Open Letter to Encinitas Engineer Abe Bandigan
Please remove the newly installed hazardous door zone bike lanes.
Hi Abe,
Thank you for your continued efforts to make Encinitas a cycling mecca for all interested users either wishing to adopt or maintain cycling as their mode of transport or for those just passing through chasing endorphins.
This message is in regards to the newly installed hazardous door zone bike lane on Coast Highway 101.
While I have no doubt you have good intentions, installing such designs is misleading cyclists into operating in a hazardous area along one of the busiest roads for bicyclists in the region, if not the state or even the country.
And with all due respect, it's on record over the years from various legitimate cycling experts speaking either during public comments or via email to you and other city officials that striping bike lanes in the door zone is a hazard for the intended user.
Cyclists are likely going to "follow the paint" and believing the door zone is not only the place they are supposed to ride but also the safest place for them to ride. After all, the Government, or well you as their representative, told them to ride there.
In the case of the new DZBLS on Coast Highway, the pretty green paint literally marks the hazard.
Just as a quick review - it is extremely difficult, if not next to impossible for a cyclist riding even at slow speeds to avoid a suddenly appearing fixed object such as an opening car door. Even cyclists who ride right outside the actual "strike zone" may strike their handlebar on the edge of the door, which throws both themselves and their bicycle in the opposite direction - into the traffic lane. Other cyclists are simply startled and overcorrect ending up in the general use traffic lane.
Every undergraduate transportation engineer in their first course in the subject learns about reaction times. Why does this knowledge go out the window when it comes to cycling?
While it is true that no person may open their door into traffic without first looking to ensure it's safe to do so (CVC 22517) motor vehicle occupants often do not do this when they perceive a buffer (the hazardous DZ bike lane) between their vehicle and the general-use travel lane okay to prop the door open regardless of the presence of a cyclist or not based on the sole fact motor vehicles avoid that space. And while it is also true that the so-called "Dutch Reach" may help some people remember at least to look for cyclists, many people aren't aware of it. It also requires a mirror and ample upper-body motion. It’s an over-complicated wannabe Rube Goldberg machine of a “solution.”
Cyclists riding out of the door zone 100% of the time are at near zero risk of being doored. They're also less susceptible to other common car-bike crashes such as right hooks, left crosses, drive outs and walkouts.
As others have indicated, doorings have injured and killed people and those cyclists who are aware of the hazards and decide to ignore such "design" experience harassment from motorists who believe the cyclist is not in their "designated space." It's one of the consequences of promoting literal segregation (which follows the "platitude vision" of cycling advocacy over the "principled vision") of one particular type of driver - ones who are supposed to have the same rights and duties as other drivers of vehicles on surface streets.
Road users aren't expected to operate in hazardous areas where they have no means of escaping from hazards. Motorcyclists are taught to maximize their relevance and visibility to other road users too and cycling education programs teach the similar “defensive driver” concepts taught to motorcyclists - including to simply never ride in the door zone period. Motor vehicle drivers are seldom literally instructed by markings to operate in hazardous areas either, and if they do, they have their vehicle's glass and steel cage as a built-in buffer.
Cycling safety expert Wayne Pein wrote nearly 20 years ago the following in one of his white papers arguing against DZBLs:
"AASHTO’s standards for bike lanes with on-street parking are poorly conceived pseudoscience, are at odds with its own lateral clearance specifications for vehicles, result in benighted policies regarding bicycling, and should be abolished. The specifications are misleading and dangerous even at their most liberal width. They fail the principle of First Do No Harm. Prudent practice and the Engineers Code of Ethics require maintaining a margin for safety: “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”
His paper on the concept of a "Space Cushion" is also worthy of a read.
Just because it is allowed in the standards doesn't mean it's safe or moral to use either. And while you’re going to get your paycheck either way, and no matter what, because you work for a government your actions are likely protected by design immunity doesn’t give you an excuse to drop basic ethics.
You're an engineer. You're likely a better person than this. Engineering isn't simply a "follow the recipe" ordeal either, it requires actually thinking things through. It's sad to see this happen over and over again, especially in government sector but also in the private sector (here's an example w/ renewable energy projects)
Please remove the hazard immediately.
In closing, as another cycling safety expert John Schubert once said, "Pretending to accommodate bicyclists is no solution. Don’t sweep known safety hazards under the rug.”
Great piece about this heinous step backward for bicyclists.