Fwd: BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

[Thorne]

Below is an endorsement of a wholly wrong-headed idea. Bike lanes demarked by
humps that constitute hazards to cyclists--what a nasty spill someone is going
to have striking one of these. How is a cyclist supposed to merge left to
take a safe left turn? Don't let "bike advocates" do this kind of thing in
Austin!

<<<
Many critics of bike lanes say that there's nothing to prevent a car from
crossing a line of paint into the bike lane. I think they're missing the
point that the line helps motorists understand where they are and are not
supposed to drive. But in any event, here's a bike lane divider that would
make it more likely that drivers would stay in their own lane:
<<<
(
http://www.good.is/post/these-might-make-drivers-take-bike-lanes-seriously?utm_content=prev-next&utm_medium=post-page-bottom
)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> READ THE WHOLE THREAD OR REPLY:
http://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1092
_______________________________________________
Learn the Austin Bike Traffic laws: http://BicycleAustin.info/laws
Got gripes or questions about the list? Send them to:
forum...@lists.bicycleaustin.info
Get MORE local bike culture at Bicycle Austin's web forum:
http://bicycleaustin.info/forum/
_______________________________________________

[debra crosby]

Many people think bike lanes are also a bad idea, since they lead drivers to believe that the bike lanes are the ONLY places where cyclists are supposed to ride.  I like them, since drivers at least know that cyclists might be on the road.  

I don't think these bumpers will catch on here.  No one would be able to park their $%^&* cars in the bike lanes.  

 

Debra Crosby

debra_...@yahoo.com

---

From: Thorne <jeffrey...@usa.net>
To: ACA LIST <aca-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 8:14 AM
Subject: [ACA-List] Fwd: BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACA-list" group.
To post to this group, send email to aca-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to aca-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/aca-list?hl=en.

[W. Preston Tyree]

What a terrible idea!!! 

W PRESTON TYREE
wpre...@sbcglobal.net

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to aca-list+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Nate Sheetz]

Ultimately, holding the cycling population constant, I think everyone would be safest if cyclists simply rode in the same lanes as cars on urban streets, acting assertively but not aggressively, visibly signalling turns and lane movements, etc. But the big argument for bike lanes is that you can't just assume a constant cycling population regardless of the facilities (or lack thereof) available for cyclists: a robust network of bike lanes encourages more people to ride their bikes. And the absolute best way to make a city safer for cycling is to get more people cycling!

I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on these road humps. I'm always irked by "bike lanes" that are really dedicated to parking, or invariably have cars parked in them even when marked no-parking, but I don't know that humps are the right answer. Probably better to have truly dedicated no-parking bike lanes and then aggressively ticket/tow people that park in them.

-Nate

[Tom Wald]

Sounds like a lively discussion.  The Austin Bicycle Advisory Council speaks to city staff on just such issues, and takes these opinions very seriously.  The public is welcome to attend and participate at these meetings.

When: Third Thursday of each month at 6pm
Where: Austin City Hall, Staff Bullpen (301 W. 2nd St.)

That's the place to air your concerns, if you want them to have the most effect.

-Tom

--
Tom Wald
Executive Director
League of Bicycling Voters
http://lobv.org
t...@lobv.org
512-203-7626

[Wes Robinson]

Facilities is a big part of the BAC.  Tom, is there a process whereby individuals can express opinions on matters such as this without having to attend a meeting in person? 

Thanks.

Wes Robinson

[debra crosby]

I'm with you, Nate.  

When I took a cycling safety course about 9 years ago, the instructors in that class were against bike lanes, for just the reasons you cite.  

So there are two sides to the issue.  But I say, if you put in bike lanes, then make them no parking zones, just like street lanes.  (Of course, they'd then say that they'd have to widen the roads!).  

 

Debra Crosby

debra_...@yahoo.com

---

From: Nate Sheetz <she...@gmail.com>
To: aca-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ACA-List] BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

[NM]

I grew up in Houston with those little armadillo things (similar to the picture) dividing the bike lanes.    I guess it was the norm, and it certainly discouraged use by motorists.  Yeah, a few people went down after hitting them, but it was rare and we did feel safer.  

As a kid I went everywhere (with the dog following) including trips to the store for my mother.  There were not always bike lanes, but it did not seem to matter.  I did not have anywhere as many issues with motorists I see today.  Back then I did not think twice about going anywhere.  Even at night riding all over and even out to Bear Creek Park to camp which was about a 45 mile ride on the old Schwinn.

It might be something to try in a high risk area, but I hate to believe it is coming to that.

Envian a traves de iPhone

[Tommy Doerr]

NM,

I remember Houston's west side in the Villages had those armadillos. The Villages had/have an extensive pedestrian network and outlaw bicycles on streets where the six foot sidewalks or divided bikeway are present. I disliked the sidewalks due to curb cuts and limited views at intersections due to shrubs and brick entranceways to the neighborhoods. None the less the sidewalks were safe due to low traffic counts of pedestrians and the streets themselves were all marked at 20 30 or 35 mph and HEAVILY ENFORCED. Low speeds are the bicycle's friend, not divided right of way. Sidewalks are great for pedestrian speeds. Bicycles traveling at anything above ten mph really are better off on a roadway, even a divided one. The armadillos you mentioned, well more than once I took a spill, my bad. Speeds above ten miles per hour can leave a rider in a situation where the choices result in a crash when there is a physical barrier such as a lane divider or curb cuts and a break in the pavement that results in a crash. The Villages had a speed limit of 15 mph on their system, not particularly road bike compatible. I am accustomed to riding on roads and streets in Austin where the speed limit is usually 30 - 35 mph and at these speeds I feel safe without a lane being present. The existence of a lane stripe is a bonus, provided bicycles are not required or expected to remain in it. So if there is a choice of having physical barriers or not having physical barriers, I vote NO physical barriers, and slow motor vehicle speeds. 

Low speeds are a bicycle's friend, not divided right of way

I AM WHAT EYE YAM

---

From: "NM" <nmt...@gmail.com>
To: "aca-...@googlegroups.com" <aca-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: May 8, 2012 12:05 PM

[NM]

I grew up in Piney Point, and when the other villages posted roads off limits to bicycles, my Dad pointed out it was not applicable to Piney Point.  He was the mayor for 16 years and fought the push to get bikes off the road.  He was also the one behind building the extensive sidewalk system in that village, including down San Felipe and putting the trees along that walkway.  (He also did this debt free.  Once the younger, smarter folks took over, money was mis-managed and they began issuing debt with higher taxes.)  The nazis were allowed to rule the other villages.. and defy the State law

Additionally, he was on the Harris County metro board in the late sixties trying to preserve infrastructure design to safely accommodate all modes of traffic.  I still recall him quoting the good 'ol boys saying "Who is going to do anything but drive a car in the future?". It pretty much went downhill after that..

Envian a traves de iPhone

[Steven Ascherl]

Do you think something like this may be of use for a situation like 360 or other high speed areas?

                    Best, Steve A.

[Thorne]

In a word, Steve.  No.

Think about moving along 360 at 18 mph and finding in front of you a hole, board, pedestrian, dog, car, or other hazard.  Today, you can look over your shoulder for overtaking traffic and if it's safe, move left around the hazard, move back right, and go on.  Easy peasy and doable in a flash.  With those humps (or with rumble strips), you have little choice but to stop or crash.  http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/rumble_strips.pdf   Those armadillo shaped humps in the picture would be very much what like you would design if you were to set out to invent a way to knock a rider to the pavement into overtaking traffic, whether you are talking high speed traffic areas or low speed traffic areas.

This is the better approach for the 360 situation:  https://www.austincycling.org/education/classes/shoulder_class 

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 08 May 2012 05:24:11 PM CDT
From: Steven Ascherl <seas...@gmail.com>
To: aca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACA-List] BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

[W. Preston Tyree]

I think Jeff Thorne's answer is great.

 

W PRESTON TYREE
wpre...@sbcglobal.net

[Steven Ascherl]

Fair point. But I don't think it's a terribly good idea to enter 360 to avoid a board or hole. If I have enough time to look over my shoulder, scan, etc. then I'm pretty sure I won't need to enter 360 to avoid the hazard. Having ridden 360 hundreds of times I feel fairly confident that there will usually be another escape route having never used that maneuver. The link to ACA didn't show any details as to how to ride 360 only to offer a class as to how to do it, so I'm not sure of the better approach you suggest.  I can only assume the answer lies somewhere in bicycle behavior. I'm more concerned with driver behavior in the case of 360. If someone falls asleep or is drunk behind the wheel, it would be nice to think we have something on the road to snap them out of it. 

            Best, Steve A

On May 8, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Thorne wrote:

[len...@cyclistlaw.com]

Yes! Well said.

Sent from the saddle...

---

From: Steven Ascherl <seas...@gmail.com>

Sender: aca-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:42:10 -0500

To: <aca-...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: aca-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [ACA-List] BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

Fair point. But I don't think it's a terribly good idea to enter 360 to avoid a board or hole. If I have enough time to look over my shoulder, scan, etc. then I'm pretty sure I won't need to enter 360 to avoid the hazard. Having ridden 360 hundreds of times I feel fairly confident that there will usually be another escape route having never used that maneuver. The link to ACA didn't show any details as to how to ride 360 only to offer a class as to how to do it, so I'm not sure of the better approach you suggest.  I can only assume the answer lies somewhere in bicycle behavior. I'm more concerned with driver behavior in the case of 360. If someone falls asleep or is drunk behind the wheel, it would be nice to think we have something on the road to snap them out of it. 

            Best, Steve A

On May 8, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Thorne wrote:

In a word, Steve.  No.

Think about moving along 360 at 18 mph and finding in front of you a hole, board, pedestrian, dog, car, or other hazard.  Today, you can look over your shoulder for overtaking traffic and if it's safe, move left around the hazard, move back right, and go on.  Easy peasy and doable in a flash.  With those humps (or with rumble strips), you have little choice but to stop or crash.  http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/rumble_strips.pdf   Those armadillo shaped humps in the picture would be very much what like you would design if you were to set out to invent a way to knock a rider to the pavement into overtaking traffic, whether you are talking high speed traffic areas or low speed traffic areas.

This is the better approach for the 360 situation:  https://www.austincycling.org/education/classes/shoulder_class 

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 08 May 2012 05:24:11 PM CDT
From: Steven Ascherl <seas...@gmail.com>
To: aca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACA-List] BIKE: Bike lane dividers keep the cars out

Do you think something like this may be of use for a situation like 360 or other high speed areas?

                    Best, Steve A.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACA-list" group.
To post to this group, send email to aca-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to aca-list+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/aca-list?hl=en.

[Thorne]

In that case, imagine wanting to move left onto 360 so you can make a normal
left turn or u- turn or avoid riding to the right of the right turn only lane.
Those humps would be obstacles in your path that all things considered present
a greater day to day hazard to cyclists than the occasional sleeping drunk
cell phone driver presents. What if your escape route to avoid the sleeping
drunk cell phone driver is to the left of the humps? In sum, rumble strips
would be worse for cyclists than the road is today and those humps would be
worse than rumble strips.
Best to you as well.

[debra crosby]

I have a friend who had a bad fall when her tires hit some rumble strips outside of Castroville.  Those things are wicked.  

 

Debra Crosby

debra_...@yahoo.com

---

From: Thorne <jeffrey...@usa.net>
To: aca-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 8:06 AM

aca-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/aca-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ACA-list" group.
To post to this group, send email to aca-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

aca-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/aca-list?hl=en.





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ACA-list" group.
To post to this group, send email to aca-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to aca-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[len...@cyclistlaw.com]

Debra makes a good point. The important thing is knowing the rumble strips are there. Rider awareness is key. "I truly believe that in making honorable choices about our lives, we can acknowledge sacrifices we make and the risks we take and recognize that what others view as losses and foolhardiness are the nourishment upon which our spirits thrive." Derrick Bell, Ethical Ambition 506 West 12th Street Autin, Texas 78702 T: 512-386-8117 Toll Free: 877-366-7677 www.cyclistlaw.com www.bicycleaccidentattorney.net   The Atlas Building 604 Mission Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 T: 415-357-3681 F: 415-357-3682

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to aca-list+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/aca-list?hl=en.

[Dinty Moore]

So who or what is right?  Pole 25 people and you will probably come up with 26 answers. 

 

Do we bike in the lanes with cars and trucks?  It is a great idea, but dangerous.  You can be legally in the right but if a car hits you, it's gonna hurt.  And I don't want to be car fodder.  I read all the recent emails.  I also remember riding my bike to elementary school in Dallas in the 50's and 60's.  But that was then.  It was a different time.  Back then people used two hands to drive.  They drove slower.  They didn't have cell phones, computers, iPods, McDonalds Big Mac dripping in their lap and all the other distractions like they do today.  They were far less aggressive.  There is the rub.  In the 90's I used to bike 360 from the bridge to Barton Creek Mall two or three times a week.  It was not that bad back then.  I just rode it a year ago.  It is ridiculous now.  I sometimes bike Jollyville with it's 'bike lane'.  But not often.  I have seen too many close calls.  And I had one close call.  One was enough for me.

 

One thing we can all agree on.  No place is completely safe for bikers or pedestrians.  In Austin we have recently seen cars jumping curbs and hitting people on sidewalks and even running trails.  Not even a curb will make you 100% safe.  But it will make you more safe.  

 

Humps, bumps, tree stumps, rumble strips or curbs.  Nothing except a Sherman tank will keep a car from hitting a biker, pedestrian or another car if that car is headed in the right angle at the right speed. 

Will a bump wake up a driver and have them correct their line of driving?  Most of the time.  Always?  No.

Will a bump keep drivers from driving on the shoulder?  Most of the time.  Always?  No.  Sitting still in 5pm traffic on 360, I continue to see the road hogs barreling past cars on the right, driving on the shoulder.  If a biker was there, would they stop or slow down?  Hopefully.  But what if the driver did not see the biker?  What if the driver was mad about something and saw this smaller vehicle in their way and wanted to teach them a lesson?  We all saw the video email last week when a driver hit a biker from behind on the bridge.  It is just going to happen.  Heck, car drivers hit other car drivers.  That is just what some of them do.  Now most drivers are good.  They don't want to hit you just as much as you don't want to get hit.  But some drivers are just idiots.  In our neighborhood a car driver was going way too fast on a curve, hit a curb and landed on the second story of a house.  Yes, the second story.  How he got there is a mystery.  But he got there.  So if a house is not even 100% safe from a car, how can a biker be?

 

In an ideal world, I would like to see bikers on sidewalks with a 3' tall concrete barrier between the cars and bikes.  Have breaks in the barriers for turning.  I know that won't happen tomorrow, but hopefully some day.  I would even be agreeable to pay a reasonable driving fee ($10.00 year or so) and put a license on my bike if it would shut up the idiots that write into the Statesman and say bikers don't pay our fair share of road money for the privilege of riding on the street.  This might even shut some of the idiots up that say "ALL bikers run red lights, etc".  I am personally tired of hearing that drivel.  Maybe if car drivers saw that bikers with license plates were biking according to the rules and bikers without plates were the law breakers, it would show the car drivers there is a difference.  There are good and bad bikers as well as car drivers.  It is not like all car drivers are saints.  Good grief.

 

But I do have a 'what if'.  I have noticed some on and off ramps in Austin have these white plastic poles sticking out of the ground about 4 feet tall.  If you hit them with a car, they bend.  How much they bend, I don't know, but I am sure the bend strength could be adjusted.  My though process:  A lot of car drivers ignore or don't see things smaller than them like bumps, curbs, etc.  Those tall white plastic poles are more intimidating than a short little bump.  The pole sticks up so they can see it.  It is like some of those markers on mountain roads.  The markers won't stop a car from going off the cliff, but it does say "Hey stupid, don't drive there".  And most drivers don't.  But some have.  (Those are the ones you can't change.  It is called the law of averages.)  Heck, that pole might even scratch their paint so they must not hit it.  So what if we had those poles in our streets as a division between cars and bikes or pedestrians.  Keep the striping and add the poles.  They should be easy to install.  Drill a hole in the asphalt or concrete and glue it in.  Installation could be on a test basis with different streets trying different methods.  Maybe have a set of two, three or four poles about 12 inches apart or so, with sets of poles 5, 6 or 10 feet apart.  That would give bikers enough room to exit if they needed to turn and also give cars enough room to turn right into a business.  I am thinking poles for regular roads like Jollyville.  Neighborhood streets would not participate unless they were a main thoroughfare.  I would be glad to work with any city on my idea for the normal $5,000.000 counseling fee.  

Now for the bikers response:  Yes if you hit one you might go down.  And if you didn't go down, you might bruise a knuckle if you got too close.  But you shouldn't hit one if you stayed in the bike lane, just like a car shouldn't hit you.  

Now for the cars response:  Yes if you hit one you might scratch your paint.  My response....Stay out of my bike lane.  For those that like the idea: Bikers paid for this lane with our license fee and we have a license JUST LIKE YOU so get over it.  And if you park in this well marked bikers lane, I have a cell phone and I will call the police to have you ticketed.  I don't park in your precious and limited parking spots downtown or wherever, so don't park in my lane.          

 

As cyclists do we support poles or bumps in the road to get more bike riders on their bikes?  I believe safety will increase ridership.  If Austin has a real growth in number of bike riders, will that give bikers more credence as a transportation vehicle?  It should.  With this credence maybe we can request more and better bike lanes?  As a start, with certain designated bike lanes and bikers staying in those lanes, we can show car drivers that we obey the law just as they do if we are given the same facilities.  Maybe that is something we can build on.  If that works, maybe we can get more more bike lanes.  Things change.  360 was added a long time ago as an 'expressway north and south.'  I was here.  That is the way it was sold to the voters.  I loved it when they first built it because I lived north off 360 and worked way south.  It was fast getting to work at 55 mph.  Then 360 changed because of increased building which caused traffic to increase.  One stop light was added.  Then another. Then another.  Using the same concept, with safe biking lanes our biking numbers will grow.  As our numbers grow, our need grows....just like cars.   Then we become transportation vehicles instead of "those red light running bikers in spandex".

 

The whole deal is:  What do you want, and what will you give up to get it?

 

 I just visited Washington DC for the 10 mile Cherry Blossom run.  Was there for 5 days and walked everywhere.  Never used a car.  I noticed there were very few bikers in the streets.  Most bikers I saw rode on the sidewalks.  We maneuvered around each other the whole time I was there.  Bikes were even chained to small trees or landscaping grates on the sidewalk.  Several times we had to walk around a bike chained on a sidewalk but I thought it was kinda cool.  I don't blame them for riding on the sidewalk.  DC car drivers are the most aggressive I have seen.  DC even has a great bike share system to rent bikes at one place and return them somewhere else.  Riders used the system a lot.  One time the bike racks were full and two hours later they were empty.  I attached a pic or two. 

                      

H Dinty Moore

 

Trust your own Vision

 

 

---

From: aca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:aca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of NM
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:46 PM
To: aca-...@googlegroups.com

[Steven Ascherl]

Let me start by saying that if we met we would agree on about 90% of this issue. I'm not interested at all in using bumps or poles or concrete walls in most average situations around town. I wouldn't put them on Lamar or Shoal Creek, for example. As one can tell I'm pretty focused on 360 or other similar roads around Austin. You're correct that it would make turning left on say, Lost Creek more challenging. It is a solvable problem though. I think we would be able to figure out a layout that could accommodate this kind of situation. Spacing them further apart or a gap long enough to allow for a smooth merge where an intersection occurs. Something. The humps would end before any right turn only lane to allow for cars to turn as usual and we would be able to continue going forward to maintain our path going straight as we do now. Cars would never be asked to go over bumps in any normal scenario.
There is no escape route for the sleeping drunk, and if going over some bumps would get me out of the way, sign me up. I'll take an 18 mph. solo crash over getting run over by a car, every time.
I'm not married to bumps or such things in particular. I'm open to suggestions. As Dinty suggests, no solution will be perfect. My goal is to discourage cars from entering the shoulder on 360 etc. except in an emergency. If we can come up with a better idea, let's work on getting it done. Clearly, given the recent death, what currently exists is unacceptable and I think we can do better.
Best, Steve A.

[Thorne]

I am already sure we agree on 90% of the issue. I too would think a solo
crash preferable to being hit by a car, but either could be fatal. Would you
trade creating a good chance at dozens of such crashes for maybe - not surely
- preventing that one hit? I would estimate that is what we're really talking
about. Note that the big thinkers have been working on the problem for
decades. And the crux comes down to that we cannot really have what is at the
same time a roadway that is separated exclusively for bikes and a roadway that
goes where the cars can go. With safe riding practices, 360 is already a nice
place to ride and safer than many. I assume that recent events won't scare
either of us off 360 and I hope that recent events don't scare others into
promoting rumble strips or plastic humps that would ruin 360 for recreational
or transportation cycling.
Best
J

[Tom Wald]

You can give input via these ways:
* http://austintexas.gov/email/pwdbicycle
* http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac/

You can also send input to me ( t...@lobv.org ), since I'm a paid advocate focusing mostly on bicycling and walking infrastructure in the Austin metro, but I do listen heavily to the BAC since it has proven in the past to usually be a balanced and diverse forum.  (I receive a lot of extreme and conflicting opinions regarding infrastructure and other bicycling topics, from various local bicycling leaders, so I find it best to get those people in the same room as much as possible to battle out their differences among themselves.)

However, most of the basic thoughts have already been expressed (e.g. bumps in the road are hazards, etc.) so I really recommend that conversations about these matters be had in person at the Austin Bicycle Advisory Council.  Conversations via email are just not proving to be effective enough at understanding each other.  The level of passion from some here should correlate with at least sending a representative with those opinions to the BAC, even if not everyone can attend the meeting themselves.  The BAC is an open forum and decisions are usually made on consensus of all citizens present.

There will be an item on the agenda at next Thursday's BAC regarding the Bluebonnet bikeway.  It is proposed to be a two-way bikeway immediately adjacent to a two-way street.

Eileen also posted a pre-ride and after-discussion event to this list, which I recommend for more in-depth discussion.

-Tom

--
Tom Wald
Executive Director
League of Bicycling Voters
http://lobv.org
t...@lobv.org
512-203-7626