More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 5/31/2019 9:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And yes, it certainly is more of a problem when the car (or worse, large
truck or bus) is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane.
That's the specific cause of a fair number of bike fatalities. The
cyclists feel protected because they're in their own special space (even
without barriers) and feel it's their right to move faster than the
jammed-up motor vehicle traffic.

It is their right to move faster than motor-vehicle traffic. That's the whole idea. Move traffic. Would you have the bikes lined up behind the cars at lights? Yikes. Around here, you'd have to wait through ten light cycles to get anywhere if you threw in the bikes.

I understand the motivation to move past a traffic jam. But it seems
senseless to lure the "8 to 80" know-nothings into foreseeable danger
while telling them "It's OK, you're _protected_."

Come on, you've had fatalities from that in Portland, haven't you?

Yes. We've had fatalities from right hooks in and out of bike lanes, some of which are kind of hard to figure out.

I thought so.

In a right hook crash, if the motorist zoomed past a visible cyclist and
whipped right, I blame the motorist.

If the bicyclist zoomed past a motorist in the process of making a right
turn, I blame the cyclist.

But if the cyclist did that because he felt protected by a paint stripe,
some posts or a line of parked cars, I blame the designer - and the
advocates calling for that facility design.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 10:06:32 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 9:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And yes, it certainly is more of a problem when the car (or worse, large
truck or bus) is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane.
That's the specific cause of a fair number of bike fatalities. The
cyclists feel protected because they're in their own special space (even
without barriers) and feel it's their right to move faster than the
jammed-up motor vehicle traffic.

It is their right to move faster than motor-vehicle traffic. That's the whole idea. Move traffic. Would you have the bikes lined up behind the cars at lights? Yikes. Around here, you'd have to wait through ten light cycles to get anywhere if you threw in the bikes.

I understand the motivation to move past a traffic jam. But it seems
senseless to lure the "8 to 80" know-nothings into foreseeable danger
while telling them "It's OK, you're _protected_."

Come on, you've had fatalities from that in Portland, haven't you?

Yes. We've had fatalities from right hooks in and out of bike lanes, some of which are kind of hard to figure out.

I thought so.

In a right hook crash, if the motorist zoomed past a visible cyclist and
whipped right, I blame the motorist.

If the bicyclist zoomed past a motorist in the process of making a right
turn, I blame the cyclist.

But if the cyclist did that because he felt protected by a paint stripe,
some posts or a line of parked cars, I blame the designer - and the
advocates calling for that facility design.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You'd probably love it here in Waterloo Region Canada where they've put in lots of small roundabouts. Heavy sarcasm. On one main road with very heavy traffic at rush hours they have a separated bike path where normally it's be a sidewalk. I guess I should call it a paved MUP because that's what it really is. Any bicyclist riding that MUPand then entering the roundabout is playing Russian Roulette! To make things worse pedestrian crossings at the roundabouts are located EXACTLY where motorists accelerate to leave the roundabout. I've talked to many motorists and almost all of them say they've very nearly hit someone in the roundabout because they did NOT EXPECT to see anyone crossing there.

Oh, the sight lines inside the roundabouts are not good either and I believe that increases the chances of a rear ending of a bicyclist.

I really do wonder where traffic planners/designers get their ideas from and if they ever use any method of transportation other than driving. Councils say they want to get people out of cars and onto bicycles or walking and then they design facilities that are a real hazard for anyone but a driver of a motor vehicle to use. It does NOT make any sense to me. Unless of course the idea is to keep the all mighty motor vehicles moving. But then again, at rush hours many of these roundabouts are just like regular intersections but with no traffic lights but with cars backed up waiting for their turn to enter the roundabout.

Cheers

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:02:57 AM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:00:53 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated.

While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.

-- Jay Beattie.

That's true but often drivers have a difficult time judging how fast a bicycle is moving so as a cyclist you have to remain alert at all times as I'm sure you are.

A couple of years ago I was in good shape and I did an all out sprint to cross and intersection as the light just turned yellow. When I made it to the other side and looked down I was doing 36 mph. Now that shocked the crap out of me since it was flat ground with no wind. People making a free right turn could EASILY misjudge that speed.

If I would ride at that speed I expect drivers to misjudge my speed.

Lou

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:37:04 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

So what? We have that here. Works pretty good.

Lou

On 5/31/2019 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:37:04 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

So what? We have that here. Works pretty good.

Yes, the extra phases add time to the cycle. Tough.

On 6/1/2019 2:03 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:37:04 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

So what? We have that here. Works pretty good.

The trick is selling that concept to Americans.

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.

Do U.S. and Canadian readers care to list the intersections in their
areas that have separate traffic light phases for bikes?

If so, it will be a very short list. I don't know of any within 100
miles of me, and that radius includes several major cities with lots of
bike lanes, including "protected" ones.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 10:50:59 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 2:03 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:37:04 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

So what? We have that here. Works pretty good.

The trick is selling that concept to Americans.

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.

Do U.S. and Canadian readers care to list the intersections in their
areas that have separate traffic light phases for bikes?

If so, it will be a very short list. I don't know of any within 100
miles of me, and that radius includes several major cities with lots of
bike lanes, including "protected" ones.


--
- Frank Krygowski

In Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada they are moving from controlled intersections (traffic lights) to dangerous for bicyclist and pedestrians roundabouts.

I don't know any bike lanes in Ontario that have separate light phases for bicyclists.

However, I do know of some signs that to me make no sense at all as far as traffic conformity is concerned and also the safety of a bicyclist. Examples include "NO LEFT TURN bicycles excepted". That one is at a very busy intersection. Or, "ONE WAY bicycles excepted".

Cheers

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 2:03 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:37:04 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

So what? We have that here. Works pretty good.

The trick is selling that concept to Americans.

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.

Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251

Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/1/2019 9:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.

Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251

Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense.

-- Jay Beattie.

If I could choose one, of many, subjects to educate Frank about, it
would be that the world does not revolve around Youngstown, Ohio.

Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of World
Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of U.S.A.

Alas, such re-education would seem to be an impossibility because it
would require a willingness to accept facts that don't support a
preconceived agenda.

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.

Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251

Really.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=o...mg.BMqe9cdCgGg

https://alphanewsmn.com/waiting-in-a...pty-bike-lane/

Everyone knows Portland is always at the top of the list for bike use in large
cities. That's nice, but it's hardly representative of the rest of the U.S. In
fact, it will never be representative of the rest of the U.S., any more than
Amsterdam is representative of Europe.

Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense.

How well do you think Portland's bike mode share has reduced congestion? Can a
motorist drive from (say) NW Johnson & 21st to SE Hawthorn & 50th faster than
ten years ago?

To be clear: I think more use of bicycles would be a good thing. But I think the
only way to get people out of cars and onto bikes would be to make motoring
much, much less convenient than it is now, . However, I don't see the current
strategy having any success at all. Bike use is not soaring, despite
rah-rah articles from advocates. Adding to congestion (if that Minneapolis
article is accurate) will generate complaints and backlash far more than it will
generate new cyclists.

What will get the U.S. to (say) 10% overall bike mode share? Some sort of
tremendous social upheaval,radical enough to restructure our cities and suburbs.
Nothing else will succeed.

- Frank Krygowski