Looking for copy of “Staying Safe in Protected Lanes” article

[F Lehnerz]

Hi Folks, 

I came across the following comment on AzBikeLaw blog (worth the follow, IMO). It’s several years old and the link to the “Staying Safe in Protected Lanes” is now invalid and since it was posted on someone’s Dropbox, it’s not available in the Internet Archive. 

Google searches turn up empty too. 

Does anybody happen to have a copy of this article? 

“Protected” Lanes are anything but
Catching up on paper-based reading this morning when I came across the “Between the Lines” column by Carolyn Szczepanski, Communications Director for the League of American Bicyclists, in issue 23 of Bicycle Times. This column is entitled “Staying Safe in Protected Lanes.”
The column is remarkable, nearly Orwellian, for how it advocates for protected cycle tracks while illustrating all of the flaws that make them dangerous for all road users, particularly those cyclists to whom the “protected” lanes are most aggressively marketed, the so-called “interested but concerned” cyclists.
Here are some excerpts that I am going to list in the order they appear in the column so you can see the bizarre juxtaposition.
The column opens with this;
“One minute, I was cruising down 15th Street in Washington, DC. The next, I was sprawled on the pavement, four cops peering down at me.”…

Annotated article is linked in this CaD!thread.

https://azbikelaw.org/cycle-tracks-are-nine-times-safer-than-roads/

Thanks,

Frank 

Sent from my iPhone

[Patricia Kovacs]

I had a copy, thanks to Frank Krygowski. It is attached.

Tricia

--
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/3B981EEF-1693-4B38-8560-79D59EA85F1C%40gmail.com.

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Thanks ya'll. Frank Krygowski sent me the copy and Tricia and Jim has attached it for anybody else interested. 

The statement from the comment at AZBikelaw was highly accurate, "The column is remarkable, nearly Orwellian, for how it advocates for protected cycle tracks while illustrating all of the flaws that make them dangerous for all road users, particularly those cyclists to whom the “protected” lanes are most aggressively marketed, the so-called “interested but concerned” cyclists." 

Okay for the Californians here - Jim, Pete, and Gary.

Suppose we have the intersection similar to the one in the image below and the movements for all directions are controlled by stop signs. (a very similar configuration exists)

If the bicyclist arrives at the intersection at the same time as any of the motorists, who legally gets to proceed first? It's my understanding that bicyclists using Class IV Bikeways (the CA-specific legal definition of what most other places call a "protected" or separated bikeway or cycletrack) do not have the rights and duties of drivers while in these facilities so they would be the ones responsible for ensuring their entrance into this intersection is free from conflicts from drivers regardless of the order. In addition, Class IV facilities are not considered part of the roadway. This seems to really muck things up for the standard counter-clockwise mechanism drivers (both bicyclists and motorists) use when actually in the roadway at an intersection controlled by stop signs. 

On another note, these configurations are unintuitive. Motorists when stopping at the intersection tend to be looking in the general-use travel lanes most likely for other motor vehicles or if there's a bicyclist in that lane where they would also be visible and relevant. The thought of looking for bicyclists in two separate areas of the separated bikeway is something, at least from my experience using such configurations, rare.  In the case of this image, the presence of parked cars would make it extremely difficult for the motorist in the blue car turning left and the yellow bicyclist proceeding straight to see each other. It would also make it difficult for the bicyclist to see if the motorist in the blue car is using a turn signal or not. 

[F Lehnerz]

I agree wholeheartedly. 

Tricia’s work on this does a great justice for all the flawed fiat academic studies out there. 

Frank

http://principledbicycling.substack.com

On Jul 31, 2022, at 03:51, John Eldon <j.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



Bottom line: 2-way cycletracks are inherently flawed and dangerous. End of discussion. 

John A. Eldon, D.Env.

http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JohnEldon
Digital Design Engineering Consultant
Environmental Engineering Consultant

Instructor, UCSD & UCSD Extension

Life Senior Member, IEEE

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAA58SzddEJWBfL2FKNZarJedHwhbgsvNaUK9Qgja-mGCtRBH1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Looking for copy of “Staying Safe in Protected Lanes” article

[Patricia Kovacs]

I don't understand why advocates are encouraging 2-way separated bike lanes and we just can't get them to stop calling them "protected". The 2012 AASHTO guide has a whole section on the problems with sidepaths, which are exactly the same problems with 2-way separated bike lanes. I think the 2-way separated bike lanes are even worse because at least with sidepaths and sidewalks, some motorists are slowing to look for pedestrians.

I expect the new Toole Design AASHTO guide will remove that section.

I still keep track of bike crashes in ours, which can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTSvrBxWqFpE1k6L212ppmSUo1N3g3qx/view?usp=sharing

And here is a video of a poor soul who felt the impact of the contraflow hazard:

https://youtu.be/4k6-AI_X1qE

My husband predicted the behavior of motorists blocking the bike lanes as they pull forward the 20' from the corner (10' bike lanes + 3' buffer + 7' parking lane). I experienced a near miss when riding behind a car blocking me as I rode contraflow and encountered a right crossing car. I don't ride this bike lane except to evaluate it's shortcomings.

The latest perplexity is advocates who think the standard to require separate phases for bicycle signals and right turning traffic signal arrows is unnecessary. This requirement does prevent most right hooks at signalized intersections but right hooks still occur at unsignalized intersections. I expect left hooks and crosses on a 2-way separated bike lane on a 2-way street would be even more common and separate phases for left turns should be required (the blue car in Frank's graphic). Hopefully that requirement will remain because we don't see green left turn arrows at the same time as adjacent WALK signals. But as Frank asks, what about stop controlled intersections? The 2-way stops will be the most dangerous.

Tricia

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CAA58SzddEJWBfL2FKNZarJedHwhbgsvNaUK9Qgja-mGCtRBH1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Patricia Kovacs]

Ours is on a 1-way street, which I assume makes it dangerous cause despite all the signs, motorists are still not looking for contraflow traffic. But the 2-way separated bike lane on a 2-way street adds in all the complexities of the left turning traffic!

My evaluation over the 6 years looks only at reported bike crashes. Dayton will be studying hospital admissions similar to the IIHS study. Dayton is also adding 2-way separated bike lanes. I wonder what the Wright brothers would think? One of these bike lanes is in front of the Aviation Heritage National Historic Park and the same block as the Wright Cycle Shop :-(

Here are a couple photos of the Dayton bike lane. One shows the bike lane ending/starting with no curb cut. The other shows the sight line issues from a side street.

Tricia

--

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/753916A0-780E-4556-9D28-9F239D681008%40gmail.com

.

[John S. Allen]

Frank -- What would you like me to do with this information?

I do note that some of the links in the AZbikelaw post are outdated but could be replaced with valid ones.

What is the source of the illustrations in your e-mail? Are they the illustrations from the Bicycle times article?

I have an examination of the 90% reduction claim on my blog too. See http://john-s-allen.com/blog/2014/06/a-first-look-at-the-new-study-promoted-by-peopleforbikes/ and posts linked from it.

Especially see my review of Teschke's presentation at the 2012 Velo-City conference, http://john-s-allen.com/blog/2013/10/safe-bicycle-routes-engineering-versus-epidemiology/ -- I discovered multiple absurdities. If anyone would like to post my comments illustrated by the pages of the presentation, be my guest. I didn't find time to do that.

I don't subscribe to CABOforum and so I have removed it from the recipient list to avoid bouncing my e-mail. You may forward this.

--

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/753916A0-780E-4556-9D28-9F239D681008%40gmail.com.

-- 
John S. Allen

CyclingSavvy Instructor
League Cycling instructor
Author, Bicycling Street Smarts
Technical Writer and Editor, sheldonbrown.com

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[Patricia Kovacs]

OK, my last comment. This bike lane in Dayton replaced a set of bump outs for pedestrian safety (to shorten the crosswalks). So the 2-way bike lanes are raised to sidewalk level at each bump out using curb cuts. Since this is an area with high pedestrian use, I wonder about bike/ped crashes. But we'll never know since only crashes with moving motor vehicles need to be reported to the state. Maybe the hospital admission study will give us more understanding. This 2-way separated bike lane will be extended further towards downtown and past a community college, despite my concerns shared with the city.

Tricia

[Frank J. Lehnerz]



Hi Tricia,

I don't see these facilities as really being any different from sidewalk riding except they're the "lipstick on a pig" equivalent with some fancy paint and posts and been given propoganda terms like "protected bike lane."  The paint sometimes indicates a hazard area (despite often being green) and sometimes it does not.  

Here in San Diego we've seen a boom of separated bikeway construction, some of them two-way including on some grades. tThese are so new most are not yet in Streetview. Some intersections have bicycle-specific signals (J-Street and 6th Ave.) (https://youtu.be/LU5hMbisU5o) and some don't (see image at bottom) 

My best guess for why is the cost and the source of the funding as we have either the City funding them or a local conglomeration called SANDAG who receives their funding from a county-wide sales tax. Either way the bureaucrats stay in their positions, the consultants get paid, and the activist/politicians get their wins. 

This J-Street  two way path has been here since late 2018 or so if I'm remembering correctly and I checked our state's crash database for any bicycle crashes and so far none are found. But I highly suspect it's because crashes in these facilities are not reported as official traffic crashes due to their status of not being on the roadway as defined by the state's vehicle code. Much like the issue of dooring crashes not being considered crashes valid for inclusion in crash databases* this results in a distortion of the actual amount of crashes occurring.  J-Street, fortunately only has one driveway, and it's for a large hotel but several intersections.  The other separated bikeways in the area have several midblock driveways, and one of my closest calls ever while cycling has been with a turning motorist entering a parking garage. 

 Frank 

*in CA [dooring crashes] actually are counted and compose of between 12-15% of car-bike crashes in large cities like LA, SF, and SD but this fact is largely ignored by the advocacy crowd

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 06:54, Patricia Kovacs <pko...@att.net> wrote:

I don't understand why advocates are encouraging 2-way separated bike lanes and we just can't get them to stop calling them "protected". The 2012 AASHTO guide has a whole section on the problems with sidepaths, which are exactly the same problems with 2-way separated bike lanes. I think the 2-way separated bike lanes are even worse because at least with sidepaths and sidewalks, some motorists are slowing to look for pedestrians.

I expect the new Toole Design AASHTO guide will remove that section.

I still keep track of bike crashes in ours, which can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTSvrBxWqFpE1k6L212ppmSUo1N3g3qx/view?usp=sharing

And here is a video of a poor soul who felt the impact of the contraflow hazard:

https://youtu.be/4k6-AI_X1qE

My husband predicted the behavior of motorists blocking the bike lanes as they pull forward the 20' from the corner (10' bike lanes + 3' buffer + 7' parking lane). I experienced a near miss when riding behind a car blocking me as I rode contraflow and encountered a right crossing car. I don't ride this bike lane except to evaluate it's shortcomings.

The latest perplexity is advocates who think the standard to require separate phases for bicycle signals and right turning traffic signal arrows is unnecessary. This requirement does prevent most right hooks at signalized intersections but right hooks still occur at unsignalized intersections. I expect left hooks and crosses on a 2-way separated bike lane on a 2-way street would be even more common and separate phases for left turns should be required (the blue car in Frank's graphic). Hopefully that requirement will remain because we don't see green left turn arrows at the same time as adjacent WALK signals. But as Frank asks, what about stop controlled intersections? The 2-way stops will be the most dangerous.

Tricia

Sent from my iPhone

--
--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/3B981EEF-1693-4B38-8560-79D59EA85F1C%40gmail.com.

--
--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CAA58SzddEJWBfL2FKNZarJedHwhbgsvNaUK9Qgja-mGCtRBH1w%40mail.gmail.com.