NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:45:11 PM UTC-8, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:00:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes


http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf


3rd and Madison - that's where I was standing last time.

11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.


Do you have exposure numbers?

"... many, many uncritical people who say "Oooh, this is special! I like it! I'll ride here instead of two blocks over!!"


"Uncritical" - is that anything like "unthinking"? (If so, it would
seem to be a significant risk factor in and of itself.)

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:00:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:14:37 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:11:28 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



Of course, Portland did implement them, illegally at first, then with back-room, string-pulling retroactive permission - permission that still required collecting data. And the data is in. And it shows that the bike boxes did NOT work, but instead, INCREASED the very type of crash they were intended to prevent.







Why were the bike boxes "illegal"? The City is a road authority and can do that sort of thing...



While I'm no expert on the legal issues, there are apparently people who disagree with you. My recollection (from info through private channels) is that some registered Professional Engineers made formal complaints that the bike boxes were not part of the MUTCD and thus could be installed only with prior permission, as "experimental" facilities. It took your bike-advocate congressman's work through back channels to get retroactive permission, but it did carry the responsibility of actual data collection. (That would have seemed like a good idea anyway.)

I would have just said that the markings did not comply with existing federal standards -- which were then changed. Illegal makes it sound so sinister..



and as a I recall the PSU study, the boxes did reduce conflicts. http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/p...xes-work-39441



Bike Portland is pretty "rah rah!" about almost any facility, from what I can tell. Here's the alternate, more current news, with documentation.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes



http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf



11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.

The way I read Rob's letter is that there were more observed right hooks involving moving cyclists who were passing on the right. That scenario is really unaffected by the bicycle boxes and is a potential problem with ordinary bike lanes. I don't see that as a bike box caused problem. I can button-hole Rob the next time I see him at the Thai cart and see what he thinks. I'm not a big box supporter, but I still think they're pretty harmless.







I think the bike boxes are a waste of money, but they are otherwise harmless, and in some places, mildly beneficial. Bicycle facilities in PDX are a mixed blessing -- some are bad (even dangerous) and some are good. I like my bike lane to work on SW Barbur. I don't expect it to keep me safe and regard it as a wide shoulder on a busy road (which is what it is). It gives me right of way, but I take that with caution since most cars are clueless.



I do know that many, many more people ride SW Barbur since the bike lane was added. It was a scary ride 15 years ago when it was a shoulder-less road with narrow lanes and 50mph traffic. I rarely encountered other riders.. Now it's congested with bikes on some mornings (waaah, I just can't win).. Again, that's because the road was reconfigured to make room for a paved shoulder. The white line and bike graphics are just an added benefit.



There's no question that if you do almost _anything_ "special" for bicycles, there will be many, many uncritical people who say "Oooh, this is special! I like it! I'll ride here instead of two blocks over!!" This has been demonstrated even at facilities where data clearly shows decreased safety..



But in the case of your road, the practical benefit came from the pavement width, not from the white line. If it were a shared lane of the same width, you'd probably have more useful width. Or at least, in almost all cities, you'd have more useful width. Portland (IIRC) has an unusually good sweeping program for bike lanes. Most cities do not, and most bike lanes become debris reservoirs except for the foot or so furthest from the road edge..


I like having my own lane, and it does get swept -- except where it is impossible to sweep (narrow chute around the Capitol Highway on ramp). The right of way does have value, but you're right, its the width that matters most. But in the event I do get right hooked, I win.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote, among MUCH else:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?

I'd say it must have been a mistake.

And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.

The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?

Setting aside "encouraged" (whatever that means in this context)...

"Encouraged" means if a motorist sees a big arrow bent to the right, he's being told he's welcome to turn right at that location. And "allowed" means a motorist does NOT see a "No Right Turn" sign.

... it's
because bicycles fundamentally belong as far right as practicable when
sharing the road with faster traffic.

The only thing that might potentially make that statement reasonable would be if you understand that "as far right as practicable" can often mean at lane center, or a few feet right of the left edge of a lane, or in a left turn lane in the center of the roadway.

But based on your usual statements, I strongly suspect that you did NOT mean that. I think you mean that bicyclists should be corralled to the right, not delaying motorists, no matter what. Otherwise, I don't think you'd be defending straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic.

You're failing to understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, just as you failed to understand that "the last time" you were in Portland counts as precisely _one_ time.

You're throwing out years of data (actually, eight years worth of data - I misspoke when I said one year's worth) in favor of your one-time observation. You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.

And all this from a guy whose own traffic behavior can't guarantee which side of the road you'll use. And who revels in fourth-grade insults.

- Frank Krygowski

On 15/11/13 11:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote, among
MUCH else:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists
was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow,
telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?

I'd say it must have been a mistake.

And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.

Yep, I know of a good one where the straight ahead bike lane is marked
to the left of a left turn only lane.

These facilities are designed by people supposedly with engineering
degrees, and in accordance with road design standards, and endorsed by
our largest bicycling advocacy group
(https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/) - so they are fine and I must be
dreaming that the design is bad, or so I'm told when I complain about them.

The people who write the standards seem to very difficult to communicate
with, from the POV of find who to communicate with, and actually getting
them to listen to reason and logic.

Incidentally, Bicycle Network is sponsored by The RACV - our automobile
club - and both have opposed increased demerit points for opening a car
door in front of a cyclist, and minimum safe passing distance laws that
other bicycling advocacy groups are trying to have instated.

--
JS

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:39:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote, among MUCH else:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?



I'd say it must have been a mistake.



And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.



The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?



Setting aside "encouraged" (whatever that means in this context)...



"Encouraged" means if a motorist sees a big arrow bent to the right, he's being told he's welcome to turn right at that location. And "allowed" means a motorist does NOT see a "No Right Turn" sign.



... it's

because bicycles fundamentally belong as far right as practicable when

sharing the road with faster traffic.



The only thing that might potentially make that statement reasonable would be if you understand that "as far right as practicable" can often mean at lane center, or a few feet right of the left edge of a lane, or in a left turn lane in the center of the roadway.



But based on your usual statements, I strongly suspect that you did NOT mean that. I think you mean that bicyclists should be corralled to the right, not delaying motorists, no matter what. Otherwise, I don't think you'd be defending straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic.



You're failing to understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, just as you failed to understand that "the last time" you were in Portland counts as precisely _one_ time.



You're throwing out years of data (actually, eight years worth of data - I misspoke when I said one year's worth) in favor of your one-time observation. You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.



And all this from a guy whose own traffic behavior can't guarantee which side of the road you'll use. And who revels in fourth-grade insults.

Bike lanes can set up right hooks. There is no doubt about that. As for road splits, see ORS 814.420(3)(e):

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation.

There is one place on my way to work where the bike lane stops at an "off ramp", and the sinage suggest that the cyclists must get of his/her bike and take a crosswalk across the two exiting lanes -- rather than riding down the road, merging across the exiting lanes and going straight, where the bike lane resumes. Right he http://www.flickr.com/photos/6062650...otolist-akZf9f (I think closed for a running event -- it's miserable at rush hour).

This is a corollary of my prior comment on legislation by sinage. I wonder whether the City can make me get off my bike and take a crosswalk. Considering that I have not gotten a ticket after 29 years of riding down that road, I suspect they don't care if I stay on my bike and continue straight. Having cyclists stop there also wreaks havoc on MV and bicycle traffic because traffic backs up to let the cyclist cross, and then the cyclist drops off the sidwalk into the through bicycle lane, usually as I'm rolling up full speed after having crossed the two exiting traffic lanes. OTOH, the crosswalk is a good option for some cyclists who are terrified of mixing it up with fast moving traffic. It shouldn't be mandatory, though.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:26:13 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:39:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote, among MUCH else:



On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:







Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?







I'd say it must have been a mistake.







And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.







The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?







Setting aside "encouraged" (whatever that means in this context)...







"Encouraged" means if a motorist sees a big arrow bent to the right, he's being told he's welcome to turn right at that location. And "allowed" means a motorist does NOT see a "No Right Turn" sign.







... it's



because bicycles fundamentally belong as far right as practicable when



sharing the road with faster traffic.







The only thing that might potentially make that statement reasonable would be if you understand that "as far right as practicable" can often mean at lane center, or a few feet right of the left edge of a lane, or in a left turn lane in the center of the roadway.







But based on your usual statements, I strongly suspect that you did NOT mean that. I think you mean that bicyclists should be corralled to the right, not delaying motorists, no matter what. Otherwise, I don't think you'd be defending straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic.







You're failing to understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, just as you failed to understand that "the last time" you were in Portland counts as precisely _one_ time.







You're throwing out years of data (actually, eight years worth of data - I misspoke when I said one year's worth) in favor of your one-time observation. You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.







And all this from a guy whose own traffic behavior can't guarantee which side of the road you'll use. And who revels in fourth-grade insults.



Bike lanes can set up right hooks. There is no doubt about that. As for road splits, see ORS 814.420(3)(e):



814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.

(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.

(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.

(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right..

(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation.



There is one place on my way to work where the bike lane stops at an "off ramp", and the sinage suggest that the cyclists must get of his/her bike and take a crosswalk across the two exiting lanes -- rather than riding down the road, merging across the exiting lanes and going straight, where the bike lane resumes. Right he http://www.flickr.com/photos/6062650...otolist-akZf9f (I think closed for a running event -- it's miserable at rush hour).



This is a corollary of my prior comment on legislation by sinage. I wonder whether the City can make me get off my bike and take a crosswalk. Considering that I have not gotten a ticket after 29 years of riding down that road, I suspect they don't care if I stay on my bike and continue straight. Having cyclists stop there also wreaks havoc on MV and bicycle traffic because traffic backs up to let the cyclist cross, and then the cyclist drops off the sidwalk into the through bicycle lane, usually as I'm rolling up full speed after having crossed the two exiting traffic lanes. OTOH, the crosswalk is a good option for some cyclists who are terrified of mixing it up with fast moving traffic. It shouldn't be mandatory, though.



-- Jay Beattie.

If you ride Homer Watson Blvd. fom Kitchener to Cambridge, Ontario there is a bike lane on HWB on the extreme right. It actually goes part way onto the on ramp to the 401 highway. Talk about putting bicyclists in harm's way! If a bicyclist follows that bike lane to the point where it's marked to cross the on ramp then the bicyclist is in just about the very last place a motorist would expect to see one. I tried using Google Maps to get an image of that area but unfortunately Maps hasn't been updated to show that bicycle lane.

Cheers

On 11-14-2013, 20:26, Jay Beattie wrote:
see ORS 814.420(3)(e):

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; [snip]
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.

Well, there's your out. If there are no hazardous conditions, why would
you feel compelled to not be in the bike lane?


--
Wes Groleau

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
O God of Truth, deliver us.
--Leslie Dixon Weatherhead
--Rabbi Mordechai M. Kaplan
--ancient prayer
--unknown
--(no attempt at attribution)
(a thousand thanks to someone who can tell me who
really wrote it AND persuade me they're not making it up!)

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:31:13 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:00:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

While I'm no expert on the legal issues, there are apparently people who disagree with you. My recollection (from info through private channels) is that some registered Professional Engineers made formal complaints that the bike boxes were not part of the MUTCD and thus could be installed only with prior permission, as "experimental" facilities. It took your bike-advocate congressman's work through back channels to get retroactive permission, but it did carry the responsibility of actual data collection. (That would have seemed like a good idea anyway.)

I would have just said that the markings did not comply with existing federal standards -- which were then changed. Illegal makes it sound so sinister.

The existing federal standards were not changed.

As I understand it, the MUTCD exists to prevent every podunk mayor from inventing his own incomprehensible road markings and signage. Deviations from the MUTCD are to be treated very carefully, with prior permission from FHWA to "experiment." They are - very reasonably - wanting to be sure road users know what to do, and whether or not traffic control devices actually work.

Portland's rah-rah team decided they knew enough to skip the procedure. It's the kind of thing that can cause a registered Professional Engineer to lose his license - not that different than disbarring a lawyer. They got called on it, and had to be saved by your congressman.

So they did the formal "experiment" with disciplined data collection, and found that the bike boxes made things worse.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf

11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.



The way I read Rob's letter is that there were more observed right hooks involving moving cyclists who were passing on the right. That scenario is really unaffected by the bicycle boxes...

I wouldn't say it's unaffected by the bike boxes. The cyclists have been specifically told they are supposed to pass on the right to reach the "safety" of the bike boxes. (Surely you saw the posters and cards telling cyclists to do that?) Part of the problem is, absent the exclusive traffic light phase used in Europe, bicyclists passing on the right can't tell that the light will soon go green and that the vehicle they're blind-side passing will begin to move. This is one specific aspect that made me suspicious when I first heard of these things.

Of course, in the U.S., exclusive (and early green) signals for cyclists are not welcome, because of their effect on traffic throughput.

Similarly, I understand that it's normal to have no right turn on red in Europe. (Someone from Europe may be able to confirm or deny.) Even if right-on-red were prohibited at American bike box intersections, I'd imagine many motorists would violate that, since RTOR has _obviously_ become a constitutional right!

And there may be other problems. Left turning cyclists are being told to ride all the way up on the right, then move all the way to the center line (or into a left turn only lane) within a few feet of the stop line. ISTM this must be difficult if there are several cyclists already there, plus a light that's about to go from red to green!

... and is a potential problem with ordinary bike lanes.

Yes, some of these are problems with ordinary bike lanes too.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:05:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:31:13 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:00:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



While I'm no expert on the legal issues, there are apparently people who disagree with you. My recollection (from info through private channels) is that some registered Professional Engineers made formal complaints that the bike boxes were not part of the MUTCD and thus could be installed only with prior permission, as "experimental" facilities. It took your bike-advocate congressman's work through back channels to get retroactive permission, but it did carry the responsibility of actual data collection. (That would have seemed like a good idea anyway.)



I would have just said that the markings did not comply with existing federal standards -- which were then changed. Illegal makes it sound so sinister.



The existing federal standards were not changed.

Experimentation was allowed. How ever you want to cut it, PDX was given the green light for the green boxes.


As I understand it, the MUTCD exists to prevent every podunk mayor from inventing his own incomprehensible road markings and signage. Deviations from the MUTCD are to be treated very carefully, with prior permission from FHWA to "experiment." They are - very reasonably - wanting to be sure road users know what to do, and whether or not traffic control devices actually work.

The green boxes are entirely self-explanatory. Federal regulators may be in a tizzy, but from an actual use standpoint, this is a tempest in teapot. Limit lines are clear, and car drivers would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to understand the sinage. http://tinyurl.com/kygjuex Hmmm, wonder what I should do?





Portland's rah-rah team decided they knew enough to skip the procedure. It's the kind of thing that can cause a registered Professional Engineer to lose his license - not that different than disbarring a lawyer. They got called on it, and had to be saved by your congressman.



So they did the formal "experiment" with disciplined data collection, and found that the bike boxes made things worse.


That's not true. What they found was there were more right hooks involving moving cyclists. Also note that in the same time frame, it became legal to pass on the right. We also had an increase in cyclists. This could all be statistical noise. There is no proven causal connection or even intuitive causal connection between the green boxes and right hooks, at least not from the cyclists standpoint. I don't know what affect they have on driver behavior.



http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes



http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf



11 right hooks in the four years prior. 32 right hooks in the four years after installation.







The way I read Rob's letter is that there were more observed right hooks involving moving cyclists who were passing on the right. That scenario is really unaffected by the bicycle boxes...



I wouldn't say it's unaffected by the bike boxes. The cyclists have been specifically told they are supposed to pass on the right to reach the "safety" of the bike boxes. (Surely you saw the posters and cards telling cyclists to do that?) Part of the problem is, absent the exclusive traffic light phase used in Europe, bicyclists passing on the right can't tell that the light will soon go green and that the vehicle they're blind-side passing will begin to move. This is one specific aspect that made me suspicious when I first heard of these things.

No, I didn't see the posters. There were posters?

Before we had green boxes, we had ordinary bike lanes. This is the first bike box at the corner where Tracey Sparling got crushed by the garbage truck: http://tinyurl.com/okedybh

Pre green box: http://tinyurl.com/lb2ksf3 The existence of a bike lane is what facilitated passing on the right, not a green box. The box is (as you know) to get cyclists in front of STOPPED traffic to avoid hooking at the start of the green light cycle. Absent a bike lane, Tracey would have queued up behind the truck, or like many riders, squeezed along the shoulder -- a risky proposition. With a bike lane, she rode up to the limit line just like everyone else would do. The problem is that the truck driver was oblivious and turned in to her.


Of course, in the U.S., exclusive (and early green) signals for cyclists are not welcome, because of their effect on traffic throughput.


Similarly, I understand that it's normal to have no right turn on red in Europe. (Someone from Europe may be able to confirm or deny.) Even if right-on-red were prohibited at American bike box intersections, I'd imagine many motorists would violate that, since RTOR has _obviously_ become a constitutional right!




And there may be other problems. Left turning cyclists are being told to ride all the way up on the right, then move all the way to the center line (or into a left turn only lane) within a few feet of the stop line. ISTM this must be difficult if there are several cyclists already there, plus a light that's about to go from red to green!

Who is telling them this? Not the UVC or common sense. As you know, bicyclists may leave the bike lane to execute left turns. And long before green boxes, bicycles could take the lane to avoid right turning traffic. One change that could be made would be to Californicate our UVC and allow cars to enter the bike lane well before a turn. This triggers the portion of ORS 814.420 allowing cyclists to leave the bike lane to get around right-turning traffic.

Green boxes may be a waste of paint and public funds, but they're harmless except to the extent they are slippery when wet. It's not like were trying to use green stop lights or requiring driving on the left. The feds may want anal compliance with MUCTD, and engineers may be thrown in to a tizzy if green appears on the pavement, but we already have unfiltered water. Washington has legal marijuana. It's the wild west, baby, and we're going to stick with our stripes. If people from Ohio get confused, there is a handy on-ramp to I-405 and I-84 just south of the Sparling corner. Go East old man!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:39:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:11:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote (among other things):
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Fine. What would you say if a straight-ahead lane for motorists was placed to the right of a lane marked with a big split arrow, telling motorists they could either turn right or go straight?

I'd say it must have been a mistake.

And yet, that's how bike lanes are routinely arranged.


You said "for motorists". Bike lanes aren't for motorists.

The point is, it's stupid to have the vehicle (including bicycle) on the right going straight, while the vehicle to the left is allowed or even encouraged to turn right. It's never done with motor vehicle lanes, despite the protection afforded by bodywork, seatbelts and airbags. Why should it be done to bicyclists?

Setting aside "encouraged" (whatever that means in this context)...

"Encouraged" means if a motorist sees a big arrow bent to the right, he's being told he's welcome to turn right at that location. And "allowed" means a motorist does NOT see a "No Right Turn" sign.


The big arrow means "allowed".

... it's
because bicycles fundamentally belong as far right as practicable when
sharing the road with faster traffic.

The only thing that might potentially make that statement reasonable would be if you understand that "as far right as practicable" can often mean at lane center, or a few feet right of the left edge of a lane, or in a left turn lane in the center of the roadway.


Of course. It might be anywhere. It depends.

You asked why the bike lane should be placed to the right of
other lanes that *may* turn right. I answered.

But based on your usual statements, I strongly suspect that you did NOT mean that. I think you mean that bicyclists should be corralled to the right, not delaying motorists, no matter what. Otherwise, I don't think you'd be defending straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic.


http://www.retroland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/spitballs_650x300_a01_11020.jpg

You're failing to understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, just as you failed to understand that "the last time" you were in Portland counts as precisely _one_ time.


Failing to understand impenetrable matter? You know that "off the
rails" thing I mentioned... ?

I understand that one time was one time. I took issue with *your*
supposition that my "one time... trumped... data". I never said
any such thing about it; that observation was totally FWIW.

However, since *you* brought up trumping data, I responded that
one time was not the only time. (Jeez, Frank, I'm getting close
to that point of losing my patience to clarify what you keep
snipping.)

You're throwing out years of data (actually, eight years worth of data - I misspoke when I said one year's worth) in favor of your one-time observation.


I do not reject any data; I just take it FWIW.

(Got those exposure numbers for me yet?)

My one-time observation is what it is - real time, full human
perception, firsthand "expert" analysis. Take it FWIW. I did.

You're lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more danger in hopes of getting more butts on bikes.


Actually, I don't really hope for more butts on bikes at all;
I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel. More people riding would make
my world like Portland where cops actually ticket bicyclists
and bicyclists get in each others way and... but I love bicycling
so much it hardly seems fair not to *support* enabling others to
participate. I'm certainly not "lobbying" for anything - just
arguing with you, mostly - and even then I say do your own thing
and let me do mine and go in peace. So put down your lance, Don
Quixote.

And all this from a guy whose own traffic behavior can't guarantee which side of the road you'll use. And who revels in fourth-grade insults.


I do not mean that bicyclists should be corralled, I am not failing to
understand the "matter is impenetrable" part of traffic physics, I am
not throwing out data, I am not lobbying for subjecting cyclists to more
danger. Frank, all of those assertions are ludicrous.

But yeah, I won't guarantee what line I'm going to take until about the
time I do, and I guess I do kind of get a kick out of razzing you ;-)

(*Ludicrous*)