NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11-20-2013, 14:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:08:25 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think the two concepts are (or at least, should be) mutually exclusive. Seems to me the motor vehicle's operator could be held automatically at fault from an insurance viewpoint, so that the insurance he's required to carry automatically covers any damage done by his car. Criminal liability could be treated differently, with a higher standard of proof.

In mny, if not most U.S. states, a rear-end collision is automatically
the fault of the driver behind. If that can be done, then there's no
reason a similar law couldn't be passed regarding colliding with a bicycle.

--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
ç§�ã�Œå®Ÿéš›ã�«ã�—ã�Ÿã�„ã�¨æ€�ã�†ä½•ã‚’ホットム‰ãƒƒã‚°ã‚’食ã�¹ã‚‹ã�“ã�¨ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.

The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

I haven't had time to read the (long) report yet. But regarding the comments above: It's interesting that the bike volumes _decreased_ at untreated intersections. This has several implications. Among them:

1) As we've seen in other situations, cyclists like things that are done especially for them. This is true whether the things actually make cycling safer, or actually make cycling more dangerous. I can't recall the citation now, but in bike lanes where data showed closer passing by adjacent motorists, the cyclists riding felt they had more room. In a Copenhagen study comparing before and after crash rates upon installation of bike tracks, there were significantly more crashes after, yet cyclists still "felt" safer.

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look! Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening..

I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the
experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook
crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me
since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes,
it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections.
ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn on
red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if
there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both
modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the
bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if
enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green
light phase.)

Bike boxes won't work right turn on red is permitted for vehicles. It's a
safety hazard. Bikes face a red signal. They proceed to the bike box and
a right on red turning vehicle gives them a right hook.

But will a "No right turn on red" work without a bike box? If enforced, it would have prevented the Portland death that triggered the "We gotta have bike boxes" movement. Seems to me that would have been much simpler, and perhaps as effective.

Right on red is illegal in Europe. It's also illegal in two jurisdictions
in the US: NYC and Washington DC.

And I think it's reasonable to make it generally illegal where there are bikes and pedestrians permitted. Motorists have it easy enough.

The need to prevent right on red did
not come up in Europe nor in my home town. If the experiment is to test
bike boxes, then banning right on red is part of the package.

But they're testing two things simultaneously! If they first tested No Right on Red, _then_ the bike boxes, we'd have much better information.

Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not reduce red
hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely rare.

Look up "Coffin Corner bicycle." (Including "bicycle" will omit results related to aviation speeds.)

- Frank Krygowski

On 21/11/13 15:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman
wrote:

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic
caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be
happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after
painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look!
Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter
parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply
shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening.

I'm sure that's true. There was reportedly a 41% increase in bicycle
trips over the Princes Bridge in Melbourne when they completed a bike
lane over the bridge, but there's no way that many more people decided
to ride to work - just because of the new bike lane.

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ge...e-world/40123/

Actually, from the tables on page 6 of the PDF report, there was a 27%
increase in total bike trips (500 to 635) during the AM peak hour, but
there were more people using the on road lane (355 to 500).

So before there were 145 using the footpath to cross the bridge (not
legally), where as after there were only 135 illegally using the foot
path. 10 moved to the road from the footpath, and 135 extra riders
joined them.

Of those 135 riders, I agree that most came from alternate routes rather
than started riding as a result of the new bike lane.


Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not
reduce red hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from
what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the
trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to
pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run
a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride
Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the
polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as
they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely
rare.


Yup.

--
JS

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:37:49 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-20-2013, 06:08, Duane wrote:
The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

And no counter-testimony from the victim.

We do have soothsayers and mediums but generally their testimony isn't
admissible in court :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 22:40:08 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-20-2013, 14:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:08:25 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think the two concepts are (or at least, should be) mutually exclusive. Seems to me the motor vehicle's operator could be held automatically at fault from an insurance viewpoint, so that the insurance he's required to carry automatically covers any damage done by his car. Criminal liability could be treated differently, with a higher standard of proof.

In mny, if not most U.S. states, a rear-end collision is automatically
the fault of the driver behind. If that can be done, then there's no
reason a similar law couldn't be passed regarding colliding with a bicycle.

Sort of making cyclists immune to all earthly laws?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:07:20 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.

The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

I haven't had time to read the (long) report yet. But regarding the comments above: It's interesting that the bike volumes _decreased_ at untreated intersections. This has several implications. Among them:

1) As we've seen in other situations, cyclists like things that are done especially for them. This is true whether the things actually make cycling safer, or actually make cycling more dangerous. I can't recall the citation now, but in bike lanes where data showed closer passing by adjacent motorists, the cyclists riding felt they had more room. In a Copenhagen study comparing before and after crash rates upon installation of bike tracks, there were significantly more crashes after, yet cyclists still "felt" safer.

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look! Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening.

I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the
experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook
crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me
since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes,
it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections.
ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn on
red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if
there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both
modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the
bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if
enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green
light phase.)

Bike boxes won't work right turn on red is permitted for vehicles. It's a
safety hazard. Bikes face a red signal. They proceed to the bike box and
a right on red turning vehicle gives them a right hook.

But will a "No right turn on red" work without a bike box? If enforced, it would have prevented the Portland death that triggered the "We gotta have bike boxes" movement. Seems to me that would have been much simpler, and perhaps as effective.

Right on red is illegal in Europe. It's also illegal in two jurisdictions
in the US: NYC and Washington DC.

And I think it's reasonable to make it generally illegal where there are bikes and pedestrians permitted. Motorists have it easy enough.

The need to prevent right on red did
not come up in Europe nor in my home town. If the experiment is to test
bike boxes, then banning right on red is part of the package.

But they're testing two things simultaneously! If they first tested No Right on Red, _then_ the bike boxes, we'd have much better information.

Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not reduce red
hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely rare.

We have that here. Every toll road in the country has limited access -
no bicycles, or motorcycles.
--
Cheers,

John B.

James wrote:
On 21/11/13 15:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman
wrote:

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic
caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be
happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after

So some cyclists prefer bike lanes.

painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look!
Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter
parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply
shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening.

I'm sure that's true. There was reportedly a 41% increase in bicycle
trips over the Princes Bridge in Melbourne when they completed a bike
lane over the bridge, but there's no way that many more people decided
to ride to work - just because of the new bike lane.


I think it depends on the situation. The industrial park that I work in is
accessible on one side only by a fairly busy 6 lane median separated road.
The speed limit is 50k/h so traffic is regularly doing 70. There are no
shoulders. It's quite busy. I use it but it's not the most enjoyable ride
I do. My boss was riding to work but after a few close calls with 18
wheelers she stopped. If they put a bike lane there or some alternate
access she would ride to work.

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ge...e-world/40123/

Actually, from the tables on page 6 of the PDF report, there was a 27%
increase in total bike trips (500 to 635) during the AM peak hour, but
there were more people using the on road lane (355 to 500).

So before there were 145 using the footpath to cross the bridge (not
legally), where as after there were only 135 illegally using the foot
path. 10 moved to the road from the footpath, and 135 extra riders
joined them.

Of those 135 riders, I agree that most came from alternate routes rather
than started riding as a result of the new bike lane.


Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not
reduce red hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from
what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the
trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to
pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run
a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride
Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the
polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as
they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely
rare.


Yup.



--
duane

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:07:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.

The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

I haven't had time to read the (long) report yet. But regarding the comments above: It's interesting that the bike volumes _decreased_ at untreated intersections. This has several implications. Among them:

1) As we've seen in other situations, cyclists like things that are done especially for them. This is true whether the things actually make cycling safer, or actually make cycling more dangerous.


Some cyclists.

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

I can understand why rush hour bicycle commuters in Portland would
prefer the street with the bike boxes.

I can't recall the citation now, but in bike lanes where data showed closer passing by adjacent motorists, the cyclists riding felt they had more room. In a Copenhagen study comparing before and after crash rates upon installation of bike tracks, there were significantly more crashes after, yet cyclists still "felt" safer.


A lot of non-evidence there, Frank.

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look! Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening.


Maybe. You just really don't have good data on who is riding
and how much, do you.

But it's plain that places with more facilities have more riders
riding more.

I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the
experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook
crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me
since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes,
it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections.
ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn o
red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if
there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both
modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the
bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if
enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green
light phase.)

Bike boxes won't work right turn on red is permitted for vehicles. It's a
safety hazard. Bikes face a red signal. They proceed to the bike box and
a right on red turning vehicle gives them a right hook.

But will a "No right turn on red" work without a bike box? If enforced, it would have prevented the Portland death that triggered the "We gotta have bike boxes" movement. Seems to me that would have been much simpler, and perhaps as effective.


Horse manure.

Right on red is illegal in Europe. It's also illegal in two jurisdictions
in the US: NYC and Washington DC.

And I think it's reasonable to make it generally illegal where there are bikes and pedestrians permitted. Motorists have it easy enough.


I'm kind of with you here; although right turn permitted on red
does not really make things easier for motorists (it's really a
lot more trouble than waiting for the green, isn't it?) It does
save them some time, increases throughput, and reduces the number
of people making right turns on green (which is the only time it
should result in a right hook).

The need to prevent right on red did
not come up in Europe nor in my home town. If the experiment is to test
bike boxes, then banning right on red is part of the package.

But they're testing two things simultaneously! If they first tested No Right on Red, _then_ the bike boxes, we'd have much better information.


Not much, I think.

Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not reduce red
hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.


Horse manure, pure and simple. The truck that creamed Sparling
waited at the red and started his turn on the fresh green.

To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.


What *do* you do with it? ... Never mind, I know - we erase it
and tell the bicyclists to man up and drive like a vehicle, right?

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely rare.


Ah, thought so.

Look up "Coffin Corner bicycle." (Including "bicycle" will omit results related to aviation speeds.)


Later...

On 11/21/2013 10:49 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:07:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.

The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

I haven't had time to read the (long) report yet. But regarding the comments above: It's interesting that the bike volumes _decreased_ at untreated intersections. This has several implications. Among them:

1) As we've seen in other situations, cyclists like things that are done especially for them. This is true whether the things actually make cycling safer, or actually make cycling more dangerous.


Some cyclists.

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

I can understand why rush hour bicycle commuters in Portland would
prefer the street with the bike boxes.

I can't recall the citation now, but in bike lanes where data showed closer passing by adjacent motorists, the cyclists riding felt they had more room. In a Copenhagen study comparing before and after crash rates upon installation of bike tracks, there were significantly more crashes after, yet cyclists still "felt" safer.


A lot of non-evidence there, Frank.

2) Some have speculated that some of the _increase_ in bike traffic caused by special facilities may be an illusion; that what may be happening instead is a change in route preference. IOW, after painting green paint on a main road, the painters may say "Look! Twice as many cyclists!" while never noticing that on the quieter parallel roads, there are now half as many. The riders have simply shifted over. This may be evidence of that happening.


Maybe. You just really don't have good data on who is riding
and how much, do you.

But it's plain that places with more facilities have more riders
riding more.

I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the
experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook
crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me
since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes,
it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections.
ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn o
red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if
there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both
modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the
bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if
enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green
light phase.)

Bike boxes won't work right turn on red is permitted for vehicles. It's a
safety hazard. Bikes face a red signal. They proceed to the bike box and
a right on red turning vehicle gives them a right hook.

But will a "No right turn on red" work without a bike box? If enforced, it would have prevented the Portland death that triggered the "We gotta have bike boxes" movement. Seems to me that would have been much simpler, and perhaps as effective.


Horse manure.


What exactly was the incident in Portland where preventing right turn on
red would have solved it?

I'm not following how this would work. Right turns on red are illegal
in Montreal and this is enforced. But if I'm at a light in a bike lane,
or absent a bike lane at the right of the lane, how do I get right
hooked by a right turning car unless I'm running the red light?

If this is the case that I'm thinking of, didn't the driver hit the
woman by turning right when the light changed? And if this is the case,
isn't this EXACTLY what the bike box prevents by having bikes in front
of the cars when the light changes?

About the only issue I can see with this scenario is if the bike is
moving into the box at the moment that the light turns green and then
it's a matter of having the driver's attention when you move in front of
them.

As I've said before, I don't have much experience with bike boxes but
isn't this how they're intended to work? Or am I missing something here?

Right on red is illegal in Europe. It's also illegal in two jurisdictions
in the US: NYC and Washington DC.

And I think it's reasonable to make it generally illegal where there are bikes and pedestrians permitted. Motorists have it easy enough.


I'm kind of with you here; although right turn permitted on red
does not really make things easier for motorists (it's really a
lot more trouble than waiting for the green, isn't it?) It does
save them some time, increases throughput, and reduces the number
of people making right turns on green (which is the only time it
should result in a right hook).

The need to prevent right on red did
not come up in Europe nor in my home town. If the experiment is to test
bike boxes, then banning right on red is part of the package.

But they're testing two things simultaneously! If they first tested No Right on Red, _then_ the bike boxes, we'd have much better information.


Not much, I think.

Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not reduce red
hook crashes.

It would reduce many, if not most of the fatalities in London, from what I recall. It would have prevented the death that served as the trigger (or excuse?) for Portland's bike boxes.


Horse manure, pure and simple. The truck that creamed Sparling
waited at the red and started his turn on the fresh green.


Yeah, this is what I thought so the right turn on red thing is another
straw man.


To reduce the moving right hooks, I'd prefer teaching cyclists not to pass moving motor vehicles on their blind side. That means don't run a green "invitation-to-a-right-hook" lane up to the intersection.


What *do* you do with it? ... Never mind, I know - we erase it
and tell the bicyclists to man up and drive like a vehicle, right?

In fact, one might consider doing the opposite: A "Don't Ride Here!!!" warning at the curb, with a "No bicycing" icon. IOW, the polar opposite of a bike box. Getting cyclists to merge in line as they pass through the intersections should make right hooks extremely rare.


Ah, thought so.

Look up "Coffin Corner bicycle." (Including "bicycle" will omit results related to aviation speeds.)


Later...

Dan O writes:

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:07:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:15:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.

The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

I haven't had time to read the (long) report yet. But regarding the comments above: It's interesting that the bike volumes _decreased_ at untreated intersections. This has several implications. Among them:

1) As we've seen in other situations, cyclists like things that are done especially for them. This is true whether the things actually make cycling safer, or actually make cycling more dangerous.


Some cyclists.

The bike boxes do practically remove a hassle that I routinely
face. Sitting in the bike lane at a red light (can you believe
that I routinely face even this? :-), waiting to go straight ahead.
Car turns right on red. Fine, no problem. Another car turns right
on red. No problem. But now my light is about to go green, and
these right-on-red people are not even looking at the light -
instead they're looking to their left for clear to turn right on
red, and following the car ahead turning right on red one after
another. Now my light is green and still they're ~streaming around
the right turn (now with the green light but either unaware that
I'm there or not caring.

The solution, which you won't like, is to do what Frank has said. Don't
sit in the bike lane at a light; move to the left. If cars are going to
turn right while I'm waiting at a light, I make sure they do so by
passing on my right. Pretty much every experienced cyclist around here
does that, it's the newbies who wait in the gutter and expect cars to
pass them on the left. Doing so is asking for trouble.

Moving to the left is the best way to handle this. Legally I have an
advantage, being in California, where the cars are required to merge
into the bike lane before turning right, however, my suspicion is that
only a few percentage of the motorists are aware of this. That is, most
don't really merge unless they have to, i.e. there is a car (or bike)
blocking the path, but with room to the right.

--
Joe Riel