NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11-21-2013, 16:08, Duane wrote:
Of course. But doesn't the bike box allow you to do this? And doesn't
it tell the drivers that you're going to do this? I'm with Jay on this.
I don't find that these seem necessary for me as I'm going to ride
this way anyway but I don't see the down side. I think the upside is
that it will train new riders to get in front of the cars at the lights.
It will probably cut down on the number of idiots giving me **** as well.

That's what it's intended to do. But Frank would rather harangue people
to do that without a bike box. If the bike box works out,
he loses his soap box.

--
Wes Groleau

Guidelines for judging others:
1. Don't attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
can be adequately explained by ignorance.
3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
can be adequately explained by alcohol.

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-21-2013, 16:08, Duane wrote:
Of course. But doesn't the bike box allow you to do this? And doesn't
it tell the drivers that you're going to do this? I'm with Jay on this.
I don't find that these seem necessary for me as I'm going to ride
this way anyway but I don't see the down side. I think the upside is
that it will train new riders to get in front of the cars at the lights.
It will probably cut down on the number of idiots giving me **** as well.

That's what it's intended to do. But Frank would rather harangue people
to do that without a bike box. If the bike box works out,
he loses his soap box.

They're testing them here in Montreal. It looks like they will use them
here.
Another good thing is a push to put better mirrors on trucks and buses.
This is mostly due to pedestrians getting run over by city snow ploughs but
it should help cyclists as well.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:38:19 PM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

What puzzles me (pay attention, Frank) is why the guy who burns up the
bandwidth trying to get people "out of the gutter" is so vehemently
opposed to something intended to do the same.

The Portland bike boxes are intended to get bicyclists away from the far right and out in front of the motorists when all are stopped at intersections. Examining the photos posted by Jay and others shows even that doesn't really work; very few bicyclists wait literally in front of the cars.


The Portland bike boxes are intended to get bicyclists *ahead*
of cars stopped at the stop line - out of the right-on-fresh-greeen
driver's blind spot and into their field of view - not necessarily
directly in front of them (or in front of straight ahead traffic).

That does pretty much work to prevent right hook on fresh green -
even for the queue of bikes in the bike lane, because the right
turning car has already held up for the first, the bike lane and
bike box has his attention, and he's looking and waiting for the
rest of the bikes to clear. It's actually *training* the drivers
to look for bikes before crossing the bike lane.

That the wide boxes *allow* bicyclists to shoal across the front of
the queue is, I think, to accomodate the many bicyclists expected
to filter to the front on any particular light cycle in Bike City.
(Maybe reordering faster riders to the front from a scratch start
at the green light.)

But the same design actively urges bicyclists to ride up on the right all the way to the intersection, whether the light is red or green.


"Actively urges"? Get real. But anyway, nothing wrong with riding
(almost) all the way up *to* the intersection on the right.

It tells bicyclists they should be to the right of the motor vehicles,

Yes... still nothing wrong with that.

... even if a motor vehicle is turning right and they're proceeding straight.


No. It does not tell them that. That is simply idiotic.

You either get acknowledgement from the right turning driver that they
see you and are yielding, or you hold up for them and get it from any
subsequent potential right turners. Most drivers who see you will just
yield. On a one-way grid it's only an issue every other block and only
then if you are coming up from behind alongside a right turning car, and
even then if you see their signal early enough you can probably move
over and come alongside them on the left and cut back to the right as
they turn off - negotiation rendered unnecessary by using them as inter-
ference.

And when they're bumper-to-bumper such that you can't get out around
them, it's worth holding up for the occasional, ~easily anticipable
right-hook in order to have an exclusive bypass lane.

It's all not that much of a difficulty to deal with this one conflict
inherent in defaulting to the far right. The alternative - riding *in*
the lane like a car - is ~okay, but only the very "competent" will be
able to manage it without impeding the flow of traffic, except at rush
hour, when it gives away the advantage of filtering past the many, many,
many cars that pass you all the other times.

I ~guarantee that I would smoke you through town this way and *not*
get creamed by any right-hook. Yes, I've made plenty of mistakes and
learned a lot - with still more lessons ahead and let's hope they're not
too hard; but I am alive and can rock traffic! If I woke up tommorow
and all the bike lanes were gone, I'd be all right. If I woke up
tomorrow in "Innovative!!" Suessland I'd be all right.

I'm not telling you guys you're doing it wrong - just that there's a
validity to my way.

(Of course as bicycling increases to Portland levels and begins to look
a little like Amsterdam or Copenhagen in spots, well... you may have to
give up the road warrior life and... well, isn't that the goal? :-)

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:58:13 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:26:03 AM UTC-8, JoeRiel wrote:


I won't move out of the bike lane and "take" another lane (*especially*
if I just *used* the bike lane to filter past the queue that I'm now
giving the ol' MFFY) *solely* because somebody *might* fail to yield to
me there when the light turns green. I am aware of that possibility and
prepared to deal with it.

It's a routine hassle, but still exceptional - not sufficient reason for
an SOP that assumes everyone is apt to do the wrong thing given a chance.
I only note that the bike box effectively removes the chance.

That paragraph isn't clear to me. If you're riding to the right of a car that is permitted to turn right, you CAN be right hooked. The presence of a bike box does NOT remove the chance of that. It _may_ - some of the time - cause a motorist familiar with the bike box to say "Hmm. A bicyclist who's blindly trusting the green paint may be in my blind spot, I'd better twist my neck and upper body as far as I can to the right to check..." but it seems to me that's a foolish thing to trust. About as bad as trusting motorists to look in their left blind spot before popping a car door open.

Another reason (for me) not to go left - and you and Frank won't like
this - one of the other first things I do at a red light is evaluate the
potential for a "right-turn, U-turn, right-turn", and far right is the
place to be if this is to be a consideration. Hey, I usually don't like
to sit still any more than I have to :-)

I'm sure your time is very valuable, indeed.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Your straight through bike lane is to the right of motorists who want to turn right. You shouldn't be surprised that it causes problems.
It will cause problems whether or not it is painted green. It's putting you in a well-known blind spot,


'member when I said "one of the first things we do at a stop
light is check for right turning cars"? Eye contact, baby -
if you don't get it, assume they'll run over you and don't give
them the chance.

That paragraph is totally at odds with the idea of passing cars on the curb side, bike lane or no. There's no way you're making eye contact with those drivers.

The bike boxes are not intended to prevent moving (stale green) right-
hooks. Oh, the green paint might help some, but nobody should count
on it. *That* (don't count on paint markings to deflect that cement
truck) is what people riding bicycles on the road should understand.
If that means they need to take a class or something, so be it.

We seem to have shifted position on this. I originally thought the impetus for Portland's bike boxes was the death of a stationary cyclist due to a right turn on red. People here (you among them, IIRC) pointed out that I was wrong, that the impetus was a couple right hooks of moving cyclists.

Are you now saying the purpose of the bike boxes is NOT to cure the problem of cyclists passing on the right? Are you saying they're supposed to protect only in stationary and "fresh green" situations?

If so, I think the news has not gotten out.

That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

(Dan shakes his head slowly form side-to-side... )

What *do* you do with it? ... Never mind, I know - we erase it
and tell the bicyclists to man up and drive like a vehicle, right?

Right, Dan. It works.

It works for you. Heck, it works fine for me.

But guess what, buddy - *you're* in the losing "camp" on this one.
Facilities are here to stay - more on the way. And "Innovation!!",
oh, innovation - you ain't seen nothin' yet.

It's a weird time. We're in a time when people who know most about bicycling traffic interactions are being slandered as "elitist," while people who know the least are having their opinions elevated. We're seeing an activity that's safer than many alternatives being labeled as "dangerous." We're seeing designs that increase danger being promoted because they "feel" safer, and we're asked to ride in more dangerous situations, so more people can be lured into it. We're seeing people who ask pointed, technical questions being shouted down or ignored.

http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=%20735

Look, you make a lot of sense. Truly exceptional sense in a crazy,
often stupid world. Help steer things back in the right direction
where you can.

I'm trying. I'm trying.

Encourage the up-and-coming.

I'm trying to encourage correctness. "Up and coming" comes and goes, often because it's blatantly stupid.

Portland is leading
the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars
and the light rail and the buses and everything else).

Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!

I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!

"Now just make your Love Offering to Ms. Birk's consulting firm... And ignore that data behind the curtain!!!"

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:12:27 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

I ~guarantee that I would smoke you through town this way and *not*
get creamed by any right-hook.

Someone who takes lots of risks, ignores traffic laws, doesn't mind offending other road users etc. can certainly be faster. We know that big city bike messengers are notorious for that stuff.

But what is the "smoke you through town" really worth? Taking five minutes off a half-hour journey? Maybe even ten minutes?

If you're getting paid per delivery, yes, that adds up. Make more deliveries per day, make more money, buy nicer tattoos. Cool!

But for a person with a typical job, house & family, the five minutes just means watching a few more commercials on TV, or otherwise wasting the time. It's never going to save the world.

Riding fast can be fun. I used to routinely put a stopwatch on my homeward commute and rode it as fast as I could. But if I caught a red light, I stopped and waited for a green. It made the green lights even sweeter.

(Of course as bicycling increases to Portland levels and begins to look
a little like Amsterdam or Copenhagen in spots, well... you may have to
give up the road warrior life and... well, isn't that the goal? :-)

You don't have to be a "road warrior" to be competent and comfortable in traffic.

http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, November 22, 2013 9:33:19 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:58:13 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

I won't move out of the bike lane and "take" another lane (*especially*
if I just *used* the bike lane to filter past the queue that I'm now
giving the ol' MFFY) *solely* because somebody *might* fail to yield to
me there when the light turns green. I am aware of that possibility and
prepared to deal with it.

It's a routine hassle, but still exceptional - not sufficient reason for
an SOP that assumes everyone is apt to do the wrong thing given a chance.
I only note that the bike box effectively removes the chance.

That paragraph isn't clear to me. If you're riding to the right of a car that is permitted to turn right, you CAN be right hooked. The presence of a bike box does NOT remove the chance of that. It _may_ - some of the time - cause a motorist familiar with the bike box to say "Hmm. A bicyclist who's blindly trusting the green paint may be in my blind spot, I'd better twist my neck and upper body as far as I can to the right to check..." but it seems to me that's a foolish thing to trust. About as bad as trusting motorists to look in their left blind spot before popping a car door open.


The hassle that the bike box effectively (I initially said
"practically") removes has to do with *sitting* stopped at the red light
waiting for the fresh green to proceed straight ahead, and cars turning
right on red (no problem, until... ) not paying attention to the change
of the light and turning across my path - which I have not yet embarked
on and won't, even with the green light, until I know it's clear and no
right-hooking traffic.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the stale green ("moving" right
hook).

And it doesn't eliminate the possibility entirely - just because
instead of sitting next to them I'm sitting right smack dab in their
path for the right turn... and also right turn on red is not allowed
- doesn't stop them running over me - just reduces that possibility
to the incredible category.

It's not a real big deal for me, anyway; I was just noting the
potential tangible benefit of bike boxes to downtown rush hour
bicycle commuters - a possible reason for them to choose that
route other than, "Ooooo, neato! Green paint."

Another reason (for me) not to go left - and you and Frank won't like
this - one of the other first things I do at a red light is evaluate the
potential for a "right-turn, U-turn, right-turn", and far right is the
place to be if this is to be a consideration. Hey, I usually don't like
to sit still any more than I have to :-

I'm sure your time is very valuable, indeed.


You just don't get it, but that's okay. It's not about banking
the time so I can watch more Family Feud on TV; it's more a matter
of having your racing gene switched on.

You're a good man, Frank. You might be a hero of the coming shift
to healthy, happy, sustainable, social transportation. Many riders
will need and appreciate the special things you have to offer.

I'm just a crazy guy getting crazier the more craziness I find the
world seems to be really about. My behavior is not necessarily
"advisable" and I make no bones about that. But I'm not out to hurt
anyone and I think most of the "harm" resulting from my actions is self-inflicted - not just on me but people taking offense are also
doing that to themselves. I'm not all good or all knowing by a long-
shot. Just don't paint me a monochromatic strawman that I'm not.

On 11/22/2013 12:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
-much snip-


It's a weird time. We're in a time when people who know most about
bicycling traffic interactions are being slandered as
"elitist," while
people who know the least are having their opinions
elevated. We're seeing
an activity that's safer than many alternatives being
labeled as "dangerous."
We're seeing designs that increase danger being promoted
because they "feel"
safer, and we're asked to ride in more dangerous situations,
so more people
can be lured into it. We're seeing people who ask pointed,
technical questions
being shouted down or ignored.


Not different from every other field of human endeavor in
our Brave New Century.

sigh.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:37:47 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

The hassle that the bike box effectively (I initially said
"practically") removes has to do with *sitting* stopped at the red light
waiting for the fresh green to proceed straight ahead, and cars turning
right on red (no problem, until... ) not paying attention to the change
of the light and turning across my path - which I have not yet embarked
on and won't, even with the green light, until I know it's clear and no
right-hooking traffic.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the stale green ("moving" right
hook).

Well, then, we've definitely heard it both ways here.

But if the purpose is just to prevent a right hook on a stationary cyclist caused by a right turn on red, why not just say "No Right Turn On Red"? Do that and enforce it well, and your problem is solved without enticing cyclists to pass on the right.

Again: They seem to have implemented that "No Right Turn On Red" simultaneously with the installation of bike boxes. Therefore, any benefit from the simple "No Right Turn On Red" is being wrongly attributed to the bike boxes.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Your straight through bike lane is to the right of motorists who want to turn right. You shouldn't be surprised that it causes problems.
It will cause problems whether or not it is painted green. It's putting you in a well-known blind spot,


'member when I said "one of the first things we do at a stop
light is check for right turning cars"? Eye contact, baby -
if you don't get it, assume they'll run over you and don't give
them the chance.

That paragraph is totally at odds with the idea of passing cars on the curb side, bike lane or no. There's no way you're making eye contact with those drivers.


That's because it never had anything to do with passing cars. The
situation I described occurs when I'm stopped. I am already ahead
of them, turned around, looking at the queue.

The bike boxes are not intended to prevent moving (stale green) right-
hooks. Oh, the green paint might help some, but nobody should count
on it. *That* (don't count on paint markings to deflect that cement
truck) is what people riding bicycles on the road should understand.
If that means they need to take a class or something, so be it.

We seem to have shifted position on this. I originally thought the impetus for Portland's bike boxes was the death of a stationary cyclist due to a right turn on red. People here (you among them, IIRC) pointed out that I was wrong, that the impetus was a couple right hooks of moving cyclists.


*You* originally thought. Who's shifting position?

Are you now saying the purpose of the bike boxes is NOT to cure the problem of cyclists passing on the right? Are you saying they're supposed to protect only in stationary and "fresh green" situations?


Well, 1) they don't "protect" anything, and 2) they aren't *only*
effective for the fresh green, but otherwise, yes, I am now saying
just as I was always saying, that the bike boxes are obviously
intended primarily to prevent right-hooks on "fresh green", which
is not a "passing" situation.

If so, I think the news has not gotten out.


News to you. Obvious to me.

That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

(Dan shakes his head slowly form side-to-side... )

What *do* you do with it? ... Never mind, I know - we erase it
and tell the bicyclists to man up and drive like a vehicle, right?

Right, Dan. It works.

It works for you. Heck, it works fine for me.

But guess what, buddy - *you're* in the losing "camp" on this one.
Facilities are here to stay - more on the way. And "Innovation!!",
oh, innovation - you ain't seen nothin' yet.

It's a weird time.

It is a weird time, but the '70s are long gone.

We're in a time when people who know most about bicycling traffic interactions are being slandered as "elitist," while people who know the least are having their opinions elevated.


(Sorry, all I can think of is Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein
telling Teri Garr, "Elevate me" :-)

And come on, admit it: I know a thing or two about bicycling
traffic interactions, don't I. Stuff you can't learn in school.

We're seeing an activity that's safer than many alternatives being labeled as "dangerous."


Remember when we recently discussed whether 'twas okay to say,
"Cycling is too dangerous!"? Well, that statement is opinion,
pure and simple. Free speech, anyone?

We're seeing designs that increase danger being promoted because they "feel" safer,


Are you saying people cannot accurately perceive danger? Darwin
has a fix for that.

... and we're asked to ride in more dangerous situations,

Well don't do it man!

... so more people can be lured into it.


Lured by what? Are there showgirls in there?

We're seeing people who ask pointed, technical questions being shouted down or ignored.


Heathens!

http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=%20735


That guy obviously thinks he "know[s] most about bicycling" ;-)

Look, you make a lot of sense. Truly exceptional sense in a crazy,
often stupid world. Help steer things back in the right direction
where you can.

I'm trying. I'm trying.

Encourage the up-and-coming.

I'm trying to encourage correctness. "Up and coming" comes and goes, often because it's blatantly stupid.


Chin up. Keep up the good fight, brother. (I meant the new riders,
BTW.)

Portland is leading
the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars
and the light rail and the buses and everything else).

Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!


I don't know (10% was just the number that you told somebody else
they might as well give up). I mean that whatever they had that
they were calling mode share and was up over 5%, and the average
for the country is something less than 2%, I predict that will go
over 10% in Portland.

It doesn't really matter except to data geeks. The rest of us
can look around and see what's happening and what's not.

I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!


Dude, I think somebody spiked your doobie with crystal meth.

"Now just make your Love Offering to Ms. Birk's consulting firm... And ignore that data behind the curtain!!!"


Hey! I know: Get your crew to open up the "Correct Answer Consulting
Firm".

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


Whoa! 7 percent! Nice.

You see what this it, don't you? More learning, adapting. It's
really happening. (Isn't it cool? :-)

Just a few years ago there was war in the streets.

Whatever. I only know that I feel like I'm in the midst of something
really great happening whenever I'm there. It's palpable.