Bike lanes on a Pittsburgh bridge

[CanesFan27]

That's the Birmingham Bridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Bridge
http://goo.gl/maps/OxpwG

You'd think someone from Pittsburgh would actually reference pghbridges.com.

http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghE/0587-4476/birmingham.htm

[wphiii]

Many cyclists do that because they (erroneously) think it's safer than riding with traffic. Misguided arguments like wphiii's help reinforce the perceived risk.

Where was I advocating riding against the flow of traffic?

[NE2]

yawn

[kphoger]

Where was I advocating riding against the flow of traffic?

You didn't.  Nobody said you did.  That was a discussion between NE2 and agentsteel.

agentsteel described cyclists running STOP signs opposite the flow of traffic.  NE2 wondered why there would be a STOP sign facing the wrong way.  He then referred to your mentioning the risks of ending up in someone's blind spot as a reason some cyclists ride opposite traffic instead of with it.  The argument you made that he called "misguided" was never about cycling on the wrong side of the road, but was rather about the need to physically separate bicycle lanes from driving lanes.

His point was that some cyclists use that sort of argument in their decision to ride opposite traffic.  I assume this is because they have a clear view of the cars closest to them, whereas when riding with traffic, the cars closest to you are invisible without a bike/helmet mirror.  That reasoning is, of course, dubious.

See the pertinent discussion below.

has anyone actually seen a bicyclist?

see just one do something stupid like run a stop sign opposite to the flow of one-way traffic, and you'll quickly learn that "docile" is to be discarded immediately as a possibility.

Why would there be a stop sign for wrong-way traffic?

I described it poorly.  divided arterial; the bicyclist is in the left side of things, i.e. opposite the flow of traffic. 

Many cyclists do that because they (erroneously) think it's safer than riding with traffic. Misguided arguments like wphiii's help reinforce the perceived risk.

[NE2]

He then referred to your mentioning the risks of ending up in someone's blind spot as a reason some cyclists ride opposite traffic instead of with it.

Not quite - wphiii's argument was that you need to be separated from distracted motorists, and my response was that there's a greater risk from non-distracted motorists who don't realize there's a sidepath and turn across it without looking for bikes.

[wphiii]

He then referred to your mentioning the risks of ending up in someone's blind spot as a reason some cyclists ride opposite traffic instead of with it.

Not quite - wphiii's argument was that you need to be separated from distracted motorists, and my response was that there's a greater risk from non-distracted motorists who don't realize there's a sidepath and turn across it without looking for bikes.

If the barrier between bike lane and traffic lanes isn't designed poorly (i.e., hidden behind parked cars), it shouldn't be too difficult to "realize" that bike lane is there. And if a driver isn't distracted, he or she would know to look for cyclists just as he or she would look for pedestrians when making a turn. It's common sense. Of course, it certainly takes both sides and cyclists would also do well to be aware of cars that might want to turn and not just go blazing through an intersection. This is also common sense.

Just because a small minority of people don't always exercise common sense at intersections is not a reason to avoid protecting cyclists.

For the record, I also want to reiterate that I'm only talking about fast roads here. Where traffic is calmer, I don't think physical protection is necessary. I'm not advocating putting cyclotracks on every single street.

[seicer]

......besides which, the cyclist looks like he's on a long-distance trip, and may not even be from the area at all.

You must have never seen a commuter cyclist. I have a pack on my back or a pack on my rear/front wheels for commuting. It's not just for "long-distance trip(s)."

And yes, having been biking in Pittsburgh on many occasions, I have passed by more than my fair share of cyclists on that specific bridge. It's one of the easiest ways to get to the top of the hill safely.

Protected bike lanes - like the ones on the bridge, are safer than a strip of white paint, but are still not safe enough, given that people routinely travel well in excess of the posted 35 MPH limit. Speed cameras or barrier protected bike lanes would be ideal - as would a separated two-way path.

I'm not even going to dive into the silly arguments from non-cyclists about how cyclists bike.

[agentsteel53]

I'm not even going to dive into the silly arguments from non-cyclists about how cyclists bike.

what argument is silly?  that running stop signs can result in accidents?

[kphoger]

I'm not even going to dive into the silly arguments from non-cyclists about how cyclists bike.

what argument is silly?  that running stop signs can result in accidents?

I am a cyclist–or, rather, I used to be, much more than I am now.  At any rate, I fully admit that cyclists do dumb things.  I've done dumb things, and a few of them have even landed me sprawled out on the pavement.  But the only time I've had a collision with a car at an intersection with a STOP sign, it was because the driver didn't stop properly.

From what I've seen (and I'm just one person), most cyclists use common sense as to when to fully stop and when to run a STOP sign.  In fact, I'd say most of us do something in between:  slow down at STOP signs to the point at which we can assess the situation, and then (a) stop and yield, (b) proceed cautiously without actually stopping, or (c) get back up to speed–whereas a great many drivers assume cyclists will simply wait until there are no cars around before making any move, and don't pay cyclists one bit of courtesy.  This, of course, varies by location.  In México, for example, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, horses, trucks, burro-drawn carts, and you-name-it all manage to coexist nicely along the roads, and all seem to look out for everyone else (notice I didn't include buses or taxis in that list).

[agentsteel53]

From what I've seen (and I'm just one person), most cyclists use common sense as to when to fully stop and when to run a STOP sign.  In fact, I'd say most of us do something in between:  slow down at STOP signs to the point at which we can assess the situation, and then (a) stop and yield, (b) proceed cautiously without actually stopping, or (c) get back up to speed–whereas a great many drivers assume cyclists will simply wait until there are no cars around before making any move, and don't pay cyclists one bit of courtesy.  This, of course, varies by location.  In México, for example, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, horses, trucks, burro-drawn carts, and you-name-it all manage to coexist nicely along the roads, and all seem to look out for everyone else (notice I didn't include buses or taxis in that list).

word highlighted for emphasis.

most drivers know how to drive, but it only takes one asshole running a STOP sign to ruin your lunch.

(agreed on Mexico... people seem to be much more capable road users down there.)

[Brandon]

^^ Mexican traffic (having all my experience on Cozumel) is an interesting beast.  It's surprisingly easy to drive in, especially when compared to Chicago (aka FIB) traffic.

[kphoger]

I did come within an inch of my life once by failing to stop.  As a child, I decided it wasn't worth my time to stop at an intersection close to my house, because there were never any cars coming.  So I chose to not stop, or even look.  Yes, this made perfect sense at the time (I was probably about seven).  A car did at least a 180° in the middle of the street with brakes squealing and swear words flying, in order to avoid hitting me.

Oops.

[agentsteel53]

^^ Mexican traffic (having all my experience on Cozumel) is an interesting beast.  It's surprisingly easy to drive in, especially when compared to Chicago (aka FIB) traffic.

Mexico City is a challenge to navigate, and traffic is awful.  it took me about an hour of circling around the airport before I hit the correct sequence of barely-labeled ramps and flyovers.

[Brandon]

^^ Mexican traffic (having all my experience on Cozumel) is an interesting beast.  It's surprisingly easy to drive in, especially when compared to Chicago (aka FIB) traffic.

Mexico City is a challenge to navigate, and traffic is awful.  it took me about an hour of circling around the airport before I hit the correct sequence of barely-labeled ramps and flyovers.

Yeah, even on the island, I noticed how sparsely marked and signed everything is.  A map came in extremely handy.

As a different topic, possibly to be moved to "International Highways", what is it with Mexico leaving all these old roads perfectly intact next to the new alignments?  The road around Coz had several of these, and the new road would switch back and forth on and off the old alignment from time to time.

[PAHighways]

Thankfully, the freeway was never completed, but it's now an underutilized bridge.

That being the Oakland Crosstown Freeway.

[seicer]

I'm not even going to dive into the silly arguments from non-cyclists about how cyclists bike.

what argument is silly?  that running stop signs can result in accidents?

No - I didn't cite anything in particular, but it's the argument that cyclists tend to be at fault for anything and everything.

As a cyclist, I've seen it all - and tend to follow the law as much as possible. There are exceptions - I run traffic signals on occasion when they do not trip, as a lot of motorcyclists will do as well. Most loop detectors will simply not work - and when a carbon fiber bike with few other metal components, I am essentially invisible. That said, I don't jerk out in front of traffic - and play it safe since I know my odds if I get hit. But I'll stop at stop signs, take the middle of a lane (more visibility and safer than hugging a dirty gutter), signal, and all that. Not all do - so I do my best to educate them at workshops and events.

I think the worst incident I've had was when a BMW cut me off in my protected bike lane so he could try to squeeze around some cars. I caught up to him at a light, and gave a good few knocks on his side window. The guy was wearing a bankers outfit - and was actually panicking when he saw I had caught up. I nabbed his license plate and called it in - only to find he had done the same for "vandalism" and "touching his car." Needless to say, the officer didn't buy it - but they couldn't do anything unless there was video evidence or if the cop had witnessed it. Which is why I now mount a go-pro camera - which tends to make other drivers behave better around me, it seems.

That said, I also drive 45,000 miles a year on top of biking. I nearly hit a cyclist yesterday on my way to work in my car - I had done a full stop and started to turn left. A cyclist - who was in a continuous right turn lane, did not stop and tried to proceed straight. I cursed him out and let him know that he needed to be more careful.

So, there.

[kphoger]

I caught up to him at a light, and gave a good few knocks on his side window. ... he had [called it in] for "vandalism" and "touching his car."

[tangent]

I've knocked on a few cars in my time as a pedestrian.  Never knew it was a crime to touch someone else's car.

I knocked on a front bumper once in Kansas City's Plaza area when our whole family had to swing out into an intersection to cross the street because her car was completely blocking the crosswalk.  She and her husband/boyfriend/whatever then proceed to tail us as we walked around the block until they were close enough to stop and chew us out (and that was pretty slow, since we had a small child with us).  She was outraged that I would have touched her car (good thing she hadn't seen my dad smear his finger across the bumper), and demanded an apology.  As soon as I said the words "I'm sorry", in a most insincere voice, she was satisfied and drove off.  All very humorous.  But, seriously, since when is it a crime to touch someone's car?

Another time, when a turning car cut in front of me as I was stepping into a crosswalk, and I knocked its rear fender, the driver thought she'd hit me and went around the block to make sure I was OK.  Quite different from another guy who had done the same thing, parked in the middle of the intersection, got out, and shouted, "You got a problem, asshole!"  I was already partway down the block, and shouted back, "Yeah!"  He paused, then got in and drove away.

Seriously, people:  in most places in America, if someone is close enough to simply reach out and touch your vehicle, then you're doing something wrong as a driver.

[/tangent]

[Brandon]

I caught up to him at a light, and gave a good few knocks on his side window. ... he had [called it in] for "vandalism" and "touching his car."

[tangent]

I've knocked on a few cars in my time as a pedestrian.  Never knew it was a crime to touch someone else's car.

[/tangent]

[Alps]

How about: Americans are assholes, whether in a car or on a bike.

[kphoger]

How about: Americans are assholes, whether in a car or on a bike.

But, wait!  I met an American one time who wasn't one, therefore your statement is wrong.

[Alps]

How about: Americans are assholes, whether in a car or on a bike.

But, wait!  I met an American one time who wasn't one, therefore your statement is wrong.

Asshole.

[Duke87]

Visibility isn't the problem. Expectation is. Most turning motorists aren't going to realize the bike they just passed before slowing down to turn is now in their blind spot.

This I think is a consequence of the fact that biking around cities is today far more commonplace than it used to be. Because of this, you have a lot of drivers out there who came of age in a world where cyclists were not something you ever really had to worry about as a driver. And as such, these drivers are often oblivious to the presence of bicycles in the streets and lack the intuition or the training about how to properly deal with them.

Much in the same way how in the 50's and 60's a lot of drivers weren't quite adept at knowing how to drive on a freeway, because it was something which they were not accustomed to growing up. '

After another generation goes by there will be no big stink to be raised anymore about motorists behaving poorly around cyclists because the current generation of drivers will all have learned how to drive in a world with bicycles on the streets.

[kphoger]

How about: Americans are assholes, whether in a car or on a bike.

But, wait!  I met an American one time who wasn't one, therefore your statement is wrong.

Asshole.

rats, you pegged me