HERE is an interesting article about how Idaho's "famous" bicycle rolling-stop law came into being. (28 years ago.) You know - the one that says cyclists have to slow but not necessarily stop at a stop sign, and stop but not necessarily remain stopped at a red light.
The law continues to foster discussions, both within the bicycling community and the community in general.
"Vehicular cyclists" argue that if bicycles are legitimate vehicles, they should be subject to the same laws as other vehicles - no exceptions. Another obvious discussion point is whether inexperienced and/or incompetent cyclists (for example, kids) have the necessary judgment skills to safely cross without stopping.
I support the law, although I can certainly understand those points. It seems common-sense for a responsible roadway user... accelerating requires considerably more energy than maintaining speed. It also respects the judgment of the cyclist... he or she can use that gray matter to decide when and if it's safe to proceed. Stimulating! And there is nothing in the law requiring cyclists to proceed. Inexperienced cyclists are free to stop at every stop sign. And concerned parents can direct their kids to do the same.
The article points out that there's not a "presumption of fault" clause. (If you go past a Yield sign, you are presumed guilty if an accident ensues.) The bike law should probably have that same clause - if you don't stop and end up causing an accident, you are at fault... case closed. I could live with that.
The article is on Bob Mionske's "Bicycle Law" website. It looks interesting; I'll be checking back. Bob is a former Olympic cyclist who is now an attorney specializing in bicycle law.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"The Right Hook"
An all-too-common accident involving a bicycle and a car occurs when a right-turning driver crosses into the path of a cyclist to his right.
Who is to blame for such an accident? Sometimes it's not easy to determine.
The Boise City Council recently voted unanimously to clarify one scenario.
"When a motor vehicle and a bicycle are traveling in the same direction on any highway, street, or road, the operator of the motor vehicle overtaking such bicycle traveling on the right side of the roadway shall not turn to the right in front of the bicycle at an intersection, alley, or driveway until such vehicle has overtaken the bicycle and has sufficient clearance to safely turn without requiring the bicyclist to brake or take evasive action to avoid a collision with the vehicle."
Anybody who has been riding on public roadways for any length of time has had a close call or two.
One of my first was when a 50-something redneck cowboy in a big Buick (I know, because he had his 10 gallon hat on) went around a corner in exactly the maneuver described by the new ordinance. And he was looking straight at me the whole time... obviously he was of the opinion I didn't belong, and was going to demonstrate why. (I had to go halfway around the corner with him to avoid the collision, even though my intended direction was straight.)
Some cyclists like to "take the lane" as they approach intersections, and that is a sound strategy.
I'll tend to remain "as far to the right as practicable," keep a close eye on my rearview mirror, and proceed cautiously. If there's a red light and plenty of room for me to roll on up to the intersection (or a bike lane), I'll roll on up. It is NOT illegal to do so, although rider beware! Make sure the guy next to you knows you are there, and don't block the path of a right-hand turn. (What is illegal is for a motorist to make a right turn without signaling. But I'm amazed how often I end up in a situation where some bozo is turning without signaling... and it's somehow my fault I didn't know his intentions! Cyclists are not psychic... although surviving, healthy cyclists tend to be quite intuitive.)
Portland has a rather innovative effort to mitigate the right hook - they call it the "bike box." According to the website, "the bike box is an intersection
safety design to prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially those between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight. It is a green box on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside. It includes green bicycle lanes approaching and leading from the box. ... it's all about visibility and awareness." (Of course, such innovation could only be found in the "most bicycle-friendly city"!!)
Back to the earlier question... who is to blame when there's an accident? Ultimately, that is of secondary importance. A smart cyclist will expect the worst, and will therefore never be (too) surprised by lack of awareness on the part of a motorist. (It's much better to mentally take the credit for accident-averted, than assigning the blame for the accident!)
Who is to blame for such an accident? Sometimes it's not easy to determine.
The Boise City Council recently voted unanimously to clarify one scenario.
"When a motor vehicle and a bicycle are traveling in the same direction on any highway, street, or road, the operator of the motor vehicle overtaking such bicycle traveling on the right side of the roadway shall not turn to the right in front of the bicycle at an intersection, alley, or driveway until such vehicle has overtaken the bicycle and has sufficient clearance to safely turn without requiring the bicyclist to brake or take evasive action to avoid a collision with the vehicle."
Anybody who has been riding on public roadways for any length of time has had a close call or two.
One of my first was when a 50-something redneck cowboy in a big Buick (I know, because he had his 10 gallon hat on) went around a corner in exactly the maneuver described by the new ordinance. And he was looking straight at me the whole time... obviously he was of the opinion I didn't belong, and was going to demonstrate why. (I had to go halfway around the corner with him to avoid the collision, even though my intended direction was straight.)
Some cyclists like to "take the lane" as they approach intersections, and that is a sound strategy.
I'll tend to remain "as far to the right as practicable," keep a close eye on my rearview mirror, and proceed cautiously. If there's a red light and plenty of room for me to roll on up to the intersection (or a bike lane), I'll roll on up. It is NOT illegal to do so, although rider beware! Make sure the guy next to you knows you are there, and don't block the path of a right-hand turn. (What is illegal is for a motorist to make a right turn without signaling. But I'm amazed how often I end up in a situation where some bozo is turning without signaling... and it's somehow my fault I didn't know his intentions! Cyclists are not psychic... although surviving, healthy cyclists tend to be quite intuitive.)
Portland has a rather innovative effort to mitigate the right hook - they call it the "bike box." According to the website, "the bike box is an intersection
safety design to prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially those between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight. It is a green box on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside. It includes green bicycle lanes approaching and leading from the box. ... it's all about visibility and awareness." (Of course, such innovation could only be found in the "most bicycle-friendly city"!!)Back to the earlier question... who is to blame when there's an accident? Ultimately, that is of secondary importance. A smart cyclist will expect the worst, and will therefore never be (too) surprised by lack of awareness on the part of a motorist. (It's much better to mentally take the credit for accident-averted, than assigning the blame for the accident!)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Gas - up by $1!
According to a story at the Statesman yesterday, gas prices are up by almost a dollar from a year ago.
One more sign of the robust economy, huh? (/sarcasm)
When I read a story like that, it makes me grateful that I'm largely a curious spectator standing on the sidelines. It would be awful to be at the mercy of Supply and Demand, unable to do anything but whimper helplessly about that significant expense!
Of course, all that demand created by Big Oil's captive audience does have an impact - those everyday and every-trip drivers keep the prices up high for when I do have to occasionally gas up. (Mostly on my annual summer motorsickle adventure.) And, the Missus and my kids are slaves to Big Oil as well, so it does have an impact on our household expenses, even if it's not money coming directly out of my wallet.
One more sign of the robust economy, huh? (/sarcasm)
When I read a story like that, it makes me grateful that I'm largely a curious spectator standing on the sidelines. It would be awful to be at the mercy of Supply and Demand, unable to do anything but whimper helplessly about that significant expense!
Of course, all that demand created by Big Oil's captive audience does have an impact - those everyday and every-trip drivers keep the prices up high for when I do have to occasionally gas up. (Mostly on my annual summer motorsickle adventure.) And, the Missus and my kids are slaves to Big Oil as well, so it does have an impact on our household expenses, even if it's not money coming directly out of my wallet.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Ambitious bike plans in Portland, OR
20 years from now (2030), the movers and shakers in Portland want their citizens "to make more than 25 percent of their daily trips by bike."
That sounds okay to me. I'm a little suspicious of their motive... they want to make and keep Portland "the most bike-friendly city in the country." And of course, so they can pat themselves on the back for doing their part to fight global warming.
Story HERE.
The wrench-in-the-cogs, of course, is money.
They currently have about $1.5 million / year for bicycle improvements. It's estimated it would cost $600 million to fully implement "the plan." And about $5.9 million / year for ongoing costs.
Wow! That seems like a lot of money! (Unless you're looking at it from the Washington DC viewpoint. Less than a billion? Chump change!!)
$600 million is about $1000 per Portland resident. And $5.9 million is about $10 per.
I know Portland has bridges over the river, etc., etc., to deal with. And that could add up quickly. But I'm just contemplating what we could do in this area, if we had $600 million to throw at "bike friendliness." (ACHD's total budget is about $79 million / year.) We could have wide, smooth bike lanes on every collector and arterial road. We could have bike-lane ground loops to trigger green lights, at every signaled intersection. We could put money into an endowment fund for bicycle promotion and education... LOTS of it! And - after all that I bet we'd still have hundreds of millions left over!
And no matter how much money Portland has... they still have wide rivers with lots of old, crowded bridges. They have old, established neighborhoods on steep hills. And they have... rain! Unless they have more power over the climate than I'm giving 'em credit for, they'll have +-36 inches of rain per year, no matter how bike-friendly they are otherwise!
(Another notion. What is "bike-friendly"? From what I can gather as an outsider, Portland's cyclists are notorious for being snooty and confrontational with motorists. Does bike-friendly only go one way? Is there some money in that $600 million to make cyclists more friendly?)
What would it take for Boise residents to meet a "25% of daily trips threshold"?
Winter would be daunting. It takes a certain level of commitment to ride a bike when the weather is nasty. But 8 months of the year, I believe I can say with some level of confidence that the existing infrastructure could absorb that level of usage, with very few upgrades. Especially if you consider that all those folks would be out of their single-occupant vehicles.
However... a large percentage of Boise traffic is generated by "outsiders" - people who live outside the Boise city limits, or even outside Ada County. People who have to drive 15 or 20 miles to work every day are not going to eagerly abandon their cars and take up cycling. (A major reason why I've always lived relatively close to work!!) I don't know how that compares with the metro Portland area, but I've got to think they have that same issue, to some extent. The folks who drive in from Vancouver or McMinnville or Oregon City aren't gonna put their cars up on cinder blocks.
(This is somewhat of a "stream of consciousness" post. Sorry about that... just thinkin'...)
That sounds okay to me. I'm a little suspicious of their motive... they want to make and keep Portland "the most bike-friendly city in the country." And of course, so they can pat themselves on the back for doing their part to fight global warming.
Story HERE.
The wrench-in-the-cogs, of course, is money.
They currently have about $1.5 million / year for bicycle improvements. It's estimated it would cost $600 million to fully implement "the plan." And about $5.9 million / year for ongoing costs.
Wow! That seems like a lot of money! (Unless you're looking at it from the Washington DC viewpoint. Less than a billion? Chump change!!)
$600 million is about $1000 per Portland resident. And $5.9 million is about $10 per.
I know Portland has bridges over the river, etc., etc., to deal with. And that could add up quickly. But I'm just contemplating what we could do in this area, if we had $600 million to throw at "bike friendliness." (ACHD's total budget is about $79 million / year.) We could have wide, smooth bike lanes on every collector and arterial road. We could have bike-lane ground loops to trigger green lights, at every signaled intersection. We could put money into an endowment fund for bicycle promotion and education... LOTS of it! And - after all that I bet we'd still have hundreds of millions left over!
And no matter how much money Portland has... they still have wide rivers with lots of old, crowded bridges. They have old, established neighborhoods on steep hills. And they have... rain! Unless they have more power over the climate than I'm giving 'em credit for, they'll have +-36 inches of rain per year, no matter how bike-friendly they are otherwise!
(Another notion. What is "bike-friendly"? From what I can gather as an outsider, Portland's cyclists are notorious for being snooty and confrontational with motorists. Does bike-friendly only go one way? Is there some money in that $600 million to make cyclists more friendly?)
What would it take for Boise residents to meet a "25% of daily trips threshold"?
Winter would be daunting. It takes a certain level of commitment to ride a bike when the weather is nasty. But 8 months of the year, I believe I can say with some level of confidence that the existing infrastructure could absorb that level of usage, with very few upgrades. Especially if you consider that all those folks would be out of their single-occupant vehicles.
However... a large percentage of Boise traffic is generated by "outsiders" - people who live outside the Boise city limits, or even outside Ada County. People who have to drive 15 or 20 miles to work every day are not going to eagerly abandon their cars and take up cycling. (A major reason why I've always lived relatively close to work!!) I don't know how that compares with the metro Portland area, but I've got to think they have that same issue, to some extent. The folks who drive in from Vancouver or McMinnville or Oregon City aren't gonna put their cars up on cinder blocks.
(This is somewhat of a "stream of consciousness" post. Sorry about that... just thinkin'...)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
"Mister Visibility" follow-up
It's been six months or so since, following the example of Bob T, I upgraded my visibility quotient.
Those six months have made a believer out of me! It's totally comforting to glance down when I'm riding - particularly at the times of day when there's not much sunlight - and see that hi-viz stuff almost glowing-in-the-dark!
Here's the bottom line:
a) I optimistically assume that no motorist will deliberately run into a cyclist. (There are exceptions, but they are rare enough to be statistically irrelevant, I'm thinking.)
b) If a motorist fails to see you, all bets are off! That motorist might be impaired, or distracted. (S)he might be clicky-clickin' on a little keyboard nowadays, and only occasionally peeking up at the road. (That kind of driver is much more prevalent than the murderous psycho-driver.) So anything you can do to increase the chance that you get spotted is an absolutely good thing!
Before I "saw the light," I'd tend to wear "bright or light-colored clothes," because it's common sense. But I'm totally on board nowadays with 100% as-bright-as-possible. It might just be my imagination, but I sure feel like "close calls" are down significantly since I did the upgrade. (In the photo I'm modeling my everyday riding attire, at least this time of year - a hi-viz jacket, and a mesh ANSI vest on top, with big wide reflective strips and contrasting color strips.)
OH! And bright blinky lights, front and rear. Lights are good - bright clothes are good - both combined are good-plus!
I'm grateful to Bob for preachin' the word... and I'm grateful I had the common sense to pay heed.
Those six months have made a believer out of me! It's totally comforting to glance down when I'm riding - particularly at the times of day when there's not much sunlight - and see that hi-viz stuff almost glowing-in-the-dark!
Here's the bottom line:
a) I optimistically assume that no motorist will deliberately run into a cyclist. (There are exceptions, but they are rare enough to be statistically irrelevant, I'm thinking.)
b) If a motorist fails to see you, all bets are off! That motorist might be impaired, or distracted. (S)he might be clicky-clickin' on a little keyboard nowadays, and only occasionally peeking up at the road. (That kind of driver is much more prevalent than the murderous psycho-driver.) So anything you can do to increase the chance that you get spotted is an absolutely good thing!
Before I "saw the light," I'd tend to wear "bright or light-colored clothes," because it's common sense. But I'm totally on board nowadays with 100% as-bright-as-possible. It might just be my imagination, but I sure feel like "close calls" are down significantly since I did the upgrade. (In the photo I'm modeling my everyday riding attire, at least this time of year - a hi-viz jacket, and a mesh ANSI vest on top, with big wide reflective strips and contrasting color strips.)
OH! And bright blinky lights, front and rear. Lights are good - bright clothes are good - both combined are good-plus!
I'm grateful to Bob for preachin' the word... and I'm grateful I had the common sense to pay heed.
Sweet bike parking
I'm fortunate to work in a "bike-friendly" building.
Since the bike room is at its emptiest (emptyest?) in the dead of winter, I snapped a photo this morning. This room is in the corner of a multi-story parking garage. It has access control with key cards, so only folks who signed up can open the door. The best feature is the abundant selection of parking spaces, ranging from staggered hooks on the walls (right), to vertical wheel holders (left), plus railings to secure "lawn chair bikes" (recumbents), etc. Thomas, who is one of the most creative people I know, custom-manufactured all of the racks after considerable planning and engineering. (I'm happy to say my bicycle was one of the "test models," so every space should fit my bike nicely.)
In the photo, it's hanging in its rightful spot - on the hook closest to the door!
IMO, new business construction should be required to provide secure parking, lockers and showers for bike commuters, wherever a certain number of people will work... maybe 50 would be a good starting point. (It makes good "business sense," too. Several potential tenants in the building where I work - folks like Microsoft - have stipulated very strongly that they would never consider a non-bike-friendly building.)
Since the bike room is at its emptiest (emptyest?) in the dead of winter, I snapped a photo this morning. This room is in the corner of a multi-story parking garage. It has access control with key cards, so only folks who signed up can open the door. The best feature is the abundant selection of parking spaces, ranging from staggered hooks on the walls (right), to vertical wheel holders (left), plus railings to secure "lawn chair bikes" (recumbents), etc. Thomas, who is one of the most creative people I know, custom-manufactured all of the racks after considerable planning and engineering. (I'm happy to say my bicycle was one of the "test models," so every space should fit my bike nicely.)
In the photo, it's hanging in its rightful spot - on the hook closest to the door!
IMO, new business construction should be required to provide secure parking, lockers and showers for bike commuters, wherever a certain number of people will work... maybe 50 would be a good starting point. (It makes good "business sense," too. Several potential tenants in the building where I work - folks like Microsoft - have stipulated very strongly that they would never consider a non-bike-friendly building.)
Anger issues?
I see way more angry motorists than cyclists. But this morning I witnessed what would seem, at least on the surface, to be a cyclist with issues.
I was riding to work, crossing Idaho Street on 15th northbound.
This guy was in the crosswalk. He had winter gear and a helmet on.
As I went by, he picked up his bike, swung it around his body like an Olympic hammer-thrower, and let it fly! WHAT THE??! It flew maybe 20 feet, and then went clattering and skidding across the pavement.
It looked to be a full-suspension "mountain" type bike, but I couldn't tell if it was a $79 Walmart or a $7900 handmade.
Who hasn't felt like "going caveman" from time to time? But sometimes you have to exercise restraint... and no problem has ever been made better by throwin' your bike, I'm guessin'.
I was riding to work, crossing Idaho Street on 15th northbound.
This guy was in the crosswalk. He had winter gear and a helmet on.
As I went by, he picked up his bike, swung it around his body like an Olympic hammer-thrower, and let it fly! WHAT THE??! It flew maybe 20 feet, and then went clattering and skidding across the pavement.
It looked to be a full-suspension "mountain" type bike, but I couldn't tell if it was a $79 Walmart or a $7900 handmade.
Who hasn't felt like "going caveman" from time to time? But sometimes you have to exercise restraint... and no problem has ever been made better by throwin' your bike, I'm guessin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
