Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Krygowski
Oct 17, 2012, 12:07:29 PM10/17/12
to
Portland's pushers of bike facilities rammed through some bike boxes a
few years ago.
IIRC, they painted these things on the roads despite the fact that
they are not approved in the MUTCD. (The MUTCD exists so every burg
doesn't invent its own strange designs, confusing road users and
killing people. There is a procedure through which burgs can apply
for permission to experiment, but the procedure requires them to
document everything and actually collect data.)
Anyway, after screwing up by installing without permission to
experiment, Portland got its congressman to pull strings to get the
bike box "experiment" approved after the fact. Kind of like "Yeah, I
ran that red light on Tuesday, but my cop friend told me on Wednesday
that I had his permission, so you should dismiss my ticket."
So Portland collected data, and the data is in. And just as predicted
by people who understand simple geometry, physics, traffic movements
and bicycles, it turns out the bike boxes did NOT help. In fact, at
four intersections in particular, the bike boxes seem to have more
than doubled the number of crashes. And there was at least one
fatality, although I'd say that was caused by the bike lane to the
right of right turning traffic, not the bike box itself.
Here are the links:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2012/10/16/city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
and
http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/1350403953-bike_box_letter_merc.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/cocu8kb and http://tinyurl.com/d9rf4zv
The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
Takeaway message #1: Do not position yourself to the right of a right
turning vehicle, no matter what the "magic" bike facility tells you to
do. Instead, guard against right hooks. Take the lane when
necessary.
Of course, in Oregon, bike lanes are pretty much mandatory. That
leads to takeaway message #2: Be very careful what you - or your
local "bike advocates" - ask for.
- Frank Krygowski
few years ago.
IIRC, they painted these things on the roads despite the fact that
they are not approved in the MUTCD. (The MUTCD exists so every burg
doesn't invent its own strange designs, confusing road users and
killing people. There is a procedure through which burgs can apply
for permission to experiment, but the procedure requires them to
document everything and actually collect data.)
Anyway, after screwing up by installing without permission to
experiment, Portland got its congressman to pull strings to get the
bike box "experiment" approved after the fact. Kind of like "Yeah, I
ran that red light on Tuesday, but my cop friend told me on Wednesday
that I had his permission, so you should dismiss my ticket."
So Portland collected data, and the data is in. And just as predicted
by people who understand simple geometry, physics, traffic movements
and bicycles, it turns out the bike boxes did NOT help. In fact, at
four intersections in particular, the bike boxes seem to have more
than doubled the number of crashes. And there was at least one
fatality, although I'd say that was caused by the bike lane to the
right of right turning traffic, not the bike box itself.
Here are the links:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2012/10/16/city-finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes
and
http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/1350403953-bike_box_letter_merc.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/cocu8kb and http://tinyurl.com/d9rf4zv
The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
Takeaway message #1: Do not position yourself to the right of a right
turning vehicle, no matter what the "magic" bike facility tells you to
do. Instead, guard against right hooks. Take the lane when
necessary.
Of course, in Oregon, bike lanes are pretty much mandatory. That
leads to takeaway message #2: Be very careful what you - or your
local "bike advocates" - ask for.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Oct 17, 2012, 12:36:14 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip vitriolic rant>
>
> Takeaway message #1: Do not position yourself to the right of a right
> turning vehicle, no matter what the "magic" bike facility tells you to
> do. Instead, guard against right hooks. Take the lane when
> necessary.
>
I'd say do whatever is necessary.
> Of course, in Oregon, bike lanes are pretty much mandatory. That
> leads to takeaway message #2: Be very careful what you - or your
> local "bike advocates" - ask for.
>
Even if the bike lane wasn't there, the law requires riding as far
right as practicable; and the mandatory sidepath law includes lots of
exceptions, including explicitly, "Continuing straight at an
intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane
from which a motor vehicle must turn right."
<snip vitriolic rant>
>
> Takeaway message #1: Do not position yourself to the right of a right
> turning vehicle, no matter what the "magic" bike facility tells you to
> do. Instead, guard against right hooks. Take the lane when
> necessary.
>
> Of course, in Oregon, bike lanes are pretty much mandatory. That
> leads to takeaway message #2: Be very careful what you - or your
> local "bike advocates" - ask for.
>
right as practicable; and the mandatory sidepath law includes lots of
exceptions, including explicitly, "Continuing straight at an
intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane
from which a motor vehicle must turn right."
Dan O
Oct 17, 2012, 12:40:49 PM10/17/12
to
exception for leaving the bike lane to "avoid... other hazardous
conditions".
Dan O
Oct 17, 2012, 12:46:06 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Portland's pushers of bike facilities rammed...
>
> Anyway, after screwing up... Portland got its congressman to pull strings...
>
> ... it turns out the bike boxes did NOT help.
Statistically, I guess.
> In fact, at
> four intersections in particular, the bike boxes seem to have more
> than doubled the number of crashes. And there was at least one
> fatality, although I'd say that was caused by the bike lane to the
> right of right turning traffic, not the bike box itself.
>
>
http://seattlebikeblog.com/2012/10/16/pdx-study-downhill-bike-boxes-may-increase-collisions/
<snip>
Dan O
Oct 17, 2012, 12:56:29 PM10/17/12
to
<snip>
>
> andhttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/1350403953-bike_box_letter_merc.pdf
<snip>
>
> The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
> not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
> turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
>
It *is* interesting. "Bicycle use and volumes have increased
significantly since the treatments were installed", and "Police
investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
bicycle involved crashes".
The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
treatments were installed (?)
>
> andhttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/1350403953-bike_box_letter_merc.pdf
<snip>
>
> The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
> not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
> turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
>
significantly since the treatments were installed", and "Police
investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
bicycle involved crashes".
The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
treatments were installed (?)
David Scheidt
Oct 17, 2012, 2:51:11 PM10/17/12
to
In rec.bicycles.tech Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't expect rational discussion of safety from Frank. He knows what
the answers are. Facts will just infuriate him.
--
sig 110
the answers are. Facts will just infuriate him.
--
sig 110
Jay Beattie
Oct 17, 2012, 3:32:37 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 11:51 am, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
getting smushed anyway. The q
> In rec.bicycles.tech Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :On Oct 17, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :<snip>
>
> :>
> :> andhttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
>
> :http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
> :On Oct 17, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :<snip>
>
> :>
> :> andhttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
>
>
> :<snip>
>
> :>
> :> The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
> :> not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
> :> turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
> :>
>
> :It *is* interesting. "Bicycle use and volumes have increased
> :significantly since the treatments were installed", and "Police
> :investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
> :treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
> :bicycle involved crashes".
>
> :The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> :Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
>
> :The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
> :though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
> :treatments were installed (?)
>
> Don't expect rational discussion of safety from Frank. He knows what
> the answers are. Facts will just infuriate him.
Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> :<snip>
>
> :>
> :> The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
> :> not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
> :> turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
> :>
>
> :It *is* interesting. "Bicycle use and volumes have increased
> :significantly since the treatments were installed", and "Police
> :investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
> :treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
> :bicycle involved crashes".
>
> :The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> :Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
>
> :The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
> :though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
> :treatments were installed (?)
>
> Don't expect rational discussion of safety from Frank. He knows what
> the answers are. Facts will just infuriate him.
bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
getting smushed anyway. The q
Duane Hébert
Oct 17, 2012, 3:39:08 PM10/17/12
to
cyclists may make them aware of cyclists in the area and pay attention
when turning right across a bike lane. The more cyclists around,
generally the safer it is for riding.
David Scheidt
Oct 17, 2012, 4:52:32 PM10/17/12
to
In rec.bicycles.tech Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
Oh, it's clear that some of these boxes and their approach lanes are
designed by ocelots on crack. But Frank is assuming that because a
particular instance of something is bad, they all are, even when the
data from portland shows that some of them seem to work.
--
sig 68
designed by ocelots on crack. But Frank is assuming that because a
particular instance of something is bad, they all are, even when the
data from portland shows that some of them seem to work.
--
sig 68
James
Oct 17, 2012, 5:18:39 PM10/17/12
to
--
JS
Wes Groleau
Oct 17, 2012, 9:32:07 PM10/17/12
to
On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote:
> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect
> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
a law that STUPID to exist.
Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of
someone going to the right?
They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight?
I repeat: <font size="+9">STUPID</font>
--
Wes Groleau
“There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.”
— Larry Wall
Frank Krygowski
Oct 17, 2012, 10:06:28 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 3:32 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
> getting smushed anyway.
Not only do some drivers not know they're supposed to yield to someone
>
> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
> getting smushed anyway.
passing on their right, it can be damned hard to _see_ if a bicyclist
is passing on your right. That's especially true with big trucks and
buses, but even some cars and vans have that problem. So the "legally
right" in this case is true only because the law is crazy. How can it
be sane to have a straight through lane to the right of a right turn
lane?
Like many "innovative" bike facilities, I think bike boxes originated
in northern Europe. But the ones I've seen there had separate signal
phases for the cyclists. That is, they had separate small traffic
lights with bike symbols on them, and bikes got a green maybe ten
seconds before cars did (or maybe vice-versa). That, combined with
general "no right turn on red" laws, makes bike boxes more workable,
but at a cost: significantly less throughput for any intersection.
Personally, I'd welcome "no right turn on red" in places where there's
any significant pedestrian traffic. Motorists have enough privileges
already. But I doubt many motorists would agree, and I doubt many
Americans would accept sitting at a red light for an extra ten seconds
while the "other" type of vehicles (whether cars or bikes) got a green
light.
So America's bike facility advocates have done what they usually do:
Look at one tiny aspect of a foreign system, pick that out ("Ooooh,
green paint!!! That's the key!!!") and forget about all the other
necessary conditions needed to make it work - conditions that do not
and never will exist in the U.S.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Oct 17, 2012, 10:25:05 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 12:56 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
>
>
> The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
(the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
across their path?)
> The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
> though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
> treatments were installed (?)
of that letter. In terms of right hook crashes per year, one
intersection went from 0.75 to 0.50. Another went from 0.50 to 0.75.
Three were unchanged, from 0 to 0, and one was unchanged from 0.25 to
0.25. Only one intersection changed from 0.25 per year to 0.0 - i.e.
on one fewer crash.
So your claim of a "decrease in right hook crashes" is based on only
one fewer crash at those other intersections. On the other hand, the
four terrible intersections jumped from 9 to 26 right hook crashes.
Hard to call this "experiment" a success.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Oct 17, 2012, 11:16:06 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 17, 7:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:56 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> > Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
>
> One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
> uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
> (the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
> should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
> straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
> across their path?)
>
Whatever anybody paints or erects or enshrines in law, any bicyclist
> On Oct 17, 12:56 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
> > Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
>
> One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
> uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
> (the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
> should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
> straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
> across their path?)
>
must still know that they have to be situationally aware and take
ultimate responsibility for their own safety. ("Entice", indeed.
Blithe.)
> > The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
> > though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
> > treatments were installed (?)
>
> "(?)" indeed! Look at the table on the next-to-last page (= page 8)
> of that letter. In terms of right hook crashes per year, one
> intersection went from 0.75 to 0.50. Another went from 0.50 to 0.75.
> Three were unchanged, from 0 to 0, and one was unchanged from 0.25 to
> 0.25. Only one intersection changed from 0.25 per year to 0.0 - i.e.
> on one fewer crash.
>
> So your claim of a "decrease in right hook crashes"
sentence).
> is based on only
> one fewer crash at those other intersections. On the other hand, the
> four terrible intersections jumped from 9 to 26 right hook crashes.
> Hard to call this "experiment" a success.
>
"data" says they reduced problems with a fresh green (like the
fatality that prompted the "pushers" to "screw up" by "ramm[ing]"
them). That's help, right - other problems notwithstanding. Also,
98% yield rate sounds pretty good IME. What do I keep saying about
facilities? They are a tangible message that bikes belong.
I don't know what to think of bike boxes myself (don't have experience
with them), but I like the idea of changing things radically - I've
said before I'd welcome waking up one morning and finding
transportation infrastructure straight out of Dr. Seuss. I would be
pleased to see someone like you working with infrastructure planners
to make things better, just as I'd welcome someone working with helmet
manufacturers to make better helmets (like POC), but I think you're
predisposed against either.
Dan O
Oct 18, 2012, 12:17:51 AM10/18/12
to
On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> > bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> > green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> > the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> > The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> > approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect
> a law that STUPID to exist.
>
> Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of
> someone going to the right?
>
> They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight?
>
> I repeat: <font size="+9">STUPID</font>
>
Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution
> On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> > bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> > green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> > the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> > The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> > approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect
> a law that STUPID to exist.
>
> Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of
> someone going to the right?
>
> They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight?
>
> I repeat: <font size="+9">STUPID</font>
>
is so "stupid".)
Wes Groleau
Oct 18, 2012, 12:56:18 AM10/18/12
to
bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see
--
Wes Groleau
Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW?itemid=99
Message has been deleted
Ningi
Oct 18, 2012, 8:20:51 AM10/18/12
to
On 18/10/2012 06:10, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 17 Oct 2012
> I guess they may have learned how NOT to do bike boxes.
> We have lots here in the UK, and they mostly seem to work very well,
> once you realise that the approach to them needs to be on the right of
> any left-turn lane.
> They also need to be deep enough that large trucks can actually see if
> they have a bike directly in front of them (modern european trucks
> have the driver set so far back behind a tall dash - for safety! -
> that the area directly in front is a blind spot.
>
Also there's no equivalent of 'right turn on red' in the UK so that
particular risk is reduced significantly.
One issue is that you are supposed to only enter the bike box via the
approach lane on the side of the road. I frequently ignore this for
safety reasons.
Pete
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 17 Oct 2012
> We have lots here in the UK, and they mostly seem to work very well,
> once you realise that the approach to them needs to be on the right of
> any left-turn lane.
> They also need to be deep enough that large trucks can actually see if
> they have a bike directly in front of them (modern european trucks
> have the driver set so far back behind a tall dash - for safety! -
> that the area directly in front is a blind spot.
>
Also there's no equivalent of 'right turn on red' in the UK so that
particular risk is reduced significantly.
One issue is that you are supposed to only enter the bike box via the
approach lane on the side of the road. I frequently ignore this for
safety reasons.
Pete
(PeteCresswell)
Oct 18, 2012, 8:53:38 AM10/18/12
to
Per Dan O:
people are quoting aren't 100% reliable.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
>"Police
>investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
>treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
>bicycle involved crashes".
Gasp! You mean somebody is saying that all the statistics that
>investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
>treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
>bicycle involved crashes".
people are quoting aren't 100% reliable.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
Duane Hébert
Oct 18, 2012, 8:55:21 AM10/18/12
to
Jay Beattie
Oct 18, 2012, 9:52:05 AM10/18/12
to
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/ The problem is
elective right turns from a through lane that parallels a bike lane.
The California approach is to allow the turning car to enter and
remain in the bike line prior to turning. Under Oregon law, a motor
vehicle may only enter the bike lane while executing a turn -- which
is often a good thing because it keeps cars from stacking up in the
bike lane. OTOH, it invites right hooks. Taking a consistent
approach to bicycle lanes as "lanes," the California approach is the
correct one -- move over one lane and execute the turn. Whatever the
approach, we all have to be on the same page -- and there is a page.
It's in the Oregon Drivers' Handbook. It's all spelled out if anyone
cared to read it.
-- Jay Beattie.
Ningi
Oct 18, 2012, 10:14:41 AM10/18/12
to
from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really
dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own.
Pete
Pete
Dan O
Oct 18, 2012, 10:56:18 AM10/18/12
to
required to turn right if they enter the intersection from that lane.
Message has been deleted
Frank Krygowski
Oct 18, 2012, 9:32:18 PM10/18/12
to
On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi <ningiEGGSANDS...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >>>>> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> >>>>> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> >>>>> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> >>>>> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> >>>>> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> >>>>> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> >>>> They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect
> >>>> a law that STUPID to exist.
>
> >>>> Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of
> >>>> someone going to the right?
>
> >>>> They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight?
>
> >>>> I repeat: <font size="+9">STUPID</font>
>
> >>> Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution
> >>> is so "stupid".)
>
> >> Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for
> >> bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see
>
> > This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes.
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/ ...
> On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >>>>> Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with
> >>>>> bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a
> >>>>> green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to
> >>>>> the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over.
> >>>>> The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic
> >>>>> approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't.
>
> >>>> They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect
> >>>> a law that STUPID to exist.
>
> >>>> Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of
> >>>> someone going to the right?
>
> >>>> They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight?
>
> >>>> I repeat: <font size="+9">STUPID</font>
>
> >>> Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution
> >>> is so "stupid".)
>
> >> Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for
> >> bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see
>
> > This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes.
>
> I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition
> from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really
> dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own.
That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy
> I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition
> from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really
> dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own.
sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for
merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed-
line zig-zag bike lane shift does.
Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to
figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more
efficient.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman :
"Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban
streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was
redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement
directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing
regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings,
signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts."
This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer
passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
broken glass, potholes, car junk.
We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Oct 18, 2012, 10:02:30 PM10/18/12
to
> "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban
> streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was
> redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement
> directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing
> regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings,
> signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts."
>
> This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer
> passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
> bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
> broken glass, potholes, car junk.
>
> We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
> lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
> the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
> I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
>
I do the same thing - for the same reason and to the same observed
> streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was
> redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement
> directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing
> regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings,
> signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts."
>
> This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer
> passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
> bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
> broken glass, potholes, car junk.
>
> We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
> lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
> the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
> I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
>
effect.
Jay Beattie
Oct 18, 2012, 11:23:41 PM10/18/12
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Ningi
Oct 19, 2012, 8:08:55 AM10/19/12
to
abruptly the advice ends when it gets complicated. Either put proper
markings in, or don't bother at all. This is the worst of both worlds.
> Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to
> figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more
> efficient.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman :
> "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban
> streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was
> redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement
> directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing
> regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings,
> signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts."
>
> This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer
> passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
> bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
> broken glass, potholes, car junk.
>
> We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
> lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
> the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
> I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
>
Pete
Dan O
Oct 19, 2012, 10:51:21 AM10/19/12
to
inches from the bitter crumbling edge (except for a few spots where
the white line actually ducks off the edge).
The thing about the fog line and paved shoulder seems to be that
motorists come up from behind, and see the bicyclist riding on the
paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
far. (I should note that most of my paved shoulder miles are on rural
roads with very little traffic - almost zero traffic just the very
occasional vehicle in the mornings - and usually both lanes of the 2-
lane plus shoulders road is empty.)
But a few drivers have issues that manifest. I theorize that they
have resentment. Resentment of my freedom, my fun (when it's not too
cold and wet), resentment that I won't be stopping at the gas station
to drop $50 on a partial tank of gas, resentment that I won't have to
deal with traffic in the same way they will when we get to town,
resentment that their wives and girlfriends look over at my buff ass
flexing-flexing-flexing through my lycra shorts, resentment because
they lump me in with all other bicyclists like that one who always
takes the lane in front of them or that scofflaw who occasionally
actually disrupts traffic... (I should note that these rural roads are
filled with hicks [no offense] with deep seated contexts for their
issues.)
And this resentment is compounded by an erroneous sense of superiority
- superiority that (they assume) I don't have a big, expensive,
powerful motor vehicle or a driver's license. They don't like me
simply because I'm there, and they decide (largely subconsciously but
often consciously as well) to grudgingly show me that their
benevolence extends only to granting me the paved shoulder which they
are not supposed to drive on anyway and so I am not supposed to ride
in the "car" lane and they buzz past without making any effort to move
left over or in some cases even nearer the center line (despite a
completely empty road).
I noticed this during a time of many days riding just barely left of
the fog line. And I noted that if I rode just barely (a couple
inches) *right* of the fog line, these buzzing incidents pretty much
disappeared.
I don't like doing it this way. I'd much rather ride on the paved
shoulder as they approach, indicating my cooperative stance, but as
above it often doesn't work out mutually.
Also, I think some of these people (resentful or not) see me
vacilating a few inches left and right of the fog line and think I'm
wobbly and might fall over and dont' want to have to deal with the
mess and cops and insurance and just steer clear.
So in practice I actually ride in the lane (the wheel tracks are
usually much smoother and cleaner on chip seal) a lot since the road
is empty. As a car approaches from behind I move left and ride smack
dab on top of the fog line a ways, then further right onto the paved
shoulder out of their way well before they have to pass. I don't like
to wag at them in some kind of perverse negotiation for space, though
it does work.
Dan O
Oct 19, 2012, 11:15:53 AM10/19/12
to
city folk have their own whole set of issues and deep seated context.
<snip>
>
> I noticed this during a time of many days riding just barely left of
> the fog line. And I noted that if I rode just barely (a couple
> inches) *right* of the fog line, these buzzing incidents pretty much
> disappeared.
>
shoulder, out of the lane) gets me buzzed; just left of the fog line
(in the lane) gets me lots of space.
<snip>
(Also, I was once again feeling like I owed Frank a little common
ground.)
(PeteCresswell)
Oct 19, 2012, 12:28:06 PM10/19/12
to
Per Dan O:
towing one of those trailers used by lawn service providers full
of lawn equipment.
He had not tied down the walk-behind mowers and they had rolled
to one side of the trailer so that their handles protruded out a
couple of feet wider then the 8-trailer.
I'm pretty sure I felt the handle that almost got me graze my
neck.
--
Pete Cresswell
>But a few drivers have issues that manifest.
The one that almost nailed me a few years back was a pickup truck
towing one of those trailers used by lawn service providers full
of lawn equipment.
He had not tied down the walk-behind mowers and they had rolled
to one side of the trailer so that their handles protruded out a
couple of feet wider then the 8-trailer.
I'm pretty sure I felt the handle that almost got me graze my
neck.
--
Pete Cresswell
Dan O
Oct 19, 2012, 12:48:24 PM10/19/12
to
dodging the handle.
Duane Hébert
Oct 19, 2012, 1:01:16 PM10/19/12
to
and down a winding 2 lane road. A pickup was coming toward us but there
was no problem, we were in our lane, he was in his. No shoulders
whatsoever. He slowed when he came abreast of us to turn into his
driveway and one of the horses that we was trailing behind the truck was
too loosely tethered and walked into our path. Was a near miss.
Wasn't the only hook that I've had but one of the more interesting ones.
Frank Krygowski
Oct 19, 2012, 1:49:39 PM10/19/12
to
mirror. IME, their trailers are often wider than their trucks, and
their driving standards are nowhere near those of most pro truckers.
- Frank Krygowski
Wes Groleau
Oct 20, 2012, 1:24:18 AM10/20/12
to
On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
--
Wes Groleau
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise according to his own conceit.
— Solomon
Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool?
— Groleau
Dan O
Oct 20, 2012, 1:25:44 AM10/20/12
to
On Oct 19, 10:24 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>
> > paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> > around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>
> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>
Idiot
> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>
> > paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> > around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>
> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>
Dan O
Oct 20, 2012, 12:49:59 PM10/20/12
to
but I'm not so idiotic that I want such circumstances to develop. Did
you read the part where I said I ride miles uphill smack dab on the
fog line? I *want* cars to pass me (carefully) with a few feet of
clearance - to get on their way so I am not subject to the slow moving
vehicle law which would require me to use a turnout, and then have to
make an uphill standing start again.
Wes Groleau
Oct 20, 2012, 5:33:34 PM10/20/12
to
On 10-20-2012 12:49, Dan O wrote:
> On Oct 19, 10:25 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:24 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>>
>>>> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
>>>> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>>
>>> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
>>> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
>>> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
>>> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>>
>> Idiot
I think I'd just say he was unwise.
> On Oct 19, 10:25 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:24 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>>
>>>> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
>>>> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>>
>>> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
>>> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
>>> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
>>> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>>
>> Idiot
> I'm really sorry; that was inappropriate response;
> but I'm not so idiotic that I want such circumstances to develop. Did
--
Wes Groleau
Guidelines for judging others:
1. Don't attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
can be adequately explained by ignorance.
3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
can be adequately explained by alcohol.
Frank Krygowski
Oct 20, 2012, 11:55:43 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 5:33 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> Guidelines for judging others:
> 1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> 2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> 3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> 4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> can be adequately explained by alcohol.
Good advice!
>
> Guidelines for judging others:
> 1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> 2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> 3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> 4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> can be adequately explained by alcohol.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Oct 21, 2012, 2:48:56 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 20, 2:33 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-20-2012 12:49, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:25 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 10:24 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> >>> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>>> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> >>>> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>
> >>> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
> >>> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
> >>> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
> >>> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>
> >> Idiot
>
> I think I'd just say he was unwise.
>
> > I'm really sorry; that was inappropriate response;
>
> Yes, it was.
>
> > but I'm not so idiotic that I want such circumstances to develop. Did
>
> Are you suggesting that I do?
>
It seemed that by disagreeing with my "(all well and fine so far)",
> On 10-20-2012 12:49, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:25 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 10:24 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> >>> On 10-19-2012 10:51, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>>> paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well
> >>>> around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so
>
> >>> Not always "well and fine." I'm content with three or four feet of
> >>> clearance. When a motorist goes to the far side of the road to give me
> >>> fifteen feet of clearance when he can't see over the hill, I begin to
> >>> wonder about my risk of encountering airborne car parts.
>
> >> Idiot
>
> I think I'd just say he was unwise.
>
> > I'm really sorry; that was inappropriate response;
>
> Yes, it was.
>
> > but I'm not so idiotic that I want such circumstances to develop. Did
>
> Are you suggesting that I do?
>
which was part of my story about my experience with cars passing me
with ample visibility ahead and "both lanes... empty", you seemed to
be implying that maybe *I* do, which would be idiocy.
>
> Guidelines for judging others:
> 1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> 2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> 3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> 4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> can be adequately explained by alcohol.
cycl...@gmail.com
Nov 11, 2012, 7:52:01 PM11/11/12
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:32:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to
> figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more
> efficient.
>
>
>
> Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to
> figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more
> efficient.
>
>
> This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer
> passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
> bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
> broken glass, potholes, car junk.
>
> We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
> lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
> the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
>
> I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Frank, I think in areas of cross and merging traffic that indeed it is best to have no bicycle lane markings.
> passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the
> bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with
> broken glass, potholes, car junk.
>
> We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog
> lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of
> the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier.
>
> I'm convinced they give me more room as a result.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
But I find them usually better in traffic areas in straight lines since otherwise traffic weaves back and forth filling the entire available space as if car doors won't open nor bicycles exist.
Of course as you point out you sometimes have to jump out into traffic at the last minute as you come up on a pothole, broken glass or someone's girlfriend tossed recklessly from a moving vehicle but that's why you have to always maintain knowledge of what's going on around you.
Jym Dyer
Nov 22, 2012, 3:13:17 AM11/22/12
to
=v= It's really misguided to point to one (1 -- count 'em! -- 1)
blog entry about one (1 -- count 'em! -- 1) year's data from one
(1 -- count 'em! -- 1) locale and draw conclusions from it.
<_Jym_>
blog entry about one (1 -- count 'em! -- 1) year's data from one
(1 -- count 'em! -- 1) locale and draw conclusions from it.
<_Jym_>
AMuzi
Nov 22, 2012, 1:38:36 PM11/22/12
to
These?
http://fishwrecked.com/files/ledge64/bike-boxes.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jym Dyer
Jan 20, 2013, 6:51:16 PM1/20/13
to
> These?
> http://fishwrecked.com/files/ledge64/bike-boxes.jpg
=v= Great photo! But seriously, these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/tags/bikebox
<_Jym_>
> http://fishwrecked.com/files/ledge64/bike-boxes.jpg
=v= Great photo! But seriously, these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/tags/bikebox
<_Jym_>
0 new messages