NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11-21-2013, 10:49, Dan O wrote:
The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this?:-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

That's why at a red light, "as far right as practicable" means blocking
the driver behind you, and preferably in a position that keeps him/her
from seeing to the left (right in U.K.)

--
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.

On 11-21-2013, 12:26, Joe Riel wrote:
The solution, which you won't like, is to do what Frank has said. Don't
sit in the bike lane at a light; move to the left. If cars are going to
turn right while I'm waiting at a light, I make sure they do so by
passing on my right. Pretty much every experienced cyclist around here
does that, it's the newbies who wait in the gutter and expect cars to
pass them on the left. Doing so is asking for trouble.

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.

--
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.

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:52:10 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:40:08 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

In mny, if not most U.S. states, a rear-end collision is automatically
the fault of the driver behind. If that can be done, then there's no
reason a similar law couldn't be passed regarding colliding with a bicycle.

Sort of making cyclists immune to all earthly laws?

Well, there are still the laws of physics. As I understand it, in northern Europe the thought is that cyclists won't go crazy because they know it increases their risk of getting badly hurt. Even if the motorist's insurance pays the bills, they want to avoid the physical pain.

Of course, in those countries they actually get taught how to ride bikes. In the U.S., we seem to have lots of people who think they're less likely to get hit if they blatantly violate the laws! :-/

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:49:11 AM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

Good illustration. You put yourself at the far right, even though you're planning on going straight. And it produces problems for you. That's hardly surprising.

Traffic at interesections, in general, operates by "destination positioning.." That means vehicles that are turning left stay to the left, perhaps even in a left-turn-only lane. Similarly, vehicles that are turning right stay to the right, and those going straight stay toward the center. When lanes are marked with arrows, they always conform to this supremely logical scheme.

.... except for bike lanes, of course. 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, and asking motorists to do something that's contrary to 100 years of traffic practice and expectations.

Needless to say, I don't experience that problem of yours.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.

Horse manure, pure and simple. The truck that creamed Sparling
waited at the red and started his turn on the fresh green.

OK, I thought it was a right turn on red. Sorry.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

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.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:23:23 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

I'm not following how this would work. Right turns on red are illegal
in Montreal and this is enforced. But if I'm at a light in a bike lane,
or absent a bike lane at the right of the lane, how do I get right
hooked by a right turning car unless I'm running the red light?

What has happened in at least some instances is this: A long vehicle (bus or truck, perhaps with a trailer) is stopped at an intersection, its driver watching cross traffic for a chance to turn right (or left in the UK). A cyclist approaches riding in the gutter or the bike lane and comes to a stop alongside the big vehicle. The driver gets a clear spot in traffic, perhaps glances right to check but does not see the bicyclists in his blind spot. He makes the turn and as is well known, his rear wheels or trailer wheels roll inside the path of his front wheels. The cyclist has nowhere to go to escape and is crushed.

In London, IIRC, women are overrepresented among the victims. They speculate it's because women are more deferential, and feel they must stay "out of the way." In at least some London cases, there have been roadside barriers that literally trapped the cyclists between the barrier and the turning truck.

The sure cure is to not come up along the blind side of a motor vehicle, or certainly not the first vehicle in line - the one that may suddenly turn on red.

In certain (rare for me) cases where I've filtered forward on the right (because it was obvious I'd miss the green cycle if I stayed back) I've been careful to stop behind the first vehicle, not alongside it, and to get strong face-to-face contact and acknowledgement from the driver just behind me.

If this is the case that I'm thinking of, didn't the driver hit the
woman by turning right when the light changed? And if this is the case,
isn't this EXACTLY what the bike box prevents by having bikes in front
of the cars when the light changes?

I had thought the death that triggered all this was a right turn on red. Apparently I remembered wrong. Apparently it was a moving crash on green.

But how does the bike box prevent that moving crash on green? As with any bike lane leading all the way to an intersection, the messages for cyclists are "Ride here" and even "Pass the cars on the right." There's no "... except if a motor vehicle is going to turn across your path." But green paint or no, having a car turn across your path is very, very dangerous. It makes no sense to me to paint the roads to encourage that.

About the only issue I can see with this scenario is if the bike is
moving into the box at the moment that the light turns green and then
it's a matter of having the driver's attention when you move in front of
them.

The scenario can happen when the light's been green for a while, too. And it's very hard to be sure one has motorist's attention when you're in his blind spot, and violating the normal rules of destination positioning.

In Portland, with enough experience, perhaps Portland motorists will reliably slow way down and twist completely around to look back to their right before making a right turn. But I still wouldn't count on it. And any motorist just passing through Portland would probably be clueless about the crazy design.

Maybe Portland's bike advocates are saying one should carefully check license plates before passing on the right? It's no crazier than some of their designs, really.

- Frank Krygowski

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.

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. It tells bicyclists they should be to the right of the motor vehicles, even if a motor vehicle is turning right and they're proceeding straight.

- Frank Krygowski

On 11/21/2013 12:34 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-21-2013, 10:49, Dan O wrote:
The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this?:-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

That's why at a red light, "as far right as practicable" means blocking
the driver behind you, and preferably in a position that keeps him/her
from seeing to the left (right in U.K.)


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.

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:26:03 AM UTC-8, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:

snip

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

The solution, which you won't like, is to do what Frank has said. Don't
sit in the bike lane at a light; move to the left. If cars are going to
turn right while I'm waiting at a light, I make sure they do so by
passing on my right. Pretty much every experienced cyclist around here
does that, it's the newbies who wait in the gutter and expect cars to
pass them on the left. Doing so is asking for trouble.


"Gutter"?

Are pedestrians asking for trouble by being on the sidewalk? (Cars do
the very same thing to them on the fresh "Walk" signal.)

Moving to the left is the best way to handle this.

For me, only as a courtesy to people who want to turn right on red but
can't get around on my left because of e.g. a stopped car (or maybe it's
a Vehicular Cyclist :-) sitting in the way at the front of the queue,
and me in the gap.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...U/gYTo-r0K-CUJ

Legally I have an
advantage, being in California, where the cars are required to merge
into the bike lane before turning right, however, my suspicion is that
only a few percentage of the motorists are aware of this. That is, most
don't really merge unless they have to, i.e. there is a car (or bike)
blocking the path, but with room to the right.


I will even split lanes to go left of right-turning cars, though I want
to be ~fairly sure I won't get stuck out there in the fast lane when the
light turns green.

About the last thing I'll ever do is queue up behind them.

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.

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 :-)

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:49:11 AM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

Good illustration. You put yourself at the far right, even though you're planning on going straight.


And pedestrians put themselves even farther right. That's the logical
order.

And it produces problems for you.

No, what "produces" the problem is motorists with inadequate situational
awareness failing to yield the right-of-way.

But it's mostly a minor hassle - usually just the one car that was
already working on his right turn on red and is just kind of slow
and tentative about it. I'm aware of what's going on - not going
to get creamed by him - just a little annoyed at a few seconds ;-)
delay tolerating his cluelessness (or sometimes, worse, disregard).
Not worth getting in front of a line of potentially hostile cagers
that I just filtered past.

I only noted that the bike box eliminates this, as a possible reason
for bicyclists to consider them beneficial (especially in a busy one-
way grid downtown at rush hour).

That's hardly surprising.

Traffic at interesections, in general, operates by "destination positioning." That means vehicles that are turning left stay to the left, perhaps even in a left-turn-only lane. Similarly, vehicles that are turning right stay to the right, and those going straight stay toward the center. When lanes are marked with arrows, they always conform to this supremely logical scheme.


Sure, and if it's a right-turn only lane, I'm left of it.

... except for bike lanes,

.... And sidewalks,

... of course.

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.


I'm not surprised in the least. It doesn't "cause" problems; it's *the*
fundamental inherent problem of mixing vehicles of disparate speed in a
shared infrastructure.

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.

... and asking motorists to do something that's contrary to 100 years of traffic practice and expectations.


Luddite.

Needless to say, I don't experience that problem of yours.

Yeah, yeah, we know - you don't have any problems - heard it a million
times already. Don't really believe it for a second, though - quite
sure you've got your own set of problems (have tried to help with some
of them ;-)

snip


To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side.


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.

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.

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. Encourage the up-and-coming. But there's no going
back to the '70s. The future is inevitable, man. 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).

On 11-21-2013, 14:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What has happened in at least some instances is this: A long vehicle (bus or truck, perhaps with a trailer) is stopped at an intersection, its driver watching cross traffic for a chance to turn right (or left in the UK). A cyclist approaches riding in the gutter or the bike lane and comes to a stop alongside the big vehicle. The driver gets a clear spot in traffic, perhaps glances right to check but does not see the bicyclists in his blind spot. He makes the turn and as is well known, his rear wheels or trailer wheels roll inside the path of his front wheels. The cyclist has nowhere to go to escape and is crushed.

The guy I saw was staring to the left, waiting for a break in the
traffic. When he thought he had one, he began moving and turning right
while still staring to the left. The signal giving me the right of way
was nearly straight in front of his face, but the uncertainty of whether
he could beat this other car or not wiped from his mind any idea that
there might be a vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist anywhere else in the
path he wasn't even looking at.

--
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.