sign on Atlanta bus

[Mark Ortiz]

Now here’s some public education.

 

Mark Ortiz

[Nick Goffee]

I think that's Los Angeles, actually.
http://thesource.metro.net/2013/03/04/share-the-road-its-the-law/

The license plate is blurry, but looks like a California one. No peach.

--Nick

> --
> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BicycleDriving" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Richard Wharton]

Yeah - the Chief Facilities proponent in Dallas already shot this idea down because she said it wouldn't work and wasn't effective. Instead she's asking for 10x that amount so we can start building buffered bike lanes.

The DOT is now telling the engineers at AASHTO to build stuff that's pretty and cute.... And functionless for all traffic users.

Sincerely,

Richard Wharton
Cycling Center Dallas

[Mark Ortiz]

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

 

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

++++ IMPORTANT++++ Please remove all excess previous content from the message you are responding/replying to before sending your reply.

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

To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding address shown below:

  Subscribe:    chainguard...@yahoogroups.com

  Unsubscribe:  chainguard-...@yahoogroups.com

  Switch to Digest Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com

  Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com

  Normal Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chaingua...@yahoogroups.com

 

Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com

To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard

Yahoo! Groups Links

 

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/

 

<*> Your email settings:

    Individual Email | Traditional

 

<*> To change settings online go to:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/join

    (Yahoo! ID required)

 

<*> To change settings via email:

    chaingua...@yahoogroups.com

    chainguard-...@yahoogroups.com

 

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

    chainguard-...@yahoogroups.com

 

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Mark Ortiz]

Got the pic off the Adam Little Foundation Facebook group.  Person who furnished it there confirms it is indeed LA.

 

Mark Ortiz

 

-----Original Message-----
From: chain...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:chain...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Wharton
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Nick Goffee
Cc: chain...@yahoogroups.com; bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] sign on Atlanta bus

 

Yeah - the Chief Facilities proponent in Dallas already shot this idea down because she said it wouldn't work and wasn't effective. Instead she's asking for 10x that amount so we can start building buffered bike lanes.

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

[Patricia Kovacs]

Did you all see the video of Ray LaHood's speech at the LAB Summit? He didn't talk about AASHTO or NACTO, he talked about safety and how to address it. And he said there will be some safety summits coming up in April. We NEED to make sure some of us who feel that the NACTO-style facilities are the problem are involved in the discussion.

http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2013/03/lahood-to-bike-summit-dot-will-address-bike-safety-head-on/

Tricia Kovacs

---

From: Mark Ortiz <markor...@windstream.net>
To: chain...@yahoogroups.com; Nick Goffee <ngo...@gmail.com>
Cc: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 10, 2013 5:26:19 PM
Subject: RE: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] sign on Atlanta bus

 

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (4)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

---------------------------------------------------------------------
++++ IMPORTANT++++ Please remove all excess previous content from the message you are responding/replying to before sending your reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding address shown below:
  Subscribe:    chainguard...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  chainguard-...@yahoogroups.com
  Switch to Digest Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
  Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
  Normal Mode: chaingua...@yahoogroups.com
Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chaingua...@yahoogroups.com

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

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback

.

__,_._,___

[John Forester]

Considering that no DOT that I know of has ever shown reasonable competence in cyclist safety, this is a rather hollow prediction. Safety programs first require collection of accident statistics, analysis of them to determine frequencies, causes, and consequences. Then they require invention of countermeasures, ordering of priorities, and test of the most important countermeasures. None of this has ever been done, beyond the initial collection of statistics by Ken Cross in 1978. The statistics that he produced were not to the liking of those in power (either motorists or environmentalists); therefore they have been ignored ever since.

On 3/11/2013 7:15 AM, Patricia Kovacs wrote:

 

Did you all see the video of Ray LaHood's speech at the LAB Summit? He didn't talk about AASHTO or NACTO, he talked about safety and how to address it. And he said there will be some safety summits coming up in April. We NEED to make sure some of us who feel that the NACTO-style facilities are the problem are involved in the discussion.

http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2013/03/lahood-to-bike-summit-dot-will-address-bike-safety-head-on/

Tricia Kovacs

---

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

[Patricia Kovacs]

I'd been searching for crash data from DC and NYC and I did find something today for DC.

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/On%20Your%20Street/Bicycles%20and%20Pedestrians/Bicycles/Bike%20Lanes/DDOT_BicycleFacilityEvaluation_ExecSummary.pdf

I need to read it, but just searched for "crash" and found:

16th St/U St/NewHampshire Ave NW intersection:

pre-cycletrack: 4 crashes in 4 years

post-cycletrack: 5 crashes in 13 months

Pennsylvania Ave (3rd to 15th St NW):

pre-cycletrack: 9 crashes in 4 years

post-cycletrack: 16 crashes in 14 months

15th St (E to V St NW)

pre-cycletrack: 20 crashes in 4 years

post-cycletrack: 13 crashes in 14 months

The study seems to say that since cyclist volumes doubled, it's OK if crashes double (or quadruple or octuple) as well. If "Safety in Numbers" is a fact, then I sure don't see the proof in this study.

There is discussion regarding cyclists' use of pedestrian signals, and that they need to install bicycle signals. Will the bicycle signals have arrows so that bicyclists don't run over pedestrians?

On a related topic, I'm learning more about traffic signal right-of-way in an effort I'm involved in regarding changes to Ohio traffic signal law. Read section 4D.04 in the MUTCD, imagine that the state law is rewritten this way word for word (as Ohio DOT has done in their infinite wisdom) and try to write a module for a drivers ed course to teach it. Then, imagine adding bicycle signals (with both traffic signal arrows and bicycle signal arrows included) to the mix.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.13

Note that the above code is supposed to cover traffic signals, pedestrian signals, flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, signals on flash (either at night or during signal removal phase) and the new flashing yellow left turn arrows. I'm up in Cleveland right now and yesterday rode on the Euclid Ave bus rapid transit route with bike lanes. The buses are in the middle lanes with the bus stops on the medians. They also have bus-only traffic signals. Thank God they don't have bicycle signals, too.

Tricia

---

From: John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Cc: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 11:50:36 AM
Subject: Re: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] sign on Atlanta bus

--

[Tricia Kovacs]

Dear BicycleDrivers and Chainguardians,

I did read the report from DC on the cycletracks and other bicycle infrastructure. Besides the crash data which I already mentioned in my previous email, here are some other interesting tidbits.

Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.
The bicycle signals cause delays for everyone during the a.m. peak, and >75% of cyclists do not use them because "it was not worth the time to wait" for them. Most cyclists (>50%) are using the crosswalks rather than the combination of bicycle facilities available. Only 18% of cyclists stop in the bike box, the other 82% stop in the crosswalk; but the study says the bike boxes are successful because only 15% of the 18% who use the bike box found motor vehicles encroaching. Despite all this non-use of the bicycle infrastructure, the preliminary recommendations do NOT include removing any of the infrastructure. Hmm, I wonder if the consultants from Kittelson, Portland State Univ and Toole Design Group have ever read the Emporer's New Clothes?
Perception: "perceptions of the facility are generally positive from both cyclists and motorists"
Reality: crashes increased from 4 in 4 years (before) to 5 crashes in 13 months (after)

One of the recommendations made me laugh out loud. They recommend that the dashed bike lanes crossing 16th St should be moved as close as possible to the crosswalk to increase visibility of cyclists to turning motorists (there is a lot of right turn on red conflict). Hmm, most cyclists are using the crosswalk, let's move the bike lane closer to the crosswalk. (Just to be clear, this is not recommending that cyclists swerve right while traveling through the intersection, you need to look at the pictures on pages 5 & 8 to see how they have the bike lanes crossing the 6 legs).

Pennsylvania center cycletrack
The motorized traffic decreased on Pennsylvania by 20% and 15% (different sections) after installation of the cycletrack, and the reason was "not entirely clear". I wonder if they measured the traffic volume on parallel streets? As I observed when I rode the cycletrack, 44% of motorists indicate that signals, signs and street markings do not make it clear who has the right-of-way at intersections. This study was written before bike signals were installed, when cyclists were instructed to use the traffic signals, yet cyclists still encountered large delays due to changes in the signal timing to separate left turn from straight through phases.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly indicate that they felt riding a bicycle on Pennsylvania Ave with the center bike lanes is safer and easier"
Reality: 9 crashes in 4 years (before), 16 crashes in 14 months (after)
The study admits this is a problem as bicycle volume tripled, yet crashes increased about 7 times.

I'd be interested to see a follow-up study since bicycle signals were installed. I really hate that turning cyclists are now instructed to use the crosswalk for left and right turns.

15th St NW left side cycletrack
When this report was written, there were no bicycle signals, so cyclists were instructed (with signage) to use the pedestrian WALK signal. This was necessary to prevent left turning motorists from hitting straight through cyclists. Cyclists traveling between I St and U St generally experience significant delay. Many cyclists (20-30%) use the vehicular signals, and 40% ran red lights. (Note: I used the vehicular signals when I rode this cycletrack because I didn't see the signs requiring me to use the pedestrian signals.) Signal timing is optimized for northbound traffic, since 15th is one way northbound north of Massachusetts Ave; therefore southbound cyclists must stop frequently.

There are lots of pedestrian conflicts and vehicular conflicts when cross traffic blocks intersections. Pedestrians feel cyclists are not yielding to them at intersections. Just under half of motorists find waiting for a green arrow to turn left to be a major inconvenience, and 2/3 find turning into alleys to be difficult.
Perception: "Cyclists overwhelmingly feel that riding on 15th St with the cycletrack is much safer and easier now... and that they would go out of their way to ride on the cycletrack as opposed to other streets."
Reality: 20 crashes in 4 years (before), 13 crashes in 14 months (after)
But, "cyclist volumes approximately doubled over this same time period, this represents no significant change in crashes per cyclist". I sure wish cities tracked bike/ped crashes.

In the general recommendations for future bicycle facilities, the study did point out the difficulties with bike signals. I agreed with this statement: "The operational benefit associated with bicycle signals may not be large enough to justify the capital and maintenance costs of the bike signals. Intersections with protected bicycle movements also require more complicated signal timing. To help bicyclists understand the traffic control that applies to them, the application of bike signals should be consistent along a particular facility."  I would go much further in that last sentence. The infrastructure in DC was different at each cycletrack (and within the 15th St cycletrack when I rode it last March). The MUTCD is supposed to be guiding cities to have consistent infrastructure, and this innovative experimentation is irresponsible IMHO.

The study also discussed mixing zones and whether they are more appropriate to prevent intersection conflicts. But the study stated that "cyclists strongly prefer separation from vehicles, mixing zones are likely to decrease cyclist comfort when used at intersections with high turning volumes." I say let's increase the reality rather than the perception of safety!
Tricia Kovacs

P.S. Will anyone on these two email lists be attending the "safety summits" that we read about on the LAB Bike Summit blog? We need vehicular cyclists/bicycle drivers involved in those conversations!

[Frank Krygowski]

On Mar 14, 3:35 pm, Tricia Kovacs <pkov...@att.net> wrote:
> Dear BicycleDrivers and Chainguardians,
>
> I did read the report from DC on the cycletracks and other bicycle
> infrastructure. Besides the crash data which I already mentioned in my
> previous email, here are some other interesting tidbits.
>

> *Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg
> intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.*

> The bicycle signals cause delays for everyone during the a.m. peak, and
>  >75% of cyclists do not use them because "it was not worth the time to
> wait" for them. Most cyclists (>50%) are using the crosswalks rather
> than the combination of bicycle facilities available. Only 18% of
> cyclists stop in the bike box, the other 82% stop in the crosswalk; but
> the study says the bike boxes are successful because only 15% of the 18%
> who use the bike box found motor vehicles encroaching. Despite all this
> non-use of the bicycle infrastructure, the preliminary recommendations
> do NOT include removing any of the infrastructure. Hmm, I wonder if the
> consultants from Kittelson, Portland State Univ and Toole Design Group
> have ever read the Emporer's New Clothes?

> *Perception*: "perceptions of the facility are generally positive from
> both cyclists and motorists"
> *Reality*: crashes increased from 4 in 4 years (before) to 5 crashes in

> 13 months (after)
>
> One of the recommendations made me laugh out loud. They recommend that
> the dashed bike lanes crossing 16th St should be moved as close as
> possible to the crosswalk to increase visibility of cyclists to turning
> motorists (there is a lot of right turn on red conflict). Hmm, most
> cyclists are using the crosswalk, let's move the bike lane closer to the
> crosswalk. (Just to be clear, this is not recommending that cyclists
> swerve right while traveling through the intersection, you need to look
> at the pictures on pages 5 & 8 to see how they have the bike lanes
> crossing the 6 legs).
>

> *Pennsylvania center cycletrack*

> The motorized traffic decreased on Pennsylvania by 20% and 15%
> (different sections) after installation of the cycletrack, and the
> reason was "not entirely clear". I wonder if they measured the traffic
> volume on parallel streets? As I observed when I rode the cycletrack,
> 44% of motorists indicate that signals, signs and street markings do not
> make it clear who has the right-of-way at intersections. This study was
> written before bike signals were installed, when cyclists were
> instructed to use the traffic signals, yet cyclists still encountered
> large delays due to changes in the signal timing to separate left turn
> from straight through phases.

> *Perception*: "Cyclists overwhelmingly indicate that they felt riding a

> bicycle on Pennsylvania Ave with the center bike lanes is safer and easier"

> *Reality*: 9 crashes in 4 years (before), 16 crashes in 14 months (after)

> The study admits this is a problem as bicycle volume tripled, yet
> crashes increased about 7 times.
>
> I'd be interested to see a follow-up study since bicycle signals were
> installed. I really hate that turning cyclists are now instructed to use
> the crosswalk for left and right turns.
>

> *15th St NW left side cycletrack*

> When this report was written, there were no bicycle signals, so cyclists
> were instructed (with signage) to use the pedestrian WALK signal. This
> was necessary to prevent left turning motorists from hitting straight
> through cyclists. Cyclists traveling between I St and U St generally
> experience significant delay. Many cyclists (20-30%) use the vehicular
> signals, and 40% ran red lights. (Note: I used the vehicular signals
> when I rode this cycletrack because I didn't see the signs requiring me
> to use the pedestrian signals.) Signal timing is optimized for
> northbound traffic, since 15th is one way northbound north of
> Massachusetts Ave; therefore southbound cyclists must stop frequently.
>
> There are lots of pedestrian conflicts and vehicular conflicts when
> cross traffic blocks intersections. Pedestrians feel cyclists are not
> yielding to them at intersections. Just under half of motorists find
> waiting for a green arrow to turn left to be a major inconvenience, and
> 2/3 find turning into alleys to be difficult.

> *Perception*: "Cyclists overwhelmingly feel that riding on 15th St with

> the cycletrack is much safer and easier now... and that they would go
> out of their way to ride on the cycletrack as opposed to other streets."

> *Reality*: 20 crashes in 4 years (before), 13 crashes in 14 months (after)

> >http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/On%20Your%20Street/Bic...

I downloaded and read that report too, and I thank Tricia for giving
the link. I discussed it at our bike club meeting last night.

One thing that struck me were the statements like "There were 5
bicycle crashes at the intersection during the first 13 months after
implementation, compared to a total of 4 bicycle crashes during the
previous 4 years. The low number of total crashes and limited length
of time observed for the after period (13 months) is too short to draw
definitive conclusions..."

What the heck??? Quintupling the crash rate for a year isn't enough
for conclusions?

By contrast, a recent study comparing a Mediterranean diet plan to a
more conventional low-fat diet was terminated early because findings
were indicating a 30% reduction in risk for the Mediterranean diet.
They said it would be unethical to keep the control group away from
the Mediterranean diet.

Again, we see that clearly increased danger isn't enough to dissuade
proponents of "innovative" facilities. We need ways to get through to
these people.

- Frank Krygowski

[John Forester]

I refer specifically to Frank's final sentence: "We need ways to get
through to these people", meaning the NACTO group and other bicycle and
bikeway advocates.

These people combine anti-motoring zealotry and the popular
cyclist-inferiority superstition with overwhelming political power. They
don't need to listen to anybody else; they haven't had that need for
forty years, and their positions are stronger now than then.

Our most important need is to preserve, actually to get returned to us,
our rights to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of
vehicles (RRDV). One would think that this would seem important to all
bicycle advocates, but those who call themselves bicycle advocates have
never shown any interest in the RRDV. They don't because that operating
method is entirely outside their desires (even though they have never
managed to create a system that does not require some operation
according to the RRDV). We have no hope of persuading the bicycle and
bikeway advocates to argue for repeal of the FTR and other anti-cyclist
traffic laws. We have to work on obtaining this result from an entirely
different group of people. The weak point in the anti-cyclist traffic
laws is that they contradict standard principles of traffic operation,
and to try to correct those contradictions they have been modified so
that nobody can tell how a cyclist is supposed to operate. The first law
gives us the RRDV. The second law removes those rights. The
modifications to the second law might, or might not, return some of the
RRDV to the cyclist. The result is that nobody knows what the cyclist is
supposed to do. The approach to get this tangle corrected, by repeal of
the anti-cyclist laws, is through those who are concerned about the
proper operation of traffic law: legislators, judges, traffic engineers,
traffic police, etc.

On 3/14/2013 8:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I downloaded and read that report too, and I thank Tricia for giving
> the link. I discussed it at our bike club meeting last night.
>
> One thing that struck me were the statements like "There were 5
> bicycle crashes at the intersection during the first 13 months after
> implementation, compared to a total of 4 bicycle crashes during the
> previous 4 years. The low number of total crashes and limited length
> of time observed for the after period (13 months) is too short to draw
> definitive conclusions..."
>
> What the heck??? Quintupling the crash rate for a year isn't enough
> for conclusions?
>
> By contrast, a recent study comparing a Mediterranean diet plan to a
> more conventional low-fat diet was terminated early because findings
> were indicating a 30% reduction in risk for the Mediterranean diet.
> They said it would be unethical to keep the control group away from
> the Mediterranean diet.
>
> Again, we see that clearly increased danger isn't enough to dissuade
> proponents of "innovative" facilities. We need ways to get through to
> these people.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>