On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big
truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a
truck in that configuration.
b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.
Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.
So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck
mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the
windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense.
And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so
ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and
killed the cyclist.
Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.
But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision
type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London
a couple years ago.
A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn
signal yet he ignored it.
You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that. The dominant messages need to
change from "Now you have a safe place to ride" and "Always wear your
helmet." Cyclists need to hear "Even a 'protected' bike lane won't
protect you" and "Learn to anticipate and avoid these hazards..." with
right hooks, left crosses and pull-outs being the most important, after
road hazards. Those are among the top crash causes, far more than the
hits-from-behind feared by bike lane advocates like yourself.
Bike lanes do not help any of those crash mechanisms. If anything, they
make them worse.
Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
_all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.
Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that?
I don't have links for the groups advocating that, but here's a link
about one of the results. Read the article, then read the comments,
especially the first.
Lakewood originally planned for sharrows on lots of the narrow streets
with parking. "Bike advocates" fought that idea and overturned it,
getting the city to instead put in bike lanes even though they were very
frequently in door zones. IIRC, it's Lakewood that labeled some of its
door zone bike lanes with "Door Zone" painted on the pavement. Their
safety guide says only "use caution" there - as if even a 10 mph cyclist
can stop before running into a door that popped open.
- Frank Krygowski