state law - bicycles and RTOLs
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Bike Mom
Dec 12, 2019, 1:07:09 PM12/12/19
to BicycleDriving
Aloha, Does anyone have suggested language for law to allow bicyclists to ride straight through RTOLs? One of our main roadways (Kalanianaole Hwy.) has about 8 RTOLs in a four mile stretch. Bicyclists rarely obey the law, because motorists are driving quite fast. (Speed limit is 35 mph. Drivers typically go about 45 mph.) In addition, it really just does not make sense to have to weave in and out of the bike lane just to go around the RTOLs.
Several Hawaii state senators are willing to introduce a bill, but I was just made aware of a concern that some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection, and allowing bicyclists to go through those particular lanes would not be a good idea. (Here's an example of that: Google streetview.)
John Forester
Dec 12, 2019, 1:27:15 PM12/12/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I am sorry, but the request does not make sense. It states that a
problem exists because "some RTOLs do not continue to the other
side of the intersection". Of course, none do, because they
require all traffic to turn right. So what exactly is the problem.
By the way, I have cycled on Kalanianaole Hwy along what appears
to be this location.
On 12/12/2019 10:07 AM, Bike Mom wrote:
Aloha, Does anyone have suggested language for law to allow bicyclists to ride straight through RTOLs? One of our main roadways (Kalanianaole Hwy.) has about 8 RTOLs in a four mile stretch. Bicyclists rarely obey the law, because motorists are driving quite fast. (Speed limit is 35 mph. Drivers typically go about 45 mph.) In addition, it really just does not make sense to have to weave in and out of the bike lane just to go around the RTOLs.
Several Hawaii state senators are willing to introduce a bill, but I was just made aware of a concern that some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection, and allowing bicyclists to go through those particular lanes would not be a good idea. (Here's an example of that: Google streetview.)
--
--
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/00fa7418-63d7-4c2a-b4a1-9e41454a91b9%40googlegroups.com.
-- John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945 619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com
Michael Graff
Dec 12, 2019, 1:55:39 PM12/12/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
California has a bill to do this, which requires new (undefined) signs and markings for cyclists to go straight through.
But there's a much simpler solution: Keep the bike lane continuous, and use the existing laws: Motorists merge into the bike lane 200 feet before turning.
That also solves the problem of who yields: The motorist yields before merging.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:07 AM Bike Mom <the-gr...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Aloha, Does anyone have suggested language for law to allow bicyclists to ride straight through RTOLs? One of our main roadways (Kalanianaole Hwy.) has about 8 RTOLs in a four mile stretch. Bicyclists rarely obey the law, because motorists are driving quite fast. (Speed limit is 35 mph. Drivers typically go about 45 mph.) In addition, it really just does not make sense to have to weave in and out of the bike lane just to go around the RTOLs.Several Hawaii state senators are willing to introduce a bill, but I was just made aware of a concern that some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection, and allowing bicyclists to go through those particular lanes would not be a good idea. (Here's an example of that: Google streetview.)
--
Natalie aka Bike Mom
Dec 12, 2019, 2:41:26 PM12/12/19
to Michael Graff, BicycleDriving
Thank you, Michael, but signs and markings would take a long time to implement. In one case, the state DOT flat out refused to put up a sign at Keahole and Kalanianaole Hwy. in Hawaii Kai. That’s a particularly bad intersection for bicyclists and pedestrians, made worse by a state design that did not adequately take into account their safety.
A hui hou, Natalie
Michael Graff
Dec 12, 2019, 2:48:08 PM12/12/19
to Natalie aka Bike Mom, Michael Graff, BicycleDriving
Exactly. If you have to change the signs and markings anyhow, just change the RTOL to a continuous bike lane, using existing standards and laws. This can usually be done at the next resurfacing.
Kat Iverson
Dec 12, 2019, 4:02:04 PM12/12/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
John's right. RTOL's don't continue on
the other side of the intersection. That's why everyone has to
turn right--there's no where for them to go if they go straight.
You say that to avoid illegally going straight through a RTOL
cyclists would have to weave in and out of the bike lane. Why is
that? Doesn't the BL continue alongside the RTOL? Or do they
drop the BL to make room for the RTOL? That can happen if the
road isn't wide enough. A 6-foot BL can become a 9-ft RTOL if the
road widens just a bit and/or they narrow the other lanes a bit.
If the BL resumes on the other side of the intersection, there is
somewhere for cyclists (although not motorists) to go if they go
straight through the RTOL. If the BL does not resume, then
cyclists need to use the through lane if they want to go straight
Because of those two possibilities, I don't think a statute can easily be written to cover them, and it wouldn't help cyclists who haven't been to that intersection and don't know whether the BL resumes. The transportation department has an immediate solution they can use wherever appropriate. They can add an "except bicycles" supplementary plaque to the RTOL sign at any place where the BL resumes. If it's a long RTOL, there should be such a plaque at the beginning (and at the end) of the RTOL. A plaque at the end isn't any use to a cyclist who changes lanes then then finds out at the intersection that he could have stayed in the same lane.
Portland seems to have another solution. I have seen RTOL's with a dashed line about 4 or 5 feet from the left line of the RTOL. Presumably this is meant as the position for through cyclists to ride in the RTOL. Of course, Portland doesn't care about the niceties of standardization nor of statutes. They are inviting cyclists to go straight through in a RTOL, and they are forcing motorists to straddle two lanes at once.
Additional, now that I have seen more e-mails:
Bills also take a long time to implement, and even longer to go into effect. As for Keahole and Halanianaole Hwy., I can understand not putting an exception there. It doesn't look like there is a BL leading up to that intersection so cyclists should be in the through lane even before the RTOL starts, and there is what might be a cycle track slightly downstream of the intersection, but not right at the intersection. Also the side street has dual RTOL's, so probably a lot of traffic. One problem with a through exception for certain vehicles (sometimes there is an exception for buses leaving bus stops) is that drivers on the side street can clearly see the RTOL, but not the exception. They are judging their ability to turn right on red on the assumption that everyone in the RTOL will turn right. If someone unexpectedly goes straight just as they are turning onto the road, that would be bad. Another problem with an exception is that during red lights, through vehicles block the progress of other vehicles which could otherwise turn right on red.
Kat Iverson,
Near, but definitely not in, Portland, Oregon
Because of those two possibilities, I don't think a statute can easily be written to cover them, and it wouldn't help cyclists who haven't been to that intersection and don't know whether the BL resumes. The transportation department has an immediate solution they can use wherever appropriate. They can add an "except bicycles" supplementary plaque to the RTOL sign at any place where the BL resumes. If it's a long RTOL, there should be such a plaque at the beginning (and at the end) of the RTOL. A plaque at the end isn't any use to a cyclist who changes lanes then then finds out at the intersection that he could have stayed in the same lane.
Portland seems to have another solution. I have seen RTOL's with a dashed line about 4 or 5 feet from the left line of the RTOL. Presumably this is meant as the position for through cyclists to ride in the RTOL. Of course, Portland doesn't care about the niceties of standardization nor of statutes. They are inviting cyclists to go straight through in a RTOL, and they are forcing motorists to straddle two lanes at once.
Additional, now that I have seen more e-mails:
Bills also take a long time to implement, and even longer to go into effect. As for Keahole and Halanianaole Hwy., I can understand not putting an exception there. It doesn't look like there is a BL leading up to that intersection so cyclists should be in the through lane even before the RTOL starts, and there is what might be a cycle track slightly downstream of the intersection, but not right at the intersection. Also the side street has dual RTOL's, so probably a lot of traffic. One problem with a through exception for certain vehicles (sometimes there is an exception for buses leaving bus stops) is that drivers on the side street can clearly see the RTOL, but not the exception. They are judging their ability to turn right on red on the assumption that everyone in the RTOL will turn right. If someone unexpectedly goes straight just as they are turning onto the road, that would be bad. Another problem with an exception is that during red lights, through vehicles block the progress of other vehicles which could otherwise turn right on red.
Kat Iverson,
Near, but definitely not in, Portland, Oregon
On 12/12/2019 10:07 AM, Bike Mom wrote:
Scott Mace
Dec 12, 2019, 7:27:16 PM12/12/19
to Kat Iverson, BicycleDriving
California cities are also implementing NACTO's "protected intersections" which completely eliminate any same-direction sharing and weaving between motorists and cyclists before the turn. San Jose has some of these and San Francisco is about to start installing them. Bollard manufacturers will do a bang-up business. (Pun intended)
Scott Mace
--
--
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/ec39f936-0365-8566-c0ab-1d16fc0c11f9%40comcast.net.
Michael Graff
Dec 12, 2019, 7:40:41 PM12/12/19
to Scott Mace, Kat Iverson, BicycleDriving
"completely eliminate any same-direction sharing and weaving between motorists and cyclists before the turn"
...so all the conflicts happen during the turn. Fun!
Of course, there won't be separate signal phases for cyclists. Nor is it clear which signal head (ped or vehicle) cyclists should be following. And California Vehicle Code still has no movement rules for these facilities. Who yields to whom?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CAMqSGjXX1Aeawem3tbxJs8AxhOYYatsC9pjP2V4LkfY4Ud8HyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Bike Mom
Dec 12, 2019, 8:36:27 PM12/12/19
to BicycleDriving
Generally, when there's a RTOL and a bike lane, shoulder or other lane continues on the other side of the intersection, I'd like to law to allow bicyclists to be able to travel straight through. That would apply to places such as Kalanianaole Hwy. (I think it best to change the law, rather than put up signs or repaint all of the applicable intersections.)
There are a few RTOLs, however, where there is no direct lane into which a bicyclist would be able to travel. That is the type of situation I am referring as being a concern. In those types of intersections, we wouldn't want bicyclists to be able to travel straight through the RTOL, because then they would have to somehow merge to get into the travel lane on the other side of the intersection.
Here's the current law with red font indicating the proposed change. We just need to add something that says "when a lane or shoulder is available on the other side of the intersection" or something like that.
Here's the current law with red font indicating the proposed change. We just need to add something that says "when a lane or shoulder is available on the other side of the intersection" or something like that.
§291C-81 Required position and method of turning at intersections. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows:
(1) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except that bicyclists may travel straight through right-turn-only lanes.
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 8:27:15 AM UTC-10, John Forester wrote:
I am sorry, but the request does not make sense. It states that a problem exists because "some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection". Of course, none do, because they require all traffic to turn right. So what exactly is the problem. By the way, I have cycled on Kalanianaole Hwy along what appears to be this location.
On 12/12/2019 10:07 AM, Bike Mom wrote:
--Aloha, Does anyone have suggested language for law to allow bicyclists to ride straight through RTOLs? One of our main roadways (Kalanianaole Hwy.) has about 8 RTOLs in a four mile stretch. Bicyclists rarely obey the law, because motorists are driving quite fast. (Speed limit is 35 mph. Drivers typically go about 45 mph.) In addition, it really just does not make sense to have to weave in and out of the bike lane just to go around the RTOLs.
Several Hawaii state senators are willing to introduce a bill, but I was just made aware of a concern that some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection, and allowing bicyclists to go through those particular lanes would not be a good idea. (Here's an example of that: Google streetview.)
--
John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945 619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com
Kat Iverson
Dec 12, 2019, 8:58:48 PM12/12/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
It's easy enough to say "except that
bicyclists may travel straight through right-turn-only lanes where
a bike lane (or shoulder, if you want to include that) exists
immediately beyond the intersection." However, this is the wrong
law to amend. This law is about how to make a right turn, not
about how to operate in a RTOL. I suppose that there is a law
that says that if a lane is marked to require drivers to turn
right then they must turn right. That's where you need an
exception that says bicyclists may go straight.
An exception that depends on the existence of a bike lane beyond the intersection is not practical. It's not always possible to see far enough down the road to know whether a bike lane is there. Does it actually matter, anyway? Does Hawaii have a law against changing lanes in an intersection? I know plenty of people who think that intersection lane changes are illegal, but there is no such law in Oregon. In fact, when bike lanes end here, they usually end at intersections, forcing intersection lane changes by bicyclists who didn't know in advance about the end of the lane. (There are very few "bike lane ends" signs here) How about Hawaii? Do you not already have cases where bicyclists, as you say, "have to somehow merge to get into the travel lane on the other side of the intersection"? That is, are the lawmakers suddenly "concerned" about something that has already been happening for years without them noticing it?
Kat Iverson
An exception that depends on the existence of a bike lane beyond the intersection is not practical. It's not always possible to see far enough down the road to know whether a bike lane is there. Does it actually matter, anyway? Does Hawaii have a law against changing lanes in an intersection? I know plenty of people who think that intersection lane changes are illegal, but there is no such law in Oregon. In fact, when bike lanes end here, they usually end at intersections, forcing intersection lane changes by bicyclists who didn't know in advance about the end of the lane. (There are very few "bike lane ends" signs here) How about Hawaii? Do you not already have cases where bicyclists, as you say, "have to somehow merge to get into the travel lane on the other side of the intersection"? That is, are the lawmakers suddenly "concerned" about something that has already been happening for years without them noticing it?
Kat Iverson
Bike Mom
Dec 12, 2019, 10:36:36 PM12/12/19
to BicycleDriving
Thank you for all of your replies. I will upload a drawing of the RTOLs as they are here, but I have a meeting to go to first. I'll respond to questions at that time.
John Allen
Dec 13, 2019, 12:20:39 AM12/13/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
My take on this:
https://www.1stbikes.org/2017/10/john-allen-right-turn-only-lane-as-dual.html
At 08:36 PM 12/12/2019, Bike Mom wrote:
https://www.1stbikes.org/2017/10/john-allen-right-turn-only-lane-as-dual.html
At 08:36 PM 12/12/2019, Bike Mom wrote:
Generally, when there's a RTOL and a bike lane, shoulder or other lane continues on the other side of the intersection, I'd like to law to allow bicyclists to be able to travel straight through. That would apply to places such as Kalanianaole Hwy. (I think it best to change the law, rather than put up signs or repaint all of the applicable intersections.)
There are a few RTOLs, however, where there is no direct lane into which a bicyclist would be able to travel. That is the type of situation I am referring as being a concern. In those types of intersections, we wouldn't want bicyclists to be able to travel straight through the RTOL, because then they would have to somehow merge to get into the travel lane on the other side of the intersection.
Here's the current law with red font indicating the proposed change. We just need to add something that says "when a lane or shoulder is available on the other side of the intersection" or something like that.Â
     §291C-81 Required position and method of turning at intersections. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows:
(1)    Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except that bicyclists may travel straight through right-turn-only lanes.
John S. Allen
7 University Park
Waltham, MA 02453-1523 USA
781 891-9307 home
781 856-4058 mobile
jsa...@bikexprt.com
Patricia Kovacs
Dec 13, 2019, 6:16:08 AM12/13/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving, John Allen
I'm with John. I prefer the shared bike lane/RTO lane to a narrow bike lane between the straight through and RTO lanes. We are beginning to add these in Columbus, OH. With the caveat of John's last sentence, there must be a receiving lane. Where they are used here, there is a bike lane on the far side. Will they be in the next MUTCD?
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
--
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
Michael Graff
Dec 13, 2019, 10:26:12 AM12/13/19
to Patricia Kovacs, Bike Mom, BicycleDriving, John Allen
In 49 states (except Oregon) we already have a "shared bike lane/RTO lane". It's just a bike lane. Motorists merge into the bike lane before turning, as allowed/required by law.
No special markings needed, though it helps if the stripe is dashed before the intersection/driveway. It also helps if the bike lane is somewhat wider than minimum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/207767515.8508787.1576235762576%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kat Iverson
Dec 13, 2019, 11:08:39 AM12/13/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
First, that doesn't address the
situation of RTOL's. It applies only at combined through/RT
lanes, marked or not.
Second, are you sure that Oregon is the only one? I have only ever heard Californians say that. I have looked at both California and Oregon law on that point. California law says that motorists must merge into the BL for right turns. Oregon has two separate laws that say motorists must not drive in the BL, but they must make right turns from as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway. Read them together, and to me, they are ambiguous, but everyone else thinks motorists must not use the BL for right turns. It would take a motorist making a turn from the BL to fight a ticket at least to the appellate court to result in a definitive ruling on the laws. I have not heard of such a case. I have not looked at any other state's right turn laws.
What do those of you from other states say? Do your laws specifically require merging into the BL like California's, or do motorists merge out of tradition? Or because of an "as far right as practicable" law, despite a "don't drive in the BL law? Or do they drive like Oregonians, and not merge into the BL for right turns?
Kat Iverson
Second, are you sure that Oregon is the only one? I have only ever heard Californians say that. I have looked at both California and Oregon law on that point. California law says that motorists must merge into the BL for right turns. Oregon has two separate laws that say motorists must not drive in the BL, but they must make right turns from as close as practicable to the right edge of the roadway. Read them together, and to me, they are ambiguous, but everyone else thinks motorists must not use the BL for right turns. It would take a motorist making a turn from the BL to fight a ticket at least to the appellate court to result in a definitive ruling on the laws. I have not heard of such a case. I have not looked at any other state's right turn laws.
What do those of you from other states say? Do your laws specifically require merging into the BL like California's, or do motorists merge out of tradition? Or because of an "as far right as practicable" law, despite a "don't drive in the BL law? Or do they drive like Oregonians, and not merge into the BL for right turns?
Kat Iverson
On 12/13/2019 7:25 AM, Michael Graff wrote:
Michael Graff
Dec 13, 2019, 12:14:57 PM12/13/19
to Kat Iverson, BicycleDriving
I mean, we don't need to invent a new combination right-turn-only-except-bikes lane (RTOEBL) as shown in the 1stbikes.org link. If there's an RTOL that interrupts a bike lane, we can change it back to a continuous bike lane at the next resurfacing.
(I'm assuming the situation where there's a bike lane midblock, but it gets replaced by an RTOL near an intersection, then the bike lane resumes after the intersection.)
And if I'm wrong about Oregon, even better.
--
--
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/b5c36e33-cf1b-d47c-0c23-e568ff49d7f2%40comcast.net.
Bike Mom
Dec 13, 2019, 12:36:43 PM12/13/19
to BicycleDriving
Thank you, Kat. RE the law to amend -- I can leave it up to the legislators to determine exactly which law to amend, but the one I chose is the only one I found on that seemed to fit.
Sometimes there is a bike lane involved, sometimes not. (I tried to upload a drawing but could not.) I'm pretty sure changing lanes in the intersection is illegal.
Sometimes there is a bike lane involved, sometimes not. (I tried to upload a drawing but could not.) I'm pretty sure changing lanes in the intersection is illegal.
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 3:58:48 PM UTC-10, Kat Iverson wrote:
Bike Mom
Dec 13, 2019, 12:36:53 PM12/13/19
to BicycleDriving
I'm having a hard time following the replies, but here are some other things to consider. It took the city six years to install one sign that allowed bicyclists to go through a RTOL at a major intersection in town. Buses were allowed to go straight through -- bicyclists were not.
It took the state about seven years to repaint part of the bike lanes on Kalanianaole Hwy. Many of our roads on Oahu have been repaved in the past three to five years, so waiting for repainting to occur for proper treatment of our RTOLs for bicyclists would take at least a decade, likely longer on our city streets, which get repaved less frequently.
Every day when I ride my bike I violate the law a least a dozen times. I don't like doing that. I don't think bicyclists should have to choose between obeying the law and their own safety, which is the case now, hence the desire to actually change th e
It took the state about seven years to repaint part of the bike lanes on Kalanianaole Hwy. Many of our roads on Oahu have been repaved in the past three to five years, so waiting for repainting to occur for proper treatment of our RTOLs for bicyclists would take at least a decade, likely longer on our city streets, which get repaved less frequently.
Every day when I ride my bike I violate the law a least a dozen times. I don't like doing that. I don't think bicyclists should have to choose between obeying the law and their own safety, which is the case now, hence the desire to actually change th e
Kat Iverson
Dec 13, 2019, 12:41:21 PM12/13/19
to Michael Graff, BicycleDriving
Oh, I see. Wherever engineers want to
put an RTOL, they could just widen the bike lane instead. Then
the motorists who want to turn right, use the bike lane just as
they would on any other street. It doesn't have to be marked as a
RTOL, since the only time motorists are allowed to use a BL is
when they want to turn right. The reason for a wider BL is that
rather than having motorists straddle the lane line (I suppose
normal width bike lanes aren't wide enough for cars to be
completely in the bike lane?) traffic volumes call for having a
special turn pocket for cars to stack up in.
Natalie, would that work in Hawaii? What is the law for right turning cars on bike laned streets? Of course, it still has the drawback of having to persuade DOT to change the striping, which you say will take a long time.
Kat Iverson
Natalie, would that work in Hawaii? What is the law for right turning cars on bike laned streets? Of course, it still has the drawback of having to persuade DOT to change the striping, which you say will take a long time.
Kat Iverson
John Forester
Dec 13, 2019, 1:50:19 PM12/13/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I would like to remind all and sundry that this confused discussion is
caused by Motordom's attempt to make motoring more convenient by
inventing bikelanes, a design that conflicts with the standard operation
of roadways and their traffic. Recognition of this fact must always be
in our minds whenever considering the problems caused by the existence
of bikelanes and sidepaths, and of FTR laws also.
caused by Motordom's attempt to make motoring more convenient by
inventing bikelanes, a design that conflicts with the standard operation
of roadways and their traffic. Recognition of this fact must always be
in our minds whenever considering the problems caused by the existence
of bikelanes and sidepaths, and of FTR laws also.
Michael Graff
Dec 13, 2019, 2:05:39 PM12/13/19
to John Forester, BicycleDriving
I think Motordom would prefer a whole 'nother travel lane.
--
--
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/ffa46ed5-a36f-0b97-14f7-fa0fec5953cc%40johnforester.com.
John Forester
Dec 13, 2019, 2:24:38 PM12/13/19
to Michael Graff, BicycleDriving
Mr. Graff,
Whatever may be your thoughts about Motordom's preferences, the
fact is that Motordom invented bike lanes and forced them into
California law, from which most of the other states adopted
theirs. This is historical fact, neither surmise nor assumption.
Michael Graff
Dec 13, 2019, 4:45:18 PM12/13/19
to John Forester, Michael Graff, BicycleDriving
Motordom also invented right-turn-only lanes. Given a choice between RTOL and BL, Motordom chooses to interrupt bike lanes to install RTOLs.
Which brings us back to the right-turn-only-except-bikes dilemma.
Bike Mom
Dec 13, 2019, 5:48:20 PM12/13/19
to BicycleDriving
Where is this in Hawaii law, Michael? I'm not aware of any law that would extend the bike lane through a RTOL by default.
In addition, it wouldn't address other RTOLs in which there is no bike lane.
In addition, it wouldn't address other RTOLs in which there is no bike lane.
To unsubscribe: bicycle...@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 bicycle...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
To unsubscribe: bicycle...@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 bicycle...@googlegroups.com.
Michael Graff
Dec 13, 2019, 6:13:31 PM12/13/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
I meant it the other way around.
Change the paint: Remove the RTOL and continue the bike lane all the way to the intersection. In CA,
vehicle code sections 21209 and 21717 allow/require motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning. It's my understanding that similar laws exist in at least 49 states.
Meanwhile, CA also recently changed the law to allow cyclists to go straight from a turn lane. But "only lane when an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted."
These devices don't exist yet. But once they're approved, they still need to be painted/posted. If you have to go to that much trouble, you might as well just remove the RTOL and continue the bike lane to the intersection.
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/b7774046-a67a-46fd-ae34-e182180b4ddc%40googlegroups.com.
Bike Mom
Dec 14, 2019, 5:45:39 PM12/14/19
to BicycleDriving
Michael, if I understand correctly, you're concerned about situations in which there is a green signal for the RTOL but the signal to go straight is red. I can't think of any situations like that, although it would happen in instances in which right turns on red are allowed after a stop. We already have that happening, however, because bicyclists disobey the law by going straight through. (And please note that I understand and agree that bicyclists should be on the left side of the RTOL in order to avoid right hooks.)
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 2:40:41 PM UTC-10, Michael Graff wrote:
"completely eliminate any same-direction sharing and weaving between motorists and cyclists before the turn"...so all the conflicts happen during the turn. Fun!Of course, there won't be separate signal phases for cyclists. Nor is it clear which signal head (ped or vehicle) cyclists should be following. And California Vehicle Code still has no movement rules for these facilities. Who yields to whom?
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:27 PM Scott Mace <mace...@gmail.com> wrote:
California cities are also implementing NACTO's "protected intersections" which completely eliminate any same-direction sharing and weaving between motorists and cyclists before the turn. San Jose has some of these and San Francisco is about to start installing them. Bollard manufacturers will do a bang-up business. (Pun intended)Scott Mace
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 1:02 PM Kat Iverson <kat_i...@comcast.net> wrote:
--John's right. RTOL's don't continue on the other side of the intersection. That's why everyone has to turn right--there's no where for them to go if they go straight. You say that to avoid illegally going straight through a RTOL cyclists would have to weave in and out of the bike lane. Why is that? Doesn't the BL continue alongside the RTOL? Or do they drop the BL to make room for the RTOL? That can happen if the road isn't wide enough. A 6-foot BL can become a 9-ft RTOL if the road widens just a bit and/or they narrow the other lanes a bit. If the BL resumes on the other side of the intersection, there is somewhere for cyclists (although not motorists) to go if they go straight through the RTOL. If the BL does not resume, then cyclists need to use the through lane if they want to go straight
Because of those two possibilities, I don't think a statute can easily be written to cover them, and it wouldn't help cyclists who haven't been to that intersection and don't know whether the BL resumes. The transportation department has an immediate solution they can use wherever appropriate. They can add an "except bicycles" supplementary plaque to the RTOL sign at any place where the BL resumes. If it's a long RTOL, there should be such a plaque at the beginning (and at the end) of the RTOL. A plaque at the end isn't any use to a cyclist who changes lanes then then finds out at the intersection that he could have stayed in the same lane.
Portland seems to have another solution. I have seen RTOL's with a dashed line about 4 or 5 feet from the left line of the RTOL. Presumably this is meant as the position for through cyclists to ride in the RTOL. Of course, Portland doesn't care about the niceties of standardization nor of statutes. They are inviting cyclists to go straight through in a RTOL, and they are forcing motorists to straddle two lanes at once.
Additional, now that I have seen more e-mails:
Bills also take a long time to implement, and even longer to go into effect. As for Keahole and Halanianaole Hwy., I can understand not putting an exception there. It doesn't look like there is a BL leading up to that intersection so cyclists should be in the through lane even before the RTOL starts, and there is what might be a cycle track slightly downstream of the intersection, but not right at the intersection. Also the side street has dual RTOL's, so probably a lot of traffic. One problem with a through exception for certain vehicles (sometimes there is an exception for buses leaving bus stops) is that drivers on the side street can clearly see the RTOL, but not the exception. They are judging their ability to turn right on red on the assumption that everyone in the RTOL will turn right. If someone unexpectedly goes straight just as they are turning onto the road, that would be bad. Another problem with an exception is that during red lights, through vehicles block the progress of other vehicles which could otherwise turn right on red.
Kat Iverson,
Near, but definitely not in, Portland, Oregon
On 12/12/2019 10:07 AM, Bike Mom wrote:
Aloha, Does anyone have suggested language for law to allow bicyclists to ride straight through RTOLs? One of our main roadways (Kalanianaole Hwy.) has about 8 RTOLs in a four mile stretch. Bicyclists rarely obey the law, because motorists are driving quite fast. (Speed limit is 35 mph. Drivers typically go about 45 mph.) In addition, it really just does not make sense to have to weave in and out of the bike lane just to go around the RTOLs.
Several Hawaii state senators are willing to introduce a bill, but I was just made aware of a concern that some RTOLs do not continue to the other side of the intersection, and allowing bicyclists to go through those particular lanes would not be a good idea. (Here's an example of that: Google streetview.)
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
To unsubscribe: bicycle...@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 bicycle...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/ec39f936-0365-8566-c0ab-1d16fc0c11f9%40comcast.net.
--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
To unsubscribe: bicycle...@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 bicycle...@googlegroups.com.
Bike Mom
Dec 14, 2019, 5:48:09 PM12/14/19
to BicycleDriving
I appreciate this, and it makes sense when there's a bike lane.
Bike Mom
Dec 14, 2019, 5:55:10 PM12/14/19
to BicycleDriving
This would only apply in situations where there is a bike lane. The city seems to be installing more RTOLs, and there's not always a bike lane nearby. In addition, motorists are not allowed to drive in bike lanes in Hawaii as far as I am aware.
Bike Mom
Dec 14, 2019, 6:00:13 PM12/14/19
to BicycleDriving
Okay, how about this:
Current law:
§291C-145 Riding on
roadways and bikeways. (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time
shall ride as near to the right-hand curb, on the edge of the roadway, or on
the shoulder off of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when
passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; except
under any of the following situations:
Proposed change (mostly from Delaware statute):
When approaching an intersection
where right turns are permitted and there is a dedicated right-turn -only
lane, in which case a person may operate a bicycle in this dedicated
lane, even if the bicycle operator does not intend to turn right;
Kat Iverson
Dec 14, 2019, 10:27:14 PM12/14/19
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I think Michael was thinking of
problems that arise with special bike facilities at intersections,
which is not what you have. However, what you said is a potential
problem for your case. I have seen the situation you describe.
Picture a 4-way intersection where all legs have a through/RT lane and a left turn only lane, and the LTOL's have turn arrows. You are going east. Whenever the northbound turning traffic has a green arrow, you know the southbound through traffic has to have a red ball, so you can easily turn right (south), on red. Now add a RTOL with its own signal head on the eastbound leg. The engineers also know that whenever northbound traffic has a green arrow, there is no conflict for that eastbound traffic turning south, so they give the RTOL a green arrow. If you were a bicyclist using that RTOL as a through lane, you couldn't actually proceed on the green arrow because you would run into the northbound traffic.
Here is an intersection like that:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.519945,-122.9498308,63m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Ignore the BL or think of it as marking that part of the RTOL where through bicyclists should ride. Portland has some RTOL's with dashed lines near the left. This implies that they want or expect through bicyclists to use the RTOL, but there is no legal provision for doing that or for adding that dashed line within the RTOL. I don't know where I have seen one, so I can't send you a map link.
Kat
Picture a 4-way intersection where all legs have a through/RT lane and a left turn only lane, and the LTOL's have turn arrows. You are going east. Whenever the northbound turning traffic has a green arrow, you know the southbound through traffic has to have a red ball, so you can easily turn right (south), on red. Now add a RTOL with its own signal head on the eastbound leg. The engineers also know that whenever northbound traffic has a green arrow, there is no conflict for that eastbound traffic turning south, so they give the RTOL a green arrow. If you were a bicyclist using that RTOL as a through lane, you couldn't actually proceed on the green arrow because you would run into the northbound traffic.
Here is an intersection like that:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.519945,-122.9498308,63m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Ignore the BL or think of it as marking that part of the RTOL where through bicyclists should ride. Portland has some RTOL's with dashed lines near the left. This implies that they want or expect through bicyclists to use the RTOL, but there is no legal provision for doing that or for adding that dashed line within the RTOL. I don't know where I have seen one, so I can't send you a map link.
Kat
On 12/14/2019 2:45 PM, Bike Mom wrote:
Michael Graff
Dec 14, 2019, 11:49:57 PM12/14/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
For the situation Scott talked about, and which I'm seeing installed in some places, through cyclists are kept to the *right* of right-turning traffic. Right hooks are essentially mandatory.
Here's a website promoting that idea http://www.protectedintersection.com/
(We would probably say they're using "protected" ironically.)
Michael Graff
Dec 14, 2019, 11:58:50 PM12/14/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
It doesn't seem as explicit as CA vehicle code 21209 and 21717, but
At the state level. Section 291C-123 has "making a legal turn" as an exception to the "no vehicle other than a bicycle" rule. Section 291C-81 (1) basically requires (the word it uses is "practicable") you to merge with the bicycle lane. This is consistent with the Uniform Vehicle Code recommendations.
At the city level (assuming Honolulu), Section 15-6.7 (d)(3)(B)(ii) says:
The person may operate or stop the motor vehicle or moped across the lane when necessary to turn into or turn from a street intersecting the lane;
--
--
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/ba11185f-b0d7-497b-b914-13daf1059e66%40googlegroups.com.
John Allen
Dec 15, 2019, 9:29:18 AM12/15/19
to Michael Graff, Patricia Kovacs, Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
Uh, no, the bike lane isn't wide enough to hold a motor vehicle.
Motorists more often than not keep to the left of the bike-lane line
and right-hook bicyclists. That is the leading cause of bicyclist
fatalities in the Boston area.
At 10:25 AM 12/13/2019, Michael Graff wrote:
>In 49 states (except Oregon) we already have a "shared bike lane/RTO
>lane". It's just a bike lane. Motorists merge into the bike lane
>before turning, as allowed/required by law.
>
>No special markings needed, though it helps if the stripe is dashed
>before the intersection/driveway. It also helps if the bike lane is
>somewhat wider than minimum.
John S. Allen
Technical Writer/Editor, http://sheldonbrown.com
CyclingSavvy Instructor
League Cycling Instructor #77-C
Member, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle
Technical Committee.
Safety Coordinator, Charles River Wheelers
jsallen *at* bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com
http://john-s-allen.com/blog
http://streetsmarts.bostonbiker.org
Motorists more often than not keep to the left of the bike-lane line
and right-hook bicyclists. That is the leading cause of bicyclist
fatalities in the Boston area.
At 10:25 AM 12/13/2019, Michael Graff wrote:
>In 49 states (except Oregon) we already have a "shared bike lane/RTO
>lane". It's just a bike lane. Motorists merge into the bike lane
>before turning, as allowed/required by law.
>
>No special markings needed, though it helps if the stripe is dashed
>before the intersection/driveway. It also helps if the bike lane is
>somewhat wider than minimum.
Technical Writer/Editor, http://sheldonbrown.com
CyclingSavvy Instructor
League Cycling Instructor #77-C
Member, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle
Technical Committee.
Safety Coordinator, Charles River Wheelers
jsallen *at* bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com
http://john-s-allen.com/blog
http://streetsmarts.bostonbiker.org
John Allen
Dec 15, 2019, 9:29:19 AM12/15/19
to John Forester, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
It is convenient but in my opinion insufficient to point to a
conspiracy, even if historically documented, as the sole reason that
bicyclists act contrary to their own interests. Counterexample:
pedestrians illegally crossing streets. (I am not using the term
"jaywalking" because it is held up as a buzzword of the conspiracy.)
Motordom has not succeeded in making people fearful of crossing
streets illegally (except as applies to children). What is the
difference? Largely, I think, the prevalence of crossing streets
illgally, which benefits from its obvious advantages in shortening
routes and saving time -- not safety in numbers but increasing
numbers from numbers, a snowball effect.
Advocacy campaigns tout the advantages of bicycling, which are real,
but choosing bicycling for transportation often involves
self-sacrifice, real or imagined, and a call to altruism that blows
past people who have other alternatives that are more convenient for
them and/or more ingrained. No such advocacy is needed to convince
people to try crossing streets illegally, as it is obviously and
immediately more convenient than walking however far to a crosswalk,
if one even exists.
At 01:50 PM 12/13/2019, John Forester wrote:
>I would like to remind all and sundry that this confused discussion
>is caused by Motordom's attempt to make motoring more convenient by
>inventing bikelanes, a design that conflicts with the standard
>operation of roadways and their traffic. Recognition of this fact
>must always be in our minds whenever considering the problems caused
>by the existence of bikelanes and sidepaths, and of FTR laws also.
conspiracy, even if historically documented, as the sole reason that
bicyclists act contrary to their own interests. Counterexample:
pedestrians illegally crossing streets. (I am not using the term
"jaywalking" because it is held up as a buzzword of the conspiracy.)
Motordom has not succeeded in making people fearful of crossing
streets illegally (except as applies to children). What is the
difference? Largely, I think, the prevalence of crossing streets
illgally, which benefits from its obvious advantages in shortening
routes and saving time -- not safety in numbers but increasing
numbers from numbers, a snowball effect.
Advocacy campaigns tout the advantages of bicycling, which are real,
but choosing bicycling for transportation often involves
self-sacrifice, real or imagined, and a call to altruism that blows
past people who have other alternatives that are more convenient for
them and/or more ingrained. No such advocacy is needed to convince
people to try crossing streets illegally, as it is obviously and
immediately more convenient than walking however far to a crosswalk,
if one even exists.
At 01:50 PM 12/13/2019, John Forester wrote:
>I would like to remind all and sundry that this confused discussion
>is caused by Motordom's attempt to make motoring more convenient by
>inventing bikelanes, a design that conflicts with the standard
>operation of roadways and their traffic. Recognition of this fact
>must always be in our minds whenever considering the problems caused
>by the existence of bikelanes and sidepaths, and of FTR laws also.
John Allen
Dec 15, 2019, 9:29:21 AM12/15/19
to Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
It also makes sense on a highway with a rideable shoulder which becomes
an RTOL before the intersection. That, I understand, is where Delaware is
mostly using this.
At 05:48 PM 12/14/2019, Bike Mom wrote:
I appreciate this, and it makes sense when there's a bike lane.
On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 7:20:39 PM UTC-10, John Allen wrote:
John S. Allen
John Allen
Dec 15, 2019, 9:29:25 AM12/15/19
to Michael Graff, Bike Mom, BicycleDriving
What is a "protected" intersection? It is a crossroads for
motorists in the middle of a roundabout for bicyclists, and X smack in
the middle of the circle. How do I love this? Let me count the conflicts.
At 11:49 PM 12/14/2019, Michael Graff wrote:
For the situation Scott talked about, and which I'm seeing installed in some places, through cyclists are kept to the *right* of right-turning traffic. Right hooks are essentially mandatory.
Here's a website promoting that idea http://www.protectedintersection.com/
(We would probably say they're using "protected" ironically.)
John S. Allen
Technical Writer/Editor,
http://sheldonbrown.com
CyclingSavvy Instructor
League Cycling Instructor #77-C
Patricia Kovacs
Dec 15, 2019, 9:46:02 AM12/15/19
to Michael Graff, Bike Mom, John Allen, BicycleDriving
I'm with John on this one (yet again). If we build these "protected" intersections, and more cyclists use them cause they "feel safer", without some kind of "vulnerable" user laws and liabilities, we'll start having cyclist fatality numbers approach pedestrian fatalities.
I really like John's analogy of "a crossroads for motorists in the middle of a roundabout for bicyclists".
Tricia
I really like John's analogy of "a crossroads for motorists in the middle of a roundabout for bicyclists".
Tricia
On Sunday, December 15, 2019, 9:29:28 AM EST, John Allen <jsa...@bikexprt.com> wrote:
What is a "protected" intersection? It is a crossroads formotorists in the middle of a roundabout for bicyclists, and X smack inthe middle of the circle. How do I love this? Let me count the conflicts.
At 11:49 PM 12/14/2019, Michael Graff wrote:
For the situation Scott talkedabout, and which I'm seeing installed in some places, through cyclistsare kept to the *right* of right-turning traffic. Right hooks areessentially mandatory.
Here's a website promoting that ideaÂhttp://www.protectedintersection.com/
(We would probably say they're using "protected"ironically.)
John S. Allen
Technical Writer/Editor, http://sheldonbrown.com
CyclingSavvy Instructor
League Cycling Instructor #77-C
Safety Coordinator, Charles River Wheelers
jsallen *at* bikexprt.com
http://bikexprt.com
http://john-s-allen.com/blog
http://streetsmarts.bostonbiker.org
--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
--
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/5df64345.1c69fb81.12a49.e04fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/5df64345.1c69fb81.12a49.e04fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
John Forester
Dec 15, 2019, 1:14:22 PM12/15/19
to John Allen, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Please, John A, my message does not discuss a conspiracy. Motordom's
effort to get bike lanes and sidepaths into California's traffic law in
1970 was not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is a secret plan to achieve
something, likely to be unlawful. On the contrary, Motordom's actions in
1970-1976 were normal public means to get a new law enacted. The big
lie, of course, was that this was publicized as improving the safety of
cyclists when its only motivation was the convenience of motorists.
The motivation for my recent message was to remind the readers and
discussants that the motivation for FTR laws, bike lanes, and sidepaths
was motorist convenience. One needs to keep this fact in mind whenever
evaluating these facilities.
Neither does my message say that this "conspiracy" to get a law enacted
is the sole reason that bicyclists act contrary to their own interests.
There is a link, though, but it runs in the other direction. Since 1925,
Motordom had been proclaiming that the greatest danger to cyclists was
same-direction motor traffic. There was no opposition to these
announcements until 1970, when Motordom bumped into the California
Association of Bicycling Organizations (led by me). Motordom got this
superstition so imbued in the public consciousness that, when it tried
to get this superstition embodied into traffic law it expected that
there would be no opposition.
The reason that cyclists so often act contrary to their own interests is
that they believe Motordom's propaganda lie that their greatest danger
is same-direction motor traffic. But this is not a conspiracy, for
Motordom's actions have been public; if they had not been public, they
would not have produced the public effect that they did.
On 12/15/2019 5:58 AM, John Allen wrote:
> It is convenient but in my opinion insufficient to point to a
> conspiracy, even if historically documented, as the sole reason that
> bicyclists act contrary to their own interests. Counterexample:
> pedestrians illegally crossing streets. (I am not using the term
> "jaywalking" because it is held up as a buzzword of the conspiracy.)
> Motordom has not succeeded in making people fearful of crossing
> streets illegally (except as applies to children). What is the
> difference? Largely, I think, the prevalence of crossing streets
> illgally, which benefits from its obvious advantages in shortening
> routes and saving time -- not safety in numbers but increasing numbers
> from numbers, a snowball effect.
>
> Advocacy campaigns tout the advantages of bicycling, which are real,
> but choosing bicycling for transportation often involves
> self-sacrifice, real or imagined, and a call to altruism that blows
> past people who have other alternatives that are more convenient for
> them and/or more ingrained. No such advocacy is needed to convince
> people to try crossing streets illegally, as it is obviously and
> immediately more convenient than walking however far to a crosswalk,
> if one even exists.
>
> At 01:50 PM 12/13/2019, John Forester wrote:
effort to get bike lanes and sidepaths into California's traffic law in
1970 was not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is a secret plan to achieve
something, likely to be unlawful. On the contrary, Motordom's actions in
1970-1976 were normal public means to get a new law enacted. The big
lie, of course, was that this was publicized as improving the safety of
cyclists when its only motivation was the convenience of motorists.
The motivation for my recent message was to remind the readers and
discussants that the motivation for FTR laws, bike lanes, and sidepaths
was motorist convenience. One needs to keep this fact in mind whenever
evaluating these facilities.
Neither does my message say that this "conspiracy" to get a law enacted
is the sole reason that bicyclists act contrary to their own interests.
There is a link, though, but it runs in the other direction. Since 1925,
Motordom had been proclaiming that the greatest danger to cyclists was
same-direction motor traffic. There was no opposition to these
announcements until 1970, when Motordom bumped into the California
Association of Bicycling Organizations (led by me). Motordom got this
superstition so imbued in the public consciousness that, when it tried
to get this superstition embodied into traffic law it expected that
there would be no opposition.
The reason that cyclists so often act contrary to their own interests is
that they believe Motordom's propaganda lie that their greatest danger
is same-direction motor traffic. But this is not a conspiracy, for
Motordom's actions have been public; if they had not been public, they
would not have produced the public effect that they did.
On 12/15/2019 5:58 AM, John Allen wrote:
> It is convenient but in my opinion insufficient to point to a
> conspiracy, even if historically documented, as the sole reason that
> bicyclists act contrary to their own interests. Counterexample:
> pedestrians illegally crossing streets. (I am not using the term
> "jaywalking" because it is held up as a buzzword of the conspiracy.)
> Motordom has not succeeded in making people fearful of crossing
> streets illegally (except as applies to children). What is the
> difference? Largely, I think, the prevalence of crossing streets
> illgally, which benefits from its obvious advantages in shortening
> routes and saving time -- not safety in numbers but increasing numbers
> from numbers, a snowball effect.
>
> Advocacy campaigns tout the advantages of bicycling, which are real,
> but choosing bicycling for transportation often involves
> self-sacrifice, real or imagined, and a call to altruism that blows
> past people who have other alternatives that are more convenient for
> them and/or more ingrained. No such advocacy is needed to convince
> people to try crossing streets illegally, as it is obviously and
> immediately more convenient than walking however far to a crosswalk,
> if one even exists.
>
> At 01:50 PM 12/13/2019, John Forester wrote:
Bike Mom
Dec 16, 2019, 1:39:40 AM12/16/19
to BicycleDriving
I don't think there are many intersections here that are as you described, but if there were, then I don't think changing the law to allow bicyclists to go straight through a RTOL would change much -- bicyclists already stop on red if they're going straight and potentially hold up motorists.
Bike Mom
Dec 16, 2019, 1:48:43 AM12/16/19
to BicycleDriving
I probably wouldn't support this type of design, as it does seem to set the bicyclist up for right hooks. Regardless, we don't have a whole lot of extra room on our roadways in Hawaii, so if the state or city did want to implement this, it would not be in many places.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages