NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:19:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:34:09 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

Of course, Portland did implement [bike boxes], illegally at first, then with back-room, string-pulling retroactive permission - permission that still required collecting data. And the data is in. And it shows that the bike boxes did NOT work, but instead, INCREASED the very type of crash they were intended to prevent.


I stood at the corner of one of those downhill bike boxes
last time I was in Portland. Cars yielded, bicyclists were
cautious of right hooks (they've added markings way up the
block warning bicyclists to watch out for right hooks - not
that those should be necessary but... ), flocks of bicyclists
poured down the hill at rush hour with _no conflicts_.

Surely, you're not implying that your "one time" observation trumps a year's worth of disciplined data collection?


I was describing the "last time" I was there, not the "one time".

(And *now* the Portland transportation authority is "disciplined"?)

We've been round and round already about this particular thing (ISTR
you started the thread with a subject crowing something along the lines
of "data shows bike boxes failure"). The whole story is not as simple
as you like to paint things to fit your pre-conception.

And that road would be a rush hour nightmare for bicyclists without
that bike lane.

And you know what? If a few more blithe idiots happen to be culled by
a change that makes life better for everybody else...

I'm against door zone bike lanes. We know (or we _should_ know) that they guide cyclists into hazardous spaces. Do you _really_ think it's a good idea to instruct trusting riders to ride where a door can pop open in their path?

I'm against bike lanes that tell cyclists to pass cars on the right where those cars can turn to their right.


They only "guide" or "tell" unthinking rule-followers.

(Add "instruct".)

What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a right-turn-only lane for motorists,


Hold the phone, pal - that's not what you said before. You said, "...
where those cars *can* turn to their right." All the bike lanes I see
lately that run parallel to right-turn only lanes shift over to the left
well before the intersection.

... complete with large arrows telling the person in the rightmost lane that it was just fine to go straight? Would you excuse the design, because every motorist should know to disobey the arrows?


I'm not talking about the design at all. I'm talking about two things:

1) Whether or not to include bike-specific facilities in the trans-
portation infrastructure, and...

2) Whether riders should be able to judge what is safe and unsafe.

BTW, the stripe ends at the intersection (dipwad).

Your fourth grade mentality is leaking out again, Dan. But where I sit now, I'm within half a mile of a rather new bike lane that runs right up to the intersection. Almost all cars turn right at that intersection, but the bike lane is to their right. Don't pretend these design problems have gone away.


My point, dipwad, was that if the bicyclist is using the stripe for
direction (guide, tell, instruct them where to go), the disappearance
of the stripe at the intersection should give them a clue to what the
rest of us know anyway.

I could go on. But ISTM that most facilities advocates do no more thinking than "Oooh, we have to be safe! And oooh, they've done something special for bikes, so now I feel safe!"

Or alternately, "Actual levels of safety aren't important. It's _perceived_ safety that matters, so we can get more butts on bikes and save the world!!! So it's OK to put the cyclists in more danger, as long as we fool them about it!" I happen to think that's immoral. It would never be allowed in any similar field, like medicine, plant safety, architectural design, etc.


DANGER! DANGER!

Much of his views make exceptionally good sense. It's just that
on the whole he goes off the rails.

When you can discuss facilities logically, based on the real physics and psychology of traffic interactions, only then will you be capable of judging when I'm "off the rails."

Meanwhile, we're still trying to get you to see that it's not advisable to ride while drunk, ride facing traffic, ride at night without lights, do wheelies and jumps across intersections, zoom on and off sidewalks at will, etc. At this point, you're really not qualified to judge much about traffic engineering.


http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/spitballs_650x300_a01_11020.jpg

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:29:32 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:19:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:34:09 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

I stood at the corner of one of those downhill bike boxes
last time I was in Portland. Cars yielded, bicyclists were
cautious of right hooks (they've added markings way up the
block warning bicyclists to watch out for right hooks - not
that those should be necessary but... ), flocks of bicyclists
poured down the hill at rush hour with _no conflicts_.

Surely, you're not implying that your "one time" observation trumps a year's worth of disciplined data collection?

I was describing the "last time" I was there, not the "one time".

:-) Dan, think about this slowly now: "The last time" you were there - that can't possibly refer to any more than "one time," can it? (Effectively, the question is, can you count to one?)

We've been round and round already about this particular thing (ISTR
you started the thread with a subject crowing something along the lines
of "data shows bike boxes failure"). The whole story is not as simple
as you like to paint things to fit your pre-conception.

They claimed the bike boxes would cure the right hooks. They were forced to collect data on the results of the bike boxes. The data showed that not only did the bike boxes fail to prevent right hooks, they actually increased right hooks. IIRC, at some intersections, the number of right hook conflicts quadrupled.

If the story is not that simple, it better have some extremely clever way of covering up what sounds like a total (and predicted) failure!

And that road would be a rush hour nightmare for bicyclists without
that bike lane.

Are you trying to change the subject away from the bike boxes?

And you know what? If a few more blithe idiots happen to be culled by
a change that makes life better for everybody else...

Nice, Dan. So you've moved beyond the idea of helping the environment or whatever by luring cyclists into higher risk. Now you actively want to do away with a few.

What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a right-turn-only lane for motorists,

Hold the phone, pal - that's not what you said before. You said, "...
where those cars *can* turn to their right."

Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight? The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?

All the bike lanes I see
lately that run parallel to right-turn only lanes shift over to the left
well before the intersection.

And yet there are plenty that do not make that shift. It's a common complaint. The fact that you are unaware of the problem does not mean it's not a problem.

BTW, the stripe ends at the intersection (dipwad).

Your fourth grade mentality is leaking out again, Dan. But where I sit now, I'm within half a mile of a rather new bike lane that runs right up to the intersection. Almost all cars turn right at that intersection, but the bike lane is to their right. Don't pretend these design problems have gone away.

My point, dipwad, was that if the bicyclist is using the stripe for
direction (guide, tell, instruct them where to go), the disappearance
of the stripe at the intersection should give them a clue to what the
rest of us know anyway.

The one half a mile from me does NOT disappear. There's a BMX / Skate park about 200 yards before that intersection. The kids using that bike lane do not seem to understand the hazard; I've seen them ride up to the right of a car with a right turn indicator flashing.

You may be fine with "culling" those kids, but I'm not.


Meanwhile, we're still trying to get you to see that it's not advisable to ride while drunk, ride facing traffic, ride at night without lights, do wheelies and jumps across intersections, zoom on and off sidewalks at will, etc. At this point, you're really not qualified to judge much about traffic engineering.

http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/spitballs_650x300_a01_11020.jpg

Again: Fourth grade mentality.

- Frank Krygowski

On 11-13-2013, 07:02, John B. wrote:
how to carry a baby and so she took over management of the entire baby
care department.)

You sly dog, you.

--
Wes Groleau

“Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same.�
— Weekly Republican, 1869

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:57:38 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-13-2013, 07:02, John B. wrote:
how to carry a baby and so she took over management of the entire baby
care department.)

You sly dog, you.

You mean that your wife doesn't view you as the Lord and Master of the
Homestead ?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:11:28 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:16:42 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:



He is extremely anti-facility, and works backward from that to

create "facts" that fit. In doing so, utterly outlandish

characterizations emerge as essential parts of the whole.



Dan, I'll remind you yet again that I am responsible (at _least_ in part) for a couple of the facilities in my own town. I am fine with facilities that make sense, when properly done.



However, I find that most facilities - especially "Innovative!!!" ones - do not make sense, and do not make things better for cyclists.



Example: When I first heard about bike boxes at intersections (not very long before Portland began implementing them), what I said in certain forums was "I don't understand how these things are going to help." I wasn't against them; I simply said I didn't understand them. I was a bit skeptical, and was asking for explanations.



I got the explanations, and decided they made very little sense. It was then that I decided I was not in favor of bike boxes, at least as implemented in the U.S. (i.e. with no signal phase exclusively for bicyclists).



Of course, Portland did implement them, illegally at first, then with back-room, string-pulling retroactive permission - permission that still required collecting data. And the data is in. And it shows that the bike boxes did NOT work, but instead, INCREASED the very type of crash they were intended to prevent.

snip

Why were the bike boxes "illegal"? The City is a road authority and can do that sort of thing, and as a I recall the PSU study, the boxes did reduce conflicts. http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/p...xes-work-39441

I think the bike boxes are a waste of money, but they are otherwise harmless, and in some places, mildly beneficial. Bicycle facilities in PDX are a mixed blessing -- some are bad (even dangerous) and some are good. I like my bike lane to work on SW Barbur. I don't expect it to keep me safe and regard it as a wide shoulder on a busy road (which is what it is). It gives me right of way, but I take that with caution since most cars are clueless.

I do know that many, many more people ride SW Barbur since the bike lane was added. It was a scary ride 15 years ago when it was a shoulder-less road with narrow lanes and 50mph traffic. I rarely encountered other riders. Now it's congested with bikes on some mornings (waaah, I just can't win). Again, that's because the road was reconfigured to make room for a paved shoulder. The white line and bike graphics are just an added benefit.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:51:28 +1100, James wrote:

Where is "here" again? I'd like to note to avoid, or at least be on
full crash avoidance consciousness!

Sunny Turkey.

waves from the Med.

Ah, my Bro and his family just got home from a holiday in Turkey!

Hope they enjoyed it. Where did they go?
--
davethedave

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:14:37 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:11:28 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Of course, Portland did implement them, illegally at first, then with back-room, string-pulling retroactive permission - permission that still required collecting data. And the data is in. And it shows that the bike boxes did NOT work, but instead, INCREASED the very type of crash they were intended to prevent.



Why were the bike boxes "illegal"? The City is a road authority and can do that sort of thing...

While I'm no expert on the legal issues, there are apparently people who disagree with you. My recollection (from info through private channels) is that some registered Professional Engineers made formal complaints that the bike boxes were not part of the MUTCD and thus could be installed only with prior permission, as "experimental" facilities. It took your bike-advocate congressman's work through back channels to get retroactive permission, but it did carry the responsibility of actual data collection. (That would have seemed like a good idea anyway.)

and as a I recall the PSU study, the boxes did reduce conflicts. http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/p...xes-work-39441

Bike Portland is pretty "rah rah!" about almost any facility, from what I can tell. Here's the alternate, more current news, with documentation.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf

11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.

I think the bike boxes are a waste of money, but they are otherwise harmless, and in some places, mildly beneficial. Bicycle facilities in PDX are a mixed blessing -- some are bad (even dangerous) and some are good. I like my bike lane to work on SW Barbur. I don't expect it to keep me safe and regard it as a wide shoulder on a busy road (which is what it is). It gives me right of way, but I take that with caution since most cars are clueless.

I do know that many, many more people ride SW Barbur since the bike lane was added. It was a scary ride 15 years ago when it was a shoulder-less road with narrow lanes and 50mph traffic. I rarely encountered other riders. Now it's congested with bikes on some mornings (waaah, I just can't win). Again, that's because the road was reconfigured to make room for a paved shoulder. The white line and bike graphics are just an added benefit.

There's no question that if you do almost _anything_ "special" for bicycles, there will be many, many uncritical people who say "Oooh, this is special! I like it! I'll ride here instead of two blocks over!!" This has been demonstrated even at facilities where data clearly shows decreased safety.

But in the case of your road, the practical benefit came from the pavement width, not from the white line. If it were a shared lane of the same width, you'd probably have more useful width. Or at least, in almost all cities, you'd have more useful width. Portland (IIRC) has an unusually good sweeping program for bike lanes. Most cities do not, and most bike lanes become debris reservoirs except for the foot or so furthest from the road edge.

- Frank Krygowski

On 15/11/13 04:59, davethedave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:51:28 +1100, James wrote:

Where is "here" again? I'd like to note to avoid, or at least be on
full crash avoidance consciousness!

Sunny Turkey.

waves from the Med.

Ah, my Bro and his family just got home from a holiday in Turkey!

Hope they enjoyed it. Where did they go?

I have yet to hear the story in person, and don't know the place names,
but from pictures they went hot air ballooning, stayed in a house carved
out of rock in a hillside, went cruising on a yacht, saw a cistern full
of carp and a blue grotto, and more, from what I recall.

--
JS

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:56:35 +1100, James wrote:

On 15/11/13 04:59, davethedave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:51:28 +1100, James wrote:

Where is "here" again? I'd like to note to avoid, or at least be on
full crash avoidance consciousness!

Sunny Turkey.

waves from the Med.

Ah, my Bro and his family just got home from a holiday in Turkey!

Hope they enjoyed it. Where did they go?

I have yet to hear the story in person, and don't know the place names,
but from pictures they went hot air ballooning, stayed in a house carved
out of rock in a hillside, went cruising on a yacht, saw a cistern full
of carp and a blue grotto, and more, from what I recall.

Kapadokia and the Med. It's nice. What can I say.
--
davethedave

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:00:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:14:37 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:


snip


and as a I recall the PSU study, the boxes did reduce conflicts. http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/p...xes-work-39441

Bike Portland is pretty "rah rah!" about almost any facility,

And Portland State University?

... from what I can tell. Here's the alternate, more current news, with documentation.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf


3rd and Madison - that's where I was standing last time.

11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.


Do you have exposure numbers?

"... many, many uncritical people who say "Oooh, this is special! I like it! I'll ride here instead of two blocks over!!"

snip