|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/ The problem is elective right turns from a through lane that parallels a bike lane. The California approach is to allow the turning car to enter and remain in the bike line prior to turning. Under Oregon law, a motor vehicle may only enter the bike lane while executing a turn -- which is often a good thing because it keeps cars from stacking up in the bike lane. OTOH, it invites right hooks. Taking a consistent approach to bicycle lanes as "lanes," the California approach is the correct one -- move over one lane and execute the turn. Whatever the approach, we all have to be on the same page -- and there is a page. It's in the Oregon Drivers' Handbook. It's all spelled out if anyone cared to read it. -- Jay Beattie. I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. Pete Pete |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 17, 9:56*pm, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. *In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. *One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? *(Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. *If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see If the lane is marked "right turn only", bicycles would also be required to turn right if they enter the intersection from that lane. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 18, 10:14*am, Ningi wrote:
On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. *In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. *One day they might, but now they don't.. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? *(Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. *If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/*... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. *That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman : "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. - Frank Krygowski |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 18, 6:32 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi wrote: On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/ ... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman: "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. I do the same thing - for the same reason and to the same observed effect. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 18, 7:02*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 18, 6:32 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi wrote: On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. *In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. *One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? *(Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. *If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. *That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! *It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. *Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman: "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. *They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. I do the same thing - for the same reason and to the same observed effect. You're both lucky you don't get pulled over for drunk driving. -- Jay Beattie. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On 19/10/2012 02:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi wrote: On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/ ... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Nah, this is a nasty halfway house where you are told what to do, then abruptly the advice ends when it gets complicated. Either put proper markings in, or don't bother at all. This is the worst of both worlds. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman : "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." I agree. The example above is neither one nor the other. This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. Likewise. Pete |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:02 pm, Dan O wrote: On Oct 18, 6:32 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi wrote: On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman: "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. I do the same thing - for the same reason and to the same observed effect. You're both lucky you don't get pulled over for drunk driving. I ride miles of chip seal uphill smack dab on the white line a few inches from the bitter crumbling edge (except for a few spots where the white line actually ducks off the edge). The thing about the fog line and paved shoulder seems to be that motorists come up from behind, and see the bicyclist riding on the paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so far. (I should note that most of my paved shoulder miles are on rural roads with very little traffic - almost zero traffic just the very occasional vehicle in the mornings - and usually both lanes of the 2- lane plus shoulders road is empty.) But a few drivers have issues that manifest. I theorize that they have resentment. Resentment of my freedom, my fun (when it's not too cold and wet), resentment that I won't be stopping at the gas station to drop $50 on a partial tank of gas, resentment that I won't have to deal with traffic in the same way they will when we get to town, resentment that their wives and girlfriends look over at my buff ass flexing-flexing-flexing through my lycra shorts, resentment because they lump me in with all other bicyclists like that one who always takes the lane in front of them or that scofflaw who occasionally actually disrupts traffic... (I should note that these rural roads are filled with hicks [no offense] with deep seated contexts for their issues.) And this resentment is compounded by an erroneous sense of superiority - superiority that (they assume) I don't have a big, expensive, powerful motor vehicle or a driver's license. They don't like me simply because I'm there, and they decide (largely subconsciously but often consciously as well) to grudgingly show me that their benevolence extends only to granting me the paved shoulder which they are not supposed to drive on anyway and so I am not supposed to ride in the "car" lane and they buzz past without making any effort to move left over or in some cases even nearer the center line (despite a completely empty road). I noticed this during a time of many days riding just barely left of the fog line. And I noted that if I rode just barely (a couple inches) *right* of the fog line, these buzzing incidents pretty much disappeared. I don't like doing it this way. I'd much rather ride on the paved shoulder as they approach, indicating my cooperative stance, but as above it often doesn't work out mutually. Also, I think some of these people (resentful or not) see me vacilating a few inches left and right of the fog line and think I'm wobbly and might fall over and dont' want to have to deal with the mess and cops and insurance and just steer clear. So in practice I actually ride in the lane (the wheel tracks are usually much smoother and cleaner on chip seal) a lot since the road is empty. As a car approaches from behind I move left and ride smack dab on top of the fog line a ways, then further right onto the paved shoulder out of their way well before they have to pass. I don't like to wag at them in some kind of perverse negotiation for space, though it does work. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 19, 7:51 am, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 18, 7:02 pm, Dan O wrote: On Oct 18, 6:32 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Oct 18, 10:14 am, Ningi wrote: On 18/10/2012 14:52, Jay Beattie wrote: On Oct 17, 9:56 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-18-2012 00:17, Dan O wrote: On Oct 17, 6:32 pm, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-17-2012 15:32, Jay Beattie wrote: Reading the article, the problem is not with bike boxes but is with bike lanes -- riders remaining in the bike lane when approaching a green light. In that situation, the right turning car has to yield to the bicyclist and is, in effect, turning from the second lane over. The problem is that car don't know that, nor do they look for traffic approaching on the right. One day they might, but now they don't. They don't know it because most people don't read law, and don't expect a law that STUPID to exist. Think about it--we are required to go straight when on the right of someone going to the right? They are required to turn right from the left of someone going straight? I repeat: font size="+9"STUPID/font Do you have a better idea? (Should be easy, if the existing solution is so "stupid".) Yes. If the lane is _MARKED_ right-turn only, don't put "except for bicycles" in some law book that motorists never see This is the usual pattern for right turn only lanes. http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5339741067/... I like the way the bike lane markings disappear during the transition from one side of the lane to the other. That's saying 'this is really dangerous so we'll let you figure it out on your own. That's actually what's best! It's simply wrong to assume that a guy sitting in an office can do a drawing that shows the best place for merging to happen, no matter what. Yet that's what the typical dashed- line zig-zag bike lane shift does. Hans Monderman showed pretty conclusively that when people are made to figure things out for themselves, traffic gets both safer and more efficient. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman: "Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety of urban streets improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Shared Space designs typically call for removing regulatory traffic control features (such as kerbs, lane markings, signs and lights) and replacing intersections with roundabouts." This is related to another documented effect of bike lanes: closer passing by motorists. They seem to think the stripe guarantees the bicyclist will never leave the bike lane, even if it's filled with broken glass, potholes, car junk. We have very few bike lanes where I live, but on highways with fog lines, I often make a point of riding a bit left, then a bit right of the fog line, so motorists know that it's not an impermeable barrier. I'm convinced they give me more room as a result. I do the same thing - for the same reason and to the same observed effect. You're both lucky you don't get pulled over for drunk driving. I ride miles of chip seal uphill smack dab on the white line a few inches from the bitter crumbling edge (except for a few spots where the white line actually ducks off the edge). The thing about the fog line and paved shoulder seems to be that motorists come up from behind, and see the bicyclist riding on the paved shoulder (all well and fine so far). Most drivers go well around (many leaving their lane completely) - all well and fine so far. (I should note that most of my paved shoulder miles are on rural roads with very little traffic - almost zero traffic just the very occasional vehicle in the mornings - and usually both lanes of the 2- lane plus shoulders road is empty.) But a few drivers have issues that manifest. I theorize that they have resentment. Resentment of my freedom, my fun (when it's not too cold and wet), resentment that I won't be stopping at the gas station to drop $50 on a partial tank of gas, resentment that I won't have to deal with traffic in the same way they will when we get to town, resentment that their wives and girlfriends look over at my buff ass flexing-flexing-flexing through my lycra shorts, resentment because they lump me in with all other bicyclists like that one who always takes the lane in front of them or that scofflaw who occasionally actually disrupts traffic... (I should note that these rural roads are filled with hicks [no offense] with deep seated contexts for their issues.) I wasn't meaning to over generalize or stereotype here - besides which city folk have their own whole set of issues and deep seated context. snip I noticed this during a time of many days riding just barely left of the fog line. And I noted that if I rode just barely (a couple inches) *right* of the fog line, these buzzing incidents pretty much disappeared. Er... reverse that - just barely right of the fog lane (on the shoulder, out of the lane) gets me buzzed; just left of the fog line (in the lane) gets me lots of space. snip (Also, I was once again feeling like I owed Frank a little common ground.) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
Per Dan O:
But a few drivers have issues that manifest. The one that almost nailed me a few years back was a pickup truck towing one of those trailers used by lawn service providers full of lawn equipment. He had not tied down the walk-behind mowers and they had rolled to one side of the trailer so that their handles protruded out a couple of feet wider then the 8-trailer. I'm pretty sure I felt the handle that almost got me graze my neck. -- Pete Cresswell |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bike boxes - a failed experiment
On Oct 19, 9:28 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Dan O: But a few drivers have issues that manifest. The one that almost nailed me a few years back was a pickup truck towing one of those trailers used by lawn service providers full of lawn equipment. He had not tied down the walk-behind mowers and they had rolled to one side of the trailer so that their handles protruded out a couple of feet wider then the 8-trailer. I'm pretty sure I felt the handle that almost got me graze my neck. I got right-hooked by a rig exactly like that - I was in the gravel dodging the handle. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bike Transport Boxes | MikeyOz | Australia | 7 | October 28th 05 11:26 AM |
Bike Boxes | Robberg | Rides | 5 | January 10th 05 06:42 PM |
Failed experiment.(Glove recommendation) | soup | UK | 7 | November 22nd 04 06:48 PM |
4 spokes failed on unridden bike! | Robert Haston | Techniques | 32 | November 17th 04 03:59 AM |
Question about hard shell bike boxes | Boyd Speerschneider | Techniques | 1 | July 18th 04 09:24 AM |