Bike boxes - a failed experiment

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

--
Wes Groleau

“There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.�
— Larry Wall

On Oct 17, 3:32*pm, 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.

So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
getting smushed anyway.

Not only do some drivers not know they're supposed to yield to someone
passing on their right, it can be damned hard to _see_ if a bicyclist
is passing on your right. That's especially true with big trucks and
buses, but even some cars and vans have that problem. So the "legally
right" in this case is true only because the law is crazy. How can it
be sane to have a straight through lane to the right of a right turn
lane?

Like many "innovative" bike facilities, I think bike boxes originated
in northern Europe. But the ones I've seen there had separate signal
phases for the cyclists. That is, they had separate small traffic
lights with bike symbols on them, and bikes got a green maybe ten
seconds before cars did (or maybe vice-versa). That, combined with
general "no right turn on red" laws, makes bike boxes more workable,
but at a cost: significantly less throughput for any intersection.

Personally, I'd welcome "no right turn on red" in places where there's
any significant pedestrian traffic. Motorists have enough privileges
already. But I doubt many motorists would agree, and I doubt many
Americans would accept sitting at a red light for an extra ten seconds
while the "other" type of vehicles (whether cars or bikes) got a green
light.

So America's bike facility advocates have done what they usually do:
Look at one tiny aspect of a foreign system, pick that out ("Ooooh,
green paint!!! That's the key!!!") and forget about all the other
necessary conditions needed to make it work - conditions that do not
and never will exist in the U.S.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 17, 12:56*pm, Dan O wrote:


The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?

One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
(the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
across their path?)

The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
treatments were installed (?)

"(?)" indeed! Look at the table on the next-to-last page (= page 8)
of that letter. In terms of right hook crashes per year, one
intersection went from 0.75 to 0.50. Another went from 0.50 to 0.75.
Three were unchanged, from 0 to 0, and one was unchanged from 0.25 to
0.25. Only one intersection changed from 0.25 per year to 0.0 - i.e.
on one fewer crash.

So your claim of a "decrease in right hook crashes" is based on only
one fewer crash at those other intersections. On the other hand, the
four terrible intersections jumped from 9 to 26 right hook crashes.
Hard to call this "experiment" a success.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 17, 7:25 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:56 pm, Dan O wrote:



The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?

One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
(the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
across their path?)


Whatever anybody paints or erects or enshrines in law, any bicyclist
must still know that they have to be situationally aware and take
ultimate responsibility for their own safety. ("Entice", indeed.
Blithe.)

The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
treatments were installed (?)

"(?)" indeed! Look at the table on the next-to-last page (= page 8)
of that letter. In terms of right hook crashes per year, one
intersection went from 0.75 to 0.50. Another went from 0.50 to 0.75.
Three were unchanged, from 0 to 0, and one was unchanged from 0.25 to
0.25. Only one intersection changed from 0.25 per year to 0.0 - i.e.
on one fewer crash.

So your claim of a "decrease in right hook crashes"

Not my claim (the (?) was at the end of and applied to the entier
sentence).

is based on only
one fewer crash at those other intersections. On the other hand, the
four terrible intersections jumped from 9 to 26 right hook crashes.
Hard to call this "experiment" a success.


And you claim "the bike boxes did NOT help", yet I think even the
"data" says they reduced problems with a fresh green (like the
fatality that prompted the "pushers" to "screw up" by "ramm[ing]"
them). That's help, right - other problems notwithstanding. Also,
98% yield rate sounds pretty good IME. What do I keep saying about
facilities? They are a tangible message that bikes belong.

I don't know what to think of bike boxes myself (don't have experience
with them), but I like the idea of changing things radically - I've
said before I'd welcome waking up one morning and finding
transportation infrastructure straight out of Dr. Seuss. I would be
pleased to see someone like you working with infrastructure planners
to make things better, just as I'd welcome someone working with helmet
manufacturers to make better helmets (like POC), but I think you're
predisposed against either.

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".)

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


--
Wes Groleau

Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW?itemid=99

On 18/10/2012 06:10, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Wed, 17 Oct 2012
19:25:05 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Oct 17, 12:56 pm, Dan O wrote:


The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?

One might say that. I'd say it's pretty irresponsible to subject
uninformed experimental subjects to obvious risks by enticing them
(the cyclists) to pass right-turning cars on the right. Some things
should not require experiment. (Do you know of places where cars go
straight while other cars to the left of them are supposed to turn
across their path?)

The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
treatments were installed (?)

"(?)" indeed! Look at the table on the next-to-last page (= page 8)
of that letter. In terms of right hook crashes per year, one
intersection went from 0.75 to 0.50. Another went from 0.50 to 0.75.
Three were unchanged, from 0 to 0, and one was unchanged from 0.25 to
0.25. Only one intersection changed from 0.25 per year to 0.0 - i.e.
on one fewer crash.

So your claim of a "decrease in right hook crashes" is based on only
one fewer crash at those other intersections. On the other hand, the
four terrible intersections jumped from 9 to 26 right hook crashes.
Hard to call this "experiment" a success.

- Frank Krygowski

I guess they may have learned how NOT to do bike boxes.
We have lots here in the UK, and they mostly seem to work very well,
once you realise that the approach to them needs to be on the right of
any left-turn lane.
They also need to be deep enough that large trucks can actually see if
they have a bike directly in front of them (modern european trucks
have the driver set so far back behind a tall dash - for safety! -
that the area directly in front is a blind spot.


Also there's no equivalent of 'right turn on red' in the UK so that
particular risk is reduced significantly.

One issue is that you are supposed to only enter the bike box via the
approach lane on the side of the road. I frequently ignore this for
safety reasons.

Pete

Per Dan O:
"Police
investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
bicycle involved crashes".

Gasp! You mean somebody is saying that all the statistics that
people are quoting aren't 100% reliable.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

On 10/17/2012 04:52 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Jay Beattie wrote:
:On Oct 17, 11:51 am, David Scheidt wrote:
: In rec.bicycles.tech Dan O wrote:
: :On Oct 17, 9:07 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:
: :snip
:
: :
: : andhttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2012/10/16/135040395...
:
: :http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...0/16/135040395...
:
: :snip
:
: :
: : The letter's interesting. Since the green paint in the bike boxes is
: : not magically protecting people when they're to the right of a right
: : turning vehicle, Portland has a new plan: _Dashed_ green paint!
: :
:
: :It *is* interesting. "Bicycle use and volumes have increased
: :significantly since the treatments were installed", and "Police
: :investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
: :treatments were installed, resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
: :bicycle involved crashes".
:
: :The 4 locations responsible for the increase are all downhill (?)
: :Hmmm... might this be what experiments are for?
:
: :The remaining 7 locations had a decrease in right hook crashes, even
: :though use and volumes have increased significantly since the
: :treatments were installed (?)
:
: Don't expect rational discussion of safety from Frank. He knows what
: the answers are. Facts will just infuriate him.

: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.

:So, we have the classic example of someone being legally "right" but
:getting smushed anyway. The q

Oh, it's clear that some of these boxes and their approach lanes are
designed by ocelots on crack. But Frank is assuming that because a
particular instance of something is bad, they all are, even when the
data from portland shows that some of them seem to work.


http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07...cret-sect.html

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.