Danger in the Bike Lane

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...danger04m.html

Matt Corwin was pedaling home from work on his usual route when he
approached the University Bridge. A line of cars waited at the red
light, as Corwin cruised past in the bike lane.

*As he entered the intersection, an SUV turned right -- into Corwin's
path. Corwin squeezed his hand brakes. He stopped 2 feet from the SUV.
The driver never saw him.*

"I would have run into the side of his car, Corwin recalled. "It's not
like he would have run over me. I probably would have bounced off. But
still, it was pretty disconcerting."At this same corner, 19-year-old
cyclist Bryce Lewis was killed by a dump truck Sept. 7, as it turned
from Eastlake Avenue East onto Fuhrman Avenue East.

"Right-hook" collisions, as riders call them, are among the most common
risks of urban cycling. A bike enters an intersection going straight and
gets hit by a right-turning car.

It's a problem that cities such as Seattle must solve as they encourage
thousands of people to switch from cars to bicycles. Mayor Greg Nickels
has set a goal of tripling bicycle use within a decade.

Currently, the city estimates that 4,000 to 8,000 people cycle to work
or school each weekday, depending on the weather, and 36 percent of
residents ride for fun, errands or a commute at least occasionally.

The city's new Bicycle Master Plan calls for expanding the bike-lane
network, now 31 miles, to 143 miles by 2016, and extending the trail
system from 39 miles to 58 miles. To address right-hook crashes, Seattle
this spring will attempt to make bike lanes at a few busy intersections
more noticeable by painting them green, a strategy already tried by
other cities.

Veteran cyclists warn that unless riders stay alert, a bike lane can
lure them into danger.

"Avoid the Suicide Slot," warns an essay by Kent Peterson, commute
director for the Bicycle Alliance of Washington. He generally uses bike
lanes but will often move left into the car lane to make himself more
visible as he approaches intersections.

David Smith, of Seattle, a part-time cycling instructor, argues that
bike lanes create a false sense of security, and he avoids them. "It is
an enormous task to help bicyclists overcome that eye candy in the
streets." He advocates mixing with traffic, or "bicycle driving."

*Right hooks*

In Portland, which has done some of the nation's best research on bike
safety, recent data show that 10 percent of car-bike crashes are right
hooks. They caused two of Portland's six bike fatalities last year.

In Gig Harbor, cyclist Gloria Lavick, 58, died July 5 after she went
under a right-turning delivery truck.

At Seattle's University Bridge, a picture of Bryce Lewis and a white
memorial "ghost bike" are mounted on a utility pole above the crash
site, a daily reminder next to the bike lane.

Peterson describes the Eastlake-Fuhrman intersection as hazardous, where
he would ride in the general traffic lane.

"I think this would actually be safer if there weren't a bike lane
here," he said, "because what it does is, it encourages bicycle riders
to crowd to the right, and that takes you out of the line of sight."

King County prosecutors are reviewing the case and have not announced
whether the dump truck driver will face charges.

From 2003 to 2007, 20 accidents involving bicycles were reported in
Seattle near the south end of the University Bridge.

On the other side of Lake Union, 36 bike accidents were reported on busy
Dexter Avenue North, out of a total 1,217 citywide crashes involving
bicycles. The city would not release details on types of crashes,
including how many were right hooks.

Seattle law requires drivers to yield to cyclists in bike lanes -- but
on the street, bike lanes usually aren't marked once riders enter an
intersection. And often, riders will forge through a crossing without
looking for cars that might turn.

*Green lanes*

In response to right-hook crashes, cities are trying to move bicyclists
away from the curb at busy crossings.

The federal government's street-design manual encourages cities to
replace a solid bike-lane stripe with a dotted line where bikes and cars
are likely to cross paths. A dotted line warns cyclists that cars will
be turning right, and it invites cyclists to move left into general
traffic, said Rich Meredith, city traffic engineer in Shoreline.

Seattle is gingerly trying out new designs to see if they reduce
conflicts between bicyclists and motorists turning at intersections.

Last year, parts of Stone Way North were repainted with new bike lanes
that include dotted lines at several crossings.

At each end of the Fremont Bridge, road signs tell car drivers to yield
to bikes -- southbound motorists turning right toward Seattle Pacific
University will wait for the bicyclists pedaling straight, toward the
Dexter Avenue North bike route. On a recent morning, many drivers were
looking over their shoulders toward the bike lane, before making the turn.

"It's a big help," said rider Sean Sheldrake, who has commuted for 12
years. "A couple of $50 signs go a long way."

Similar issues exist at some trails, and Seattle has installed warning
signs for drivers making turns across the Chief Sealth Trail on Beacon Hill.

This spring, Seattle will paint green bicycle lanes at four busy
intersections, said Peter Lagerwey, a bicycling expert with the city's
transportation department. The sites are southbound Dexter at Denny Way,
both ends of the Fremont Bridge, and North 145th Street where
Shoreline's new Interurban Trail meets the city limits.

Portland has used blue-colored bike lanes since the 1990s and is adding
13 similar lanes this year, to be painted green. City officials
videotaped traffic and found that motorists yielded far more often to
bikes in marked blue lanes -- and that cyclists glanced at cars less
often, a problem. Still, drivers and cyclists said the streets seemed safer.

If upcoming experiments go well, Seattle's University Bridge is a top
candidate for the next round of improvements, Lagerwey said.

New York City; Victoria, B.C.; Vancouver, B.C.; Portland; and several
European cities have gone further by painting "bike boxes."

These are marked zones at stoplights, where bicycles can go to the head
of a line of traffic*.* That gives bicyclists a head start to beat
turning automobiles, once the light turns green. New York has 60 bike
boxes, but it's too soon to measure whether safety has improved.

In Davis, Calif., the city has gone further, giving cyclists their own
traffic signals, with bike icons replacing solid red, yellow and green
lights, at complex intersections.

Kirkland is studying whether to try bike boxes in certain areas, said
Councilman Tom Hodgson, a bicycle commuter. Hodgson said a dump truck
turned and hit his bike about five years ago.

Bike advocates argue that safety will improve as the sight of more
riders translates into better awareness by drivers.

"We are not at a critical mass of bicyclists on the road, that drivers
are aware bicyclists are omnipresent," said Chuck Ayers, executive
director of the Cascade Bicycle Club.

Ayers said the right-hook risk "is not an engineering issue. It is a
taking-responsibility issue, for both drivers and cyclists."

*Riding paranoid*

There are other ways to get hit in a bike lane.

In so-called "left hook" crashes, left-turning drivers become so focused
on avoiding oncoming cars that they miss a cyclist in the oncoming bike
lane.

"They look for threats. That's how they're wired," Peterson said.

Like old cats, urban cyclists tend to develop survival instincts, such
as assuming they are invisible to all drivers.

Hodgson has added a hand signal to his repertoire -- he now points
straight ahead to show motorists he's proceeding straight.

"I just ride paranoid," said Sheldrake, who said he's been accident-free
for 12 years in Fremont.

He will not pass a car on the right unless he makes eye contact first.
That can mean shining his head-mounted, high-intensity light through the
car window.

"It gets their attention, long enough to keep you from rolling over
their hood," he said.

vey writes:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...danger04m.html

Matt Corwin was pedaling home from work on his usual route when he
approached the University Bridge. A line of cars waited at the red
light, as Corwin cruised past in the bike lane.

*As he entered the intersection, an SUV turned right -- into Corwin's
path. Corwin squeezed his hand brakes. He stopped 2 feet from the SUV.
The driver never saw him.*

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
the driver's error was in not merging into the bike lane before
turning across it. If there was a shoulder, the driver would have
had no such obligation.

Fortunately there was no accident in the case cited above, but had
there been, the responsibility of the driver for an accident would
have been far less clear without the bike lane - without the bike
lane the driver could argue that the cyclist was passing unsafely
to the driver's right.

Bike lane or not, if you are passing to the right of a line of cars,
it is a good idea to be very cautious about drivers turning in front
of you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,

That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.

the driver's error was in not merging into the bike lane before
turning across it. If there was a shoulder, the driver would have
had no such obligation.

Fortunately there was no accident in the case cited above, but had
there been, the responsibility of the driver for an accident would
have been far less clear without the bike lane - without the bike
lane the driver could argue that the cyclist was passing unsafely
to the driver's right.

Bike lane or not, if you are passing to the right of a line of cars,
it is a good idea to be very cautious about drivers turning in front
of you.

vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,

That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.

Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.

Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.




Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in
Louisiana and see what happens.

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.

Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.




Califoria allows something called "lane splitting." Try that in your
state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.
Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.

Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in
Louisiana and see what happens.

Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In
fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people
wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable
chance of driving around without getting tickets.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. schrieb:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.
Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.
Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in
Louisiana and see what happens.

Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In
fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people
wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable
chance of driving around without getting tickets.


Well, the USA _are_ a state party to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs
and Signals, aren't they?

Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.
Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.


Califoria allows something called "lane splitting." Try that in your
state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

.... which nobody has to know about to drive safely - it is the
responsibility of a person lane splitting to do it safely, and
it is not a requirement. Avoiding turning across another lane of
traffic is a requirement - pretty much common sense as well.

If you want to make your point, I suggest you show where you
think the law in Washington is deficient.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Eric Vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Assuming Washington has the same or similar laws to those in California,
That is not a safe assumption to make. CA has many laws that are not
found in the rest of the US.
Actually, it is a safe assumption - ever hear of the Uniform Vehicle
Code? There are cogent reasons for making traffic laws similar in
all states. California is no exception.
Ever hear of the Uniform Code of Commerce? Try relying on that in
Louisiana and see what happens.

Invalid argument - you said it was not a safe assumption to make. In
fact, traffic laws are pretty similar across the U.S. Otherwise people
wouldn't be able to fly somewhere, rent a car, and have a reasonable
chance of driving around without getting tickets.


Similar does not mean the same. The rules concerning vehicles crossing
bike lanes are different in Oregon, for example. Do you know which way
*all* the states have gone on this important question?

"Uniform" codes are just recommendations, not requirements which makes
their writing uniform, hence the name, but not their adoption.