A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 31st 19, 10:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated.


While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


--
- Frank Krygowski



so you think that it is a difficult problem to stay in your own marked lane?

If a motorists is signaling a right turn and he is there before you HE HAS RIGHT OF WAY. Or don't you know that? Now if he isn't signaling and you pass him on the right he is required to look before proceeding.

Wake up, there is no need for you to argue simply for the sake of doing so.
Ads
  #32  
Old May 31st 19, 11:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:00:53 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated.


While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's true but often drivers have a difficult time judging how fast a bicycle is moving so as a cyclist you have to remain alert at all times as I'm sure you are.

A couple of years ago I was in good shape and I did an all out sprint to cross and intersection as the light just turned yellow. When I made it to the other side and looked down I was doing 36 mph. Now that shocked the crap out of me since it was flat ground with no wind. People making a free right turn could EASILY misjudge that speed.
  #33  
Old May 31st 19, 11:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:58:03 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/31/2019 1:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.


The first time I took the written driving test I missed the question
about turning right when there's a bike lane. But what California does
makes sense.

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

At intersections without traffic signals you have to take other steps to
minimize right-hooks. But even when there's no bike lane, and the
cyclist is riding on the right side of the road, you have the danger of
a right hook.

In a perfect world, drivers would all behave properly and there would be
no need for any bike lane, whether painted or protected. We're not there
yet.

What amuses me is when someone insists that a protected bike lane is
unnecessary because there have been very few problems with either a
painted bike lane or no bike lane. This misses the point. The reason why
there are few problems is because so few people feel safe riding under
those conditions. On Tuesday night we interviewed 52 teenagers for our
teen commission. Several mentioned about how they would not be allowed
to ride their bicycles to school until there was more protected
infrastructure.

If you want to get more people riding, you have to make them not only
feel safe, you also have to make their parents feel that it's safe and
you also need to design the protected bicycle lanes so they actually are
safe enough. If you just want hard-core riders to be out there using
bicycles for transportation then you don't need bicycle lanes at all.


Uh, no. Bike lanes become dashed coming to an intersection meaning that cars may cross the bike lane and that a cyclist is expected to watch for that.

The fact that so many people don't use signals where they are appropriate is a worse problem.
  #34  
Old May 31st 19, 11:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 5/31/2019 4:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated.


While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.


It may not be difficult for you, Jay. You're conscious of bicycles, and
apparently fairly limber. I'll assume you also drive a motor vehicle
with decent visibility to the right rear. Those conditions do not apply
to lots and lots of people.

And yes, it certainly is more of a problem when the car (or worse, large
truck or bus) is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane.
That's the specific cause of a fair number of bike fatalities. The
cyclists feel protected because they're in their own special space (even
without barriers) and feel it's their right to move faster than the
jammed-up motor vehicle traffic.

Come on, you've had fatalities from that in Portland, haven't you?

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.


I heard about the case that generated that although I don't remember the
details. Didn't it illustrate the problem we're discussing? And as to
the solution - we'll see. Legal compensation or at least punishment of
an offender can be a bit satisfying. But it depends on the extent of
injuries.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.


California's law makes more sense to me than Oregon's. But I haven't
ridden enough in California to know how well it's obeyed.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #35  
Old June 1st 19, 12:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 5/31/2019 4:57 PM, sms wrote:

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.


And I saw those solutions implemented when we were in Stockholm. The
cost, of course, is delay for all road users.

My wife and I dutifully stood in the bike lanes observing our own little
red bicycle traffic light, but many other bicyclists did not. When the
car light was green, they went.

If the situation is reversed - red for the cars, green for the bikes -
some motorists will complain even if there are plenty of bikes using the
lanes. If, as in many installations, there are no bikes using the lanes,
almost all motorists will complain.

I suppose this could be solved by spending for detection systems
monitoring for the presence of bikes. But I haven't heard of such a
system being implemented in America.

At intersections without traffic signals you have to take other steps to
minimize right-hooks.


Such as...?

But even when there's no bike lane, and the
cyclist is riding on the right side of the road, you have the danger of
a right hook.


Which is why legitimate bike education programs explain about taking the
lane. Unfortunately, bike education is far down the list of measures
that facility fanatics promote. Instead, they want systems designed for
"8 to 80," their code words for people that know absolutely nothing
about traffic interactions.

Two or three weeks ago, I was talking to a young mother. She had been
riding with her first grade son to school on "bike to school" day. They
were headed east, riding on the north side sidewalk.

He got a bit ahead of her on a downhill - maybe 30 yards, I think - and
since he saw a green "Walk" signal, he rolled through an intersection
without stopping. He was nearly hit by an eastbound motorist who turned
north. I don't know for sure how close it was; but the woman was in
tears as she told me about it.

Admittedly, they were riding "wrong way," so to speak. (I know the road,
and it actually makes sense due to other weird factors.) But the same
sort of problem occurs with any side path. Is it safe "8 to 80"? No,
it's actually more complicated. Kids riding that way have to be taught
to look all around them for surprised motorists coming from any direction!

Wrong way makes it worse; hiding cyclists behind parked cars makes it
worse; but if a cyclist is not where a motorist normally looks, he's at
elevated risk. And his risk is even greater if he thinks he's NOT at risk!

What amuses me is when someone insists that a protected bike lane is
unnecessary because there have been very few problems with either a
painted bike lane or no bike lane. This misses the point. The reason why
there are few problems is because so few people feel safe riding under
those conditions.


What frustrates me is when "protected bike lane" maniacs say that ONLY
those cattle chutes can be safe. And when they claim that if only those
things are built, bike mode share will soar, people will give up their
cars, congestion will decrease, pollution will plummet and the earth
will be saved.

As I've pointed out in other posts, their is no "dose response" between
bike facilities and bike mode share. San Francisco's main bike mode
share growth happened while they installed essentially no bike
facilities. Pittsburgh's bike mode share grew before they built any
relevant facilities, then stopped growing when they started building.
Portland continues to build more facilities, but its mode share has
leveled off.
If you want to get more people riding, you have to make them not only
feel safe, you also have to make their parents feel that it's safe and
you also need to design the protected bicycle lanes so they actually are
safe enough. If you just want hard-core riders to be out there using
bicycles for transportation then you don't need bicycle lanes at all.


Here's my bet: Cupertino will install more bike lanes, including maybe a
whole mile of "protected" bike lanes. There may be a little blip in bike
mode share. But the blip will go away. And we'll never hear about this
from its mayor.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #36  
Old June 1st 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

On Fri, 31 May 2019 04:27:45 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

If there's a stopped vehicle in the bicycle lane the bicyclist should STOP, wait for an opening in the next lane, signal that they're moving left and then move left and ride in the lane until they've passed the stopped vehicle and then they should merge back into the bike lane. There should be NO SWERVING into the traffic lane by the bicyclist if the bicyclist is paying any attention at all to what's in front of them.



You are forgetting that bike lanes are created for the stated purpose
of luring the ignorant, incompetent, and inattentive onto the streets.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

  #37  
Old June 1st 19, 12:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 5/31/2019 6:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


Uh, no. Bike lanes become dashed coming to an intersection meaning that cars may cross the bike lane and that a cyclist is expected to watch for that.

The fact that so many people don't use signals where they are appropriate is a worse problem.


I've thought of trying to record the percentage of times motorists do
signal their moves properly, but I fear it will be too tricky to do
while I drive. I'm strongly suspecting the result would be fewer than 50%.

Just a few days ago I was driving in the left lane and a small SUV
whipped in front of me from the right lane. He signaled, but apparently
used the downward motion of his left hand to do it the same time he
commenced the turn.

That same day, on a two-lane 55 mph road, a motorist in front of me hit
his brakes, slowed to about 20 mph, _then_ put on his left turn signal
as he waited for oncoming traffic to clear.

And most seem to do even less than those two - as in "I found this stick
hidden by the left side of my steering wheel! What IS it??"

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #38  
Old June 1st 19, 12:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:12:13 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2019 9:13 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:37:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

"need for future research"

Boilerplate. Just as teachers' union officials always add
something about higher school taxes for the government
schools, outcomes and efficiency be damned. What researcher
ever called for less research?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Hold on a minute there, young man. I have often said that my research projects would go faster if I were funded to do them in St Tropez, especially the one which requires measuring the upper thighs of women to check whether Dr Kinsey got it right when he claimed that in the generation since pasteurisation of milk American women put on 3 inches around the upper thigh, and of course how universally relevant his claim has now become, urgent work that no one else is even suggesting.

Andre Jute
Hands-on research


You need an assistant to do field work while you compose a
nice report. I'm available.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I like the way you use a full stop where anyone in a hurry would read a comma to turn a suggestion into an imperative.

AJ
  #39  
Old June 1st 19, 01:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 5/31/2019 4:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

snip

You are forgetting that bike lanes are created for the stated purpose
of luring the ignorant, incompetent, and inattentive onto the streets.


Actually that applies to motor vehicle drivers. They hate having to
share the road with cyclists and much prefer that the cyclists, whether
competent or incompetent, not be holding up vehicle traffic. Every time
a bicycle lane is illegally blocked and cyclists have to enter the
vehicle traffic lane it greatly increases the danger.


  #40  
Old June 1st 19, 02:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:17:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 4:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated.

While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.


It may not be difficult for you, Jay. You're conscious of bicycles, and
apparently fairly limber. I'll assume you also drive a motor vehicle
with decent visibility to the right rear. Those conditions do not apply
to lots and lots of people.

And yes, it certainly is more of a problem when the car (or worse, large
truck or bus) is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane.
That's the specific cause of a fair number of bike fatalities. The
cyclists feel protected because they're in their own special space (even
without barriers) and feel it's their right to move faster than the
jammed-up motor vehicle traffic.


It is their right to move faster than motor-vehicle traffic. That's the whole idea. Move traffic. Would you have the bikes lined up behind the cars at lights? Yikes. Around here, you'd have to wait through ten light cycles to get anywhere if you threw in the bikes.

Come on, you've had fatalities from that in Portland, haven't you?


Yes. We've had fatalities from right hooks in and out of bike lanes, some of which are kind of hard to figure out.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.


I heard about the case that generated that although I don't remember the
details. Didn't it illustrate the problem we're discussing? And as to
the solution - we'll see. Legal compensation or at least punishment of
an offender can be a bit satisfying. But it depends on the extent of
injuries.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.


California's law makes more sense to me than Oregon's. But I haven't
ridden enough in California to know how well it's obeyed.


It's really what a lot of cars already do around here, although at some intersections, it really ****es me off because the car is stopped, and I want to turn right. I have to jump up a curb cut to get around.

-- Jay Beattie.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, study finds Alycidon UK 3 August 19th 15 08:48 PM
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 33 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Social Issues 32 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
Cycle lanes a "danger" to drivers. Simon Mason[_2_] UK 10 March 12th 08 01:44 AM
Cycle lanes save lives POHB UK 2 July 18th 07 11:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.