Bicycles and Road Design

[mightyace]

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...

[agentsteel53]

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?

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.

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.

[mightyace]

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.

[realjd]

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

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.

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

[realjd]

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Zmapper]

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.

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.

[NE2]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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?

[mightyace]

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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. 

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, 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.

[Zmapper]

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. 

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. 

[Scott5114]

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.

[Brian556]

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

[jjakucyk]

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.

[english si]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[jjakucyk]

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. 

[J N Winkler]

Jaywalking 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.

[english si]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.