Bicycle Driving

Every time that a newspaper or magazine runs an article on laws and advice about safe bicycling, I cringe. I know that there is a good chance that they will get stuff wrong. Well The Boston Phoenix messed up big time in its “Boston Bike Bible 2010” special just in time for Bike Week. In So what are the rules, anyway? we get a lot of misinformation:

* Phoenix says: “You have the right to use . . . the sidewalks in business districts if you feel unsafe, unless posted signs say otherwise.” CORRECTION: You may never ride on sidewalks in business districts, and posted signs may prohibit sidewalk use elsewhere.

* Phoenix says: ”You have the right to ride two abreast on any roads with multiple lanes in the same direction. (If there is only one lane in each direction, you must ride single file, but may pass on the right.)” CORRECTION: You may ride two abreast at any time. However, the rider on the left must move right if failing to do so prevents someone from passing where it would be otherwise safe to do so.

* Phoenix says: “You must follow all traffic laws — that means stopping at lights and crosswalks and riding on the right side of the road.” CORRECTION: You may go when the traffic signal is green, but may not enter the intersection when it is red. You only need to slow or stop at a crosswalk when it is not controlled by signals and a pedestrian is in it or within 10 feet of your half of the road. You must generally use the right half of the road, not necessarily near the curb.

* Phoenix says: “You must keep to the right when passing a car.” CORRECTION: While you may pass on the right, it is almost always safer to pass on the left. Passing on the right leaves you vulnerable to motorists turning right across your path and puts you within range of opening doors of parked cars and even sometimes of motorists stopped in a queue at a light.

* Phoenix says: “You must signal your intention to stop or turn using either hand.” CORRECTION: The law that went into effect on April 15, 2009 added, “provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously, and shall not be made when both hands are needed for the safe operation of the bicycle.” Furthermore, the general rule on giving signals says that they must be made “before stopping said vehicle or making any turning movement which would affect the operation of any other vehicle.”

* Phoenix says: “You must give pedestrians the right of way when riding on a sidewalk, and give a shout before passing any pedestrian on the right.” CORRECTION: Almost correct. The law says “A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian,” but of course it doesn’t say “on the right.”

* Phoenix says: “You must carry all items in a basket, rack, or trailer.” CORRECTION: The law says, “The [bicycle] operator shall not carry any package, bundle or article except in or on a basket, rack, trailer or other device designed for such purposes.” The phrase”other device” leaves room for backpacks, water bottle cages, paniers, and even shopping bags. The point is that your hands must be free to operate the bike, not that you must use a government-sanctioned carrying mechanism.

More importantly, the summary of “bike laws” from the MassBike website, on which this short Phoenix article is based, is fundamentally misleading, because it summarizes the special rules that apply only to bicycles. The most important rules for safety apply to bicyclists and motorists equally. These include the rules about where to ride on the road, how to pass and be passed, how to make turns, and when to yield the right of way.

And in the lead article in the same special insert, there are a number of statements that could be contested, but none more so than this one which appears without refutation:

“When it’s car versus cyclist, the car always wins,” warns [Boston] Transportation Commissioner [Tom] Tinlin. His advice: “Back off and be safe.”

We’ve heard this canard many times before. It’s absurd and dangerous. You could just as well say, “When it’s cyclist versus asphalt, the asphalt always wins. When it’s car versus 18-wheeler, the 18-wheeler always wins.” So back off and be safe. Don’t drive your car on any road where big trucks are allowed. Don’t ride your bike except on soft grass.

Too many bicyclists are already scared into riding dangerously. “Back off” means keep far to the right edge of the road, preferably on the sidewalk. Ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming and jump out of the way to avoid them. Ride in the door zone because otherwise motorists might get mad at you. People do these dangerous things because everyone has told them riding in the road means sudden death. And thus they suffer crashes and injuries. The last thing we need in promoting bike safety is people in positions of authority such as Commissioner Tinlin repeating this stuff.

Use as much of the road as you need and be safe. Happy bike week.

P.S. The AAA gets it even more wrong, with such “bike safety” advice as “Bicycles should stay to the right along the curb” and “Walk a bike across an intersection rather than riding.” See the post on the MassBike website.

Bicyclist narrowly avoids opening door -- Centre St, Jamaica Plain, Mass.

This bicyclist had to swerve as the oblivious motorist flung open her door on Centre Street in the heart of the business district where parking turnover is high and traffic is slow.

This Thursday the City of Boston will present its proposal for bike markings on South Street and Centre St from Forest Hills to Jackson Square in Jamaica Plain. The proposal will be:

* door-zone bike lanes (DZBLs) from The Monument to Lakeview St, except for a two-block section where the width dips below 44 feet, where shared lane markings (SLMs) are proposed;

* DZBLs on the uphill side only, and on the downhill side a narrow lane with an SLM in the middle, from Hyde Square to Jackson Square and from Sedgwick Street to Jamaica Street.

* SLMs elsewhere.

The parking lane be striped at 7 feet from the curb throughout the corridor. Some additional marking to indicate the door zone may be discussed.

Most people agree that riding in the door zone is not a good idea (except when deliberately going very slowly). But some DZBL proponents argue that a) DZBLs actually move people away from parked cars, and b) you won’t get people to ride outside of the door zone.

To use their own words:

a) “First, [the additional distance between bicyclists and parked cars found in the Hampshire St. Study is] 2.4 inches further away, not 2, and that’s merely the median (average) distance   It’s clearly in the author’s conclusion that a narrowing of the spread of distances was the significant finding. Namely, that far fewer people were riding very close to the doors. And when we talk about doors and the door zone, keep in mind that when you’re on the street and a door opens, inches definitely count.”  (Pete Stidman)

b) “The problem that you are trying to solve is how to get bicyclists to ride completely outside the door zone. Without removing parking or somehow changing the dimensions of the roadway, I don’t think any type of facility and/or education will be effective in doing so.” (Charlie Denison)

I have some responses to both points:

a) The Hampshire Street study in Cambridge found that bicyclists moved away from the curb after marking a solid line at 12 feet from the curb — but they moved by an average of less than 3 inches. A San Francisco study found that shared lane markings moved bicyclists away from the door zone by an average of 8 inches. The lead author of the Hampshire Street Study has agreed with my assessment that a wheel track 11 feet from the curb, not 10 feet, is the proper cut-off for being outside the door zone 85% of the time with a 6″ margin to spare. Only 11% of bicyclists in the study were riding this far away. I am currently doing some re-analysis of the study data. One reason that few were out of the door zone is that they did the survey at rush hour, mostly approaching intersections. Traffic on Hampshire Street regularly queues up for several blocks approaching red signals in the peak period. So some of the bicyclists in the door zone may have been slowly passing cars on the right instead of being stuck in traffic for several light cycles.

b) Boston has added Shared Lane Markings in the middle of the lane in several places, and proposes to do so in the Centre-South corridor–where there is only one travel lane in each direction. These markings are supposed to direct bicyclists to ride in the middle of the lane. If it is possible to encourage people to ride in the middle of the lane, surely it is possible to encourage them to ride outside the door zone where they will impede traffic much less (at those times where traffic is moving faster than bicycle speed). A bicyclist who rides with his or her wheel at 11 feet from the curb is safely out of the door zone and in most places in the corridor is leaving 10 or more feet for a 6-foot wide passenger car to pass without changing lanes. (In fact, most drivers will crowd or cross the center line in order to provide the bicyclist with plenty of extra room when passing.)

I propose a solid white line at 10 feet from the curb with a shared lane marking completely to its left. This will provide clear guidance that bicyclists are expected to stay out of the door zone. Another San Francisco study showed that using a 9 foot parking lane instead of a 7-foot one moves the average spacing of parked cars about 4 inches further from the curb. I don’t think this a significant concern. If it is, then a solid white line could be marked at 7 feet from the curb with a series of diagonal lines (gore stripes) between the lines at 10 and 7 feet — to indicate the buffer zone to be avoided. This design would be used consistently throughout the corridor, instead of the confusing alternation between DZBL and SLM that is proposed.

To my knowledge, no city has yet tried a SLM to the left of a line indicating the door zone (as distinct from a BL with the symbol to the right of the line, or an SLM with no line).  There is an opportunity to find out how effective this configuration is in pulling people away from doors. In any case we know that SLMs, even without a line, can be more effect than DZBLs in pulling bicyclists away from the door zone.

Please come to the meeting to support shared lane markings instead of door zone bike lanes. Defend the right of bicyclists to use as much of the road as needed for safety and travel. Don’t lure bicyclists into the danger zone. The details:

Thursday, April 29^th

Agassiz School cafeteria
20 Child Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
6 pm to 8 pm

“Bike accommodations” will be the first and major topic of the meeting.

Tags: Bike Lanes, centre st, door zone bike lanes, dooring, Jamaica Plain, shared lane markings

John Ruch finally published his story about bike lanes in Jamaica Plain, only half of which made it to the print edition. As usual, Ruch mangled the quotes. The worst one came up front:

That little stripe is not going to protect you,” Schimek said, explaining he is worried the bike lane message will be, “‘You novice cyclists, come out here. You see that bike lane, and you’re safe because that’s what a bike lane is for.

I believe I was trying to say that that the bike lane tells new bicyclists that they will be safe riding in it, even though in the proposed design they will be smack in the danger (door) zone. And this summary also got mangled:

Bike lanes suggest that bicyclists have to use them, when in fact they do not, Schimek said. That confusion can lead to more car-bike conflicts, and some research shows it leads drivers to come closer to bikes in the lane, he said. Bike lanes also lock riders onto the right-hand side of the street, when they should be on the left to make left-hand turns safely, he noted.

What I was saying is that most people act as if there is a legal requirement to use bike lanes, even if there is not. It is the bike lane stripes that can cause more conflicts, by encouraging motorists to keep left when turning right, encouraging bicyclists to pass on the right, and even suggesting that bicyclists should turn left from the bike lane. And then there’s this one:

An illusion is exactly what 5-foot bike lanes on Centre Street would be, Schimek said. He blasted the idea that bike lanes are good because they make potential riders feel safer as a “backhanded…indirect and disingenuous argument.”

The argument that I “blasted” is the one repeated in the article: even if door-zone bike lanes are more dangerous, having more bicyclists on the road will make all bicyclists safer.

Another mangled point:

Schimek noted that the city’s own design illustration for Centre Street bike lanes showed people riding down the middle of the lanes. In fact, riders are supposed to ride along the left-hand line in a bike lane to avoid dooring. Without education, new riders attracted to the bike lanes are set up for disaster, he said. And even if there is education, the lanes may be so narrow that riders are in the dooring zone anyway, he said.

Ruch had a copy of the illustration showing bicyclists in the door zone with bike lanes and outside the door zone without (see previous post). He did not communicate that point. Riders are not “supposed to ride along the left-hand line in a bike lane,” they are supposed to ride in the middle of the bike lane, following normal lane use expectations — and several studies show this is what they actually do. I don’t use the meaningless term (in this context) “education,” I prefer to talk about learning from experience (i.e., being doored, or narrowly avoiding a door), and training (from friends, books, or formal classes). The final point is that riding outside the door zone will probably put the bicyclist at least partly outside the bike lane. And thus we end up with the paradox that the only safe way to use these bike lanes is not to use them.

Ruch also makes this blooper:

The dispute is over methods—especially whether it makes sense to slightly reduce the width of car lanes on Centre and add 5-foot bike lanes.

Where are those “car lanes” on Centre Street? All I see — and all the law sees — is a road shared by cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and, yes, bicycles.

News about the famous Hampshire Street Bike Lane study coming soon.

Concord Avenue 'Raised Bicycle Lanes' - Not Part of "Roadway"

Concord Avenue north of Fresh Pond in Cambridge has perfectly nice, five-foot bike lanes. They’re not even in the door zone, since there is no on-street parking. But Cambridge is planning to take them away, narrow the roadway, and force bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk. The bike lanes were striped 10 years ago as part of a successful “road diet” project. John Allen has posted a history and more information about the proposed project. The current project, whose limits are Fresh Pond Parkway and Blanchard Road, includes water main installation and started this week.  The planned “raised bike lanes” are at sidewalk level and in most places will be separated from the travel lanes by a 6-inch high curb. A bicyclist who strays too close to the edge of the “bike lane” risks falling into the travel lane. In other words, the new “bicycle lanes” are really “sidewalks”. A sidewalk by any other name is still a dangerous place to ride a bike at anything faster than walking speed. Look at the above excerpt from the construction drawings. They show clearly that the “roadway” includes the “travel lane” but not the ”bicycle lane.”  This turns out to be an important detail.

MassDOT’s Engineering Directive on Bicycle Accommodation says that “Bicycle accommodation shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the [Project Development & Design] Guide and the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.” What do those documents say? Chapter 5 of the Project Development & Design Guide says: ”Bicycle lanes are portions of the traveled way designed for bicycle use. .  .  . Bicycle lanes should be designated by a 6-inch solid white line on the right edge of the motor vehicle travel lane [sic].” (section 5.3.2.1).

The 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is more precise. It has the following definitions: “BICYCLE LANE or BIKE LANE—A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. ROADWAY—The portion of the highway, including shoulders, intended for vehicular use.” It further says that “A bike lane should be delineated from the motor vehicle travel lanes with a 150-mm (6-inch) solid white line.”

In other words, the official design manuals say that bike lanes are part of the roadway, not the sidewalk, and are separated from other lanes by lines, not curbs. The AASHTO bike guide also includes this helpful guidance: “Sidewalks generally are not acceptable for bicycling. However, in a few limited situations, such as on long and narrow bridges and where bicyclists are incidental or infrequent users, the sidewalk can serve as an alternate facility, provided any significant difference in height from the roadway is protected by a suitable barrier between the sidewalk and roadway.” The Concord Ave project clearly does not meet the requirements for exceptional designation of a sidewalk as a bike facility, and even if it did, the design guidelines require a barrier to prevent bicyclists from falling into the roadway — an important detail that Cambridge has not followed in this project.

Well, what if Cambridge just edits the drawings so that they say “bicycle path” instead of “bicycle lane”? One problem is that there is no design standard for a bicycle facility on the sidewalk that prohibits pedestrians; the only standards are for “shared use paths” — shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover, the Project Development & Design Guide says this: “Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive right-of-way with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Shared use paths should be thought of as a complementary system of off-road transportation routes for bicyclists and others that serves as a necessary extension to the roadway network. The presence of a shared use path near a roadway does not eliminate the need to accommodate bicyclists within a roadway” (Section 5.3.2.4). If Cambridge were to call the “raised bicycle lane” a “path” it would not be able to narrow the travel lanes to only 12 feet, as proposed, but would have to leave at least another 3 foot shoulder to provide the minimum 15 feet of room for motorists to comfortably pass bicyclists according to MassDOT’s Engineering Directive previously mentioned.

Ok, but does Cambridge really have to follow these design guidelines? To pay for this project Cambridge applied for and apparently received a grant from the Public Works Economic Development (PWED) Program, formerly administered by the Executive Office of Transportation, now part of MassDOT. So it would seem that MassDOT’s own Engineering Directive should apply.

If not, there is a higher authority. All traffic control devices in the U.S. must conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration. The manual has the following definitions:
“Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs.
Roadway—that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human-powered vehicles.”
In other words, a Bicycle Lane that is not part of a roadway does not comply with the manual.
Noncompliance with engineering directives and design manuals could mean that Cambridge would be held liable by a court in the event of a lawsuit by an injured bicyclist.

The Livable Streets Alliance endorsed the project, saying, “The Concord Avenue reconstruction plan pushes for best practice for street design. It includes well-designed and inviting facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike. Of particular note, there is a raised bicycle lane (cycle track) included as part of the project, a type of facility that has been gaining interest among the public, but which we currently have very few of.” WalkBoston endorsed it as well.

Tags: Cambridge, Concord Ave, Sidepaths

Seen in Berkeley, Calif, Ride on the Street, Walk on the Sidewalk

I remember seeing these signs in Berkeley some years ago. They are in complete violation of the MUTCD (wrong color, symbols, and font), but they do convey a useful message, particularly by citing the relevant city and state codes. I think (an improved version of) these signs would nicely complement Shared Lane Markings that I have suggested as an alternative to door-zone bike lanes in the Jamaica Plain business district. Perhaps a combined sign would do the trick, with an arrow pointing left under the Ride on the Street message and another arrow pointing right for the Not on the Sidewalk message.

Someone is sure to raise the “sign pollution” issue. Well, I can point to dozens of signs that could be removed from the corridor. I counted 10 “SLOW”" signs (or, less grammatically, “DRIVE SLOW”), and perhaps a few more have sprouted since then. These signs violate the basic principle of the MUTCD that signs should convey a clear meaning. How fast is SLOW? Only a little bit above the statutory 30 mph speed limit? Ironically there are no speed limit signs in the whole Centre-South corridor.

An even larger source of sign pollution are pedestrian crossing warning signs. They are haphazardly posted a block or two before a crosswalk and (rarely) near the crosswalk. Usually they are too high to be noticed. Boston has recently used these warning signs in a much more effective way: at the crosswalk, mounted as low as possible, with an arrow pointing to the crosswalk.  This helps alert drivers of the need to yield and reinforces the crosswalk pavement markings when they can be difficult to see (at night and after the thermoplastic begins to wear).

Tracks along Roadway Warning from Portland

The tragic loss of a young bicyclist this week reminds me of another warning sign that we really do need: to alert cyclists about the dangers of trolley tracks. This sign is used in Portland, Oregon, but nowhere else that I know of. It is not in the MUTCD. Fortunately, we no longer need them in the Centre-South corridor (since the tracks were paved over after being an unused hazard for 23 years), but we do need them in the remaining places that trolley tracks are in the road (not in a reservation): along the E branch from Heath St to Brigham Circle, and in Cleveland Circle.

Tags: sidewalks, signs, trolley tracks

Jackson Square Bike Lane Concept

A proposal for bike lanes on Centre Street between Lamartine St and Sunnyside St (near Jackson Square) was floated at the March 23 meeting of the Centre South Transportation Action Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The 42-ft curb-to-curb width is just a bit too narrow for the bare minimum bike lanes proposed for Centre Street between Elliot St and Lakeview St. The necessary width would be obtained by eliminating parking on one side of the street only. (See the presentation, pages 56 – 61.) Currently there is about 21 ft (travel lane + parking lane) on each side of the street. The suggested new configuration is an 11 ft travel lane and 4 ft parking lane on one side and an 11 ft travel lane with a 5 ft bike lane, 8 ft parking lane on the other side. The remaining 3 ft would be used to widen the existing 8 ft sidewalk on one side. The proposal would leave on-street parking in front of most businesses that do not have on-street parking. This would be accomplished by switching the side without parking from the south side near Mozart Park to the north side near Bromley-Heath. Nevertheless, at least 37 on-street spaces would have to go. Continue Reading »

Tags: Bike Lanes, door zone, Jamaica Plain, parking

Centre Street with and without bike lanes -- the street grew by 10 ft!

The “Centre/South Streetscape and Transportation Action Plan” is proposing bike lanes in the Centre Street business district in Jamaica Plain from Eliot Street to Lakeville Rd. The images from the presentation at the January 2010 meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the project show bicyclists safely out of range of car doors in the existing conditions but clearly within range when bike lanes are added (see images above, doors added to original). Shared lane markings should instead be used on Centre and South Streets to encourage bicyclists to safely use the streets and to discourage motorists from harassing bicyclists. Gore stripes can be used to indicate that the door zone is unsafe. Shared lane markings have already been used at Forest Hills and in Roslindale Square and several other locations in Boston, and are proposed for the majority of the Centre-South Street corridor that is less than 44 feet wide and thus considered too narrow for bike lanes.

Door Zone Buffer Gore Stripes (Paris)

Continue Reading »

Tags: Bike Lanes, door zone, Jamaica Plain, shared lane marking

This morning on my way to work on Centre Street, a wrong-way rider is coming right at me in the 4 feet between stopped traffic and parked cars. I slow and wave at him. He just keeps charging along. Fearing a collision, I hop off the bike, and he barely fits past, still zooming, and giving me a scare. I look back and see him continue to charge along at speed, barely avoiding a right-turning police car.

Wait. A police car? The officer couldn’t have not seen him. How about a little enforcement here? I go back to the intersection, where the school crossing guard is saying something — maybe to the officer. I say I want him to come back. She motions, he reverses. I go to his open window and say — hey, did you see that wrong-way bicyclist going fast? He nearly hit me. He asks for a description, which I give. He gives an impression that he might do something to find this guy. But probably not. Nah, not likely.

The new bike law in Massachussetts allows police officers to use the standard ticket book they always carry to give tickets to bicyclists. It also requires training — for example in why wrong-way riding is dangerous. But it’s expecting too much to see any actual enforcement.

Tags: Boston, Law, police

Finally, a bill fixing some of the problems in Massachusetts traffic laws relating to bicycling has been signed in to law by the Governor. Continue Reading »

Peter DeMarco’s “Who Taught You to Drive?” column recently took up the subject of mopeds. This topic is timely, since people are discovering these small motorcycles now that gas is more than $4/gallon. He also brings up two issues related to non-motorized bicyclists: passing between lanes of stopped traffic and parking on Boston sidewalks. Continue Reading »