That "protected bike lane" on the right of a major intersection I told you about in Burlington?
The sign explicitly says ONLY BIKES. Cars are not allowed to merge into the right-most lane to turn right. The city code explicitly forces the "right hook" and calls this "protection."
I want someone to sue the fuck out of the city for this. It's almost planned murder.
Government engineers get away with this crap so long as they can say they’re “following standards” or under “design immunity”
It’s going to get worse. NACTO, the racist assholes mentioned in a previous post are trying to get these atrocities approved in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices too.
Eliminate geometric design restrictions for urban bikeways. The MUTCD is not intended to be geometric design guidance, but it includes dozens of recommendations about geometric design details. Many are remnants of an outdated preference for vehicular-style cycling, and have been contradicted by decades of safety and operational studies. These include restrictions on placing bike lanes to the right of a right-turn lane, and unwarranted recommendations against using bike boxes. Rather than include duplicative, conflicting guidance, the MUTCD should encourage the designs called for by best practice guidance such as MassDOT’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide and NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which have been developed with input from practitioners with expertise in urban bikeway design.
I am an avid cyclist, and a motorcyclist, and have experienced and witnessed almost every conceivable issue on the roads. In my opinion, the biggest issue is that most cyclists on the road are clueless and entitled. Also, I am not one that looks to government or laws to "keep me safe." Safety is my job, and when nobody is around to enforce laws that is doubly true.
Riding a motorcycle safely in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is challenging, but not particularly difficult. However, I witnessed motorcyclists without a clue doing dumb sh!t all the time that in some situations cost them their lives. Cyclists are no different. In the community I now live in, e-bikes are all the rage. I regularly see people riding two up on e-bikes while not wearing helmets or even pedaling and achieving in excess of 20 mph. Cycling commuting intelligence has decreased dramatically over the years, not increased. Our local law enforcement doesn't seem interested in enforcing any of the current laws, and e-bikers generally do as they please. The push by cycle -commuting advocates to get everyone and their dog (in some cases, literally) on bikes has dumbed down the average commuting intelligence of cyclists. I commend you for presenting all sides of the situation in an even tempered way, but I am not optimistic of much improvement. Even the questionable utility of bike lanes only applies in small areas and isn't uniformly applied throughout communities. A cyclist commuting any distance is likely to encounter a bike path, bike lane, trails, and normal roads on a single commute. Without the awareness and ability to safely navigate the interchanges between the different conditions leaves most cyclist severely exposed.
The fact that cycling on pavement, even bereft of any cars, is inherently dangerous will not ever change. Without awareness of how drivers behave (and recognition that the brain does not register a cyclist for most drivers, only cars) cyclists will always be in a certain amount of danger. There is a technique motorcyclists use called SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) to make themselves visible to a left turning motorists that addresses the inability of a motorist to register a motorcycle in their brain. The technique is extremely effective, but it starts by recognizing that the left turning motorists is a danger in the first place. In my experience, a very small percentage of motorcyclists are familiar with and use SMIDSY. At least motorcyclists need to go through limited training to learn some of the safety traps. Most cyclists on the open road are even more clueless.
What is the answer? To start, the commuting advocates should begin by teaching basic awareness and safe cycling techniques. Although I am skeptical that will ever happen. The advocates, as you have so eloquently explained in previous writing, generally have an agenda that is more in line with money and power than actually improving safety. They also seem to take an adversarial approach and label all cars as the problem. Some drivers are not very considerate, but I'd rather have a driver pissed off at me, and see me, than say "sorry mate, I didn't see you."
That "protected bike lane" on the right of a major intersection I told you about in Burlington?
The sign explicitly says ONLY BIKES. Cars are not allowed to merge into the right-most lane to turn right. The city code explicitly forces the "right hook" and calls this "protection."
I want someone to sue the fuck out of the city for this. It's almost planned murder.
Government engineers get away with this crap so long as they can say they’re “following standards” or under “design immunity”
It’s going to get worse. NACTO, the racist assholes mentioned in a previous post are trying to get these atrocities approved in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices too.
—-
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/08/16/six-changes-to-look-out-for-in-the-next-edition-of-the-mutcd
Eliminate geometric design restrictions for urban bikeways. The MUTCD is not intended to be geometric design guidance, but it includes dozens of recommendations about geometric design details. Many are remnants of an outdated preference for vehicular-style cycling, and have been contradicted by decades of safety and operational studies. These include restrictions on placing bike lanes to the right of a right-turn lane, and unwarranted recommendations against using bike boxes. Rather than include duplicative, conflicting guidance, the MUTCD should encourage the designs called for by best practice guidance such as MassDOT’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide and NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which have been developed with input from practitioners with expertise in urban bikeway design.
I am an avid cyclist, and a motorcyclist, and have experienced and witnessed almost every conceivable issue on the roads. In my opinion, the biggest issue is that most cyclists on the road are clueless and entitled. Also, I am not one that looks to government or laws to "keep me safe." Safety is my job, and when nobody is around to enforce laws that is doubly true.
Riding a motorcycle safely in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is challenging, but not particularly difficult. However, I witnessed motorcyclists without a clue doing dumb sh!t all the time that in some situations cost them their lives. Cyclists are no different. In the community I now live in, e-bikes are all the rage. I regularly see people riding two up on e-bikes while not wearing helmets or even pedaling and achieving in excess of 20 mph. Cycling commuting intelligence has decreased dramatically over the years, not increased. Our local law enforcement doesn't seem interested in enforcing any of the current laws, and e-bikers generally do as they please. The push by cycle -commuting advocates to get everyone and their dog (in some cases, literally) on bikes has dumbed down the average commuting intelligence of cyclists. I commend you for presenting all sides of the situation in an even tempered way, but I am not optimistic of much improvement. Even the questionable utility of bike lanes only applies in small areas and isn't uniformly applied throughout communities. A cyclist commuting any distance is likely to encounter a bike path, bike lane, trails, and normal roads on a single commute. Without the awareness and ability to safely navigate the interchanges between the different conditions leaves most cyclist severely exposed.
The fact that cycling on pavement, even bereft of any cars, is inherently dangerous will not ever change. Without awareness of how drivers behave (and recognition that the brain does not register a cyclist for most drivers, only cars) cyclists will always be in a certain amount of danger. There is a technique motorcyclists use called SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) to make themselves visible to a left turning motorists that addresses the inability of a motorist to register a motorcycle in their brain. The technique is extremely effective, but it starts by recognizing that the left turning motorists is a danger in the first place. In my experience, a very small percentage of motorcyclists are familiar with and use SMIDSY. At least motorcyclists need to go through limited training to learn some of the safety traps. Most cyclists on the open road are even more clueless.
What is the answer? To start, the commuting advocates should begin by teaching basic awareness and safe cycling techniques. Although I am skeptical that will ever happen. The advocates, as you have so eloquently explained in previous writing, generally have an agenda that is more in line with money and power than actually improving safety. They also seem to take an adversarial approach and label all cars as the problem. Some drivers are not very considerate, but I'd rather have a driver pissed off at me, and see me, than say "sorry mate, I didn't see you."