AARoads Forum

Today, a new bikeway design guide was released by NACTO Cities for Cycling.

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ (http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/)

So what are your thoughts on this? Personally, the inclusion of colored pavement and cycle tracks are the most important things included.

My only complaint is that they still don't properly address the dangers of striping a bike lane next to parallel parking. If the bike lane is between cars and traffic, bike riders must ride in what is known as the "door zone". What happens is someone opens a car door without checking to see if a bike rider is behind them, the bike is thrown toward the car and the rider is thrown into traffic. Very dangerous. And some of their example pictures even show this!

Understandable concern, but they do address it under "Design Guidance" on the Conventional Bike Lane page.

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2011, 09:12:40 PM
Understandable concern, but they do address it under "Design Guidance" on the Conventional Bike Lane page.

Unfortunately they copy the AASHTO minimum of 12 feet, which is not enough: http://mighkwilson.com/2009/04/when-professionals-disappoint-part-ii/ http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

Now if you are building a new street from scratch there is no excuse for having a door zone bike lane but sometimes such facilities are the only politically feasible way to add a bike lane to an existing street.  Another thing to consider is that bike lanes increase bicycle numbers, giving you the 'safety in numbers' effect.

Have you ever considered that perhaps a bike lane shouldn't be added if it would be unsafe? Or are you more concerned with getting people cycling even if it means killing them?

My other concern . . . have they actually gotten approval from the FHWA to do this stuff?  I know some of it has been approved--"sharrows", for instance, are in the 2009 MUTCD.  However, much of it seems to be stuff that's only gotten to the approved experiment stage. 

For instance, I've seen the green markings all over the place in Portland, but they're not MUTCD-compliant (neither with the 2009 version or the 2009 Oregon Supplement draft).  New York City, and the Vermont DOT were authorized to experiment with it, but New York's experiment expired in 2006, and I believe Vermont is the only jurisdiction currently authorized to use it. 

When my brother did his cross country trip on his bicycle, his biggest complaint was a lack of shoulders on some state and county roads he was on especially in Utah and South Dakota.  I always argue with him that cyclists need to be educated about the rules of the road when cycling.  I can't tell you how many times i have seen cyclists blow thru stop signs and stoplights.  If you are going to be that stupid, then you deserve to get hit with no compensation.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen motorists blow through crosswalks :)

Oh, I agree that cyclists should follow stop signs and red lights. But I won't stop at a stop sign if the coast is clear, instead treating it as a yield.

But if you were a car, regardless of having no traffic, you have to stop.  it is the same for bikes.

Yes, that's what the law says. I don't care, and my not caring doesn't affect anyone else. When you bike, do you come to a complete stop at every stop sign?

actually i do ever since my brother got a ticket in SD for not stopping at a stop sign with no traffic.

How do you stop? Do you put your foot down on the ground?

not completely. i put one foot down by dragging my toes.

I have been "doored" once.  I accept that it is conceptually possible to design bicycle lanes immediately adjacent to street parking in such a way that cyclists are able to use the lane without being within the door zone, but as a general rule I will cycle well outside the door zone--whether I am in the marked cycle lane or not--rather than try to do an engineering study to determine whether the cycle lane has been designed not to overlap the door zone.  As a general rule I prefer that cycle lanes not be marked next to street parking, to avoid giving motorists the false impression that a safe facility is being provided for cycling which cyclists are therefore obliged to use instead of cycling down the middle of the traffic lane.

Quote from: Zmapper on March 12, 2011, 11:27:49 PM
Now if you are building a new street from scratch there is no excuse for having a door zone bike lane but sometimes such facilities are the only politically feasible way to add a bike lane to an existing street.  Another thing to consider is that bike lanes increase bicycle numbers, giving you the 'safety in numbers' effect.

If the choice is door-zone bike lane or no bike lane, I would have to choose no bike lane. Let the bikers ride in the main lanes, outside of the door zone. Add "sharrows" if necessary to indicate safe lane placement for bicycles.

Here in Florida sidewalk riding is both legal and extremely common. I find myself using both depending on how the road is.

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 13, 2011, 01:21:40 PM
not completely. i put one foot down by dragging my toes.

Well, do you come to a complete stop? If so, that's your choice, and I respect it.


I, on the other hand, will treat a stop as a yield, meaning I'll still slow down, but not bother to stop if I can see all approaches and verify that nobody's coming. Similarly, I'll go 5-10 over the speed limit on a freeway, walk against a ped signal if the coast is clear, and smoke weed every day nope, not my thing.

I recently went for a short ride, passing four stop signs. The first was at the intersection of two 25 mph residential streets (it replaced a yield sign when a school was put in and it became part of a secondary exit from the subdivision). I slowed for a right turn, and continued on after checking for conflicts. The second was at the exit of the subdivision onto a two-lane collector. I was turning left, and came to a complete stop because there was traffic on the collector. The other two were turning right onto the collector, and I didn't come to a complete stop at either, though at one I slowed to let a pedestrian cross.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 13, 2011, 01:42:36 PMAs a general rule I prefer that cycle lanes not be marked next to street parking, to avoid giving motorists the false impression that a safe facility is being provided for cycling which cyclists are therefore obliged to use instead of cycling down the middle of the traffic lane.

I find this happens with any cycle facility to some extent - even ones that would qualify for the Warrington Cycle Campaign Facility of the Month (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm) (note that irony is used - these are bad facilities). And of course there are a few people that seem to think that cyclists have no place on the road at all.

I do get annoyed when a cyclist is on the sidewalk (illegal in the UK), when there's a perfectly good on-road cycle lane next to it and they are going in the same direction as the cycle lane is. Even if there's no cycle lane, it would take an extremely dangerous road to be less safe than narrow sidewalks.

Quote from: realjd on March 13, 2011, 01:48:35 PM
If the choice is door-zone bike lane or no bike lane, I would have to choose no bike lane. Let the bikers ride in the main lanes, outside of the door zone. Add "sharrows" if necessary to indicate safe lane placement for bicycles.

Agreed, as long as they don't place the sharrows in the door zone X-(

Quote from: realjd on March 13, 2011, 01:48:35 PM
Here in Florida sidewalk riding is both legal and extremely common. I find myself using both depending on how the road is.

Legal depending on where you are. Orlando city code prohibits it, but it's legal outside city limits. If I were cycling on a busy arterial at rush hour through a residential suburb, I'd probably use the sidewalk. Outside a residential area there are likely too many conflict-causing driveways for ther sidewalk to be both convenient and safe.

Quote from: NE2 on March 13, 2011, 02:03:54 PM
Legal depending on where you are. Orlando city code prohibits it, but it's legal outside city limits. If I were cycling on a busy arterial at rush hour through a residential suburb, I'd probably use the sidewalk. Outside a residential area there are likely too many conflict-causing driveways for ther sidewalk to be both convenient and safe.

At least here in Palm Bay, the sidewalks are extra wide to accommodate bikes. Whether they are safer or not depends on your attitude. Serious road bikers going quickly and trying to use the standard right-of-way rules on the sidewalk tend to get hit by cars in driveways (I see it at least twice a year at one particular driveway on the way to work). The trick is to assume that there is a yield sign at every driveway. I ride a mix of bike lanes and sidewalks and have never once had a close call. Sidewalks

The one area where sidewalk riding is more dangerous is at intersections. The bike lanes around here usually go between the right turn lane and the straight lane. If you try to cross with the sidewalk, there's a conflict with right turning traffic which often don't see you. I'll always use a bike lane to go straight if one is available.

That good info that sidewalk riding is illegal in Orlando. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever riding out there.

I just saw this video on David Hembrow's blog and I just had to share it here:


Also, for the dutch members here, how well does this work in practice? Do you like or dislike this setup?

Yuck. That seems like a parody of over-engineering.

The main thing to remember when looking at Dutch designs is that the culture is different. If you hit a cyclist, you're automatically presumed to be at fault. Motorists are willing to accept shortening their signal phase length for a reasonable cyclist phase on a sidepath.

If that design were done in the US, where "I didn't see him" is a valid defense, you'd have right hooks out the ass. Try to cross on foot at a busy suburban intersection and see how many right-turners (and left-turners) fail to yield. Now imagine you're on a bike, 2-3 times walking speed, and less maneuverable than a pedestrian.

The initial premise is wrong. The driver can see the bicycle well in advance before entering the right turn lane. The Dutch just arrived at a different solution. Could be some anti-American bias there.

However, the motorist might underestimate the speed of a cyclist he just passed, or might just not care that he's cutting off the cyclist. When there's heavy traffic, some of which may be turning right, it's safest to merge out of the bike lane into the rightmost straight lane.

Too many cyclists here have a militant "my bike has the same rights as a car dammit" mentality to make this work. They'd be pissed that they can't go through the intersection without slowing down, or that they have to make two crossings to make a left turn. I imagine the Dutch treat cycling more as a pragmatic means of transportation and less as a political statement.

Or maybe I just read too many cycling activist blogs.

Too many motorists have a militant "your bike has fewer rights than my car dammit" mentality :)

But in the Netherlands, at one of these intersections, bikes would have right-of-way, de jure and de facto, over turning traffic. Here no motorists would yield, and courts would fail to convict.

Quote from: NE2 on April 06, 2011, 11:18:49 PM
Too many motorists have a militant "your bike has fewer rights than my car dammit" mentality :)

But in the Netherlands, at one of these intersections, bikes would have right-of-way, de jure and de facto, over turning traffic. Here no motorists would yield, and courts would fail to convict.

Usually I find the opposite from the critical massholes.  Those morons ride bicycles through red lights, stop signs, and any other intersection with wanton disregard for anyone or anything (autos, peds, etc).  They even hold impromptu road rallies down city streets.  Sorry, but bikes need to follow the same laws as cars for consistency.  I'm more in favor of licensing bike riders once they hit 14-16 years of age and licensing bicycles so we can ticket these assholes finally.

What do the improper actions of some cyclists have to do with others' proper belief that they have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists? Do you look at a black guy and think "he's probably a rapist"? Or is your hatred reserved for those who prevent you from driving without a care in the world?

By the way, I assume you always stop to let pedestrians cross when they have right of way, including at an unmarked crosswalk. If I had to guess, I'd say that the percentage of motorists who do this is less than the percentage of cyclists who blow through a stop sign or red light without even yielding.

I'm going for a ride now. I'll try not to run over any motorists.

Quote from: NE2 on April 06, 2011, 11:18:49 PM
Too many motorists have a militant "your bike has fewer rights than my car dammit" mentality :)

But in the Netherlands, at one of these intersections, bikes would have right-of-way, de jure and de facto, over turning traffic. Here no motorists would yield, and courts would fail to convict.

I'll agree with that too. But there's a vocal minority of bikers who are very political about it (*cough*commuteorlando.com*cough*). Not that their info on vehicular bicycling safety is bad, they just seem to get a  certain pleasure when it comes to slowing down traffic. And they often forget that efficiency (i.e. not blocking traffic) is one of the two primary goals of a good transportation network along with safety.

I ride my bike to work once or twice a week, weather permitting - more often in the winter when the weather is nicer and there are no afternoon thunderstorms. But I still can't quite latch on to the political side of cycling.

And a bit OT, but WTF is up with those super tall bikes that hipsters have started riding?

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
I'll agree with that too. But there's a vocal minority of bikers who are very political about it (*cough*commuteorlando.com*cough*). Not that their info on vehicular bicycling safety is bad, they just seem to get a  certain pleasure when it comes to slowing down traffic.

I'm not sure where you're seeing that. There's certainly some "let them honk" when the alternative is sacrificing safety (it's called defensive driving when you're in a car), but (unless you're Kevin Love and have a fetish for Dutch designs) I haven't seen any delight in slowing down motorists for the purpose of slowing them down. The general feeling is more about peaceful coexistence:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/07/02/the-dreaded-busy-two-lane-road/

As for Critical Mass, I think this says it all: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/08/25/first-friday-ride/#comment-9964

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
And a bit OT, but WTF is up with those super tall bikes that hipsters have started riding?

I'm a bit of a lone wolf socially, and live in a part of the county without much cycling, so can't help there. Have tall bikes (I assume you don't mean penny farthings) replaced fixed gears as the hipster conveyance of choice?

Commute Orlando isn't all bad. They do have some excellent road biking safety information. But they also post articles like this one:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/03/23/not-so-free-parking/

My main gripe is their view that cities are "unlivable" and "unhuman" with cars (their words). And they also do things like have a protest ride to the local AAA office, but then refuse to use the perfectly good bike path next to the road on the way there.

As for tall bikes, they haven't replaced fixies as the hipster ride of choice - and I don't see them much here in CFL - but I've been seeing more and more of them when I travel to big cities.

I wonder what those activists would do here?

Nashville has a few token bike lanes and paths, but no network.  Plus with the way people drive, biking on a public highway is literally taking your life in your hands.  And, in more rural areas, many of the back roads are narrow and have no shoulders at all.

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Commute Orlando isn't all bad. They do have some excellent road biking safety information. But they also post articles like this one:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/03/23/not-so-free-parking/

The point is that using land for parking reduces density, which leads to increased trip times.

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
My main gripe is their view that cities are "unlivable" and "unhuman" with cars (their words).

I would tend to agree that cities designed around the car are crap.

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
And they also do things like have a protest ride to the local AAA office, but then refuse to use the perfectly good bike path next to the road on the way there.

You mean this path (http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&ll=28.770325,-81.359108&spn=0.003908,0.0103&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=28.770317,-81.359088&panoid=trjSIO2Py1QjbSkVPMzUBA&cbp=12,124.09,,0,-1.78) that doesn't provide access to AAA Drive (behind the camera)?

Ok, I'll give you the trail argument :) I didn't look at it that closely; I pulled that fact from the media - probably an Orlando Sentinel blog or something.

Why do they assume that high density, walkable, cities are more "livable" than more suburban, sprawly cities like Orlando or Los Angeles? Sure, they're not Manhattan, or San Francisco, or DC, or London, or any other super high density metropolis, but I'd argue that suburbia is just as "livable" and yields just as high of a quality of life, if not higher, than a true city. Is it as environmentally friendly? Probably not. But that's not what we're debating.

But I'm the kind of guy who couldn't stand living in a dense city. My own personal version of hell would be having a tiny apartment in Manhattan. I like quiet, privacy, and space. My dream house includes at least  5 acres with lots of trees. I definitely enjoy visiting cities, but I've yet to find one I'd like to live in.

I suspect that we both just look for different things in a place to live.

now what can we do to get them to stop running four-way stops?  

the fact that he was grinning at me like an idiot, knowing full well that he made me slam on the brakes... well, I'm so sorry, asshole, that I assumed you had good sense and an instinct of self-preservation.

maybe I should've just held off on the brakes and creamed the little piece of shit.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2011, 12:09:21 AM
maybe I should've just held off on the brakes and creamed the little piece of shit.

Only in America is violence against other road users who dare to travel by other modes accepted, tolerated, and encouraged.

But yeah, I almost always come to a complete stop at stop signs. The exceptions are quiet suburban streets where a yield sign should have been used and if I am making a right turn onto a road with a bike lane. For the latter if you think about it the only traffic I could conflict with are pedestrians and bicyclists coming from the other directions.

Here is another thing to consider. A bike travelling at 10mph that slows to 5 mph for a stop sign looks like he barely slowed down. A car travelling at 25 mph that slows to 5 mph looks like he slowed to a speed less than the bicyclist. Even though they both slowed to the same speed they were travelling at different speeds before, thus playing a trick on your mind.

To bring this thread which was originally about bicyclists and road design back on topic I have a question. Why did Portland use blue instead of red for their colored bike lane tests? I heard something about red being used for another purpose but that doesn't explain why NYC used red for their bus lane tests.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 09, 2011, 12:28:02 AM
Only in America is violence against other road users who dare to travel by other modes accepted, tolerated, and encouraged.

nothing to do with alternate means of transportation. I walk about 20-30 miles a week, and take the bus to work about 75% of the time.

my complaint was about the fact that not only did he blatantly disregard the laws of traffic, but then he threw me a condescending smile, knowing that he'd made my day just a bit more frazzled, that I had to slam on the brakes, swerve, and miss him only by about two feet.

it's the social equivalent of Nelson Muntz punching you in the face and doing his patented point and laugh.

QuoteBut yeah, I almost always come to a complete stop at stop signs. The exceptions are quiet suburban streets where a yield sign should have been used and if I am making a right turn onto a road with a bike lane. For the latter if you think about it the only traffic I could conflict with are pedestrians and bicyclists coming from the other directions.

I was going straight through.  he was coming from my right and going straight through.  I was ahead of him at the sign by a good 1.5-2 seconds - i.e. a clear indication that he should stop and give way, as that is how four-way stops work.  He kept going, at maybe 15mph, and upon my acceleration (and, given my head start, my position halfway across the intersection) I noticed that he was way ahead of where his position should've been, had he stopped like a normal person.

QuoteHere is another thing to consider. A bike travelling at 10mph that slows to 5 mph for a stop sign looks like he barely slowed down. A car travelling at 25 mph that slows to 5 mph looks like he slowed to a speed less than the bicyclist. Even though they both slowed to the same speed they were travelling at different speeds before, thus playing a trick on your mind.

I dunno what the word "stop" means in your space-time continuum, but here I slow down to 0 mph.

Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2011, 09:33:58 PM

Quote from: realjd on April 08, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
My main gripe is their view that cities are "unlivable" and "unhuman" with cars (their words).

I would tend to agree that cities designed around the car are crap.

To me, all cities are "unlivable" and "unhuman."

My main point is that what is a "livable" city is a highly subjective opinion.

Similar to what realjd, I like more open surroundings.  My house sits on just under 3 acres of land.

it is not the city's design that is unlivable and unhuman.  it is the species in general.  always have to isolate the root cause.

there are no bad designs.  just bad designers.

Quote from: Zmapper on April 09, 2011, 12:28:02 AM
To bring this thread which was originally about bicyclists and road design back on topic I have a question. Why did Portland use blue instead of red for their colored bike lane tests? I heard something about red being used for another purpose but that doesn't explain why NYC used red for their bus lane tests.

Actually, Portland's using green.  And they don't have FHWA permission to do so--only the Vermont DOT is currently authorized to experiment with colored paint on bike lanes.  I've thought about contacting the FHWA about it.

Portland originally used blue in their first experiments. They had to switch to green because FHWA said that blue was for handicapped parking.

Here is the original study from 1999
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=58842&c=34772

A new a interim appproval was just issued allowing green for bike lanes

April 15, 2011 – Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14)

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/ia14grnpmbiketlanes.pdf

Well somehow the people that made the video that I posted found this forum and have made a reply.

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/05/state-of-art-bike-way-design-further.html

Ok, I changed the thread title into a more general "Bicycles and Road Design" to 1. attract members that are not in the United States and 2. make it less specific about the NACTO guide.

Bleh. I'll probably be avoiding this thread.

Idaho has had the Idaho Stop law in effect since 82, which allows you to not come to a complete stop if there's no traffic. If you have the right of way, you can roll through. If you've ever ridden a bike in traffic (I use one to commute to school), it's pretty clear that a cyclist can slow to one or two miles an hour without putting their feet on the ground and have ample time to decide if the coast is clear. If you don't have the right of way you still have to stop.

Cars do that all the time too but 1 MPH on a bike feels like moving while 1 MPH in a car feels like being stopped.

Here's a blog post (http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/idaho-stop-law-faq-13387) that advocates it from a Portland OR group. The key line:

QuoteWhile some folks may always view cyclists negatively, changing the law would eliminate the argument that cyclists are always breaking the law when they are actually acting in a very rational manner.

I do think that requiring bike registration is important, and I do think you should have to have a driver's license to ride a bike on a public roadway and I do think that bikes should be just as subject to getting a ticket as cars. Allowing minor concessions like the Idaho Stop isn't the end all be all- cars and bikes just need to drive like they're aware the other exists and not freak out when they see the other kind of vehicle on the road. Forcing bikers to somehow behave more predictably would help, but just like with drivers of cars it's really just a few bad apples that give cyclists a bad name. Those people will eventually be hit by a car and hopefully never bike again.

I am not complaining about vehicles (car or bicycle) just slowing down to 1-2mph and assessing the situation before proceeding - the behavior which I refer to is just not slowing down at all, and roaring through an intersection doing about 15mph.

What the Idaho stop law shows us is that most stop signs are unnecessary and could safely be replaced by yield signs or no signs at all. There is absolutely no reason that the terminating road of a T intersection in a residential suburban neighborhood has to have a stop sign.

Quote from: Zmapper on May 22, 2011, 09:00:29 PM
most stop signs are unnecessary

you've got that right.  I've always maintained that having a four-way stop on the primary through route is poor design.  Having multiple consecutive ones, block after block, is just beyond the pale. 

Quotethe behavior which I refer to is just not slowing down at all, and roaring through an intersection doing about 15mph.

And those people will hopefully be hit by a car and die

Quote from: corco on May 22, 2011, 09:08:34 PM


And those people will hopefully be hit by a car and die

hopefully while they are pulling their shit-eating "that's right, I just got away with it" grin.

nothing like having to slam on the brakes because some idiot of a bicyclist is busy disobeying traffic control devices.

even worse is watching them give you their conceited smirk as they note that they had not had to slow down a single bit, despite the fact that they had nowhere near right of way. 

Quote from: corco on May 22, 2011, 08:38:09 PMI do think that requiring bike registration is important, and I do think you should have to have a driver's license to ride a bike on a public roadway and I do think that bikes should be just as subject to getting a ticket as cars.

My questions:  do you bike?  If so, how much?  Are you a cycle commuter?

Yes, I was biking an 8 mile round trip 3 days a week during the school year because it's the most cost efficient method of getting to class since parking is insanely expensive on campus. I'm not doing that now that it's summer and my job is easier to drive to, but once school resumes I'll be biking again.

My commute is about 15% major arterials with a narrow bike lane on the side, 35% back streets off the main grid, and 50% a shared bikeway- essentially it used to be a 4 lane road but they turned two of the lanes into bike lanes so the bike lanes are as wide as travel lanes and cars can't turn right on red to avoid the right hook. The bikeway does require me to go through one 4-way stop that is shared with cars.

Some of the things I have seen other cyclists do are just baffling- I've almost gotten killed by other cyclists who go into the travel lane for cars to pass other bikes and then whip around to turn right- I almost got right hooked by another bike a couple weeks ago!

Thanks for the replies.  I asked partly because I wondered if your suggestions of compulsory bicycle registration and licensure of bicycle riders had been filtered through firsthand experience as a regular bicycle user.

I was a regular bicycle commuter (2 3/4 mile round trip at least once a day seven days a week, plus bicycling for errands, etc.) for over a decade, during which time I saw my own share of stupid stuff and had three bicycles stolen, not one of which was recovered.  I had a driver's license but no formal training as a cyclist when I started commuting and took about three years to climb a learning curve (fortunately not steep) in terms of hazard perception.

While I am not categorically against compulsory registration and licensing, I have great skepticism as to whether those policies could work or even whether we have the institutions or other cultural furniture required to make them work.  The problem with cycle licensing, at least in the Anglophone world, is that cycles are highly fungible.  You can go to Wal-Mart or any large discounter and buy your own bicycle, or make your own from spare parts.  Cycles would have to become a good deal less accessible than that, and there would need to be a higher degree of control of the market for cycling-related goods and services, in order for licensing and registration to accomplish for cycles what we expect it to do in the case of cars--make it difficult for unqualified cyclists to ride, provide a framework for progressive learning, enable easy recovery of stolen cycles, frustrate cloning or falsification of licensing and registration data, etc.  There would also need to be more aggressive policing of cyclists and that in turn would mean changes in equipment and training for largely car-borne police departments.

We don't even manufacture cycles with standardized mounting brackets for license plates.

In the US cycling is such a de minimis activity that localities have difficulty keeping voluntary cycle registration schemes going.  Wichita had one when I was growing up but it has long since lapsed.  I struggle to see compulsory registration, let alone licensing, happening even in the established Anglophone cycling meccas.  The UK has a long tradition of child cycle proficiency training but it has been dying out because (IIRC) it is not part of the mandated national curriculum, whose escalating test requirements have been driving out other subject matter in schools.

BTW, cyclists are still subject to the same rules of the road as cars (with some exceptions--e.g., cyclists are not subject to speed limits in the UK), and occasionally they are enforced.  I once received a £30 fixed penalty in Oxford for running a red light.  This is the same fine that would be applied to a car driver for the same offense, but I escaped license endorsement (three points) since I was on a bike rather than a car.  The police officers who pulled me over told me that they had followed me through three red lights (one of which was a left turn and counted against me since there is no such thing as a "free left" in the UK to compare with right turn on red in the US), so I had in effect received a three-for-one deal.  (One of the reds was at a vacant pedestrian crossing, while the third was at a tee intersection with an all-red pedestrian phase which was not being used by any pedestrians when I passed through.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 22, 2011, 11:52:39 PM
BTW, cyclists are still subject to the same rules of the road as cars (with some exceptions--e.g., cyclists are not subject to speed limits in the UK)

that reminds me of the guy who passed me, heading down the last of the Angeles Crest Highway to Foothill Blvd - about an 8% downgrade.  I was doing about 60, and a bicyclist passed me. 

:-o

About 8 hours ago, the first bike box was installed in Fort Collins at the intersection of Plum and Shields. I went out there tonight and had a look myself.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3038%2F5831040202_9d0bfd273a_b.jpg&hash=013091dc10fabcabd036332b7ae19b8a257febb1)
By Zmapper on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/52377790@N03/5831040202/

I sat through about 2 light cycles and noticed that nobody knew that you couldn't turn right on red there anymore. The city needs to do a bit more public outreach for sure.

how does that work?  under what circumstances is the bicyclist expected to occupy the main travel lane that is striped green all the way to the center?

The cyclist is allowed to move to the front of the vehicle queue and move to the center when the light is red. When the light is green the cyclist is to proceed like normal.

Quote from: Zmapper on June 13, 2011, 10:53:50 PM
The cyclist is allowed to move to the front of the vehicle queue and move to the center when the light is red. When the light is green the cyclist is to proceed like normal.

does that work?  I'm imagining the bicyclist holding up the cars.

It has only been 9 hours since it was installed and I didn't see another cyclist while I was there. So we will have to wait and see.

If they tried that here, I doubt anyone would stop before the box. I imagine most people would still stop midway into the crosswalk, completely blocking the "bike box".

what's the speed limit on that road?  feels like a 30 or so, which might imply a gradual enough acceleration off the line that the bicyclist has ample time to move to the side (which, I am thinking, by law they have to do)

Not sure actually. It is probably either 25 or 30. I am leaning towards 25.

The purpose of a bike box is to mitigate the effect of bad drivers who fail to look right before turning right (a "right hook" crash). This type of crash usually occurs when a cyclist is riding to the right of the normal traffic flow, and a good cyclist knows to merge into the center of the main lane at an intersection where a lot of traffic is turning right. (By the way, in Florida, all vehicles are supposed to merge into the bike lane to turn right, but this rarely happens - another example of motorists not following the rules of the road :spin:)

The primary danger would seem to be the light turning green as a cyclist is entering the box.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 12:12:05 AM
the bicyclist has ample time to move to the side (which, I am thinking, by law they have to do)

Depends on whether that's a bike lane across the intersection and whether the state has a mandatory bike lane law. If it's not a bike lane, the main lane isn't wide enough for a bike and car/truck side-by-side, so there's no requirement to move to the right. This of course means that cars and bikes are locked in an endless struggle of passing, which again would be avoided by simply merging left into the main lane behind any cars that are already there.

Colorado doesn't have a mandatory bike lane law but they do have a 'keep right as far as practicable as judged by the cyclist'. And yes, there is a bike lane on the downstream road.

Remember that not every cyclist has as much training or experience as you, and may do some dickish and dumb maneuvers. There is a reason Fort Collins has a ~9 bike mode split vs ~0.16 for Dallas, a city that is often cited as the vehicular cycling best city. It wouldn't have something to do with the fact that 95% of the arterial streets have a bike lane now, would it.  ;-)

I doubt it's because Fort Collins is a small college town, while Dallas is a huge city...

The 9% figure only counts commuting adults that filled out the ACS. So the college town effect is partially mitigated. Besides, why would we put bike lanes on the arterial streets 7 miles from the university? Probably not so the college students could use them.

Also, the population of Fort Collins is at 140,000 and quickly rising. There is more separation between the town and university today than before.

QuoteDallas, a city that is often cited as the vehicular cycling best city

News to me.  In my experience, that distinction has bantered back and forth over the past decade between Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN.

Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2011, 06:47:09 AM

QuoteDallas, a city that is often cited as the vehicular cycling best city

News to me.  In my experience, that distinction has bantered back and forth over the past decade between Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN.

"Vehicular cycling" is one term used for cyclists who believe it's important to be visible and predictable, and hence act like a normal vehicle driver.

Bike boxes are dumb IMO. They can ruin traffic flow, particularly if there are a large number of RTOR movements. And they just result in a game of leapfrog with bicycles. I agree with NE2, proper cycling technique (i.e. moving into the main travel lane if right turn movements are allowed from it) is much better for everyone.

Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2011, 12:53:32 AM
(By the way, in Florida, all vehicles are supposed to merge into the bike lane to turn right, but this rarely happens - another example of motorists not following the rules of the road :spin:)

I've been yelled at several times by bikers for doing this. They tell me to stop blocking the bike lane, or to get my car out off their lane. It's almost like they want to be right-hooked. And yes, I rarely see anyone else merge into the bike lane to turn right, unless it's wide enough they can use it as a right turn lane and hop in front of a few stopped cars at a light (as an aside, I like the way California widens the bike lanes at intersections intentionally to allow this).

Of course around here, sidewalk riding is so ingrained into the cycling culture at even if a bike lane is provided, most casual cyclists will still use the sidewalk instead.

Is Florida law different in that vehicles are supposed to merge into the bike lane to turn right?  In other jurisdictions I'm familiar with, vehicles are NOT allowed to merge into the bike lane.

Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2011, 10:34:45 AM
Is Florida law different in that vehicles are supposed to merge into the bike lane to turn right?  In other jurisdictions I'm familiar with, vehicles are NOT allowed to merge into the bike lane.

The law itself may be ambiguous but FDOT interprets it this way: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_bikeLaws3.shtm#Method%20of%20making%20a%20right%20turn

Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2011, 10:34:45 AM
Is Florida law different in that vehicles are supposed to merge into the bike lane to turn right?  In other jurisdictions I'm familiar with, vehicles are NOT allowed to merge into the bike lane.

It's not like they ticket if you don't, but it's good practice for safety reasons. The goal is to prevent a right turn in front of a cyclist, causing him/her to hit your door (a "right hook" accident). Most of that can be avoided by just being aware as a driver and as a biker, but moving right to block the bike lane will prevent the biker from sneaking up beside you in the bike lane. That's why you'll often find the bike lane line dotted right before an intersection without a dedicated right turn lane. And in some places like California they'll often make the bike lane widen out a bit to double as a de facto right turn lane so turning cars can jump the queue.

I would imagine the Right Hook is more often found at uncontrolled intersections, where the driver exits from the main road onto the side street without stopping, and cuts off a bicyclist traveling at full speed.

at a signal, the bicyclist is supposed to be stopped on red and therefore not likely to be cut off.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
I would imagine the Right Hook is more often found at uncontrolled intersections, where the driver exits from the main road onto the side street without stopping, and cuts off a bicyclist traveling at full speed.

at a signal, the bicyclist is supposed to be stopped on red and therefore not likely to be cut off.

While I agree with you that it is more likely at an uncontrolled intersection, the dynamic when the light is green is pretty much the same.

For example, a cyclist is headed east on Main St. at 20mph and is staying in the bike lane.  A motorist going 30 overtakes the bicyclist just before reaching the intersection where he wants to turn.  The driver moves to the right and turns.

WHAM!

Right hook.

______________________

On a different vein, one irritation for me and probably so for the bicyclists as well are these sub-standard narrow country roads here in Tennessee.  Cyclists (serious ones with the helmets, special pants, and such) go bicycling along Carter's Creek Pike and Leiper's Creek Road.  Even when the cyclists are as far to the right as they can be.  It is unsafe to pass them unless the opposite direction is clear as you must cross well over the center line to pass them.  Nothing illegal here just mutually frustrating.  Now, some of these people are yo-yos who ride side by side and stay that way even when cars overtake.  That is both dangerous and illegal in this state.

The only solution here would be for some dedicated bike paths.  But, Tennessee doesn't have as large an amount of abandoned railroad trackage that states like Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania have.  Therefore, trails would have to be built from scratch.

Okay, I've blown off some steam now...

Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2011, 12:34:19 PM
While I agree with you that it is more likely at an uncontrolled intersection, the dynamic when the light is green is pretty much the same.

how does the bike box solve the problem?

Quote from: NE2The purpose of a bike box is to mitigate the effect of bad drivers who fail to look right before turning right (a "right hook" crash). This type of crash usually occurs when a cyclist is riding to the right of the normal traffic flow, and a good cyclist knows to merge into the center of the main lane at an intersection where a lot of traffic is turning right.

the good cyclist would only do so on red, not on green.  attempting to merge into traffic that is going much faster than you is a recipe for disaster.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 12:48:00 PM

Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2011, 12:34:19 PM
While I agree with you that it is more likely at an uncontrolled intersection, the dynamic when the light is green is pretty much the same.

how does the bike box solve the problem?

My guess is that the bike box only helps the red light situation.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
I would imagine the Right Hook is more often found at uncontrolled intersections, where the driver exits from the main road onto the side street without stopping, and cuts off a bicyclist traveling at full speed.

at a signal, the bicyclist is supposed to be stopped on red and therefore not likely to be cut off.

Quote from: mightyace on June 14, 2011, 12:49:39 PM
My guess is that the bike box only helps the red light situation.

Right hook crashes are a big problem, like you said, at uncontrolled intersections, driveways, and the like. But they also exist at full stop lights. Take the case where there is a bike lane and the right-most traffic lane is an option lane for straight or right turn movement. The bike lane will be to the right of the turn lane in this case. There will be a line of cars waiting at the light but the biker will filter to the front of the bike lane, to the right of the turning cars. When the light turns green the biker goes forward (to the right of the car), the car starts a right turn, and they crash. The car never had a chance to see the biker because he was stopped in the blind spot on the drivers less visible side.

Merging into traffic lanes isn't that hard, even on a faster road. Traffic tends to travel in clumps due to signal phasing. Bikes usually go slow enough relative to traffic that it isn't hard to merge in between traffic clumps.

Quote from: realjd on June 14, 2011, 02:07:13 PM
When the light turns green the biker goes forward (to the right of the car), the car starts a right turn, and they crash. The car never had a chance to see the biker because he was stopped in the blind spot on the drivers less visible side.

that's the sort of thing the car's driver should be noticing.  the blind spot isn't infinitely long - a glance into the right side mirror should reveal the bicyclist approaching.

QuoteMerging into traffic lanes isn't that hard, even on a faster road. Traffic tends to travel in clumps due to signal phasing. Bikes usually go slow enough relative to traffic that it isn't hard to merge in between traffic clumps.

the problem is, then you suddenly have a bicyclist doing 15 in the same lane where previously traffic was doing 35.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 03:50:11 PM
that's the sort of thing the car's driver should be noticing.  the blind spot isn't infinitely long - a glance into the right side mirror should reveal the bicyclist approaching.

Agreed. And a biker should know better also. Bike boxes seem like a solution looking for a problem IMO.

Quote
the problem is, then you suddenly have a bicyclist doing 15 in the same lane where previously traffic was doing 35.

Which is the goal from a vehicular cycling perspective. It places the bike in a location that is most visible to a driver. Bikes getting hit from behind in traffic are almost unheard of. And the gaps I'm talking about aren't a few car lengths long; at least here in suburb-land, even during rush-hour you can often be biking along a busy road for several minutes at a time with no traffic due to the way the lights cycle. That's the time to move over and take the lane.

Commute Orlando has some good animations and articles about vehicular cycling. It's worth a look. Just be warned - they can be a bit preachy at times: http://commuteorlando.com

Now me personally, if presented with an intersection like we're discussing, I'll usually ride on the sidewalk and cross with the pedestrian signals. There are big debates on sidewalk riding, but it's extremely common around here and drivers expect it. But I'm usually biking casually, not out in my spandex on a $4,000 road bike trying for a 4 hour century or something. Those guys move much too fast for the sidewalk. I'm moving at a slow enough pace that I'm able to yield at every driveway. And bikes far outnumber actual pedestrians on the sidewalks.

Quote from: realjd on June 14, 2011, 04:58:42 PM

Which is the goal from a vehicular cycling perspective. It places the bike in a location that is most visible to a driver. Bikes getting hit from behind in traffic are almost unheard of. And the gaps I'm talking about aren't a few car lengths long; at least here in suburb-land, even during rush-hour you can often be biking along a busy road for several minutes at a time with no traffic due to the way the lights cycle. That's the time to move over and take the lane.

gotcha.  yeah, I walk home along a major arterial boulevard and have to cross it once somewhere in a 5 mile interval.  despite it being nasty traffic from a vehicular perspective, there is invariably two or three points during the commute where I can cross 6 lanes of traffic without any danger because there is, simply, nobody coming in either direction.

Quote from: NE2 on June 14, 2011, 07:23:06 AM

Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2011, 06:47:09 AM

QuoteDallas, a city that is often cited as the vehicular cycling best city

News to me.  In my experience, that distinction has bantered back and forth over the past decade between Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN.

"Vehicular cycling" is one term used for cyclists who believe it's important to be visible and predictable, and hence act like a normal vehicle driver.

I picked Dallas because it was the city IIRC that had the bike coordinator famously (or infamously) rip out all the on street bike lanes. He preached vehicular cycling extensively. Then he was fired.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 03:50:11 PM

Quote from: realjd on June 14, 2011, 02:07:13 PM
When the light turns green the biker goes forward (to the right of the car), the car starts a right turn, and they crash. The car never had a chance to see the biker because he was stopped in the blind spot on the drivers less visible side.

that's the sort of thing the car's driver should be noticing.

Then he goes to court and says "I didn't see him" and the jury lets him off because they're all bad drivers too.

Quote from: NE2 on June 16, 2011, 12:35:08 AM
Then he goes to court and says "I didn't see him" and the jury lets him off because they're all bad drivers too.

I just wonder why, despite our national obsession with vehicular safety, we tolerate blind spots.

one of my favorite aftermarket options* on the '89 Escort I used to own was a pair of fisheye mirrors glued to each standard rectilinear side mirror.  the only blind spots were so close to the vehicle as to be mathematically impossible - i.e. within 3 inches of the rear hatch, or inside the perimeter of the rear bumper!

* it was the only aftermarket option.  it was a good one.

Because most people seem to be too dumb to use mirrors so driver's ed instructors need a reason to make people turn their heads.

Quote from: deanej on June 16, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
Because most people seem to be too dumb to use mirrors so driver's ed instructors need a reason to make people turn their heads.

what incentive do we have to allow these morons to pass their driver's test?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 16, 2011, 12:46:59 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 16, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
Because most people seem to be too dumb to use mirrors so driver's ed instructors need a reason to make people turn their heads.

what incentive do we have to allow these morons to pass their driver's test?

These morons vote and apparently there's more of them than of us.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 16, 2011, 01:47:31 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 16, 2011, 12:35:08 AM
Then he goes to court and says "I didn't see him" and the jury lets him off because they're all bad drivers too.

I just wonder why, despite our national obsession with vehicular safety, we tolerate blind spots.

one of my favorite aftermarket options* on the '89 Escort I used to own was a pair of fisheye mirrors glued to each standard rectilinear side mirror.  the only blind spots were so close to the vehicle as to be mathematically impossible - i.e. within 3 inches of the rear hatch, or inside the perimeter of the rear bumper!

* it was the only aftermarket option.  it was a good one.

Despite being elephant-sized, my 1990 Chevy G20 van has relatively good visibility.  When I have the side mirrors adjusted properly, my blind spots are practically non-existent.  And, the mirrors are simply rectilinear.  However, they are 2-3 times the size of your average passenger car side mirror.

Quote from: mightyace on June 16, 2011, 01:23:54 PM

These morons vote and apparently there's more of them than of us.

standards for driver's licenses should certainly not be put up for a vote.  do people also vote on the exact layouts of power plants to be built?  of course not, because they do not have the competence to do so in an intelligent fashion. 

QuoteDespite being elephant-sized, my 1990 Chevy G20 van has relatively good visibility.  When I have the side mirrors adjusted properly, my blind spots are practically non-existent.  And, they are simply rectilinear.  However, they are 2-3 times the size of your average passenger car side mirror.

yep, somehow you have to get the surface area in there - whether by size or curvature.

What about the Lincoln Mark VIII with the disappearing car door. This door design would nearly eliminate bicycle incidents of dooring because there is no door to run into.  :-P



So someday we could have cars with no blind spots and no doors to run into. All that is left to do is reform driver behavior.  :clap:

My dad stuck those "fisheye" mirrors (he called those "spot mirrors") so quickly on every car that he owned, to the point where when I was a kid just assumed that they came standard. When I bought my first car last summer I was surprised to find them missing! They're not that expensive; only a few dollars.

I, too, have those blind spot mirrors. I strongly believe that they should be required by law.

You guys are missing one of the other important purposes of a bike box, which is that it lets a cyclist who's turning left at the intersection a chance to get into the proper lane when there is a queue of vehicles waiting at the light.  They are also a good way to transition from a bike lane to a shared lane.

even bikes going straight on benefit from moving to the middle at bike boxes - sure they get in the way of cars/trucks a little bit, but they also don't get as easily cut up by right (or left in Britain, Ireland, Japan, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malta, etc) turning vehicles with them. I'm a big fan of 'Advanced Stop Lines', speaking as a former city cyclist who made a lot of use of them - it was less about passing the traffic as giving you the space to accelerate from a standing start, and also allowing you to place yourself in the correct place for where you wanted to go. The place I used them the most was at a manditory left turn (in a drive-on-left country), save buses, bikes and taxis, so I wanted to be in the middle of the lane, with room to move forward and left (the left to allow being overtaken by the buses behind me), rather than on the left and conflicting with traffic turning across me as I went straight on.

But the main thing that needs to happen is the cyclists as well as the motorists have to be educated.  Until i see all cyclist actually obeying stop signs and red lights, I will continue to harp on this.  Once again, while working in Chicago yesterday, EVERY single cyclist i saw blew threw the stop signs.  If you want equal share of the road, to which i have no problem SHARING, obey the damn traffic signs.  Cyclists are a part of traffic.  I had several cyclists yesterday blow thru stop signs in front of me when it was MY turn to proceed.  If I was not paying attention to them, they would have been hit.  Stupid (not all cyclists are stupid) cyclists piss me off more than stupid pedestrians. ok I'm off my box.

Stupid motorists piss off cyclists and pedestrians too.  Speeding, passing too close, honking, illegal turns, thinking they own the whole road, I can go on and on.  Rolling through stop signs and running red lights aren't activities limited only to cyclists.  Yes, there are cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road, but there are plenty more motorists who do it too.  Stupid cyclists and pedestrians don't generally endanger other people's lives with their stupidity, but stupid motorists do.  Why do they get a pass? 

On a more theoretical basis, one has to examine why certain laws tend to be violated by various users.  Jaywalking for instance tends to happen when there's insufficient facilities for pedestrians to cross the street.  Stop signs are run when they don't make sense.  There's plenty of posts around the forum about how stop signs are misused as speed control devices, same for speed limits.  When the conditions don't warrant a stop sign (good visibility and low or no cross-traffic) then cars and bikes are likely to roll through them. 

For bikes in particular, there's conflicting priorities on the road.  Cyclists don't want to hold up traffic behind them, but in nearly every situation they're going slower than motor vehicles.  To come to a full stop at every stop sign makes that situation worse since stopping itself causes additional delay, but it tires out the cyclist a lot more as well.  Pushing yellow-red lights allows cyclists to drop cars that are stuck behind them.  Also, since cyclists sit higher and farther forward than cars and trucks, they can see if the intersection is clear and if it's safe to proceed which really doesn't require a full stop.  Cycling is all about using energy efficiently, and the way roads and intersections are signed and signaled does the opposite.  Having a stop sign every block doesn't make you or your car more "tired," but it does hurt your fuel economy a lot.  For a cyclist however, all that stopping and accelerating is a significant burden.

Now I have witnessed some cyclists wander through red lights blatantly and do other dangerous things, but again, it's not limited just to cyclists.  Even so, some states have slightly different laws for bikes than for motor vehicles which takes into consideration that human-powered vehicles have somewhat different needs.  I can't remember where exactly, but there are some places (Idaho?) where cyclists are by law allowed to treat stop signs as yields.  Some states also allow any vehicle to run red lights at night after coming to a complete stop and checking that the cross street is clear.  That's mainly geared towards motorcycles who can't trip the signal sensor, but it applies for bicycles too.  These sorts of flexible laws are appropriate when considering different road users, and more states should adopt them.  One size fits all rules of the road simply don't work for everyone.

One last thing to consider, some cyclists take the view that the laws and design of roads and cities have been so completely anti-anything-but-cars for so long, that a little civil disobedience is justified in taking back some of the rights of cyclists that have been so thoroughly marginalized.  It's sort of like "why should I play by your rules when the rules are unfair to me in the first place?"  Now I'm not trying to advocate such a position, but I hope you can understand where it comes from. 

Quote from: jjakucyk on July 03, 2011, 11:29:27 AMJaywalking for instance tends to happen when there's insufficient facilities for pedestrians to cross the street.

This is a small point, but in UVC direct adopters the offense of jaywalking exists only on lengths of street where each consecutive street intersection is signalized--generally in downtown business districts.  In all other locations it is perfectly legal to cross midblock, otherwise than at a marked crosswalk, though this is something that needs to be done carefully because the pedestrian does not have priority over vehicular traffic at such locations.

Worth pointing out that the bike boxes in Southampton were often ignored, with motor vehicles entering - the offenders being, nearly always, professional drivers (buses, taxis) so education doesn't necessarily help.

Bike boxes, because they make it easier for the cyclist to stop at the red and then go on green without getting the way of motor vehicles or being cut up by right turning traffic (in America, France, etc), ought to be brought in - not to give bikes a privileged status, but to make it easier and safer to obey traffic signals. You often get cyclists, at signallised junctions this side of the pond, use the cross walk and the other space between the stop line and the actual junction and then treat it like a yield (as they are past the light) - why not give them a space where they can legally do that and cycle safer?

The problem with bikes is that they aren't cars, but they aren't pedestrians either - in terms of speed they are somewhere between the two. In the UK they try and treat bikes like pedestrians, with lots of shared-use facilities, but give them the rules of the road as if they were cars and people find it odd when they behave like pedestrians. For instance at a Toucan (two-can, ie cycles and pedestrians) crossing, pedestrians, like any signallised crossing, don't have to wait for the green man to cross (having looked both ways and checked it's safe to cross - it's encouraged for pedestrians to wait and get right of way and most of the time you see crossing on a red man is in the inter-green period where traffic has stopped but the green man hasn't appeared yet) but bikes legally have to treat the red man like a stop light and wait for the green light in what must be the least kept to rule of the road.

Your missing my point JJ. What i am saying is that i see just as many violations with cyclists as i do drivers.  Believe me, if i had my way, half the drivers in Illinois would not have a license. But just because there are far more stupid drivers than cyclists doesn't condone a cyclist running a 4 way stop sign on a major street (Clark St) in Chicago.  The sign is there for a reason. Motorist and cyclists alike need to obey a stop sign. The cyclists have their bike lanes on a fair amount of streets here. But part of sharing the road like so many cyclists want, which i personally am fine with, is not running stops whether at a light or a sign. And don't think that i am singling out the cyclists alone.  Last weekend, i had a green arrow on a left turn and 3 peds went across against a don't walk.  That was on Michigan Ave which has a real short arrow. I yelled at the pedestrians and they said "Who the hell are you?" I said, "I am the guy who has the right of way currently." The told me to F*** off.
Tiring out a cyclist is not high on my list of concerns when they feel the "rules" don't apply to them too. 
I would be fine with cyclists treating stop signs as yields when it is warrented.  But when there is other traffic at the intersection, they don't care and blow thru anyway. 
As far as you "playing" by the rules, most motorists can and have been reasonable with cyclists as far as giving them room to not fear getting hit with parallel traffic.  All I want from cyclists is to obey a damn stop sign when the traffic is there to warrant it.  "Rebeling because the rules are unfair" is no justification for a cyclist to blow the stops.
I hope you don't take offense to what i have said, JJ.

BTW, as a professional driver, a chauffeur, I hate the taxicabs far more than the cyclists because they are far more reckless.  You can't have some of these cabbies from other countries bringing in their driving culture from where they came from and using it here. Half of them don't speak enough English anyway to work in the US.  I am not against people wanting to come here and make a better life for themselves but, learn the culture and the language.  If i was to move to France, i would be expected to know French, which i did learn in high school but have forgotten a fair amount.

Here we go again...

Though one does have to wonder why threads about freeways aren't hijacked by complaints about bad drivers.

(By the way, I just got back from a short ride. I treated all stop signs as yields, stopping when conflicting traffic required. I will never see the need to come to a complete stop when the way is clear, given the superior visibility from a bike vs. in a car.)

Right now I am visiting family in the Midwest. I saw a grand total of 4 bikes the whole way. All of them were at a little league game we went by. In Colorado I would have seen those same 4 bikes just waiting at a traffic light.

For all the harping I do about Fort Collins and the "dangerous" conditions here, you tend to forget that the rest of the country would have to move mountains to even begin to get to where we are at.

Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2011, 01:27:20 PM
Here we go again...

Though one does have to wonder why threads about freeways aren't hijacked by complaints about bad drivers.

Want me to start?  I got more than a few.  :pan:

Bad bicyclists are just as common as bad drivers (I'd swear many of them are the same people).

QuoteBad bicyclists are just as common as bad drivers (I'd swear many of them are the same people).

That's the perception.  But statistically speaking, there are far more bad drivers than bad cyclists.

Well, yeah, but there are also far more drivers than cyclists outright. How does it work percentagewise?

Percentages wouldn't necessarily lead to a useful result, because different levels of risk attach to a given technical violation depending on which type of road user (driver/cyclist) does it and the context in which it is done.  My intuition, as someone who has commuted both by cycle and by car, is that there is not much difference between drivers and cyclists in risky behavior.

Look. I call in bad drivers all the time to the state police if i feel they are driving recklessly.  I also will follow people who i think are drunk behind the wheel until the trooper is on them.  Not because I care for THEIR well being but those are the bastards that are more likely to survive a bad accident. I know that may be perception but same can be said of drunk drivers.  The drunk seems to survive every time.  Now getting back to why I harp on cyclists that fail to obey the rules of the road.  If i was to call the police in Chicago on those bastards who blow stops, I would be laughed at and then hung up on.  Cyclists have to "self-police" themselves.  Rarely if ever do cyclists get tickets for something that I would get a ticket for for doing the same thing, such as running a stop sign.  Like I said before, I have nothing against cyclists who are doing what you are supposed to be doing when riding on the road.  But if you are reckless enough to blow stop signs and signals just because you feel an injustice has been done to you (or your cyclist society), I have no sympathy for you.  If i am at a 4 way, and it is my turn to go but a cyclist blows the stop right in front of me, that stupidity and arrogance should have a consequence for said cyclist.  And yes i have the same feeling toward motorcyclists who don't wear helmets and drive recklessly.  A Lot of motorcycle drivers ride properly. But it seems the younger bikers are getting more and more reckless.

But do you derail threads about freeways with complaints about bad motorists?

Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2011, 03:10:30 PM
But do you derail threads about freeways with complaints about bad motorists?

I don't have to mention things about bad motorists, which there are way too many of, simply because everyone on here knows what a bad driver looks like.  I bring up my feelings on cyclists here because this is the most appropriate place to say what i have to say. I think adding bike lanes and boxes on roadways are a great idea.  I just have problems with how some cyclists already abuse the privlage, and it is a privlage, to share the road.  If cyclists want equality on the road, which i am fine with, then the responsibility of good cycling should be happening as well.  I don't see this happening where there already are bike lanes. You want to commute in a green way by cycling or just because you enjoy it, great. You have my blessing.  I don't know how you personally ride, but most cyclists i know are not responsible. 

Now as i stated in my previous posts, which you seem to skip over, how else would YOU deal with reckless cyclists?  Give me a solution, not a cop out.

Call me stubborn but equality comes with responsibility.

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 06, 2011, 03:31:41 PM
I bring up my feelings on cyclists here because this is the most appropriate place to say what i have to say.

I'm sure there are forums that are more appropriate for this...

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 06, 2011, 03:31:41 PMI don't have to mention things about bad motorists, which there are way too many of, simply because everyone on here knows what a bad driver looks like.

Don't you trust other members of this forum to know what a bad cyclist looks like?

Bicycles and Road design has everything to do with safety. Part of the safety is not just the actual design of the roadway but the education and responsibility of all who use them.  NE2, you still have not given me a solution for the problem.  I am asking you, as a cyclist, how else would you fix the problem? I have brought up education of both drivers and cyclists and you seem to shoot that down.  Not to sound politically partisan, but this is what we in the business call obstructionism: People who bring up problems, shoot down ideas, and then not give any other ideas.
I have brought up my concerns and what i would do about it.  You didn't want to accept my solution. SO, what is your solution?

I do bring up, btw, ignorant and stupid things that other drivers do on the roadway on other threads where it is appropriate such as the post i put on  Regional Boards / Midwest - Great Lakes / Re: Illinois may increase speed limit 70, Reply #65 on: June 03, 2011, 20:57:52.
This thread is about cyclists.  What am I missing here?

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 06, 2011, 03:31:41 PM
Now as i stated in my previous posts, which you seem to skip over, how else would YOU deal with reckless cyclists?  Give me a solution, not a cop out.

First, change the laws to be more sensical. Since a cyclist has superior maneuverability and field of vision, there is no need to come to a complete stop at a stop sign when the way is clear. In other words, allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Perhaps do something similar for traffic lights: allow coming to a full stop and then proceeding if the way is clear. Idaho has done both since 1982.
Also allow pedestrians to cross against a don't walk if the way is clear. Because pedestrians are slower, perhaps the law would require that pedestrians be out of the way by the time the light changes (if there are vehicles waiting).
Finally, repeal all laws that make defensive cycling illegal, such as mandatory bike lane laws.

Now that common non-reckless behavior is not illegal, you have a better moral stance for enforcing the remaining laws. Put an officer at a busy intersection, and have him enforce motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian laws. On a first offense, give a warning and a safety booklet that details what's illegal and why it is. If a cyclist continues to operate recklessly to the detriment of his own safety and others' right-of-way, then he gets ticketed.

Agreed, cyclists should be allowed to treat stop signs as a yield if there is NO traffic.  And peds already cross the road when it is clear regardless of what the signal says.

Now see these are good solutions when traffic is not present.  Unfortunately, you can't have a cop standing at main intersections issueing tickets simply becuase of a feasability issue.  Just along Clark St in Chicago which is a main road with bike lanes, you would need a cop at about 20 stoplights.  I would love to see cyclists ticketed for these things, but there are not enough cops available.
It would be a nice way to create more jobs within a city but most cities can't afford to allocate that many police to traffic let alone to cyclists.

Even if you did have enough cops, would these be bicycle cops? That would be the only way a cop could catch the reckless cyclists.  Problem is that a lot of cyclists in the city dont care. 

How is this any different from cops enforcing speed limits? They certainly don't get everyone who speeds, but they still go out and write tickets.

For example, here are some stats about the city of Chicago, Cook County and the police force using
http://www.illinoisdata.com/il_crime_stat.htm
http://www.bike2015plan.org/chapter1/index.html
Chicago Police Department wiki and the US Census.

Pop of Chicago (2010 estimate) - 2,824,064
Pop of Cook Co (2000 census) - 5,376,745
# of Officers / 100,000 people in Cook Co in 2008 - 565.2 officers
Chicago police (2010) 13,500
Total miles of bike lanes (2005) - 315 mi, (2015) - 500 mi when completed.

Unfortunately, i could not find how many officers are currently dedicated to traffic division.

Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2011, 04:01:06 PMAlso allow pedestrians to cross against a don't walk if the way is clear. Because pedestrians are slower, perhaps the law would require that pedestrians be out of the way by the time the light changes (if there are vehicles waiting).

Isn't that already legal, except in areas subject to the no-jaywalking rule?

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 06, 2011, 05:44:32 PM

Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2011, 04:01:06 PMAlso allow pedestrians to cross against a don't walk if the way is clear. Because pedestrians are slower, perhaps the law would require that pedestrians be out of the way by the time the light changes (if there are vehicles waiting).

Isn't that already legal, except in areas subject to the no-jaywalking rule?

Hmmm. I think it's still illegal to cross inside the intersection, at least in Florida: "Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic control signals at intersections as provided in s. 316.075, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and be subject to the restrictions stated in this chapter."

Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2011, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 06, 2011, 03:31:41 PM
Now as i stated in my previous posts, which you seem to skip over, how else would YOU deal with reckless cyclists?  Give me a solution, not a cop out.

First, change the laws to be more sensical. Since a cyclist has superior maneuverability and field of vision, there is no need to come to a complete stop at a stop sign when the way is clear. In other words, allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Perhaps do something similar for traffic lights: allow coming to a full stop and then proceeding if the way is clear. Idaho has done both since 1982.
Also allow pedestrians to cross against a don't walk if the way is clear. Because pedestrians are slower, perhaps the law would require that pedestrians be out of the way by the time the light changes (if there are vehicles waiting).
Finally, repeal all laws that make defensive cycling illegal, such as mandatory bike lane laws.

Now that common non-reckless behavior is not illegal, you have a better moral stance for enforcing the remaining laws. Put an officer at a busy intersection, and have him enforce motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian laws. On a first offense, give a warning and a safety booklet that details what's illegal and why it is. If a cyclist continues to operate recklessly to the detriment of his own safety and others' right-of-way, then he gets ticketed.

I agree with all of this except the red lights. Considering the warrants that must be met to justify the installation of a traffic signal, I could see bad things happening if cyclists were allowed to treat them as yield/stop signs by default.

I would have no problem with cyclists treating a STOP or a traffic light as a stop-and-go or even a yield.

what really irks me is when they treat it as a "plow on through" and expect me to do everything to avoid a collision while they appear to display no vested interest one way or the other.  I will do my utter best, but if it is physically impossible to do so, then I'm going to hit you, and that is just that.

Traffic signals are more of a time-of-day issue.  When approaching an intersection from a side street with no traffic (like at night or early in the morning), bikes in many cases can't trip the induction loops.  Sometimes the sensitivity can be changed, but if they're buried under the top layer of pavement then cyclists can't see where to align themselves to be over the wire.  Also, with more and more bikes having carbon fiber components, there's just not enough metal for the loop to detect.  I'm not sure if the loops can detect aluminum or titanium.  Trying to hit a ped button (if there even is one) can be very difficult too if it's not well positioned.  

As with a lot of things said before, the point is that certain laws shouldn't be applied unilaterally without any consideration for other circumstances.  Of course a law that says cyclists or pedestrians can proceed on a red light would require a full stop and that the way must be clear such that proceeding is safe.  Ohio has a law that allows any vehicle to pass another on a solid/double yellow line, as long as the vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian they're passing is going less than half the speed limit, and that it's actually clear and safe to pass.  Why shouldn't a bike/traffic signal law be any different?  

Quote from: realjd on March 12, 2011, 03:11:06 PM
My only complaint is that they still don't properly address the dangers of striping a bike lane next to parallel parking. If the bike lane is between cars and traffic, bike riders must ride in what is known as the "door zone". What happens is someone opens a car door without checking to see if a bike rider is behind them, the bike is thrown toward the car and the rider is thrown into traffic. Very dangerous. And some of their example pictures even show this!

If an idiot opens the door and you run into it, you get one free punch

Quote from: Brandon on July 04, 2011, 07:14:36 AM

Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2011, 01:27:20 PM
Here we go again...

Though one does have to wonder why threads about freeways aren't hijacked by complaints about bad drivers.

Want me to start?  I got more than a few.  :pan:

Bad bicyclists are just as common as bad drivers (I'd swear many of them are the same people).

I go hiking at Walnut Creek park and occasionally biking there.  Hikers have the right of way, but the bikers act so annoyed if bikers are on the path.  I do my best to get out of the way, and generally go against traffic, but they go too fast.  Especially the ones with the ads.

Quote from: jjakucyk on July 12, 2011, 12:25:14 PM
Traffic signals are more of a time-of-day issue.  When approaching an intersection from a side street with no traffic (like at night or early in the morning), bikes in many cases can't trip the induction loops.  Sometimes the sensitivity can be changed, but if they're buried under the top layer of pavement then cyclists can't see where to align themselves to be over the wire.  Also, with more and more bikes having carbon fiber components, there's just not enough metal for the loop to detect.  I'm not sure if the loops can detect aluminum or titanium.  Trying to hit a ped button (if there even is one) can be very difficult too if it's not well positioned.

One of the new Virginia laws that went into effect on July 1 dealt with this. It is now legal for bikes, motorcycles, and mopeds, to run a red light after waiting either 2 minutes or 2 light cycles without a green light. This seems like far too long if you ask me, so I'll still just run it when I get an open chance like I always have if there's no car to trip the sensor, but it's still progress.

2 light cycles without a green light?  The problem is that the light ISN'T cycling. 

Quote from: texaskdog on July 12, 2011, 01:07:34 PM

Quote from: realjd on March 12, 2011, 03:11:06 PM
My only complaint is that they still don't properly address the dangers of striping a bike lane next to parallel parking. If the bike lane is between cars and traffic, bike riders must ride in what is known as the "door zone". What happens is someone opens a car door without checking to see if a bike rider is behind them, the bike is thrown toward the car and the rider is thrown into traffic. Very dangerous. And some of their example pictures even show this!

If an idiot opens the door and you run into it, you get one free punch

Assuming you aren't squashed under a bus or something. It's not so much the act of hitting the door that's the problem but the tendency for that type of accident to throw the rider into the traffic lane.

Quote from: jjakucyk on July 12, 2011, 01:26:52 PM
2 light cycles without a green light?  The problem is that the light ISN'T cycling. 

It may still be cycling just not triggering a needed protected left.

That's not how it works realjd, unless you see the door opening from a bit of a distance.  The way the door opens, you smash right into it, going through the window frame and usually busting the door, its hinges, your bike, and yourself.  If you were riding against traffic, then an opening door would tend to deflect you to the side and might push the door closed again, but that's not how it usually happens. 

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 12, 2011, 01:24:30 PM

Quote from: jjakucyk on July 12, 2011, 12:25:14 PM
Traffic signals are more of a time-of-day issue.  When approaching an intersection from a side street with no traffic (like at night or early in the morning), bikes in many cases can't trip the induction loops.  Sometimes the sensitivity can be changed, but if they're buried under the top layer of pavement then cyclists can't see where to align themselves to be over the wire.  Also, with more and more bikes having carbon fiber components, there's just not enough metal for the loop to detect.  I'm not sure if the loops can detect aluminum or titanium.  Trying to hit a ped button (if there even is one) can be very difficult too if it's not well positioned.

One of the new Virginia laws that went into effect on July 1 dealt with this. It is now legal for bikes, motorcycles, and mopeds, to run a red light after waiting either 2 minutes or 2 light cycles without a green light. This seems like far too long if you ask me, so I'll still just run it when I get an open chance like I always have if there's no car to trip the sensor, but it's still progress.

In austin you wait 2 minutes in one cycle

Quote from: jjakucyk on July 12, 2011, 01:54:53 PM
That's not how it works realjd, unless you see the door opening from a bit of a distance.  The way the door opens, you smash right into it, going through the window frame and usually busting the door, its hinges, your bike, and yourself.  If you were riding against traffic, then an opening door would tend to deflect you to the side and might push the door closed again, but that's not how it usually happens. 

Only if you hit it head on. Due to the width of bike lanes, you'll more often hit it with your right handle bar, spinning your bike and tossing you to the left. Or you'll instinctively swerve to avoid it and move into the path of a vehicle.

Look at how many of these were "tossed into traffic":
http://bicyclesafe.com/doorprize.html

Quote from: realjd on July 12, 2011, 03:25:57 PMOnly if you hit it head on. Due to the width of bike lanes, you'll more often hit it with your right handle bar, spinning your bike and tossing you to the left. Or you'll instinctively swerve to avoid it and move into the path of a vehicle.

I think this is the more common scenario for dooring incidents--certainly it is what happened to me the one time I was doored (though it was the left handlebar because I was then in a country where traffic circulates on the left).

As a general rule, I think cycle lanes adjacent to on-street parking are one of those situations where it is better not to provide the facility at all than to provide striping which attracts tort liability as an attractive nuisance.  There is also a tendency among even experienced and confident cyclists to underestimate the width of the door zone.  My personal rule of thumb, when going past on-street parking, is simply to merge into the vehicular traffic lane and keep going until I am past the on-street parking.

It astonishes me how parsimonious soi-disant cycling meccas like Berkeley are with bans on on-street parking even on established cycle routes.  Except for the hundred-yard length of on-street parking where I was doored, pretty much my entire commuting route in the years I was cycling had curbside double yellow.