandatory use of
bike lanes, in places where the bike lane position coincides with the "as far
right as practicable" position. I don't remember if I've ever heard him explain
this in the context of intersection bike lanes, but I would say that if the bike
lane extends to the intersection so as to constitute a hazard, it may be no
longer practicable to stay in it, and thus legal to leave it.
>
>     Your planners' most outrageous statements are that it is "common sense
that bicycles had to yield at every intersection to autos coming from any
direction [and] ... the bike lanes had implicit stop requirements at EVERY
intersection". They're just pulling that out of their butts! Challenge them to
show you where the law says that! (If you're not quite sure how to respond to
their answer, let us know.) My common sense tells me, per §4193, that bicyclists
need to yield in the same situations that motorists do, and motorists need to
yield to bicyclists in the same situations they would yield to other motorists.
>
>     It's true that even many bicyclists don't understand why bike lanes end
prior to intersections, and would prefer they keep going. They see the bike lane
as their protected space, not understanding the crossing conflict and right of
way confusion bike lanes cause. As I have heard others state, bicycle planning
is odd in that those who practice it routinely place more emphasis on the
desires of the beginners than on the wisdom of the experts.
>
>    (2) Philadelphia: Bike lanes to the right of RTOL lanes are definitely in
complete violation of (my reading of) the AASHTO standard. And the Philadelphia
Bicycle Coalition's statements about door zone bike lanes sounds completely
wacked. Their logic doesn't even make sense, unless they mean that there are
already so many bicyclists riding in the door zone that motorists are now used
to it and are very careful to look before they open their doors. Good luck with
that. Shame on the Philadelphia Bicycle Coalition if they really said that.
>
>    Okay, that was more than a few minutes, and now I'm very tired. Hope this
helped. Good night.
>
> - John
>
> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "nrphillipsyh" <NRPhillips@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My impression is that the AASHTO standards say bike lanes should not be
striped at intersections.  Is this true, and if so is it routinely ignored?
> >
> > I'm asking because of 2 examples.
> >
> > (1) New plans in Delaware
> > Delaware is behind Philadelphia but trying to catch up fast installing
bicycle lanes.
> >
> > At a Dept. of Transportation meeting this week, plans showed bicycle lanes
continuing to the intersection.  When I mentioned the problem with right hooks,
I was told autos should not drive in the bicycle lane, and hence cannot merge
before the intersection.  Since ( the planners also told me), the bike lane
could never take the right of way from motor vehicles in the auto lane, it was
common sense that bicycles had to yield at every intersection to autos coming
from any direction.  They said the bike lanes had implicit stop requirements at
EVERY intersection, but that motorists would usually let bicyclist go straight
before the motorists turned right or left.   Since the motorist always had the
right of way, this was a courtesy, but not a legal requirement.  They have
answered John B.'s question about intersections - bicyclists should legally wait
for cars, but it's not a problem because most drivers are nervous around
bicyclists and will give them space.
> >
> > Note these plans are for a 2 lane street (1 in each direction) with a 25 mph
speed limit (perhaps not enforced), but intersections every 6 houses or so.
> >
> > When I asked about right of way without bicycle lanes, they seemed to
realize that pedestrians and bicyclists did have the right to use public
streets.  They would not overtly say that is is when 25% of the intersections
have crosswalks or 30% of the street is marked as a bicycle lane that bicyclists
and pedestrians lose the right to cross intersections, but I see no other
interpretation.
> >
> > In a recent survey to gather support for Complete Streets and bicycle lanes,
I gather respondents complained that bicycle lanes ended before intersections,
and they want the bike lanes painted up to the intersection.
> >
> > (2) Philadelphia bike lanes - painted to right of RTOL lane onto I-76 and
others
> > There used to be one bike lane to the right of a RTOL lane onto i-76;
recently they have installed 2 more.  These RTOL lanes are on city streets, with
90 degree right turns onto the entrance ramps, so autos cannot build up speed
due to the dense city streets.
> >
> > Is there some AASHTO standard that says the bike lane should not be painted
for X feet (I think 100-200) before intersections, while the RTOL lane for autos
should be Y feet (much longer).  In effect, a longer recommended auto RTOL, or a
short minimum bike lane removal is permitting bike lanes to the right of RTOL?
> >
> > (I don't see why the bike lane can't go straight and start the RTOL to the
right of the RTOL, but the Philadelphia bicycle coalition seems primarily to be
concerned with installing more lanes and has publicly stated that door zones
lanes are not a problem because there are already many bicyclists in the door
zone.)
> >
> >
> > In short, are these designs and traffic movements really in compliance with
AASHTO standards?  If not, are AASHTO standards optional??
>

Serge:

"I agree with all of the above except the last sentence.  Given that most
bicyclists don't know how to avoid right hooks and just maintain course and
speed at their usual road edge position, oblivious to the behavior of other
traffic, regardless of whether they're in a bike lane or not (or perhaps even
more likely to be oblivious when "protected" in a bike lane), I really think a
significant contributing factor in typical right hooks is the motorist not
noticing the bicyclist."  I mean, when the motorist does notice the bicyclist,
the behavior is often that which is legally required in Oregon - the turning
motorist slows and stops at the intersection, waits for the through cyclist to
pass, then turns."

Well, they do seem to do that on my rides particularly where there is a bike
lane and less often when the bicycle is riding on the shoulder.  It is a mystery
to me why they want to pass me and then stop and put on their right turn signal
and then wait for me to pass them on the right.  Why would I possibly want to
pass a car on the right in an intersection, particularly when they have their
right turn signal on?  I refuse to do so even when the driver is waving me on to
pass on the right and pass them on the left if there is room.  Every once in a
while I get a chance to discuss this with them and explain that if they wanted
me to clear the intersection before them they could have simply not passed me in
the first place.  But, I guess I will have to concede, in situations where
everyone is conditioned to act like a complete idiots, maybe the bike lane makes
the driver less aware and this contributes to the right hook collision. 
However, I think the "or perhaps even more likely to be oblivious when
"protected" in a bike lane" is more likely to be the principal cause of the
right hook.

Either way, I still caution against trying to use the use of the Parkin and
Meyers study to bolster your arguments that bike lanes increase right hooks. 
This is because they only found a statistically significant difference with the
50 mph road and not with the 30 mph road.  So, if you make too a big a deal of
this you are left with the flip side, which is that the bike lanes on 30 mph
roads don't increase the right hook.

There are a few roads where I live where they have proposed putting in bike
lanes and at which there are traffic web cams.  I would like to get some data by
recording the video at these intersections before and after the bike lane.  That
would give some real evidence about whether or not bike lanes increase right
hooks although it would still not answer whether yours is the correct
explanation.  This would be a relatively low cost experiment, the main cost
being watching the videos to record the right hooks etc. but I figure I can
avoid that altogether by just posting a link to the videos on chainguard and
have others do it for me :-).

Aloha, - John

I forwarded JohnB's question about whether a stripe makes a bicyclist
safer to Dan Gutierrez, and his analysis makes so much sense, I thought
I would post it to the list.

Bob Shanteau

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     RE: [Fwd: Re: [CG] LA Times Articles]
Date:     Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:23:00 -0800
From:     Dan Gutierrez <Dan.Gutierrez@...>
To:     'Bob Shanteau' <rmshant@...>

JohnB wrote:
> When alone in a striped lane of any kind, I think the natural
> inclination is to drive in the center of that lane, to provide
> yourself equal buffer on both sides. Motorists as well as bicyclists
> in bike lanes do this. (Even DZBL's, as we know.) So when the
> bicyclist is within the same lane as the motorist, he or she is within
> the motorist's "zone of maximum surveilance", to use your term, and
> this tendency to center is usually (not always!) overridden. In this
> case, motorists leaves the bicyclist wildly varying amounts of room,
> sometimes way too much because they are nervous about not leaving
> enough. Or the lane is narrow, there is oncoming traffic, and the
> bicyclist is hugging the curb, so the car passes as close to the
> yellow line as they can but it may still be too close. Passing
> distance thus depends on a large variety of factors when the bicyclist
> is in the same lane, even if it's a wide lane. But again, when both
> drivers have their own lane, the centering-within-lane position is the
> default, regardless of the amount of actual room it leaves the
> cyclist. It's the same when both vehicles are cars.
>
> Make sense?

No Bob, this doesn't make sense. Predictable is not the same thing as
predictably safe! A motorist simply ignores what's in the bike lane and
travels as if the bike lane were an empty shoulder. This is quite
predictable, including the hook type turns at driveways and
intersections, since the motorist predictably avoids driving in the bike
lane, even at turns. This is why I dislike Andy's statement about a bike
lane taming traffic; it doesn't. Instead it makes traffic predictably
dangerous, particularly motorists who learn to ignore the bike lane and
the cyclists in it. OTOH, cyclists controlling lanes do "tame" traffic
by forcing it to be both predictable AND safe (queue or lane change to
pass).

- Dan -