Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way it
does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t...
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now
they have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 31, 8:12 pm, Rex Kerr wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did
recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day
after pushing the county to remove it.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Cont...lo.org/ed.html

The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he
recovers quickly and is able to ride again!!

-------------------------------------------------------
From the Chico N&R Story
-------------------------------------------------------
It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get
Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path
to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards
just one day earlier.

Now something is being done about them.


A bike path is no place for a peloton. No one to blame but the cyclist
in his case. Hope he recovers and learns his lesson.

I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

73, doug

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t...
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city
and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens.

Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than
someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is
valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs,
speed limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut"
signs, etc.

Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as
street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is
supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult
for cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be
minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so.

Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form
a committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to
what measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority
of the residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a
few neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the
residents about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values,
increased emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy.
The other neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as
street narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive
option, the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures
to see if they're effective before making them permanent.

What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street
narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised
medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place.

Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
Is that really a big problem there?
Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Holy ****sky, comrade, wha' hoppened to the revolution?
ABS

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

Are cyclists required to use them? Perhaps not legally, at least in
certain places. But most motorists and bicyclists seem to _think_
bicyclists are required to use them. IOW, you can prove the
requirement doesn't exist once you get to court; but as a day to day
matter, you're expected to not leave the lane.

Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted. Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't
belong on unstriped roads.

And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

The bike lanes in the town I live in get regular maintenance and are
clear of debris. The current design standards in our state provide
sufficient clearance to get by parked cars safely.


Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Bike lanes have no impact on left turns - the novices who start a left
turn from near a curb would do that regardless, and with a properly
designed bike lane, the adjacent traffic lane would be roughly 12 feet
(maybe a bit less) in width. If you stay two feet inside the bike
lane, that puts you 14 feet from lane stripe on the left side of the
adjecent lane. Curiously, this is where John Forrester claims you
should be riding given a wide outside lane - about 14 feet from the
lane stripe so that cars can pass you easily, and close enough to
the stream of traffic that drivers will be leary of just shooting
out in front of you without looking. Your safety is not going to
decrease measurably simply because there was a bike lane stripe
when you end up riding along the same path you'd follow with no
stripe.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted.

Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't belong on
unstriped roads.

You mean like HOV lanes tell motorists that buses and cars with more
than one passengers don't belong on unstriped roads? Get real - what
Krygowski claims bike lanes "tell" motorists is just mindless rhetoric.


And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

.... which you don't get when you have decent design standards, and
when your vehicle code allows you to ignore bike lanes that ignore
the standards.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

Nope. Look at the design standards for bike lanes versus shoulder
stripes and see which has the better treatment at intersections.

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

Why not use both, picking which one is appropriate depending on the
situation? BTW, at least in California, sharrows can only be used
in specific situations. You can't put them anywhere you like.

Also, our town recently removed two old bike lanes that were substandard
according the latest design standards (but not substandard when they were
installed) and those are going to be replaced with sharrows. In one case,
there will be a sharrow in one direction and a bike lane in the other
(6 feet wide with no parking allowed). The one removed was in the
direction where parking was allowed.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
Is that really a big problem there?

They have studies that show such things slow down traffic by a whopping 4%
(so why bother?).

Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Pretty crazy to encourage people to ride in the gutter, with barriers on
each side.

In the end, I'm realizing that I might have missed an opportunity here. It's
quite likely they could have achieved their "traffic calming" goals by
making the road more friendly towards bikes. After all, isn't the usual dig
about bikes that we get in the way of cars? Why not turn that to an
advantage in something like this? Why not deliberately engineer a road that
favors bikes, at the expense of cars? Then the residents get what they want
(less traffic, and lower speeds) and we get a safe road to ride. Essentially
turn a win-lose-lose into a win-win-lose (residents/bikes/cars).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA