Traffic Engineers Distracting My Motorists

Mostly, I have a lot of respect for the various branches of engineering. Our lives have been enhanced greatly by the advances they've made. Just the very fact you can read this is due to engineers. Thank an engineer next time you fly and have landed safely. My respect is greatly tempered by engineering that attempts to mix psychology with science. A notable offender in this regard is traffic engineering. To a large degree, this is unavoidable, because keeping traffic from terminally clogging up and from crashing into each other requires understanding of what and why people do what they do while IN traffic.This is not just the idle observation of a structural engineer; the Arizona Department of Transportation, here, states: "Traffic Engineering applies engineering principles to help solve transportation problems, and brings into play a knowledge of psychology and habits of users of the transportation systems."

Bellaire Before the "Improvements"

The real problem is that traffic engineers tend to get a little wrapped up in the mechanical aspects of traffic. They start adding more signs and dots and other traffic gew gaws that promise to make traffic "flow" and "keep us safe." Pretty soon, the forest has been lost amongst the trees and we start getting zones where motorists can run off the road without damaging themselves and markings that are more distracting that helpful. What's more, they tend towards ever increasing "channelization" without regard to any useful purpose it serves and sometimes without remembering that creating traffic channels can create conflict between motorized traffic and the rest of the road-using traffic. Indeed, the same Arizona source linked above, forgetting that many road users are NOT motorized traffic, and getting tunnel vision, also states: "...chances of ...becoming involved in an accident are least when he/she is traveling at the average speed of traffic." Other than getting bikes and pedestrians OFF the road entirely, the document does not explain how this is to be accomplished other than also noting it is not a good idea to set speed limits too low. So we have an inherent conflict. A conflict, which, because most traffic engineers are mostly motorists and NOT cyclists, tends to get resolved in favor of a motoring-centric approach. This tendency is exacerbated because a lot of traffic engineers work for cities and their political masters want to go faster and with less delay from those poor and pesky pedestrians and idiotic people on bikes. Of course, being politicians, few would actually SAY something like this.

Protruding Dots Represent a Diversion Fall Risk for Cyclists
and are Worse in Front of an Elementary School Where Children Can Be Expected

I've posted about elements of this before. Traffic engineers created my nemesis road. They took a perfectly good and usable road and made it a stress creator for cyclists. They compounded the error by making something dangerous for cyclists under the cloak of "Safe Routes to School." What's more, any emergency response now finds itself unable to proceed due to traffic engineers not creating any way to pass at all. I offered special scorn for "the killer B's:" these are Bollards, Bott's Dots, and bricks. Especially offensive are situations where the traffic engineers ignore established guidelines and use an even number of bollards that create added collision risks. Or they use BIG dots as if they meant to create a fall hazard for cyclists.

Even Numbers of Bollards Lead to Head-On Collisions.
Bricks Make Things Worse

However, I really got a little hot this week (beyond the amount justified by our continuing heat), when I saw the local engineers get carried away with dots and stripes in a local school zone. Specifically, Bellaire Elementary in Hurst, Texas. Crimeny, this is NOT a freeway onramp. A couple of traffic calming devices would have done the trick admirably. Why, I might wonder, would anyone feel it necesary to put in left-turn only and two-way left turn lanes in front of an elementary school? Would you allow YOUR school child to ride down this street after the traffic engineers got done with it? I guess the traffic engineers think they have done their job. They got any bikes OFF the road and thus reduced speed differentials. I hope they're happy (he says very sarcastically). We really DO need to cut government waste! Better to have simply left bad enough alone than to spend a lot of money to make things worse.

Northern Approach to Bellaire Elementary, Looking Like it Did in the Olden Days. A Simple Four Lane Road with Sidewalks

Northern Approach to Bellaire, Where the Traffic Engineering Distractions Start. A Left Turn Lane at a Four Way Stop Onto a Local Residential Street?
You Gotta Be Kidding!

Another Shot of the Road Desert They've Created at Bellaire Elementary.
Would YOU Let Your Second Grader Cross This Gauntlet?

Temporary Traffic Cones - Ready for the Motorist Dropoff Rush. The New Road Features Makes the Rush Even Worse

Traffic Engineer Handiwork Across from Bellaire. Any Cyclist Hitting These Dots Will KNOW IT!
Before the Traffic Engineers, This Portion was Simply One Lane Each Direction with Wide Lanes

No Reflector in Front of this Fire Hydrant. Just a Splash of Blue Paint

Round About the Roundabout

Google Maps Satellite View of Ocean Shores Roundabout
More About The Bike Lanes Later...

Not long ago, the Bike League instructor email list had a discussion about roundabouts. Roundabouts are an up and coming feature of roads that allow traffic flow without the disruption of four-way stop signs or traffic signals. They work quite well for motorized traffic, but cyclists and traffic engineers do not seem to understand how they can also work quite simply and well for cycling. The Ocean Shores roundabout is a case in point. The roundabout replaced the only traffic signal in town.

Uneventful Traffic Flow Through Ocean Shores Roundabout
The Wrong-Way Motorist Wasn't Using it Today!
If You Ride a Bike, The Bike Lane Striping Appears to Direct You into the Crosswalk

At the beginning of this post, you can see a “Google Maps” overhead view of the roundabout. Mostly, traffic flows through it without incidents of any kind, though I heard a motorist tried to go through it the wrong way a few days ago. Most motorists are competent enough to go around in the right direction and mostly they also pay attention to the signs. Ocean Shores is a tourist town, and so a lot of these motorists that do well have not encountered roundabouts prior to their visit.

I’ve ridden through this roundabout many times now and, up until a week or two ago, it’s been the height of simplicity to simply follow the signs that apply to the rest of traffic. Basically, if you plan to turn right or go straight, you stay in the RH traffic lane. If you plan to make a left or U turn, get in the LH traffic lane and exit into the street appropriate to your destination. As with most well-designed roundabouts, traffic entering the roundabout must yield to those already going around. This works well for motor vehicles OR for bikes, since bikes can go around in a circle at least as well as the typical motor vehicle. It is a simple case of elementary destination positioning. For those not recalling this principle, it states “stay in the rightmost lane that serves your destination.”

Simply Follow the Arrows and Get in the Lane that Goes Where You Want to Go

HOWEVER, recently, the city restriped the bike lanes, creating needless conflict. The approach reinforced my belief that traffic engineers are often clueless dweebs that are ignorant about how to keep all people safe. In short, remembering that Ocean Shores made it ILLEGAL foranybody to ride on city sidewalks (even little kids on bikes with trainingwheels), these traffic engineers striped their bike lanes to direct cyclists on to and off of sidewalks into their painted lanes. You might wonder how this puts anybody in danger, considering that there are few crossing driveways on these sidewalks. Well, once so directed, people on bikes then use the pedestrian crosswalks across the roundabout. This IS a problem, since pedestrians without wheels travel fairly slowly and have the equipment to stop without problems. On the OTHER hand, people on bikes are going much quicker and they cross the roundabout in a manner that is unexpected for motorists using the roundabout. Personally, I also have a problem with city-installed infrastructure that encourages behavior that the same city has made illegal.

Following the Striping "Suggestion" Leads a Cyclist onto the Illegal Sidewalk and to Cross the Road at Right Angles to Traffic

Once again, traffic engineering in action – creating danger and encouraging illegal behavior when doing NOTHING would have been far better AND safer. I look forward to their next folly, when they create problems on the street immediately north of the roundabout…

Odd Striping Strategy for a City that Made it ILLEGAL to Ride Bikes on Sidewalks. I Guess They Expect Everyone Will WALK Their Bikes for a Block?

Fine Lines and Smart Riding

Lots of Motorists Think a Cyclist Ought to be Riding on THIS Shoulder
I Disagree, Even Though SOME of the Motorists in Question Were Police
Still, What Would A Motorist Jury Say? The Road
DOES Have a Single Traffic Lane and "No Passing" Stripes
Technically, Any Overtaking Traffic Has No Legal Way to Pass a Cyclist
That is Controlling the Lane.
As I Read the Law, This is MY Call and I Favor the Traffic Lane Here
I Rarely Ride this Road Nowadays. Instead, I Ride a Busy 6 Lane Road With NO Shoulder

Doohickie weighed in on the ChipSeal arrests. Mostly, I agree with Doohickie's analysis, which he obviously thought through very carefully. My own comment was brief. Both are here.

HOWEVER, true to my promise, here's my boring blog post in lieu of my boring blog comment.

Doohickie missed one major element. In all the laws cited, there is the element of choice and cyclist judgment. In truth, in the real world, there are places where a cyclist truly WOULD be a fool to attempt to vehicularly operate in the right hand traffic lane. Two examples should illustrate that point.

Example one. Cyclist rides down I-635, in the RH traffic lane, headed toward downtown Dallas shortly before traffic bogs down into stop and go. I drove that road in the Land Rover when I went to meet Keri Caffrey last year and it was stressful in a vehicle that'd crush most the other motorists if it came to a real crash. Example two. Cyclist rides down I-5, in the RH traffic lane, in the San Joaquin Valley of California, with foggy conditions, in marginal visibility. This is an area where 40 car crashes are not uncommon. While I won't go into details, John Forester emphasizes this point with another example in which he was truly frightened on a road with no shoulder due to the combination of speed and volume of the motor traffic.

OTOH, it's easy to cite examples where almost nobody would quarrel with a cyclist riding assertively in almost any position he/she chose. Anybody wants, I'll do another post citing a dozen such examples. In the Chip case, the first arresting officer actually stated that he felt Chip would NOT be impeding in the part of 287 that lacked a shoulder. That surprised Chip and I was also surprised by this since any real delay experienced by motorists was identical regardless of any shoulder or not, but it IS consistent with Doohickie's analysis.

In between these extremes, there is a boundary. I belive it's why all those laws that Doohickie cites say "may" and "necessary" and so on. I'm pretty sure my boundary, when riding is more aggressive than Doohickie's and not as aggressive as ChipSeal's. I think all three of our boundaries are more aggressive than what a typical motorist would expect. That variance in opinion is really why ChipSeal is in the cross-hairs of the local law enforcement community. None of them are bicycle cops. They drive patrol cars and that is their perspective.

What Doohickie missed in his evaluation, in my opinion, is that extremely wide discretion should be left to the one most affected by that boundary. That one is the cyclist making the call. While overtaking motorists are also endangered in theory, with modern safety equipment in cars, mostly the news story reads that "the motorist was unhurt." THAT is something I'm not convinced that the jury sitting in judgment fully weighed. If Chip makes the wrong call, it is HIS butt that gets mashed. The motorist has to take his car to a collision repair center. Absent evidence of insanity, I'll vote for the one on the line unless he's gotten to the point of the extreme examples where no reasonable person would go. Still, if a seasoned cyclist such as Practical Pragmatist tells me he routinely rides down the RH traffic lane on I-5 in the fog near Bakersfield, I'd like to hear details. IMHO, I think he, and pretty much every other cyclist (including Chip), agree there's some combination of heavy traffic and high speed that makes a bicycle in even the RH traffic lane a danger. The rub is there isn't a consensus as to where that boundary lies, and there's almost NO serious real safety data. Lots of expert opinions, but opinions are like armpits. People that don't ride think the boundary is FAR from where an experienced cyclist believes. Most cyclists are aware that if they get squished, the law will usually go out of its way to not call the other party into criminal proceedings unless things are pretty obvious. Chip knows this as much as any other cyclist that's ridden a lot. In truth, our real safety lies in the societal taboo against deliberate and premeditated mayhem against a stranger. If I get run over by a car, it'll most likely be my wife or one of my engineers at the wheel. I've told my engineers that if they want to run me over, they better make a clean job of it or else their performance reviews will be real ugly thereafter. Luckily, my wife is wonderful, though she did get a little irritated tonight when I kept interrupting the Olympics. I COULD think of this post as a safety measure. Why is it that women get irritated when we don't talk to them and then get even MORE irritated when we do?

Today, I polled my Aggie engineers about the wide improved shoulder, often known locally as the "Aggie Passing Lane." They all said that the decision about whether to pull onto that "lane" resided with the one being overtaken and should not be criticized absent obvious cussedness.

Was ChipSeal obviously cussed? Not having had to ride down 287 myself, I'd vote "no," but I'm obviously not a typical juror. As I told Chip while the jury was out, I wanted him charged for failure to signal his intent properly before he pulled off onto the shoulder. GUILTY OF SLOPPY SIGNALING! No appeal would be made. Perhaps Whareagle has turned me into a bike signal fanatic.

Only a Real Neanderthal, or Bubba's Regressive Brother Would Harass a Cyclist Riding Down

the Middle of THIS RH Lane. Riding in This Position, Cops Give Me a Friendly Wave Even if They are Feeling Crabby

Someone Riding Point-to-Point Has to Take All Types of Roads. Every Situation is Different

Myths About "Safety in Numbers"

Safety in Numbers and the theory behind it is what kicked this series off. A week ago, the Minneapolis Star Tribune headline read: "As Bicycle Use Climbs, Rate of Crashes With Vehicles Falls." I've seen headlines like this often enough, but THE NEXT DAY, The New York Times claimed "Data Confirm What Cyclists Knew: San Francisco Streets Are Hazardous" where they state that cyclists are getting clipped at an ever-faster rate. Earlier, the Atlanta Journal Constitution bemoaned new cyclists filling the hospitals. Puzzled, I went to "The Atlantic" that claims cycling is increasing everywhere. As I researched even further, even the League of American Bicyclists was trumpeting the "Safety in Numbers" effect in its blog. The whole "safety in numbers" theory ties back to a paper written by Peter Jacobsen, which may be found here. While John Forester pointed out problems in the methods, and even I made a post on Cycle*Dallas to suggest people shouldn't get too enthusiastic about the whole notion, THIS POST is about the unexamined MYTH BEHIND THE MYTH ABOUT WHY "Safety in Numbers" might have validity.

You see, two paragraphs in the Minneapolis article stood out:

Why is this happening? Familiarity breeds safety, one city bike advocate believes. "People are so used to seeing bicyclists -- love them or hate -- and they don't want to hit them," said Shaun Murphy, coordinator of the city's nonmotorized transportation program. Murphy said the map of hot spots for bike-car accidents doesn't show major issues around the University of Minnesota because drivers there are so used to watching for bikes.

Do bike lanes help? Murphy also credits more bike lanes. Bike lanes can benefit pedestrians as well. When bike lanes were striped on Riverside Avenue, for example, the number of bikers riding on sidewalks dropped by 87 percent, said Hilary Reeves, a spokeswoman at Transit for Livable Communities, which manages a federal grant to promote biking and walking in the Twin Cities.

So, if I'm to believe the article (remember - most crashes are simple falls and don't involve motor vehicles at all), it turns out that if there are more bicyclists, motorists no longer want to run into them because they simply get used to seeing them. Think about THAT for a moment. Motorists don't actually actively try not to run into anything as they were all taught from the time they first entered driver's ed, but they suddenly get used to cyclists and no longer want to hit them. Kumbaya. Motorists don't hit a cyclist because that cyclists was riding against traffic in the dark with no lights or reflector; the motorist hit the cyclist because "they weren't used to watching for bikes." Forgive me if I'm a little dubious about this. All but a rare lunatic fringe of psycopaths recognize that hitting a cyclist is not a good thing and hitting one is likely to prompt awkward insurance questions if nothing else.

I suppose this popular theory about why there is safety in numbers is possible, but where I live, there really are NOT a lot of cyclists, but the motorists still avoid hitting any cyclist they see and recognize, whether or NOT they are USED to seeing them. THE NOTION THAT MOTORISTS NO LONGER HIT CYCLISTS SIMPLY DUE TO A CHANGE WITHIN EACH MOTORIST AS CYCLIST NUMBERS INCREASE IS THE REAL MYTH.

Let's assume that there IS validity to the safety in numbers theory and examine why added numbers might make things safer. The popular hypothesis is that motorists simply get better at not hitting cyclists somehow. HOWEVER, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER REASONS THIS MIGHT BE SO. For example, embedded in the second paragraph is one reason - a drop of 87% in bikers riding on sidewalks would certainly reduce crash rates. As another alternate hypothesis, it seems LIKELY that traffic engineers consider design elements for cyclists MORE when there are more cyclists and that THIS might also explain a drop in crash rates. Certainly, traffic engineers are quick to take credit for their efforts when auto crash rates drop. I would put this as the "when cyclists are more numerous, traffic engineers stop putting them in extreme danger as often" theory. In truth, there is probably more evidence in support of this second theory than the one that motorists suddenly get mellow and attentive. Another theory is that more cyclists leads to more cyclists seeing cyclists riding sensibly and so they get better quicker simply by "monkey see monkey do." Even THIS theory seems more likely than the "kinder gentler motorist" one.

The problem is that we don't really KNOW very well what causes collision rates to drop. All we really know for sure is that riding safer is safer. The reason is that there is little recent research done involving cyclists that isn't fatally tainted with political agendas and a desire to substantiate predetermined results. While it is easy to blame or credit motorists for crash rate changes, it is MORE LIKELY that these changes are due to changes in the way that roads are designed, and the way that cyclists use those roads.

Oh, and that graph at the top of the page? The "accident rates" were generated by a random number generator in Excel. No cyclists were harmed in its production.

In the words of John Schubert, when he rightly took me to task on the subject:

"I ride where I’m seen. The human being driving the Hummer sees me, whether I’m alone or not, on Fifth Avenue or Podunk Street. He doesn’t want a collision, so he avoids the collision. What could be simpler?"

MONDAY UPDATE: WARNING - MATH AHEAD!
Well, I started crunching some numbers from the Jacobsen paper, but along the way I found some interesting anomalies that are slowing things down. First off, I think that even the most enthusiastic proponent of the "more watchful motorist" theory will concede that watchfulness is not all that's going on. For example, I found that according to the NHTSA, alcohol was involved in 38% of all car-bike cyclist fatalities in 2008 and I'm torn about how to remove clear cases where watchfulness is a non factor from the mix. What is more perplexing is that, according to the Jacobsen paper itself, sometimes it appears to get MORE dangerous for each cyclist when there are more cyclists out. In the UK, between 1984 and 1999, a doubling of cyclists would have resulted in nearly THREE TIMES as many cycling fatalities. I'll have to ponder that number a little. If we're to accept the "motorists are changing" theory, in the UK, it bodes poorly for cyclists if more ride. Regardless of anything else, I hope we can all agree that making it easier for motorists to notice us and what we are planning to do next is a sound policy. That is as true for a clueless motorist on a cell phone as for one that's almost paralyzed from fear he/she might hit a cyclist. While a motorist might well be looking for a cyclist darting off a sidewalk against traffic in the dark, any motorist being so watchful is going above and beyond the call of duty, and any cyclist that counts on such a response from a motorist is likely to fare poorly. Even in Holland.

Watch for Tricky People on Bikes

Approaching Bellaire Elementary from the North. Today's Subject Passed Through the Intersection About Where the Middle Car Is
Nowadays, There's a Traffic Signal Instead of the Stop Signs. At Least He had a Green for THIS Intersection

In any given situation, the safety of someone on a bike depends on his or her actions and the actions of other road users. This morning, on my commute to work, there was a guy on a bike going southbound down Bellaire a bit north of Bellaire Elementary School. He was hugging the right edge where the gutter pan meets the traffic lanes. Before long, he sort of wandered across the street, more or less in the middle of the left turn lane as he went into the intersection at Bellaire. He proceeded to ride down the street; now headed south in the northbound lane. After a couple of blocks, he zipped up onto the sidewalk, still headed against traffic. He rode along the sidewalk at about 18MPH; almost as fast as I was going on the road. It was fascinating to watch his driveway/intersection crossing technique –keep the head straight and keep going. Any motorist, however diligent, coming from one of the side streets, would have had no chance to avoid him. Any pedestrian approaching from the side would have gotten smacked. After a couple of more blocks I was far enough ahead that the show came to an end. Not long after, I arrived at the red light at Highway 10.

The Red Light at Highway 10. Back When it was Dark When I Got There
Today's Scofflaw Was ANOTHER Guy on a Bike. He Crossed on the Left Sidewalk
and Swerved Through the Highway Traffic

For an encore, while I was waiting for the light to change, along comes “clueless wrong-way sidewalk rocket guy,” who shot through the red light off of his wrong-way sidewalk, across three lanes of traffic and a left turn lane, threading through oncoming westbound motorists on Highway 10 that were naively expecting that their green light meant “GO” instead of “watch for a person running the red on a bike.” Though I knew it was NOT a teachable moment, I couldn’t help myself and yelled “it’s a red light!” in his direction. I admit it, sometimes I forget you’re supposed to watch for people on bikes, not yell at them. This guy then proceeded to ride eastbound along for the better part of a half mile on the left side of the left lane of a highway with a 50MPH speed limit before swerving across three traffic lanes in order to hop onto a sidewalk off to the side of the road. Lots of eastbound motorists got to watch this tricky guy. They all avoided him – THIS time. Cycling really IS safe!

One popular explanation for “safety in numbers” promoted by Jacobsen and many advocates is that motorists watch for bikes better when there are more bikes. I’d like to propose an alternate reason since I don’t see how ANY amount of added motorist diligence would help this tricky bike guy. Isn’t it more likely that with added bikes on the road, people on bikes have more opportunities to observe and simply ride less dangerously? Wouldn’t that result in lower crash rates? Motorists are trained NOT to run into things they see. That’s true whether that object is a bike, a parked car, a pedestrian, or even stuff floating in the wind. West of Amarillo, I was amazed to see motorists swerving all over the road to avoid running into tumbleweeds blowing across the highway. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that they were watching for tumbleweeds because there WERE a lot of them blowing across the road, but I doubt it. Avoidance training runs deep and it kicked in for the Motorists on Highway 10 this morning. Simply put, if the fraction of bikes shooting through intersections going the wrong way drops dramatically, the fraction of people killed doing such things will also drop. Maybe if people doing dim bulb stuff get yelled at by many more cyclists, they'll catch on.

Heading North, This Morning, the Guy on the Bike Would Have Been Headed Straight Towards Me

Certainly my loyal reader can think of other reasons for improved safety with added numbers – “with more bikes, traffic engineers stop ignoring bikes” is a personal favorite, but reduced DANGEROUS behavior seems more reasonable than others getting better at anticipating and avoiding that DANGEROUS behavior.

My Track This Morning, With Bellaire off to my Right. Rocket Guy was Headed the Same Way Two Lanes Over to the Left

Last Post of the Old Era

I'm going to go in a little different direction. If you happen to be my loyal reader, don't despair. I don't think this blog is actually going to GO AWAY in the near future. However, a little clarity has entered my life and I'll unveil it soon. For the moment, I'll dispense a little wisdom in the way I've been accustomed to do.

Dear, Departed Eugene Sloane

Today, I want to rant a little about the pure ignorance of traffic engineers where people that ride bikes are concerned. I'll start with a blast to the past. Specifically, Eugene Sloane's classic book on bicycling. In it, amongst other things, he ranted against drain grates that trapped cyclists. My own edition (actually, my wonderful wife's book) was published back in 1969. For those of you that are math challenged, 1969 was the year we first put man on the Moon, and it was also FORTY THREE YEARS AGO.

Well, some dips, er, traffic engineers haven't learned much in the last NEARLY HALF CENTURY.

You see, within a block of a "Safe Routes to School" project (supposedly to make things safer for kids), exists THIS TRAP.

What do you think would happen to a kid riding to school who hugged the curb. Yeah, me too. Fortunately, I ride WELL left of such dangers. It just strikes me how little progress we've made in impacting road design and drainage in the last half century...

Wowza, a Bike Rack Right in the Road! It's Been a LONG Time Since I Saw Such Egregious IGNORANCE

I Got a Little Nervous About Leaving the Bike Just Standing There. I Really DIDN'T Want My Expensive Wheel to Get Bent.
28c Tires Fit Into the Grate WITH ROOM TO SPARE

If You Needed a MODERN (Post 1969) Reason NOT to Hug the Curb, Look at THIS DRAIN Grate. It Could RUIN Your Whole Day - IF You're Lucky.
City of Hurst
Public Works
1505 Precinct Line Road
Hurst, Texas 76054
(817) 788-7076

Traffic 101 Day 1

Gail Spann concentrates on a question

Some readers of this blog have taken "Traffic 101" or its predecessor, "Road 1" from the Bike League. Others have taught it. Some might be wondering what and why anyone should go out of their way to take such a course? Here's my take, so far, on the whole thing, with more comments reserved for when Day 2 finishes up tomorrow and I'm not getting ahead of things. For anyone reading this in the frozen north, I think Traffic 101 is roughly equivalent to "Reader's Digest"  "Can-Bike 1," with many elements of "Can-Bike 2."

Curriculum

The course is set up with four hours of lecture and five hours of on-bike drills and riding. The second portion is what I was graced with earlier by Richard and Dorothy, reported here, though as far as I know, they weren't actually giving me grades on my riding. Today, I got to hear the classroom portion. It sounds like we get to take a test tomorrow at the end of it all. That'd come out of the five hours of bike time. I hope it's a short test.

Target Audience

The course is clearly oriented towards people looking to become more comfortable operating their bikes in traffic, NOT someone who has worn out his copy of Effective Cycling through overuse. Still, I found it useful to hear material presented in a different format by different people, and to see and experience it with the target audience. I understand much better why the course is rarely given to individuals. The group dynamic adds to the learning. Gail Spann had the somewhat dubious task of keeping 5 hours of lecture interesting to the class. To her credit, she did admirably in this respect, keeping us all from dying from Powerpoint, with Richard Wharton and Dorothy Zarbo giving demos of the principles being explained.

Observations from One NOT in the Target Audience

• First off, I got answers to the last two objectives from yesterday's post.
• Second, I heard some fairly objective lecture on bike lanes. I felt mildly encouraged by this. Nothing I heard would lead me to believe my current approach to them is wrong.
• Third, I thought Gail was going to come over and smack me when I raised my hand when she asked if anyone rode with earphones. She did back off a little, when I stated that I'd found John Allen's discussion of that to be the best considered and most reasonable I've seen on the subject.
• Fourth, "the line of sweetness" is not part of the Traffic 101 Lesson Plan.
• FINALLY, Gail instructed us to make stop signals that (other than the assertive finger point and wonderful head check) look EXACTLY like those I wondered about here, causing Keri Caffrey to shake her head in frustration about engineers. Richard spoke up at that moment, favoring the "droopy arm at the elbow" stop signal that I've adopted and that avoids looking like unintended communication to motorists that have never seen an arm stop signal. With THIS last observation, all I can say is to quote Chandra - ie "peace."

More Takeaways

I highly recommend taking this course with people you know. It adds to the value. I'm fortunate that Chandra and one of my fellow commuters at Alliance are taking the course together with me. On the way home from class, the discussion turned to triggering signals and how exactly the ubiquitous detection cameras around Tarrant County actually work, especially at night. This was prompted by the rather brief treatment of induction triggered traffic lights. I think there'll be a future post on more particulars regarding cyclist interactions with video detection cameras.

Above, Chandra Indicates One Should Discourage Unfriendly Dogs Kindly

Shaggy Would be Proud!

Below, Richard Wharton Uses Gail's Fabulous Colnago to Demonstrate a Classroom Point

Flag Follies in Ocean Shores

We're Nearly as "Hip" as Seattle Here in Ocean Shores!

Apparently, one of the new trends in street crossings are flags. I’ve seen a few in Seattle popping up, and now we’ve got flags in Ocean Shores. They’re at the very same roundabout I’ve written about here and here.

Flags Piling Up

The idea of these flags is that pedestrians will take them and wave them in order to avoid getting run over by careless motorists. In that regard, they are a low cost alternative to various beg button systems and they’re probably effective for pedestrians, crossing from either the first or second photo. I’m not sure what a pedestrian is supposed to do when coming upon a sign (black letters on a white background being “regulatory”) like that in the third photo. Fortunately, most pedestrians (and motorists) are blissfully unaware of the yellow versus white background rules that cycling advocates blather about interminably.

The flags, however, are a bit problematic for cyclists. If you’ll recall from my FIRST OS roundabout post, their bike lane directs unaware cyclists to ride on the sidewalk (possibly illegally), where they’re then expected to cross across four lanes of roundabout traffic, back on to the sidewalk at LEAST once, before getting dumped back into another bike lane or onto a street without any guidance at all. Apparently, the traffic people did not realize this is FAR more dangerous than simply having cyclists operate as traffic through the roundabout since even a SLOW cyclist is going twice as fast as any pedestrian. I’m also not sure how they figured how a passing cyclist was supposed to grab a “take it to make it” flag as he/she passed by in a situation where he/she was at FAR greater risk than any pedestrian.

This was brought to the front of my mind yesterday as I saw a four seat, four wheel rental pedal car first go the wrong way down the street and then blissfully go through two successive crosswalks. If the peoples’ eyes driving the pedalcar were any guide, they didn’t look at either crosswalk. Can you say “accident waiting to happen?”

 Myself, I’ll continue to ignore the dimbulb attempts at directing me to do stupid things on my bike until/unless they come up with something that actually does anything more than check off some “complete streets” fantasy that comes from behind a windshield. In the defense of the traffic engineers, however, the flags probably DO help pedestrians better than doing nothing, though I’ve not heard of anybody actually getting hurt at the roundabout. Perhaps a couple of pedestrians got scared by tourists that did not understand how the roundabout works?

Lonely Flagless Stand With Sign Advising "Take it to Make It" - Is This a Serious Danger?

Bicycle Connections

Google Maps Satellite View of Where Patrick Francis O'Rourke was Killed on his Bicycle in 2001

As my loyal reader knows, Beto O'Rourke ("e" as in prounounced in the word "President," not "e"as pronounced in the Canadian word "eh') is from Texas and has announced a run for President. This post, however, is not about Beto. This post is about Beto's dad. 

Most people do not know that Beto's father, Patrick Francis O'Rourke, was an avid cyclist - AND a politician. Pat sent a "payment due" bill to Ronald Reagan's US Government in 1986 for reimbursement to El Paso, and was Jesse Jackson's 1988 Texas Campaign Chair. In his day, in his mostly Latino area, Pat was known as the "Tip O'Neill" of El Paso politics. Like our current President (and Ronald Reagan before him), Pat was a lifelong Democrat that became a Republican - in Pat's case, finding what he considered a better way occurred sometime before 1992. But I digress.

In 2000, Pat O'Rourke made a cross-country trip on his recumbent bicycle from Oregon to New York. Pat blogged about it on the Stanton Street Blog,  which Amy O'Rourke, (Beto's wife) sold in 2017. I was unable to find Pat's original bike posts, and a search on it for "bicycle" revealed nothing. Perhaps my loyal reader can find something. I will update this post if I make a later discovery. My loyal reader might also contact Stanton Street to see if they want to 'fess up and repost.

Unfortunately, Pat's cross-country bike trip is not the end of the story. After Pat got back to El Paso, he continued to ride until one day in early July 2001. On that day; a day like many others, Patrick Francis O'Rourke was riding his bicycle near Artcraft Road and Westside Drive. The intersection is about a block from the New Mexico border on the western outskirts of El Paso. Somewhere nearby, Pat was struck from behind by a motorist and killed. I don't know the crash details (newspapers called it an "accident" - some misnomers just continue on and on), and I will update this post if I find more details later.

The crash in which Pat O'Rourke was killed illustrates something that is not well understood within the cycling advocacy community, but SHOULD be. In my blog, I constantly issue the refrain that "the danger is from ahead" and my refrain is true - in urban areas that have intersections, driveways and other hazards, and even more so in these places when the cyclist is controlling his or her lane in accordance with good practice. However, My refrain is NOT nearly so true on high-speed rural roads, such as that where Pat O'Rourke was killed. Statistically, "from behind" collisions are rare, but they have a very high fatality rate because of the sheer energy with which the cyclist is impacted when hit by a heavy, high speed motor vehicle, or even a protrusion from a motor vehicle such as a side mirror.

Hit-from-behind collisions are more common than in the past because more cyclists take long, country rides - they don't like urban traffic. Shoulder riding on a highway reduces the likelihood of a collision because it can be avoided by the simple expedient of the motorist staying within his or her traffic lane, but all the reflective material on the back of police cars and fire trucks, and all the mirrors cyclists and motorists swear by, do not obviate the fact that any highway shoulder is a dangerous place, even if one arrived there in a heavy motor vehicle. Lots of cycling advocates and traffic engineers have  gotten enamored with the notion of "protected" cycling lanes to reduce "hit from behind" fatalities, but cones, lane dots, rumble strips, any of their variants, or low curbs won't protect a cyclist on a rural highway that is in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Protecting non motorized road users on high speed country roads is something that we, as a society, have not really even BEGUN to come to grips with. Even John Forester relates fearful journeys he made on such roads when traffic got heavy.

Beto doesn't speak about his father much in public, though his father was also a politician. Beto shares the middle name of "Francis" with his father, grandfather, and great grandfather, and his childhood nickname avoided confusion within the family. After Beto's rebellious youth, in which he acted more like George W Bush than any other recent President, he came back home to El Paso and delivered the eulogy at Pat's funeral. Two links to stories involving Pat may be found here and here. Patrick's grave memorial including his obituary may be found here.

From now on, when I hear people try to denigrate Beto by calling him "Robert" or even more, by calling him "Francis," I will inwardly smile at how they are ignorantly honoring his immigrant family, or his cyclist father. From a Facebook image at left, taken from one of the links above, you can see Pat and Beto.

Patrick O'Rourke's life is memorialized here. At that site, you can also trace his ancestry back at least into Ireland. Cycling may be fun and safe - but we should remember that there are unexpected occasions when it is NOT. Be especially careful on high-speed, narrow, country roads where at least SOME motorists do not expect a cyclist or anything else to "suddenly" appear in front of them...

Red Rage

This isn’t the post I was planning to write today. I was planning to write a post, entitled “taking the second left.” I even took some photos to help illustrate the traffic situation. It is one not taught in Cycling Savvy, though I think any of their instructors would recognize it. Instead, I got mad. UNREASONABLY MAD. I yelled at someone. Someone who might be a nice person most of the time. I knew it wasn’t a teachable moment, but I yelled anyway. And then I got really mad. The RED RAGE is not pretty.

Sometimes it takes only a minor incident to trigger it. It is a close relative to what we call ROAD RAGE; an affliction we tend to associate with motorists doing offensive acts that endanger others. Well, I can tell you that cyclists are not immune. What's more, since we are not insulated from the world by steel and glass, it's a lot more upfront and personal when it happens to one of us. Today, it was me. And it really wasn't anything major that set it off. I think a lot of road rage starts with something minor.

Bellaire Elementary School While Road Construction was Ongoing

Northern Approach to Bellaire Elementary Four-Way Stop

Not long ago, I reported how traffic engineers messed up the street of Bellaire in Hurst, where it goes past Bellaire Elementary School. Well, this morning, I left for work a little later than usual, and at the four-way stop just north of the school, settled in to a stop for the crossing guards who had their signs out so kids could cross. So far, the situation was pretty normal. You stop and WAIT, just like the rest of traffic, when the crosswalks are occupied and kids are crossing. The concept is pretty simple, and it is a penalty that comes with leaving a skosh late for work. This morning, I had plenty of stop time to take a photo of the crossing guards. They are nice ladies that take good care of their kids and there were quite a few this morning. While we never actually talk, they have come to know the guy on the red and white bike that rides down the middle of the lane.

Crossing Guard at Bellaire Elementary School on September 20
The Same Car is Stopped in Both These Photos. HE Didn't Blow Through the Intersection

The OTHER Crossing Guard at Bellaire Elementary School on September 20
You Can See Lots of Kids Beyond on the Sidewalk

On my right, an adult on a bike pulled up to the stop sign. I have no idea where he came from because I don’t recall passing him earlier, but I'd been stopped for a while since I had time to take some pictures. Bike guy actually stopped. Well, he almost stopped. Then he started forward and, I, still waiting patiently for the intersection to clear, forgot about non-teachablemoments. I yelled “You’re at a stop sign and there are kids crossing.” For those that do not know me, my voice projects VERY WELL. Some say that Steve can actually be quite LOUD. Bike guy yelled something back, somewhat tentatively. I think perhaps he was disoriented by a cyclist yelling at him. Who knows. I couldn't tell exactly what he yelled. In truth, there was nothing he could have yelled that carried any meaning unless he was going to simply obey the law and WAIT. Instead, he continued forward. I yelled again; even louder: “THE CROSSING GUARD HAS HER SIGN UP! THAT MEANS STOP!” The guy continued past the crossing guard (and the kids) and then down Bellaire past the school, riding in the gutter pan of the street. I did feel a bit better when the crossing guard waved to me and yelled out “thanks!” Her feedback helped, dropping the anger down enough that I did not feel any temptation to yell further at the scofflaw when I was able to proceed legally, and I blew by him within a half block. In contrary to my usual practice, I did not make a full lane change when I passed him. In reality, the guy was no worse than many people I see every day on bikes. Arguably, he was better than the lady that simply flew through a four-way stop yesterday afternoon without looking either way, with a trailer in tow behind her. Still, he was the one that set off the RED RAGE.

I do feel better because no embarrassing profanities (John Romeo Alpha would call such an "inappropriate term") escaped my lips in front of all those elementary school kids. Practicing and training for friendly cycling really DOES pay off. It is possible that some, reading this blog, don’t get irritated when they see people on bikes simply blow through signs or lights. While a person on a bike does not present the same magnitude of danger to other road users that the operator of a 6000 lb SUV represents, bike can and DO hurt people. Read THIS or THIS. Closer to North Texas, you can read THIS or THIS. I’d not go as far as Mr Christopher and cite such as the reason I’d never carry a gun while cycling, but I certainly understand where he’s coming from.

Just as not everyone driving a car is one of MY MOTORISTS, a lot of people on bikes should stay away from roads, paths, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Thanks for listening. I feel better now. We can go back to something OTHER than the RED RAGE. Heck, if you're riding in Hurst, you can probably blow through a stop sign right in front of me and I won't say a thing other than to offer first aid help when you cream some little kid.

Stepping Down the Pyramid with Mirrors

My Own Dear Departed Mirror

In the last couple of weeks, I was prompted by a couple of events to think again about mirrors when using a bike. Namely, how might mirrors help a cyclist reduce unsafe ("at risk") behaviors; which are the base of the safety pyramid. Some of those behaviors belong to us cyclists. Other unsafe behaviorsbelong to our motoring companions. It isn't always easy to separate the former from the latter. To REALLY be safe, we need to find ways to reduce both.

The Safety Pyramid - You Want to Move DOWN IT!

FIRST EVENT
The first event was a long, drawn out discussion amongst Bike League cycling instructors about mirrors. One point that stuck with me was the inquiry by Khal of Los Alamos Bikes, namely:

"Question to those who strongly advocate mirrors. How often do you check mirrors in traffic, and does this give you adequate warning of a suddenly developing situation?"

It seemed to me that most of the ensuing discussion focused on feelings and faith rather than "what do we need to do."

SECOND EVENT
The second event was the rare "drama behind me." In it, seeing a motorist proceeding in the middle lane of three choices, and me planning to cross those three lanes prior to making a left, I initiated a right turn into the right lane (right turn on red). Normally, the motorist would have swept by and then I'd be up to speed and move over to make the left. I COULD have simply waited, but it seemed to be pretty simple. This time, however, the motorist swerved from the middle lane into the right lane - MY lane. What? Suddenly I was in a lane at about 10mph with a motorist directly behind, doing 50 and closing fast. I considered my options, not knowing exactly WHY this lady had swerved from a "clean and simpl pass" position into a "hit from behind" position; things didn't seem clear. As a result, I fell back on experience and hung a left turn signal while keeping close watch. If the lady was going to make a right, she'd see it and we'd be good. If she was wondering about my intent, she'd see it. Either way, I was definitely going to watch this motorist's wheels to see what would happen next. While my stress level edged up. At this point, anything other than "stay the course andO signal my intent" seemed to be a poor bet.

Well, as it turned out, the motorist then swerved left, back into her original lane, passed me with plenty of clearance (remember, I was signaling an intent to go INTO that lane she swung back into), and proceeded apace. After she passed, I exhaled, completed my leftward shifts and made my left turn; thinking about the safety pyramid and pondering how any mirror might have helped. Lest you think I'm simply being "dramatic," one of my engineers saw the event and said he was wondering if he needed to be calling 911. Lest you think I narrowly escaped death, the lady's closest approach was probably ten feet as she swept by in her original lane. I have no idea what the lady had in mind, other than she imagined I'd cross all the way across the street in front of her instead of following traffic protocol, and decided her best chance to miss the "idiot" was to swerve right. Assuming she was paying attention (she was NOT chatting on any mobile device), despite my concern, I was in absolutely no danger whatsoever UNLESS I'd done some ill-advised evasive maneuver at the last moment - mirror help or hurt? I guess my "proper" behavior simply fooled her. Who really knows. Regardless, as PM Summer once said: "no harm no foul."



Second Event - View from Google Maps - Arrows from Yours Truly

I'm neither a big fan nor opponent of mirrors. The one time I used one, it proved a useful added means to help in overall situation awareness. I think, however, that mirrors are a bit oversold, as are other safety things such as "high vis" and helmets. In the final analysis, our FIRST line of defense as road users (or on other public travel routes) is that our fellow road users know what we plan to do and what they in turn need to do to avoid disaster. That is the basis of traffic law.

Let us consider the actual USE of mirrors. Any mirror has three uses; the first is to see what is directly behind, the second is to see what might be developing in the lane to one's left when you might be considering such a shift, and the third is a similar function for a rightward shift. We'll consider them in order.

BEHIND
If you are looking to see what is going on behind you in a mirror, you are motivated by concerns about the general situation or you think you may want to send some message to following traffic. In the case of the "second event," what message would a mirror enable me to send? In reality, in such a situation, clear consistent operation seems to be the best principle when encountering another road user that seems to be doing illogical things. Even a wave or a "slow down" signal might confuse things for a distracted driver. What's more, for looking behind, we on bikes have no need for the "behind" mirror to keep from backing over people or stuff in the driveway. As you might see from the photo below. The rearview mirror is imperfect in that regard even in the MIGHTY LAND ROVER.



Mirror to Look Directly Behind. Mostly Useful for Backing Up

OTOH, a mirror is quite useful to look behind when one is wondering what happened to that motorist behind that should be ready to pass now. In the one day I had a mirror, it repeatedly answered such questions. No safety issue, but I, for one, dislike even short-term mysteries when riding. Score a point for mirrors.

SIDE (left or right)

LH Mirror - Aim it at the Lane to Your Vehicle's Left According to SAE

A mirror has definite uses when considering a left or right lane move in traffic. That is one reason that driver side mirrors have been required for cars starting in 1968 (prior to 1968, no side mirrors were required). They also became ubiquitous on the far (right) side of cars by the early 90's. In the case of a side mirror, it is "aimed" at the next lane over so you can see what will crunch you if you shift over. Such a mirror is clearly aimed differently than the "behind" mirror. Go HERE for a discussion on mirror aiming. Cyclists have an advantage in this regard over motorists because their head movements that effectively change mirror aiming are less than for their motoring brethren. Still, a mirror is either optimized to see behind or to one or the other sides. And THAT is a point mostly missed in the LAB discussions: if aimed behind, what action can you suddenly take that does not make you LESS predictable? If aimed to a side, how often does it really make a difference? While we are talking about SIDE mirrors, the reason RH mirrors came along much later is that they are a lot less likely to be really useful. Think about it. If you are on a bike (or in a car) and making a right turn, motorists on your right are a rare event. If you are making a lane shift to the left; much more likely. As for pedestrians, we on bikes really don't need mirrors to see them.


RH Side Mirror. Look HERE to Check Before a RH Lane Change. Objects are Closer Than They Appear!

OTHER FACTORS
If you are in a car, the side view mirror is much closer to the lane divider than it would typically be if you are on a bike - UNLESS you are riding a bit left of the LH tire track. This is simply due to the much wider width of a car. In my own experience, I get reduced passing clearance if I ride "close" to the LH lane edge. Things are much more congenial if I ride somewhere within the range of tire tracks. Personally, I like the "left center line of sweetness," but as with a lot in life, "it depends."

BOTTOM LINE
Very little of the mirror discussions I've seen address how mirrors are used for different purposes, nor exactly HOW you can reliably use a mirror for any safety purpose when considering traffic approaching from behind. For a movement you plan to the side - yes. From behind, not so much unless you are planning to jump on the brakes without warning.

MY VIEW (no pun intended)
A mirror can help in overall situation awareness. I'm going to get another mirror partly for this reason. What's more, it'll be a bar end mirror and NOT the one I already have that mounts on my helmet. A mirror makes a useful part of the "eyes moving" sequence of seeing what is all around (if that is any different than overall situation awareness) as long as it doesn't become an "end" in itself. A mirror can also help you prejudge a lane move. In this case, however, I'd never make a lane move without the "trust but verify" Ronald Reagan full head check. My kids were taught the same principle when motoring. NEVER change lanes without actually SEEING things are clear. In that regard, mirrors mainly help you know what to expect when the REAL look occurs.



 

"Trust, But Verify" Applies to Nuclear Weapons - AND Traffic (photo from Wikipedia)

ONE OTHER THING
All the above presumes you have normal vision or are farsighted. For those that are NEARSIGHTED, the mirror also helps them see what is happening back there and off to the side in conjunction with their eyeglasses. Otherwise, they are looking beyond the edges of their glasses.

JAGUAR CONSIDERATION
If you were wondering, NO, I have NO side mirror on my 1967 Jaguar. I have no plans to add one either - unless I find some of those that'll clip onto one's window but can be removed when one drives on to the show field. Just sayin'



No Side Mirror on THIS Vehicle!