NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:04:04 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:56:12 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:



Understand, Jay, the installation was an experiment. The objective was to prevent (or at least, greatly reduce) right hook problems for cyclists.



Did it work? No, it failed. You can call it a "tempest in a teapot," but eight years worth of data (four before, four after the installation) shows that right hook conflicts increased greatly. No, it doesn't mean you're likely to get killed riding through one of these things. But it _does_ mean the design was a failure!



IIRC, right-hook crashes were *reduced* overall at 7 of the 11

bike boxes.



IIRC, there were very slight (not significant) reductions in right hook crashes at 7 intersections. There were huge increases in right hook crashes at 4 of the 11 intersections, for a near-tripling of these crashes overall.. You, Dan, are pretending that counts as success! Yet you accuse _me_ of bias?



The remaining 4 had common features (downhill),

and the light phase (stale green) was statistically significant,

offering learning from the experiment.



Yes, people can learn from even failed experiments. That does not make a failed experiment qualify as a success. Unless, I suppose, you're in the camp that gives every child a trophy in every competition they enter.



And riders had every chance to pull their heads out of their

asses and realize that cars could *still* right-hook across

the green paint. If they were "lured" into danger, they did

it to themselves.



That's an interesting attitude. First, produce a facility that tells cyclists to come up along the right (blind) side of cars. Then blame the cyclists for letting themselves be lured into that position. Seems like the facility is more important to you than the cyclists. Pretty twisted thinking!



As I said: This illustrates just how illogical the "facilities uber alles" crowd really is. As with some other fashionable, "innovative" facilities, it doesn't matter if they actually make things measurably more dangerous.. They still have dogged fans!


One more time with emphasis -- the green boxes are not causally connected to the right hooks. Passing on the right, with or without a bike lane (recall that passing on the right is legal in Oregon), is.

I think you're using our green boxes to pursue another agenda -- the flogging of facilities, whatever they may be. Some deserve to be flogged, and others don't. Green boxes are pretty low on my flogging list, except for the expense and obvious publicity move after the squashing of a young woman. If you don't want them, fight them in your village. Stay strong my brother!

The killing fields: http://tinyurl.com/ll3dcm8

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:16:35 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

One more time with emphasis -- the green boxes are not causally connected to the right hooks. Passing on the right, with or without a bike lane (recall that passing on the right is legal in Oregon), is.

Jay, the people who designed them, promoted them and installed them thought there was certainly a connection. You gave a link to the flyer they distributed, and that flyer states their purpose is to "prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight." It restates that several more times, using different wording. It seems silly to say there's _no_ effect on behavior.

Given the publicity, why then would cyclists NOT engage in risk compensation, and NOT enter a bike box intersection feeling that they are protected, that they can be less wary? Seems to me they're told they're now OK, and they naturally believe what they've been told.

I think you're using our green boxes to pursue another agenda -- the flogging of facilities, whatever they may be. Some deserve to be flogged, and others don't.

But here you have a design that tripled the specific crash type it was supposed to prevent. You don't think that deserves flogging? What on earth, then, constitutes "failure" in your book?

Green boxes are pretty low on my flogging list, except for the expense and obvious publicity move after the squashing of a young woman. If you don't want them, fight them in your village. Stay strong my brother!

I will fight against them in my area, should they be proposed, at least if they're proposed in the usual American way, with no separate light phase for bicyclists.

However, I'm not very worried that they will be proposed. For one thing, in both this suburban village and in the metro area, I'm well-enough known that my views are respected. (I get invited to long-term planning events, for example, and I've been been a featured speaker at an MPO planning committee meeting.)

For another thing, we have very few people who believe adding green paint will turn our city into Copenhagen.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:50:00 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

One of the first things we do at a red light (if we stop :-) ...

That's our Dan!

... is to check for cars that want to turn right - not only the
lead car 'cause maybe the next one can squeeze right of him.
If they're signalling and right turn on red is allowed, I
might move to the center of the lane at the front of the
queue to let them by on the right.

Why not be at the center of the lane anyway? In general, if your speed is the same of the motor vehicles around you, you're more visible and safer at lane center. When the mutual speed is zero at an intersection, that applies at least as much.

Stopping at lane center should be normal. It almost totally prevents the crashes that killed Tracey Sparling. And if you see that the motorist behind you wants to turn right, (or if you know an intersection gets lots of right-on-red traffic) you can move a couple feet further left as you glide to a stop, then wave them by on your right. I do this often, and always get a "thank you" wave.

Of course, the prerequisite is dropping the "I gotta ride in the gutter" mentality.

I can either shuffle back over to the right when there are
no more right-turners-on-red waiting, or I might anticipate
the green and get a good hole shot so I'm not blocking
straight ahead cars when it does.

It doesn't take much of a "hole shot" to beat a typical car across an intersection. I do it almost every time, and I'm on Medicare.

Shuffling out of their way and back is kind of a pain in
the ass, but courteous PR and all that. And that's only if
necessary. Yesterday I was stopped at a red light with my
foot on the curb...

Foot on the curb? Why?

... checked for right turners as usual. The
lead car was signalling right but hanging way back like I
was a rattlesnake or something. The cross street was on
the left turn signal phase so perfect time for him to make
his right turn on red. Finally I motioned like, "What? Go
on and do it", and he did. Sometimes I'll just wheel up onto
the sidewalk and push the crosswalk button. Gets me out of
the way and gives me a pole to hang onto without unclipping.

Needless to say, it's all very much simpler if you stay out of the gutter.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:16:35 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

One more time with emphasis -- the green boxes are not causally connected to the right hooks. Passing on the right, with or without a bike lane (recall that passing on the right is legal in Oregon), is.

Jay, the people who designed them, promoted them and installed them thought there was certainly a connection. You gave a link to the flyer they distributed, and that flyer states their purpose is to "prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight." It restates that several more times, using different wording. It seems silly to say there's _no_ effect on behavior.

Given the publicity, why then would cyclists NOT engage in risk compensation, and NOT enter a bike box intersection feeling that they are protected, that they can be less wary?


Because no such protection is indicated?

Seems to me they're told they're now OK, and they naturally believe what they've been told.


Seems to you.

I think you're using our green boxes to pursue another agenda -- the flogging of facilities, whatever they may be. Some deserve to be flogged, and others don't.

But here you have a design that tripled the specific crash type it was supposed to prevent. You don't think that deserves flogging? What on earth, then, constitutes "failure" in your book?


He meant flogging faciities in general.

Can we *please* see those facilites that you are responsible for?

Green boxes are pretty low on my flogging list, except for the expense and obvious publicity move after the squashing of a young woman. If you don't want them, fight them in your village. Stay strong my brother!

I will fight against them in my area, should they be proposed, at least if they're proposed in the usual American way, with no separate light phase for bicyclists.

However, I'm not very worried that they will be proposed. For one thing, in both this suburban village and in the metro area, I'm well-enough known that my views are respected. (I get invited to long-term planning events, for example, and I've been been a featured speaker at an MPO planning committee meeting.)


Well then... ;-)

For another thing, we have very few people who believe adding green paint will turn our city into Copenhagen.


And relatively very few people riding bicycles, so no incentive
for businesses to set up closer to the people they serve and all
of the other things that reinforce each other and cascade and...

It's as you've said - it takes more than some paint. Portland is
doing more than laying down paint. It's happening there. I know
you think they're some kind of hippie "in crowd" or something, but
*somebody* has to do something if we're ever going to get there.

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 8:45:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:16:35 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:



One more time with emphasis -- the green boxes are not causally connected to the right hooks. Passing on the right, with or without a bike lane (recall that passing on the right is legal in Oregon), is.



Jay, the people who designed them, promoted them and installed them thought there was certainly a connection. You gave a link to the flyer they distributed, and that flyer states their purpose is to "prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight." It restates that several more times, using different wording. It seems silly to say there's _no_ effect on behavior.



Given the publicity, why then would cyclists NOT engage in risk compensation, and NOT enter a bike box intersection feeling that they are protected, that they can be less wary? Seems to me they're told they're now OK, and they naturally believe what they've been told.



I think you're using our green boxes to pursue another agenda -- the flogging of facilities, whatever they may be. Some deserve to be flogged, and others don't.



But here you have a design that tripled the specific crash type it was supposed to prevent. You don't think that deserves flogging? What on earth, then, constitutes "failure" in your book?

The specific crash type they were designed to prevent was the type that killed Tracey Sparling -- stopped truck versus stopped bike, both taking off at green light. I haven't run across a single person who thinks the green boxes will magically protect them from right hooks while passing moving traffic. Nobody thinks that, except those people populating your make-believe world of deluded cyclists and sinister planning authorities.





Green boxes are pretty low on my flogging list, except for the expense and obvious publicity move after the squashing of a young woman. If you don't want them, fight them in your village. Stay strong my brother!



I will fight against them in my area, should they be proposed, at least if they're proposed in the usual American way, with no separate light phase for bicyclists.



However, I'm not very worried that they will be proposed. For one thing, in both this suburban village and in the metro area, I'm well-enough known that my views are respected. (I get invited to long-term planning events, for example, and I've been been a featured speaker at an MPO planning committee meeting.)



For another thing, we have very few people who believe adding green paint will turn our city into Copenhagen.

You probably have very few cyclists, too. PDX will never be Copenhagen, but we have a high enough bicycle modal share to justify looking at options other than pure shared roadways. We also have woefully inadequate roadways for our existing auto traffic, which is at least some reason that advocates are looking at separate facilities. The whole world is not your village in Ohio. I pass more cyclists in a day than you probably see in a week or month. http://tinyurl.com/q92ycsm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kOgPWHpB0 That's a crazy set of bike lanes around the Rose Quarter, but the locals seem to like them. Oh, I'm partially responsible for those. They were the subject of the BTA v. PDX lawsuit. My opinions are highly respected, and some people even call me the Frank Krygowski of Portland.

-- Jay Beattie.

Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:16:35 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

One more time with emphasis -- the green boxes are not causally
connected to the right hooks. Passing on the right, with or without a
bike lane (recall that passing on the right is legal in Oregon), is.

Jay, the people who designed them, promoted them and installed them
thought there was certainly a connection. You gave a link to the flyer
they distributed, and that flyer states their purpose is to "prevent
bicycle/car collisions, especially between drivers turning right and
bicyclists going straight." It restates that several more times, using
different wording. It seems silly to say there's _no_ effect on behavior.

Given the publicity, why then would cyclists NOT engage in risk
compensation, and NOT enter a bike box intersection feeling that they
are protected, that they can be less wary?


Because no such protection is indicated?

Seems to me they're told they're now OK, and they naturally believe what
they've been told.


Seems to you.

I think you're using our green boxes to pursue another agenda -- the
flogging of facilities, whatever they may be. Some deserve to be
flogged, and others don't.

But here you have a design that tripled the specific crash type it was
supposed to prevent. You don't think that deserves flogging? What on
earth, then, constitutes "failure" in your book?


He meant flogging faciities in general.

Can we *please* see those facilites that you are responsible for?

Green boxes are pretty low on my flogging list, except for the expense
and obvious publicity move after the squashing of a young woman. If you
don't want them, fight them in your village. Stay strong my brother!

I will fight against them in my area, should they be proposed, at least
if they're proposed in the usual American way, with no separate light
phase for bicyclists.

However, I'm not very worried that they will be proposed. For one
thing, in both this suburban village and in the metro area, I'm
well-enough known that my views are respected. (I get invited to
long-term planning events, for example, and I've been been a featured
speaker at an MPO planning committee meeting.)


Well then... ;-)

For another thing, we have very few people who believe adding green
paint will turn our city into Copenhagen.


And relatively very few people riding bicycles, so no incentive
for businesses to set up closer to the people they serve and all
of the other things that reinforce each other and cascade and...

It's as you've said - it takes more than some paint. Portland is
doing more than laying down paint. It's happening there. I know
you think they're some kind of hippie "in crowd" or something, but
*somebody* has to do something if we're ever going to get there.

Lot of infrastructure in Quebec and a lot of cyclists. Seems that there's
a direct relation there. I guess a lot of cyclists must be really dumb as
well as being hippies.

Not all infrastructure is good and this needs work but it generates more
cyclists. And more cycling presence increases cycling safety. This is
why people are working on improving it. That and the fact that cities
can't support the constant increase of cars and all that entails.




--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:50:00 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

One of the first things we do at a red light (if we stop :-) ...

That's our Dan!

... is to check for cars that want to turn right - not only the
lead car 'cause maybe the next one can squeeze right of him.
If they're signalling and right turn on red is allowed, I
might move to the center of the lane at the front of the
queue to let them by on the right.

Why not be at the center of the lane anyway? In general, if your speed is the same of the motor vehicles around you, you're more visible and safer at lane center. When the mutual speed is zero at an intersection, that applies at least as much.


Um... because I'd be several car lengths back from the intersection
breathing exhaust fumes (?)

Stopping at lane center should be normal. It almost totally prevents the crashes that killed Tracey Sparling. And if you see that the motorist behind you wants to turn right, (or if you know an intersection gets lots of right-on-red traffic) you can move a couple feet further left as you glide to a stop, then wave them by on your right. I do this often, and always get a "thank you" wave.

Of course, the prerequisite is dropping the "I gotta ride in the gutter" mentality.


Well, if you stretch "as far right as practicable" to mean far
left when approaching an intersection that you know gets lots of
right-on-red traffic...

I can either shuffle back over to the right when there are
no more right-turners-on-red waiting, or I might anticipate
the green and get a good hole shot so I'm not blocking
straight ahead cars when it does.

It doesn't take much of a "hole shot" to beat a typical car across an intersection. I do it almost every time, and I'm on Medicare.


Well, if you're in the center of the lane blocking them, it's
not that hard.

Shuffling out of their way and back is kind of a pain in
the ass, but courteous PR and all that. And that's only if
necessary. Yesterday I was stopped at a red light with my
foot on the curb...

Foot on the curb? Why?


My foot easily reaches the raised curb while I relax in the saddle,
it's easier on neoprene booties than standing, it's as far right as
practicable... why do you ask??

... checked for right turners as usual. The
lead car was signalling right but hanging way back like I
was a rattlesnake or something. The cross street was on
the left turn signal phase so perfect time for him to make
his right turn on red. Finally I motioned like, "What? Go
on and do it", and he did. Sometimes I'll just wheel up onto
the sidewalk and push the crosswalk button. Gets me out of
the way and gives me a pole to hang onto without unclipping.

Needless to say, it's all very much simpler if you stay out of the gutter.


The pole with the crosswalk button is not in the gutter. The curb
I had my foot on was adjacent to a bike lane - a very nice and useful
one, in fact. That very intersection is at the crest of quite a steep
little hill, and (at that very time of day) twenty or more cars queue
up at that light, while I can just charge at the hill and climb past
them. Holy crap I can hardly imagine queuing up *with* them way back
down the hill, breathing exhaust, stopping and starting on the hill
as twenty more impatient cagers stacking up behind hoping to make it
through the green start honking.

Dan writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:50:00 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

One of the first things we do at a red light (if we stop :-) ...

That's our Dan!

... is to check for cars that want to turn right - not only the
lead car 'cause maybe the next one can squeeze right of him.
If they're signalling and right turn on red is allowed, I
might move to the center of the lane at the front of the
queue to let them by on the right.

Why not be at the center of the lane anyway? In general, if your speed is the same of the motor vehicles around you, you're more visible and safer at lane center. When the mutual speed is zero at an intersection, that applies at least as much.


Um... because I'd be several car lengths back from the intersection
breathing exhaust fumes (?)

Stopping at lane center should be normal. It almost totally prevents the crashes that killed Tracey Sparling. And if you see that the motorist behind you wants to turn right, (or if you know an intersection gets lots of right-on-red traffic) you can move a couple feet further left as you glide to a stop, then wave them by on your right. I do this often, and always get a "thank you" wave.

Of course, the prerequisite is dropping the "I gotta ride in the gutter" mentality.


Well, if you stretch "as far right as practicable" to mean far
left when approaching an intersection that you know gets lots of
right-on-red traffic...

I can either shuffle back over to the right when there are
no more right-turners-on-red waiting, or I might anticipate
the green and get a good hole shot so I'm not blocking
straight ahead cars when it does.

It doesn't take much of a "hole shot" to beat a typical car across an intersection. I do it almost every time, and I'm on Medicare.


Well, if you're in the center of the lane blocking them, it's
not that hard.

Shuffling out of their way and back is kind of a pain in
the ass, but courteous PR and all that. And that's only if
necessary. Yesterday I was stopped at a red light with my
foot on the curb...

Foot on the curb? Why?


My foot easily reaches the raised curb while I relax in the saddle,
it's easier on neoprene booties than standing, it's as far right as
practicable... why do you ask??

... checked for right turners as usual. The
lead car was signalling right but hanging way back like I
was a rattlesnake or something. The cross street was on
the left turn signal phase so perfect time for him to make
his right turn on red. Finally I motioned like, "What? Go
on and do it", and he did. Sometimes I'll just wheel up onto
the sidewalk and push the crosswalk button. Gets me out of
the way and gives me a pole to hang onto without unclipping.

Needless to say, it's all very much simpler if you stay out of the gutter.


The pole with the crosswalk button is not in the gutter. The curb
I had my foot on was adjacent to a bike lane - a very nice and useful
one, in fact. That very intersection is at the crest of quite a steep
little hill, and (at that very time of day) twenty or more cars queue
up at that light, while I can just charge at the hill and climb past
them. Holy crap I can hardly imagine queuing up *with* them way back
down the hill, breathing exhaust, stopping and starting on the hill
as twenty more impatient cagers stacking up behind hoping to make it
through the green start honking.

Oh, the speed limit up that hill? 45 mph. Without the bike lane
- even with the same pavement width - you can be sure that *some*
drivers would be more hesitant to pass a bicyclist, the backups
would get worse, and the bicyclist would be blamed. Great.

I almost never have to stop for that light. I can see where the
light cycle is a quarter mile back, and pace my climb to get the
green (only need to make a quick shoulder check at the top for
right-turning cars, who always yield anyway). This particular
time I just didn't quite catch the stale green.

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:17:34 AM UTC-8, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:



On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:50:00 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:



One of the first things we do at a red light (if we stop :-) ...



That's our Dan!



... is to check for cars that want to turn right - not only the

lead car 'cause maybe the next one can squeeze right of him.

If they're signalling and right turn on red is allowed, I

might move to the center of the lane at the front of the

queue to let them by on the right.



Why not be at the center of the lane anyway? In general, if your speed is the same of the motor vehicles around you, you're more visible and safer at lane center. When the mutual speed is zero at an intersection, that applies at least as much.





Um... because I'd be several car lengths back from the intersection

breathing exhaust fumes (?)



Stopping at lane center should be normal. It almost totally prevents the crashes that killed Tracey Sparling. And if you see that the motorist behind you wants to turn right, (or if you know an intersection gets lots of right-on-red traffic) you can move a couple feet further left as you glide to a stop, then wave them by on your right. I do this often, and always get a "thank you" wave.



Of course, the prerequisite is dropping the "I gotta ride in the gutter" mentality.





Well, if you stretch "as far right as practicable" to mean far

left when approaching an intersection that you know gets lots of

right-on-red traffic...



I can either shuffle back over to the right when there are

no more right-turners-on-red waiting, or I might anticipate

the green and get a good hole shot so I'm not blocking

straight ahead cars when it does.



It doesn't take much of a "hole shot" to beat a typical car across an intersection. I do it almost every time, and I'm on Medicare.





Well, if you're in the center of the lane blocking them, it's

not that hard.



Shuffling out of their way and back is kind of a pain in

the ass, but courteous PR and all that. And that's only if

necessary. Yesterday I was stopped at a red light with my

foot on the curb...



Foot on the curb? Why?





My foot easily reaches the raised curb while I relax in the saddle,

it's easier on neoprene booties than standing, it's as far right as

practicable... why do you ask??



... checked for right turners as usual. The

lead car was signalling right but hanging way back like I

was a rattlesnake or something. The cross street was on

the left turn signal phase so perfect time for him to make

his right turn on red. Finally I motioned like, "What? Go

on and do it", and he did. Sometimes I'll just wheel up onto

the sidewalk and push the crosswalk button. Gets me out of

the way and gives me a pole to hang onto without unclipping.



Needless to say, it's all very much simpler if you stay out of the gutter.





The pole with the crosswalk button is not in the gutter. The curb

I had my foot on was adjacent to a bike lane - a very nice and useful

one, in fact. That very intersection is at the crest of quite a steep

little hill, and (at that very time of day) twenty or more cars queue

up at that light, while I can just charge at the hill and climb past

them. Holy crap I can hardly imagine queuing up *with* them way back

down the hill, breathing exhaust, stopping and starting on the hill

as twenty more impatient cagers stacking up behind hoping to make it

through the green start honking.

I see people doing that -- honking and all. They're still working their way down the road by the time I'm in my office getting my clothes changed.

Time to stop posting and go for a ride. Rain has stopped, sun is sort of out for a second, and my commuter rain bike is all cleaned and refurb'd after yesterday. New disc pads, fatty tires with a little tread (Pasela TGs), wheels super-trued, new-old chain with mixed links from SRAM and KMC (hey, it works -- I needed an additional link to re-use the 9sp chain from a racing bike that was upgraded to 10s). New cleats on the shoes. I'm even going to put new tape on the bars when I get home. Right now, its a patchwork of ripped up cork tape and electrical tape. Totally trailer park.

-- Jay Beattie.

Dan writes:

Dan writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:50:00 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

One of the first things we do at a red light (if we stop :-) ...

That's our Dan!

... is to check for cars that want to turn right - not only the
lead car 'cause maybe the next one can squeeze right of him.
If they're signalling and right turn on red is allowed, I
might move to the center of the lane at the front of the
queue to let them by on the right.

Why not be at the center of the lane anyway? In general, if your speed is the same of the motor vehicles around you, you're more visible and safer at lane center. When the mutual speed is zero at an intersection, that applies at least as much.


Um... because I'd be several car lengths back from the intersection
breathing exhaust fumes (?)

Stopping at lane center should be normal. It almost totally prevents the crashes that killed Tracey Sparling. And if you see that the motorist behind you wants to turn right, (or if you know an intersection gets lots of right-on-red traffic) you can move a couple feet further left as you glide to a stop, then wave them by on your right. I do this often, and always get a "thank you" wave.

Of course, the prerequisite is dropping the "I gotta ride in the gutter" mentality.


Well, if you stretch "as far right as practicable" to mean far
left when approaching an intersection that you know gets lots of
right-on-red traffic...


In fact, I'm thinking now of a particular intersection
that I know has lots of right-on-red traffic. It also has
lots of straight through on green traffic. If I glide to
a stop at lane center (or even further left)... and then the
light turns green as I shoulder check for right-on-red traffic
to wave on through, I can hear it now coming from behind at 35
mph:

HOOOOOOONNNNNNKKKKK!!!!

I *cannot* hear myself trying to explain to the cop how it's
not practicable for me to be further right because somebody
*might* have wanted to turn right *if* the light had stayed
red and I must be out of their way.

Plus, we were talking about bike boxes which are intersection
components of _bike lanes_ - the presence of which makes my
(your) excuse for being out in the lane (to convenience even
*possible* right-on-red traffic) pretty weak.

I can either shuffle back over to the right when there are
no more right-turners-on-red waiting, or I might anticipate
the green and get a good hole shot so I'm not blocking
straight ahead cars when it does.

It doesn't take much of a "hole shot" to beat a typical car across an intersection. I do it almost every time, and I'm on Medicare.


Well, if you're in the center of the lane blocking them, it's
not that hard.

Shuffling out of their way and back is kind of a pain in
the ass, but courteous PR and all that. And that's only if
necessary. Yesterday I was stopped at a red light with my
foot on the curb...

Foot on the curb? Why?


My foot easily reaches the raised curb while I relax in the saddle,
it's easier on neoprene booties than standing, it's as far right as
practicable... why do you ask??

... checked for right turners as usual. The
lead car was signalling right but hanging way back like I
was a rattlesnake or something. The cross street was on
the left turn signal phase so perfect time for him to make
his right turn on red. Finally I motioned like, "What? Go
on and do it", and he did. Sometimes I'll just wheel up onto
the sidewalk and push the crosswalk button. Gets me out of
the way and gives me a pole to hang onto without unclipping.

Needless to say, it's all very much simpler if you stay out of the gutter.


The pole with the crosswalk button is not in the gutter. The curb
I had my foot on was adjacent to a bike lane - a very nice and useful
one, in fact. That very intersection is at the crest of quite a steep
little hill, and (at that very time of day) twenty or more cars queue
up at that light, while I can just charge at the hill and climb past
them. Holy crap I can hardly imagine queuing up *with* them way back
down the hill, breathing exhaust, stopping and starting on the hill
as twenty more impatient cagers stacking up behind hoping to make it
through the green start honking.

Oh, the speed limit up that hill? 45 mph. Without the bike lane
- even with the same pavement width - you can be sure that *some*
drivers would be more hesitant to pass a bicyclist, the backups
would get worse, and the bicyclist would be blamed. Great.

I almost never have to stop for that light. I can see where the
light cycle is a quarter mile back, and pace my climb to get the
green (only need to make a quick shoulder check at the top for
right-turning cars, who always yield anyway). This particular
time I just didn't quite catch the stale green.