Diamond at Canyon, Continued

My understanding, concerning the Diamond/Canyon bike lane configuration, is that DPW Director Kyle Zimmerman and Acting County Administrator Randy Autio will be discussing it early next week, according to what Kyle said last night at the T Board meeting.

Meanwhile, be careful out there. No system is perfect and lane markers, even excellent ones, don't have magical protective properties.

There is no design of your garden variety bike lane that is free from potential hazards under all conditions seen in an urban environment. As far as the bicyclist's traffic position, bike lanes put cyclists to the right of other traffic. That's fine when everyone is going in the same direction and the bicyclist is the low speed vehicle. But in an urban environment, that means others will be turning right across the thru bike lane at turn points. That also means you will be leaving the bike lane to turn left. 

That right turn issue is why a standard intersection design puts the bike lane between the right turn bay and the thru lane, often accompanied by an R4-4, sign (Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes) in order to manage lane changing. Council unintentionally put us in a weird box with its 2006 directive, which constrained the total road width and which said explicitly to use the turn bay as the bike lane. I would have preferred to keep the turn bay there and put sharrows in the right travel lane, and said as much last night.

One of the things that Neale Pickett and I both teach is that while a bike lane may be excellent for 99% of the time (and Diamond bike lanes are on balance, excellent close to 99% of the time--thank you, Kyle Zimmerman, Nancy Talley, and Staff!), it is incumbent on the cyclist to know when they are not excellent. At those times when they are not excellent, the situation requires one to either use the bike lane within its limitations or move outside the bike lane. That is a part of the social contract accepted by the cyclist when putting in bike lanes. I've posted on our LA bikes blog that cyclists on a downhill bike lane approaching turning and crossing points (i.e., northbound Diamond at Canyon) need to either:

1. Slow down and keep speed low in cases where turning and crossing conflicts can occur so you have time to react safely to adversity, or,

2. If moving faster than its safe in the bike lane, and especially if moving at the speed of traffic, then check for traffic in the travel lane, signal, and when safe, merge into the travel lane to control the lane and increase one's visibility. Note here: motorists cannot be allowed to get grumpy about this and harass the cyclist.

The choice to the cyclist depends on the cyclist's level of experience and comfort moving into traffic and the cyclist needs to understand the underlying reasons for the choices. Chances are very good that Neale and I will not get hit by a car at Diamond and Canyon. My worry is that now that we have a complete bike lane system, not all the cyclists or motorists are going to have done their hazard analysis and mitigation drill. Not to mention, be thinking.

There are some treatments for intersections that make them a little more intuitive or increase cyclist visibility to cut down on errors. Some are more avant garde and some are still (I think) awaiting approval from MUTCD et al.  Neale mentioned dashing the bike lanes as they approach intersections, which is an MUTCD "should" advisory rather than a "must", and which encourages both motorists and cyclists to understand that they have to work together and expect to be maneuvering around each other as they approach turning and crossing points. Brightly colored bike lanes  and bike boxes are another treatment to catch the motorist's attention, which I think Portland and a few other cities are experimenting with. But these have their own down sides, as discussed elsewhere. Where there is not room for a bike lane or where a bike lane is a lousy idea, Sharrows are now an approved MUTCD treatment. If you haven't seen a sharrow in Santa Fe, check out the picture below.

Nothing takes the place of the skill and experience of motorists and bicyclists, though. We should (must?), however, make intersections as intuitive as possible, and remember that bike lanes are a tool in our toolbox, not the whole box.

Sharrows, i.e., arrows combined with a bike symbol, 
reminding people that bikes will be in the lane
Sometimes, however, installed in door zones.

Bon Voyage, Steve Jobs

This old Apple ad sums it up best. Let's apply the same thinking to transportation.

    

For further coverage, see the story in The Onion

Motorists: When turning right, take the bike lane

NOTE TO CYCLISTS: If you want to make public comments on this, please show up at this week's Transportation Board meeting!

Meanwhile, good letter from a local cyclist (Milan Gadd, if I recall) in yesterday's Monitor on that interesting stretch of northbound Diamond Drive bike lane between Trinity and Canyon. I hope Council read it, along with the earlier post here.

Perhaps Council should, in the future, not unintentionally (or intentionally) confound engineering and politics. Ask staff for the best designs given the desired constraints, choose one, and then get out of the way.

We should perhaps also read this one: City to settle with injured bicyclist over North Portland intersection
 A bicyclist whose run-in with an automobile two years ago helped spur the city to install green bike boxes around Portland stands to get a $32,500 settlement from the city this week.  Cyclist Siobhan Doyle and driver Lisa Wheeler were both headed south on North Interstate Avenue. Doyle, in the bike lane, went straight when Wheeler took a right turn in front of her.  The collision happened at the same intersection where another bicyclist, Brett Jarolimek, was killed two weeks earlier in 2007.

Meanwhile, the northbound bike lane on Diamond at Central continues to confuse. I see motorists moving into what used to be the turn bay to make right turns, and others making wide turns across the bike lane. Cyclists have noted some unsafe situations (see comments after earlier blog post) but nothing catastrophic.

As far as making that right turn? This is what County law says:

Sec. 38-268. - Required position and method of turning at intersection.

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn (right) at an intersection shall do so as follows:

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the street.

Furthermore,
Sec. 38-275. - Turning and stopping movements and required signals.

(a) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the street as required in section 38-268 or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a street unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided if any other traffic may be affected by such movement.

(b) A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. 

So it sounds like those motorists taking the bike lane are correct. Further, they keep you from getting cut off. But they do have to signal and yield to you if you are already there. 

I'm not saying this is the worst possible design, but it is really troubling. The problems are twofold:  First, frankly, it invites mistakes, as would the picture below. The motorist is turning right and you as the cyclist are in the motorist's "blind spot". That's a great way to set us humans up for error.  Secondly, it is a very busy intersection with a lot of right turning traffic, a downhill slope (meaning cyclists are moving fast) and a fair amount of cycling. Sure, we have similar situations going downhill in the northbound bike lanes just north of Conoco Hill. We have had close calls there too, and with far less traffic.

But the law is on your side, at least. If anyone bothered to read and obey it. Put that quote on your hospital wrist band.

More on the "Coffin Corner" here, from the Charles River Wheelmen.

What is wrong in this picture?

Why you need to stay out of the door zone.

Fortunately, we have few situations with bike lanes next to parked cars.  Urban Park is the only one I can think of. But Central Ave is one of those places a cyclist might be tempted to ride too far right and too close to parallel parked cars in order to be nice to overtaking traffic.Bad idea.

Take a look at the discussion of this chilling video on Prof. Andy Cline's site and over at Commute Orlando. One video is worth anything I could say here. Plus, its not just hitting the door and getting splattered. Its being flung out into traffic and being splattered a second time.

Stay farther than a door width from parked cars. That is generally about five feet. If a bike lane stripe tells you otherwise, ignore the bike lane and show the nice person beeping at you this video.




A longer video put together by LCI and longtime cycling educator Dan Guitierrez with some real and simulated crashes is on Youtube. I've embedded it here. Enjoy the Stones music.

Beware the right hook (and left cross) at Diamond and Canyon/Central

Beware of that right turning SUV. 
Check traffic on your left as you approach

Don't let an otherwise fine bike lane system lull you to sleep in a busy, complex, and not always optimal Phase IV.

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

Cyclists travelling northbound on Diamond Drive may now have to deal with a "right hook" hazard at Diamond and Canyon. The current configuration of the northbound bike lane puts it far to the right of thru traffic, separated from the thru lane by a buffer, and located in the place where the right turn bay used to be. I see this as a hazard because there are a lot of right turning motorists at this intersection and a lot of thru cyclists headed north on Diamond Drive. In this configuration, thru cyclists in the bike lane, who may be moving quite briskly due to the downhill slope, will be overtaken by motorists turning right from the cyclist's left. Alternatively, bicyclists will be overtaking motorists, who are slowing to turn right, in the motorist's "blind spot". In addition, cyclists riding that far right will be less visible to southbound Diamond traffic turning left onto Canyon/Central. To see examples of potential turning and crossing conflicts, go to the Mass Bike Law Officer Training page and watch the videos under "Motorist Errors..."

Here are the most relevant Mass Bike videos for the right hook and left cross. Both of these are more likely the more 'invisible" the bicyclist is to motorists. Check out the Mass Bike page for others. Most are posted on Youtube.






In addition to the crash scenerios mentioned in these videos there is a third type--a car-car collision, i.e., a motorist suddenly stopping short after seeing a cyclist riding on the right (15 seconds into the first video) could be hit from behind by an inattentive or tailgating motorist, or, a motorist stopping short while making a left turn (south on Diamond to East on Canyon) and realizing he is going to hit an oncoming cyclist could be t-boned by an oncoming motorist going too fast.

So be aware of these hazards and watch for overtaking cars that could turn in front of you. Alternatively, since this is a downhill section, and if you are travelling at the speed of traffic, you may want to take the (travel) lane and forswear that section of bike lane until you are past Central. There is no law against it, i.e., a mandatory bike lane use law. "As far right as is practicable" generally applies if you are going slower than other traffic. In this section, I'm usually humming right along and it is not considered prudent or practicable to be T-boning right turning cars with a 'cross bike.

Neale Pickett and I have both commented to the County DPW on the pitfalls of this design in this particular location and requested it be changed.  Neale has suggested, at minimum, to move the bike lane to the left of what used to be the right turn bay, suggesting the present design is awfully close to that of a sidepath. Some relevant AASHTO verbage follows on sidepaths: "...The most common crash type in this category involves the failure of a left‐turning motorist to yield to an oncoming bicyclist; the second most common involves a right‐turning motorist who strikes a through bicyclist (often referred to as a “right‐hook” crash). (5) Measures that encourage bicyclist conspicuity can be helpful, as can geometric modifications that limit vehicle turning speeds (e.g., reduced curb radii). A bike lane provided along the left side of a dedicated right‐turn lane can also help reduce the incidence of such crashes..."

Compare to this description of a "dangerous" bike lane in Portland, OR, which was changed to avoid the right hook.

Stay Tuned, and please be careful out there. Slow down and be vigilant in this section of bike lane. My preference is to reinstate the right turn bay and put sharrows in the thru lane or share the right turn bay with a bike lane dashed on its left side.  But the paint, as I was told today, is now dry.

To cyclists who want bike lanes, please remember that they are not always the right treatment. There are no good one size fits all solutions. Interestingly, County Staff reminded me that it was some cyclists who insisted on continuous bike lanes in this area. Combining that with Council's directives to staff (below) put the design in a very awkward box. Putting bike lanes in the right turn bays sacrifices the right turn bays and forces motorists to pass a cyclist on the left while they turn right. That is not optimal. Optimal is having bike lanes between the thru and right turn lane, or as a dashed part of the turn bay on the inside of the turn lane. Or, simply taking the rightmost thru lane in the direction you are going and not worrying about bike lanes.

This is what Council, in 2006, said to do:

Council passed the following motion on March 28, 2006:

Councilor Hall moved, seconded by Councilor Bowman, that Council direct staff to move forward with design of the Diamond and West Road, Trinity Drive, and Canyon Road intersections with traffic signals, no additional lanes to accommodate traffic queues, and bicycle lanes using the existing right turn lanes; in an effort to stay within the existing right-of-way. I (Hall) further move that streetlight design along the Diamond corridor conforms to Roadway Lighting Design Category for continuously lighted roadways (RLDC-5), using opposite lighting, as described in Ordinance 02-029. I (Hall) further move that staff evaluate the feasibility of pedestrian tunnels and overpasses to avoid potential conflicts with traffic at Trinity.

Interestingly, as I stopped to take the picture seen above, a motorist came barreling down this new bike lane, oblivious that it is no longer a right turn bay. Go figure.

Interesting discussions here:

Danger in the bike lane

(The Seattle Times)  Matt Corwin was pedaling home from work on his usual route when he approached the University Bridge. A line of cars waited at the red light...

Fatal Right Hook Hazard From Right Turning Motorists 

By Ray Thomas, Portland bike lawyer

Woman injured in right hook at NE Couch and Grand

I suggest those who are concerned about this call the County Dept. of Public Works or make a comment to the Transportation Board. Or, call Council. This was to some degree decided on 28 March, 2006. Above all, as a cyclist, be careful. Also, I suggest that the take home message is that these things can't be decided five years in advance without doing a detailed re-analysis of the final design.

countycouncil at lacnm dot us
kyle.zimmerman at lacnm dot  us
Transportation Board:  tb at lacnm dot  us