Bicycles and Road Design

[corco]

the 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

[agentsteel53]

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. 

[J N Winkler]

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.

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

[corco]

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!

[J N Winkler]

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.)

[agentsteel53]

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. 

[Zmapper]

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.


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.

[agentsteel53]

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?

[Zmapper]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Zmapper]

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.

[Scott5114]

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".

[agentsteel53]

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)

[Zmapper]

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

[NE2]

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 )

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

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.

[Zmapper]

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. 

[NE2]

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

[Zmapper]

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.

[froggie]

Dallas, 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.

[NE2]

Dallas, 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.

[realjd]

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.

(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 )

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.

[froggie]

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.

[NE2]

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

[realjd]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.