Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

[F Lehnerz]

Hello All,

In case you haven't yet heard, there was a fatality in a door zone bike lane in Burbank last night. 

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/news/tn-blr-me-bicyclist-fatality-20180417-story.html

Below is a email I sent to the LA Times reporter. I'd really like to see door zone bike lanes get more press coverage and perhaps cities will wake up.  

I personally will not stop grilling the City of San Diego until they start to remove these death traps as the installation of a "buffered" DZBL on one road I used to use all the time is now unusable in certain sections without harassment from motorists to "get in the bike lane." I hope others around the state will equally communicate with their local governments to say no to door zone bike lane death traps. 

Frank 

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Andy,

I wanted to drop a quick note about yesterday's bicycle fatality in Burbank. I hope this email will help you understand a bit more about the crash and perhaps someone at the LA Times could look closer into this issue. In the age of Vision Zero, "road diets," "protected" bike lanes, etc, little attention has gone into one of the most significant hazards to all bicyclists on public roads. It appears based on the location and Google Maps Street View that the bike lane where the crash and subsequent death of Lenny Trinh is located in what bicycle safety experts call "the door zone." 

Bicyclists riding in the door zone, either because the city established a bike lane in the area or because of the pressure to "ride as far to the right as possible" play a game of Russian Roulette riding there as it's next to impossible for them to determine whether a door be that the driver's door or the door behind a driver will open. What occurred yesterday to Lenny is unfortunately the worst-case scenario. Dooring also commonly cause injury without a collision from another vehicle and bicyclists riding slightly outside these areas have been reported to have been startled by an opening car door and reacted in a way that placed them out in the adjacent travel lane. 

The "door zone" is not too well defined in terms of distance from the edge of parked vehicles but in general four door vehicles tend to open at least three feet and older vehicles as well as two door vehicles such as sports cars have doors that open up to five feet. Even outside five feet it's very possible an opening car door that won't open far enough to hit a passing bicyclist may startle them and they'll most likely swing away from the door and out into the travel lanes. 

Unfortunately Lenny's death was in part caused by the city of Burbank's decision to install a "door zone bike lane" (DZBL) on that road. While door zone bike lanes are allowed under the design standards of many cities and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) violate engineering ethics. The city of Burbank should be appalled they allowed the installation of such a death trap. Both Los Angeles and San Diego (my hometown) also commonly install DZBLs as do many other cities in the region. 

These provide a false sense of security for novice bicyclists who believe they're riding in the "correct" and "safe" area of the road because after all, it's a designated bike lane. Bicyclists who are trained (via courses such as Cycling Savvy) to avoid the door zone are often harassed by motorists when using the standard travel lanes. California Vehicle Code 21208 (the "bike lane law") allows cyclists to leave bike lanes for a variety of reasons including to avoid hazards. Most bicycling experts agree that the constant risk of dooring is a risk worth avoiding. Some cities add small buffered lanes to the bike lanes but often that space still isn't enough. Many "biking advocates" promote the installation of door zone bike lanes simply to "claim more space" exclusive to bicyclists and also promote the "Dutch Reach," which is a relatively ineffective band-aid compared to riding outside the door zone 100% of the time. 

I'm sure you're crunched for time but there is a somewhat long but well worthwhile study released last fall about door zone bike lanes that's worth reading as well.  (http://bicycledriving.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Bike-Lanes-Next-to-On-Street-Parallel-Parking.pdf)

I hope you found this information useful and hopefully you'll revise your article to include a bit of information on dooring and door zone bike lanes. 

Frank 

[MaggieO]

Everyone should also write to Caltrans HQ, which has the minimum standards for the width of bike lanes in the Highway Design Manual.  Cities and Counties get away with installing DZBLs because they are immune from lawsuits if they follow the minimum standard. But the minimum standard is a DZBL.  When I worked there, I tried for years to get the minimum width increased, to no avail.  But more data is being collected on doorings.  The data gathered in Chicago shows that doorings were 20% of bike crashes on streets.  That's huge for one type of crash.

Write your own email.  Don't mention me and don't forward my email.  Each email needs to be from individuals.  If you're a member of a bicycling advocacy organization, ask your organization to send a letter.  Caltrans HQ's mailing address is on their website.  But individuals should email Caltrans too.

The Division Chief for the HQ Division of Design is Janice Benton.  She's intelligent and listens.  Be polite and clear.  Tell her what the minimum width for a bike lane next to parking should be.  The stripe between the bike lane and travel lane should be no less than 15' from the curb.  And that's for slower speed conditions.

Janice's email is:  Janice...@dot.ca.gov

It appears that Frank is a member of San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum, which I'm not.  Ask the members of that group to write to Janice and ask that bike lanes don't require bicyclists to risk being killed or maimed from dooming.  I'm not a fan of bike lanes, but if a government is going to insist on installing them, they at least shouldn't be dooring lanes.

Maggie O.

---

From: F Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com; San-Diego-Bi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:41 PM
Subject: [CABOforum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

--
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.

[John Eldon]

Now how do we  get LEOs to stop ticketing cyclists for avoiding door zone bike lanes? I once heard a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy claim that doorings were essentially "nonexistent," or "not a real concern." 

 

John E.

---

From: F Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com; San-Diego-Bi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:41 PM

Subject: [San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to San-Diego-Bi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum.

[John Cinatl]

Just another good reason to develop my suggested new category of "buffers" (i.e. "door- zone buffers" ) within our CA MUTCD Part 9 Bike - Markings as per our last CBAC meeting.

John

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: F Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com; San-Diego-Bi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:41 PM

--
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.

[Judy Frankel]

Maggie

How is 15 feet enough to keep a.cyclist out of the door zone and safe passing distance.  You need a 5 foot buffer plus a bike lane.  Plus parking.

Judy

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[MaggieO]

Thanks for pointing that out Judy.  Agree that 15' doesn't provide bicyclists adequate clearance from adjacent vehicle traffic.  If a cyclist is centered at 13' from the curb, her left handlebar end is only 1' from the travel lane/bike lane stripe.  She has to depend on motorists to provide 2' or more of clearance in their lane.  

I was only talking about a distance from the curb that allows a bicyclist to be in the bike lane and out of the door zone.  It's sad that even a paltry 15' instead of the current 12' will meet with extreme resistance including from so-called bicyclist advocacy organization. The minimum really should be 17' to let the bicyclist control 3' of passing clearance between her and vehicle traffic.

Maggie

---

From: Judy Frankel <judyf...@att.net>
To: "iris...@sbcglobal.net" <iris...@sbcglobal.net>; Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

[Frank Lehnerz]

Maggie, Judy,
Another issue with 15’ is that it provides no accommodation when motorists don’t park completely against the curb. It seems every design guide or similar documentation assumes motorists will park their vehicles with the wheels practically touching the curb but we know that’s not practice. At least here in San Diego you’re allowed to park up to 18” away from the curb.

[Serge Issakov]

Max vehicle width is 102" or 8.5'.  Add the 18 inches and it's 10 feet from the curb.  With a five foot bike lane if you're tracking on the bike lane stripe you'll just be 4 feet from the doors of the widest vehicle parked max legal distance from the curb.  That's worst case, and you will be inviting a  lot of close passes riding the BL stripe, unless the adjacent traffic lane happens to be unusually wide.

Serge

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Frank Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maggie, Judy,
Another issue with 15’ is that it provides no accommodation when motorists don’t park completely against the curb. It seems every design guide or similar documentation assumes motorists will park their vehicles with the wheels practically touching the curb but we know that’s not practice. At least here in San Diego you’re allowed to park up to 18” away from the curb.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[F Lehnerz]

Most “parking lanes” are only 7’ too. 

Here’s a vehicle with a width closer to 8’ parked in a 7/3/5 (parking/buffer/BL) configuration. It’s kissing the curb too. This one has a sliding door but the risk of a close pass is real.  

If you haven’t got your fix of SMH for today, here’s good ‘ol Streetsblog happy over a new DZBL. It’s in “bike friendly” Colorado (Denver) but nonetheless disturbing “advocates” would rather have this over nothing.  

[Jim Baross]

Just to be clear. 

I agree that Door Zone Bike Lanes entice and even apparently are seen to require people bicycling to ride too close to parked vehicles. But, I notice that some roads, due to their narrow lanes and on-street vehicle parking, put vehicle drivers in the same hazardous space... driving in a door zone. No one that I know of is complaining about motorists having to drive in Door Zones.

The differences include -

Motor vehicles may be damaged, but no one is injured in such collisions; bicyclists die.

Bicycles are less likely to be noticed by people exiting vehicles; and the closer bicyclists ride to parked vehicles, the harder they are to be seen.

  Jim Baross

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM, F Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Most “parking lanes” are only 7’ too. 

Here’s a vehicle with a width closer to 8’ parked in a 7/3/5 (parking/buffer/BL) configuration. It’s kissing the curb too. This one has a sliding door but the risk of a close pass is real.  

If you haven’t got your fix of SMH for today, here’s good ‘ol Streetsblog happy over a new DZBL. It’s in “bike friendly” Colorado (Denver) but nonetheless disturbing “advocates” would rather have this over nothing.  

El abr. 24, 2018, a la(s) 13:28, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> escribió:

[Michael Graff]

Yup, those are huge differences.

(And actually, I *do* complain about driving my car in the door zone of parked cars, and I try to avoid those situations.)

[Frank Lehnerz]

Dare I say, on a road with DZBL's, the bike lane itself is a buffer between the parked cars and the fast moving traffic in the travel lane and many motorists who aren't also cyclists also view that space as a buffer. When a motorist parallel parks he or she may think that buffer is enough to excuse them from checking for any sort of traffic coming from behind.

Motorists concerned about driving close to door zones on normal roads should equally be concerned about parking their own vehicles on them. All it takes is some dingbat to be snapchatting or intoxicated to sideswipe their parked vehicle and you can almost bet the distracted or drunk will not leave an apology note with their contact info and insurance.

Might I add if you go to this video (https://youtu.be/PR_0ysfqJIc) and skip to around 5:40, I'm in a DZBL (7' parking /3' buffer /5' bike lane or maybe just 7'/2'/5') and up comes a local transit bus driver and the driver refuses to pass me within the DZBL because he (as a professional driver) knew that wasn't good passing clearance. It's just one more bit of proof these buffered BL's don't work for us either.

[MaggieO]

I think we should be comparing the safety consideration given to design standards for bike lanes next to parking with standards for travel lanes next to parking, instead of comparing bike lane standards to existing roads that were built under previous standards or when there were no real standards.  There are lots of  road segments designed years ago with horizontal and vertical curves, lane and shoulder widths, and corners that don't meet current standards.  Narrow roads that force automobile drivers to drive in the door zone don't meet current current standards for travel lanes next to parking.

The current minimum standards for roads don't force drivers of passenger vehicles to subject themselves to dooring crashes, even considering that the moving vehicle occupants might not be injured. Likewise, the minimum standards for bike lanes should not force bicyclists to subject themselves to being doored.

Maggie

---

From: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>
To: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>; Frank Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 5:12 PM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Maggie,

You wrote:

The current minimum standards for roads don't force drivers of passenger vehicles to subject themselves to dooring crashes, even considering that the moving vehicle occupants might not be injured. Likewise, the minimum standards for bike lanes should not force bicyclists to subject themselves to being doored.

​I like this strategy. Can you or someone else tell us what the current CA and US standards are for travel lanes next to parallel parking. What's the minimum width from curb to left lane line?

-- Gary​

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+unsubscribe@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.

--
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+unsubscribe@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.

--

==================================================

Gary Cziko ("ZEE-ko"), PhD
Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (ABEA.bike)

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO)

Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

[Serge Issakov]

I'd love to know if there any such standards, because there are plenty of streets which clearly don't meet them, presuming they are reasonable at all.

Like this one where it's impossible to drive even a tiny Smart car without crossing the double yellow even if you're driving in the door zone:

https://goo.gl/maps/Lg5nB5BSCwq

Serge

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.

--
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.

--

==================================================

Gary Cziko ("ZEE-ko"), PhD
Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (ABEA.bike)

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO)

Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

--

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.

[Gary Cziko]

Here's Manchester Avenue, a four-lane arterial with 40 mph speed limit in the Westchester neighborhood of Los Angeles. It has a 7-foot parking lane and a travel lane not quite 10 feet wide.

Look where the bus operates!

I actually like this configuration for cycling solo as it's clear that it's has "substandard" lane width and I have to control the lane. Not good for cycling two abreast. Not good for motoring (I use the left lane).

East of Lincoln Boulevard there is a door-zone bike lane which I suppose most cyclists would prefer. But I try to avoid this stretch when cycling. Right lane is fine for motoring using door-zone bike lane as as door-zone buffer.

-- Gary

​

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+unsubscribe@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.

--
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+unsubscribe@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.

--

==================================================

Gary Cziko ("ZEE-ko"), PhD
Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (ABEA.bike)

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO)

Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

--
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+unsubscribe@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.

[Bob Shanteau]

Caltrans and virtually all local jurisdictions use the Highway Design Manual, which says this about lane width:

---

Index 301.1 – Lane Width

The minimum lane width on two-lane and multilane highways, ramps, collector-distributor roads, and other appurtenant roadways shall be 12 feet, except as follows:

• For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet. The preferred lane width is 12 feet. See Index 81.3 for place type definitions.

  Where a 2-lane conventional State highway connects to a freeway within an interchange, the lane width shall be 12 feet.

  Where a multilane State highway connects to a freeway within an interchange, the outer most lane of the highway in each direction of travel shall be 12 feet.

• For highways, ramps, and roads with curve radii of 300 feet or less, widening due to offtracking in order to minimize bicycle and vehicle conflicts must be considered. See Index 404.1 and Table 504.3A.

• For lane widths on roads under other jurisdictions, see Topic 308.

---

308.1 City Streets and County Roads

The width of local roads and streets that are to be reconstructed as part of a freeway project should conform to AASHTO standards if the local road or street is a Federal-aid route. Otherwise the cross section should match the width of the city street or county road adjoining the reconstructed portion, or the cross section should satisfy the local agency's minimum standard for new construction.

Where a local facility within the State right of way crosses over or under a freeway or expressway but has no connection to the State facility, the minimum design standards for the cross section of the local facility within the State's right of way shall be those found in AASHTO. If the local agency has standards that exceed AASHTO standards, then the local agency standards should apply.

AASHTO standards for local roads and streets are given in AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

It is important to note that AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, standards are based on functional classification and not on a Federal-aid System.

See Chapter 1 of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, for additional information on the AASHTO functional classifications of rural and urban arterials, collector roads, and streets.

AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, gives minimum lane and shoulder widths. When selecting a cross section, the effects on capacity of commercial vehicles and grades should be considered as discussed under Topic 102 and in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual.

The minimum width of 2-lane overcrossing structures shall not be less than 32 feet face of curb to face of curb.

If the local agency has definite plans to widen the local street either concurrently or within 5 years following freeway construction, the reconstruction to be accomplished by the State should generally  conform to the widening planned by the local agency. Stage construction should be considered where the planned widening will occur beyond the 5-year period following freeway construction or where the local agency has a master plan indicating an ultimate width greater than the existing facility. Where an undercrossing is involved, the initial structure construction should provide for ultimate requirements.

Where a local facility crosses over or under a freeway or expressway and connects to the State facility (such as ramp terminal intersections), the minimum design standards for the cross section of the local facility shall be at least equal to those for a conventional highway with the exception that the outside shoulder width shall match the approach roadway, but not less than 4 feet, and as shown below.

Where the 2-lane local facility connects to a freeway within an interchange, the lane width of the local facility shall be 12 feet.

Where a multilane local facility connects to a freeway within an interchange, the outer most lane in each direction of the local facility shall be 12 feet.

Shoulder width shall not be less than 5 feet when railings or other lateral obstructions are adjacent to the right edge of shoulder.

If gutter pans are used, then the minimum shoulder width shall be 3 feet wider than the width of the gutter pan being used. The minimum width for two-lane overcrossing structures at interchanges shall be 40 feet curb-to-curb.

---

Notice that the HDM says nothing about parking lane width nor about traffic lane width adjacent to parallel parking.

Bob Shanteau

[Gary Cziko]

Bob,

Thanks for providing this info.

 

Notice that the HDM says nothing about parking lane width nor about traffic lane width adjacent to parallel parking.

And I assume neither does AASHTO.

So this strategy to argue against door-zone bike lanes doesn't look viable.

Two arguments against eliminating door-zone bike lanes I've seen:

1. While all or much of the ​bike lane may be in the door zone, cyclists ride farther away from parked cars in door-zone bike lanes than they do in travel lanes without such bike lanes. So most cyclists are safer on streets with door-zone bike lanes than with no bike lanes (so they are better than "nothing" for cyclists).

2. While a cyclist can be seriously or fatally injured by an opening car door, it is illegal to open a car door into traffic unless it is safe to do so. 

22517.  
No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

​So door-zone bike lane supporters can argue that it is not the door-zone bike lane which is a hazard, but motor vehicle drivers and passengers acting illegally.  An analogous argument is that if a motorist runs a red light and injures or kills a pedestrian or driver having the right of way, it's not the traffic signal that is the problem, it's the motorist.

​The big difference, however, is that ​while red traffic signals are almost always observed, it is probably more common that not for motorists and driver-side passengers to open a car door into traffic without looking first for close traffic.

I would suspect that even most members of this forum cannot say that they always look before opening a car door on the traffic side.

-- Gary

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

[Frank Lehnerz]

Gary,


I’ve seen a third one too. The argument goes that DZBLs are okay on certain stretches of roads where parking turnover is low.
Since parking turnover is low the chances of someone opening their door when the relatively small number of bicyclists go down that same route is low. How do these people arguing this prove parking turnover is indeed that low and from that conclude the risk of dooring is low? Probably using the same unscientific method the angry letter to the editor writers use to conclude “all” bicyclists disobey traffic signals or that bike lanes are “always” empty. They probably don’t have a good and sound method of collecting the data to make such an assumption. How is someone unfamiliar with that road or area supposed to know whether a road has high or low parking turnover?



Frank

[MaggieO]

Oh yeah, the "do ya feel lucky?" design approach.  Surprisingly, this approach is not used when designing for motor vehicles.

Maggie

---

From: Frank Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>
To: CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 5:14 PM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Pete van Nuys]

Gary, your observations lead any thinking person to conclude that a culture rooted in distorted values-- e.g. non-motorized must never inconvenience motorists-- cannot be remedied by infrastructure. To wit, red lights work because motorists respect them, DZBLs don't because motorists don't respect bicyclists. 

  This tribal culture is artificial, created to see different user groups with superior and inferior rights, despite CVC stating the equality of all road users.

  Institutional bike advocacy is squandering money and opportunity, and arrogantly refuses to address the cultural issue.

Sent from my, believe it or not, BlackBerry

From: gcz...@gmail.com Sent: April 26, 2018 2:31 PM To: rms...@gmail.com Reply-to: gcz...@gmail.com Cc: serge....@gmail.com; iris...@sbcglobal.net; cabo...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Fwd: Bicyclist Fatality in Burbank Door Zone Bike Lane

--
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.

[Frank Lehnerz]

Pete,

John Schubert's recent dooring article on The Savvy Cyclist touches on a lot of what you said.

https://cyclingsavvy.org/2018/05/the-real-door-zone-tragedy/

So from my point of view, proponents of door zone bike lanes must dispute the premise that traffic control devices should direct all road users to behave safely.

Why?

Let’s start with the “respect” some people believe bicyclists “deserve” from the rest of society. This “respect” insists that motorists consider bicyclists they haven’t seen, don’t know exist, but may be sneaking up in their door zone. I’ve often heard people say that painting bike lanes green will increase respect and awareness — i.e., that motorists will see the green paint and be aware that a bicyclist might be there.

A third root is the concept that traffic control devices are promotional tools for bicyclists, not necessarily safety tools. Some bicyclists feel validated when they see a bike lane. It can be horrid — in the door zone, with a gutter seam and sewer grate, a pothole and mountain of broken glass. But by gum, it’s a bike lane, and that says the government loves bicyclists.

A surprising number of people prefer to view bicycle crashes as either (a) completely random, or (b) the fault of someone else. These beliefs fuel the society-wide opinion that bicycling has huge risks that can’t be managed. They’ve contributed to an overall decline nationwide in cycling.

Frank