Fwd: Legal Questions Class IV

[Jim Baross]

Minimum intersection sightline distances exist in Washington State. Are similar minimums recommended/required elsewhere, like maybe California?

Serge

Thanks for doing the research!

Seattle pays injured cyclist $9.25 million for poorly designed bike lanes

"On June 20, 2024, 24-year-old Aviv Litov was cycling on a newly designed bike lane along Green Lake Drive North when a car turned into a driveway in front of him. According to the lawsuit, the bike lane ran between parked cars and the sidewalk, making it difficult for drivers to see oncoming bike traffic due to the short sightlines designed into the project."

Jim Baross

CABO President

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 7, 2026 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Legal Questions Class IV
To: (snipped)

Hi Pete and friends,

I researched this last night.  This legal finding appears specific to Seattle for two reasons.

1) The City has a very specific guideline for required sightlines that only applies to downhill grades of 5% or greater.

2) This cyclist was riding downhill on a slope with an apparent 5.1% gradient.

Here is the actual court order.

It relies heavily on something called SIS 3.8.  I found that too.

It's section 3.8 of "Seattle Streets Illustrated"  (so you'd think SSI not SIS).

The key portion is in the Bike Intersection Design section:

Stopping sight distance: When designing protected bicycle facilities, stopping sight distances at intersections and driveways should be reviewed to maximize visibility of bicyclists and reduce conflicts between all travel modes. Sight and stopping distance calculations may vary based on the characteristics and constraints of each intersection. The standard stopping sight distance should be used from the following table:

Grade Stopping Sight Distance

Flat (0%) 90 ft

Steeper slopes (≥5%) 125 ft

Table assumes 17 mph design speed and 1.0 seconds of reaction time.

Here's an image of the portion of the ruling that refers to these details:

So the ruling is tied very closely to these rather specific specifications in Seattle's own guide, and the decision was extremely close.

If they re-measure and get a 4.9% grade instead of 5.1%, can they appeal?

I don't know whether Seattle developed these specifications independently or borrowed them from a national document.
Someone else can take that on.

I am adding Jim Baross and Frank Lehnerz to the distribution list.

Serge

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:59 PM Pete Penseyres <cyclo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

FYI. I got this link from someone on the Oceanside Bike Ped Committee that had a different subject and was part of an email link.

Comments regarding any difference between California and Washington laws? Could that occur here for any similar crashes at driveway crossings of Class IV Bikeways?

Pete Penseyres

League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/city-pays-injured-cyclist-9-25-million-for-poorly-designed-bike-lanes/?fbclid=IwdGRjcARp0iFjbGNrBGnSD2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHvi2fRYigtRMbhbJPVI4DfEkx_l0u1-lbQocHMMGCrqhfAFr1cLb6e_X00XJ_aem_X_LnkkFWDKyv1jya5VU4cA

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Jim wrote: "Minimum intersection sightline distances exist in Washington State.  Are similar minimums recommended/required elsewhere, like maybe California?  "

Stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance are two entirely different things. Seattle's case here involved the stopping sight distance. 

Here's a good summary on the types of sight distances: 

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/speed-concepts-informational-guide/chapter-4-engineering-and-technical

That document also has a good discussion on design speed which is worth noting for the Seattle case design speed of these Seattle Class IV equivalents is only 17 mph. Mind you that in traffic engineering, a road's design speed is typically higher than the road's posted speed limit. The various media reports on the lawsuit states the bicyclist was going 18mph and the posted speed limit was 25mph. My guess is that Seattle will, if the State of Washington allows for local regulation, try to impose a speed limit for users of their separated bike paths. I haven't read the lawsuit details but I'd be surprised if part of Seattle's defense was that the bicyclist was riding faster than the bikeway's design speed. 

The I Am Traffic folks created this image over a decade ago, it largely assumes no grade and dry roads but brings home the point of needing to account for adequate sight distance including the time it requires the bicyclist to see and recognize the situation before beginning to brake.

Also worth noting, that 2.5 seconds "constant" from ASHTO shown in the infographic is a bit controversial.

Back to Jim's question... 

I tried looking around and didn't find much on sight distance in general when it pertains to bikeways in California. It could be somewhere I missed though. 

HDM Chapter 1000  has a section on minimum stopping distances but they're specific to Class I facilities only. 

Per page 12 in the HDM Ch 1000, those are 125' for a Class I where mopeds are prohibited or 230' for Class I where mopeds are permitted and/or the slope is greater than 4% and over 500' in length. 

The Caltrans DIB-89 "Class IV Bikeway Guidance" document (says on page 1, "In particular, bikeway design guidance for Class I Bikeways (bike paths) in Chapters 200 and 1000 for design speed, stopping sight distance, drainage, landscaping, etc., may be used as appropriate for the Class IV Bikeway design." So this implies a designer could use those figures if they wanted to but then again it would be virtually impossible to "design" a Class IV with such long stopping sight distances. 

Later on page 7 of the DIB-89 under the section on Street Parking, it says, "As such, sight distance will also need to be considered at those driveway and alley crossing locations. Refer to Section 2.2 of this document for further discussion on crossing points and Figures 14 and 15 of the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide for guidance on setback distances for sight triangles." Mind you this is sight distance in general, not necessarily stopping sight distance. 

Under Section 2.2 in the DIB-89, they open with:

"The FHWA Guide Chapter 5 provides a thorough discussion regarding the conflict points associated with intersection crossings and driveways. Intersection crossing points offer unique challenges to the design and operation of a separated bikeway. While grade separated crossings, such as overcrossings or undercrossings, are preferred to eliminate conflicts altogether, construction of these facilities is often infeasible for various reasons. In their absence, the usability and safety of the separated facility depends heavily on the manner in which intersections, driveways, and alleys, as well as pedestrian facilities, interact with and connect to the separated bikeway and bikeway network. The bikeway must provide adequate visibility at intersections, driveways, and alleys, to avoid right or left hook collisions in which vehicles turn in front of bicyclists traveling straight. As such, it is critical that careful thought and planning go into the design of all intersections, driveways, and alleys located along a bikeway. "

The rest of that section is a mess - again back to Maggie's initial critiques from years ago - and doesn't give any minimum stopping sight distances. 

The DIB refers to Figures 14 and 15 of the FHWA Guide  aren't terribly helpful either. There's nothing about stopping sign distance on these two pages. They do suggest a minimum 20' clearance between the last parking spot and an intersection or driveway with the caveat, "dependent on vehicle speeds and volumes." It also says, "Landscaping and other street-side elements that obscure sight distance should not be included within 15 ft of a driveway edge."  

Back on page 1 of the DIB, they also say, "Where this DIB is inconsistent with the FHWA Guide, this DIB should govern." What happens when both documents are unclear or inconsistent? 

Serge wrote: "I don't know whether Seattle developed these specifications independently or borrowed them from a national document.

Someone else can take that on."

I found the following on page 5 of the initial complaint (also attached) but I still could not come up with a specific answer. 

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, aka "AASHTO Bike Guide,"  NACTO's Urban Bikeway Design Guide are not available for free to the public and I don't have a few extra Benjamins laying around to burn to buy copies. 

NACTO does have a separate document that discusses sight distance in general - perhaps interesting just in the fact that they're at least aware of it. 

FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide  has zero mention of stopping sight distance but discusses sight distance in general in only seven instances in the 148 page document. There also isn't really anything in that document about grade/slopes that should be considered in stopping sight distances. 

So if anyone has the AASHTO or NACTO guides, that would be a good place to start. 

Frank 

[Michael Graff]

Does the posted speed limit on a roadway legally apply to a parallel bikeway?

[Pete Penseyres]

In California, Class IV bikeways are not on the roadway. So, isn't the answer to the question of speed limits up to the local authorities? 

And shouldn't there be stop signs, or at least yield signs, on each crossing of an alley or public driveway, such as the entrance to a school?

Pete Penseyres

League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CANe0fGWJnQbF5EGnhkgYV4f0wJ1Vga6QGVbmhBbbheuXjWPYxg%40mail.gmail.com.