Fwd: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

[Serge Issakov]

I complained about a new door zone bike lane in La Jolla (city of San DIego) and the city bike guy defends their implementation due to standards and plans and suggests I lobby at the state level. See attached.

How do we get Door Zone BLs out of the CA MUTCD?

Serge

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Genovese, Brian <BGen...@sandiego.gov>
Date: Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: DZBLs on LJ Blvd
To: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>

You may want to consider lobbying for change at the State level since the bike lanes you are referring to are Caltrans standard design, which many cities adopt as their standard.

 

From: Serge Issakov [mailto:serge....@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:06 AM
To: Genovese, Brian 
Subject: Re: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

 

None of those plans take into account the immorality of encouraging bicyclists to ride in the door zones of parked cars, the increased harassment experienced by cyclists who choose to ride outside of the door zone, the increased motor speeds when there is such clear delineation between "their" lane and the "out of the way" space where they believe bikes are supposed to be, etc.

This is especially frustrating because we've been through this before.  In this 2008 street view you can see the BL stencils that had been painted previously had been subsequently (mostly) covered up, and appropriately so.  Bicyclists should not feel legally obligated to operate in space that puts them at the peril of every single car occupant remembering to look before they open their doors, without fail.

https://goo.gl/maps/1BFvfG7xiKE2

In 2015, it's faded:

https://goo.gl/maps/rHRy9etuXJx

In all the time the Community Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, and the Regional Plan have not changed with respect to this stuff, right?  So why the return to the 1970s dinosaur age thinking?  Why, in 2018, do we still paint bike lanes in door zones anywhere in the City?

Serge

 

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:21 AM Genovese, Brian <BGen...@sandiego.gov> wrote:

Serge,

 

It’s consistent with the Community Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, and the Regional Plan.

 

Brian

 

From: Serge Issakov [mailto:serge....@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 11:04 PM
To: Genovese, Brian 
Subject: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

 

Brian,

 

For over 10 years we didn’t have bike lanes on La Jolla Blvd in Bird Rock so cyclists were legally free to use the full lane and no doorings.  Now we have these door zone bike lanes. 

 

Why?

 

Thanks, Serge

 

 

[MaggieO]

It's not the CA MUTCD.  The Highway Design Manual has the inadequate minimum bike lane width next to parking.  I tried for years to get it increased, until I retired.  My boss said bicyclists should be able to look into each car to determine if there's someone sitting in it that might open a door, and be prepared to stop.

CBAC did not support a minimum bike lane width standard that would allow bicyclists to stay out of the door zone.

Maggie O

---

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
To: Jim Baross <JimB...@cox.net>
Cc: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:04 AM
Subject: [CABOforum] Fwd: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

--
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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Issakov]

Thanks for the correction.  HDM it is.  Has your boss retired?

Serge

[John Forester]

This trouble about DZBLs is going to be never ending. It cannot end because it is the product of two mutually exclusive theories of traffic. We vehicular cyclists recognize that it is safest and best for cyclists to operate as drivers of vehicles. But that is contrary to the official system, which is that cyclists are inferior to motorists. The cyclist inferiority ideology (Remember, invented by Motordom to make motoring more convenient.) holds that the greatest danger to cyclists is same-direction motor traffic. (Completely disproved from the first study of the subject and by all subsequent studies.) But Motordom, starting long before there was any scientific knowledge of the subject, persuaded the public to be greatly frightened of same-direction motor traffic, and that superstition became the basis of the nation's program for bicycle traffic. So the official program requires bikelanes, even in door zones, because protection from same-direction motor traffic is far more important than the occasional problems about open-door crashes. Vehicular cyclists, on the other hand, rate the hazard of same-direction as very small, so that any danger from open doors is very large in proportion. With these two mutually exclusive hypotheses about cycling traffic, there can be no solution.

Cyclist-inferiority is the government's program, but it has no scientific support beyond emotion. Vehicular cycling has the scientific support, but government opposes it. Under the circumstances, vehicular cyclists should avoid the government's cyclist-inferiority cycling as best we can. Fortunately, the legislature recognized that cyclists should not be required by law to cycle in a dangerous manner. That was the result of CABO's opposition to Motordom's desire for bikeways in the battles of 1970-6. (Largely led by me.) Therefore, cyclists don't have to ride in bikelanes when doing so is dangerous, as when the bikelane is a DZBL. So, Motordom gets is way because fear of same-direction motor traffic frightens most cyclists into bikelanes, while only a few cyclists are capable of resisting that fear.

Remember that few of society's rules are completely rational. Make your way through them according to the best available information.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945
619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com

[MaggieO]

I believe he retired in late 2015, but the opposition to a minimum width bike lane that allows a cyclist to stay out of the door zone while centered in the BL (BL line would need to be 15' min from curb (current min is 12'), and in high traffic speed conditions that's inadequate) is pervasive in Caltrans HQ and districts.  As long as AASHTO recommends DZBLs, the people who control the HDM have no incentive to change.  They don't want to give up a single foot.

Last week I went through 5 boxes of material I'd brought home after retiring in May 2015. HQ abolished my position when I retired, so all my files would have been dumped.   I found an old booklet published by FHWA on how to reduce bike crashes.  It recommended bike lanes that allowed bicyclists to stay clear of the door zone.

Maggie

---

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>

To: "Maggie O&#39,Mara" <iris...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Jim Baross <JimB...@cox.net>; Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

[Serge Issakov]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:01 PM John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote (in part):

We vehicular cyclists recognize that it is safest and best for cyclists to operate as drivers of vehicles. But that is contrary to the official system, which is that cyclists are inferior to motorists. 

But, but, but, these are part of the official system:

And, they work.  For example:

Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane: Juliana Sadock Savino, what made you start commanding your lane?

Juliana Sadock Savino:  A sign on Shaker Boulevard that said "[bike symbol] may use full lane change lanes to pass". I decided then and there that that would always be my mode. Ohio law says "as far to the right as practicable." I don't consider sharing my lane practicable. I also talk and gesture to drivers as needed. I call my approach Dancing with the Cars. Thanks for asking

Full context:

​

Things are changing, and for the better.  Very slowly, but it's happening.  The good news is that our way is far far far cheaper (not to mention safer and more pleasant).

Serge

[John Forester]

Serge, you are only partly correct. The BMUFL sign is part of the official system, but it is for use only where the official system of cyclist inferiority cannot work. This sign is necessary only because the official system of cyclist inferiority exists but cannot work in all places.

On 7/31/2018 3:34 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:01 PM John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote (in part):

We vehicular cyclists recognize that it is safest and best for cyclists to operate as drivers of vehicles. But that is contrary to the official system, which is that cyclists are inferior to motorists. 

But, but, but, these are part of the official system:

[Serge Issakov]

The BMUFL sign is not necessary - we went for decades without it.  It was added to the official system, but it didn't need to be.  

Whether societal cyclist inferiority attitudes underlie the official system or the official system drives the societal attitudes can be difficult to tell, but I think we can agree there is some feedback.  

I don't see the public clamoring for BMUFL signs, and yet they were official adopted, and have had a positive effect on societal attitudes.  So I think cyclist inferiority is stronger within society than within the official system, and the official system can help reduce cyclist inferiority attitudes within the society.  Further, the official system is much harsher on other modes of transportation than it is on bicyclists, like NEVs (banned on 35+ mph roads) and electric push scooters (mandatory helmets).

I wouldn't call the official system our friend, but I do suggest we recognize that we're treated better by it than we would be if there was a popular vote on the key issues...

Serge

It's currently deployed in only a fraction of the places it could be.  I requested it be added on a dead end road.  And it was:

[John Eldon]

I LOVE BMUFL signs, because so many motorists (and cyclists) are clueless in this regard. We current have construction under I-5 at both Encinitas Bl. and Santa Fe Av., with the eastbound bike lane temporarily inaccessible and with the westbound now separated by K-rail, with two-way ped. traffic. CalTrans put up a puny BMUFL sign on the sidewalk for eastbound only, and I got them to make it far more visible by elevating it, and I convinced them to install one for westbound, as well. I turn on my Grateful Red rear blinkie and forge ahead. 

 

John E.

---

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>

To: John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Cc: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: DZBLs on LJ Blvd

--

[John Forester]

It doesn't matter whether cyclist-inferiority is stronger in society than in the traffic system, or the reverse; that's immaterial. Motordom invented it and persuaded the public to fear same-direction motor traffic, which gave Motordom the entry into traffic law. That's what happened. The only reason that the full cyclist-inferiority system was not enforced, as Motordom requested, was that CABO resisted, under my leadership, and applied standard traffic engineering knowledge and the statistics of car-bike collisions, so that the legislature created the "exceptions" to prevent the system, if used by well-informed cyclists, from endangering cyclists by compelling them to obey the cyclist-inferiority ideology. The cyclists of the USA have the exceptions in the FTR and MBL laws to allow them to operate safely, and the sparsity of sidepaths,  only because of the battle fought by CABO from 1970 to 1976.

Serge argues that the BMUFL sign is not necessary because we did without it for years. That's not correct. The BMUFL sign was always necessary to take into account the narrow lane exception in the FTR law. We haven't narrowed the typical lane since 1976; it is just that the building up of evidence persuaded people that the old standard 12-foot lane was actually a substandard narrow lane. And I had been writing for years that a standard-width lane for sharing had to be 14 feet wide.

[Frank Lehnerz]

Here's the DZBL in question. The car in the photo is parked with its wheels touching the curb. 

[Pete van Nuys]

The coming conflict, however, is this: Class 1 and unfortunately Class 2 eBikes are now considered "bicycles" subject to 2100 unless local authority writes ordinances against. Perhaps this will work for us, where masses of eBikes take over the #2 lane. More likely, due  to cyclist inferiority, eBikes will merely take over Class 1 and Class 4 facilities instead.

On 7/31/2018 4:40 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:

The BMUFL sign is not necessary - we went for decades without it.  It was added to the official system, but it didn't need to be.  

Whether societal cyclist inferiority attitudes underlie the official system or the official system drives the societal attitudes can be difficult to tell, but I think we can agree there is some feedback.  

I don't see the public clamoring for BMUFL signs, and yet they were official adopted, and have had a positive effect on societal attitudes.  So I think cyclist inferiority is stronger within society than within the official system, and the official system can help reduce cyclist inferiority attitudes within the society.  Further, the official system is much harsher on other modes of transportation than it is on bicyclists, like NEVs (banned on 35+ mph roads) and electric push scooters (mandatory helmets).

I wouldn't call the official system our friend, but I do suggest we recognize that we're treated better by it than we would be if there was a popular vote on the key issues...

Serge

It's currently deployed in only a fraction of the places it could be.  I requested it be added on a dead end road.  And it was:

--

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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

[John Forester]

I will carry Pete's discussion a little further. One of the reasons that
cyclists come to the conclusion that vehicular cycling is best is the
effect of bikeways on cyclist speed. Fast cyclists come to recognize
bikeway's disadvantages sooner than slow cyclists. This consideration
ought to modify the discussion of the effect of ebikes. On descents,
real bicycles and ebikes are equal. In hilly areas, the climbing power
of ebikes may attract new cyclists, who will, inevitably be exposed to
the speeds of all bicycles on descents. That may help in persuading
ecyclists to adopt vehicular cycling sooner. On the level, throttle
controlled (legally misnamed throttle-assisted ebikes) may persuade many
riders to use their maximum speed of 20 mph. (A Class 1 ebike has a
maximum speed equal to the rider's maximum pedalling cadence. Very few
are likely to have a maximum pedalling speed of 20mph. But there's no
limit to the "height" of the highest gear installed.) Therefore, I
suggest, part of the result of ebikes is likely to be an increase in the
proportion of vehicular cyclists. But there is insufficient evidence
today to determine what that proportion might be.

On 8/1/2018 8:12 PM, Pete van Nuys wrote:
>
> The coming conflict, however, is this: Class 1 and unfortunately Class
> 2 eBikes are now considered "bicycles" subject to 2100 unless local
> authority writes ordinances against. Perhaps this will work for us,
> where masses of eBikes take over the #2 lane. More likely, due  to
> cyclist inferiority, eBikes will merely take over Class 1 and Class 4
> facilities instead.
>
>
>

[Michael Graff]

To add to the confusion, there are two kinds of e-assist bikes (Class 1 and 3). The Class 3 ebikes have a top assisted speed of 28, and they're (supposedly) not allowed on Class I bike paths. But they are allowed in Class IV sidepaths.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/25/e-bikes-rules-regulations-and-popularity/