As the City Paper and DCist have reported, the District Department of Public Works removed the Alice Swanson ghost bike on Friday.UPDATE: WAMU covers it too.
Alice Swanson was hit by a truck last summer and died. A ghost bike, one of the first - if not the first and only - in DC, was erected as a memorial and a reminder of the importance of road safety.
Reportedly, Dupont Circle business owners asked that it be removed for reasons on which I'm unclear, and DDPW decided to comply. WABA had received some of these requests, but felt the bike belonged to Ms. Swanson's friends and family and they wanted to wait for promised intersection improvements to be completed first. DDPW made no effort to inform local family members or WABA of their intentions. It was others in the DC government who contacted WABA.
“When we were informed of the
decision to remove the bike, we requested some additional time to
contact the family to see what their wishes were,” said Eric Gilliland, WABA’s executive director.
WABA then spent some time trying to track the bike down. They were told it was at La Tomate, but actually found it at Cosi. Both of these businesses denied being ones who complained about the bike - though I'm not sure anyone would be willing to admit to WABA that they wanted the bike removed.
Since then, and since this photo was taken, a new memorial consisting of flowers and a sign reading "Why has the Mayor taken the bike" gone up - you can see that at DCist.
Even though ghost bikes normally stay up "in perpetuity" it's not unreasonable to think that at some point the memorial would be removed, and it seemed WABA was planning for that. It's hard to understand why this had to be done right now, why it couldn't wait for the safety improvements or why none of Alice Swanson's family or friends were contacted. If the Mayor really felt this bike needed to go, he missed a chance to show up, speak about bike safety and hand the bike over to family himself. Cutting off the bike and dumping it at Cosi is not the closure anyone is looking for.
The District continues to mishandle this situation. Though the police report was completed last December, an official copy has not been made available to the family. Only a redacted copy, which I've also seen, has been given to them. And that report, while well researched, has some terrible conclusions.
It does a good job of establishing the facts of the situation based on several eye witness reports and an on-scene reconstruction. Here are the facts as I can best discern them:
The truck driver was stopped in a line of cars on R St. NW. with his turn signal on preparing to make a right turn onto 20th St NW. When the light turned green traffic moved forward and pedestrians began to cross in the crosswalk. The truck driver pulled forward into the intersection and stopped to wait for the crosswalk to clear but, and they go to great lengths to point this out, he kept the truck completely within the "vehicular travel lane" and though he moved close to the bike lane, never "encroached" on it.
At this point Alice Swanson came to the intersection in the bike lane. Just as she reached the intersection, the truck began it's right turn. She didn't have enough time to stop, but did try to turn - the collision happened outside the bike lane and close to the crosswalk which is why many people though she'd been riding on the sidewalk. The bicycle hit the side of the truck near the passenger door and she was thrown into the path of the right front tire.
The driver claims to have never seen Ms. Swanson. He never claims to have looked for her. He was very involved in watching pedestrians and waiting for a gap to open that he could drive through. As part of the reconstruction they point out that he could have seen her with the existing mirrors if only for a split second, but that was with the truck in the collision position, not the waiting position (which is when he should have been looking for her).
Making a right turn from the left lane - which is what he did - is illegal. Section 2203.3 reads "Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge or the roadway." This is not what he did. He made his turn - from his own assertion - from the right, vehicular lane, but the reason bike lanes have dotted lines near intersections is so that drivers know they can cross over to make a right turn. Bike lanes are for bicyclists AND right-turning vehicles. What he did was merge into the bike lane, as part of making a right turn, without looking to see if it was safe and without yielding to Alice Swanson, who had the right-of-way. Update:[It's also illegal, though everyone does it, to stop in the intersection mid-turn. Section 2405.1 reads "No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, in compliance with law, or at the direction of a police officer or traffic control device: (a) Within an intersection;" Where he should have been was as far right as practicable (completely or partially in the bike lane). One more knowledgeable about truck operation than me points out in the comments that trucks make wide right turns so the driver may have been in the left lane AND as far right as practicable. But they would've been able to partially block the bike lane if they were far enough back or far enough into the turn.]
Alice Swanson passed a right turning vehicle on the right-hand side. The report doesn't mention if another car was behind the truck or not. If there were, maybe she couldn't see the turn signal until she was already too close; but she had reason to believe that the truck was not turning right - namely that it was not in the right place to turn right. While passing a right turning vehicle on the right hand side is ill-advised, it's not illegal (because it's only possible if the right turning vehicle is in the wrong lane). Turning right from the left hand lane, or merging without yielding the right-of-way are illegal.
Still the investigating officer determined that the driver of the truck did not operate the vehicle in violation of any code or any traffic violation enumerated in Title 18 (even though I thinks it glaringly obvious that he did).
One section they do mention is section 1201.1 "Every person who propels a vehicle by human power or rides a bicycle on a highway shall have the same duties as any other vehicle operator under this title except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, and except for those duties imposed by this title which, by their nature or wording, can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator" except they leave out the exceptions in italics. Fine. That is the law. How did she not follow this? They imply she violated 1201.8 "No person shall operate a bicycle ... at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing."
That's right, the MPD investigating officer thinks Alice Swanson - who was biking a half mile to work in flip flops and light clothing on a 10 speed Huffy Free Spirit that is no longer manufactured - died because she was biking too fast. Read that again, they think she died because she was biking too fast.
The standard for speed they quoted is vague and there is absolutely no evidence that she was violating the speed limit. They have one witness who claimed that she was pedaling very fast with her head down. Pedaling fast is not the same as riding fast. Another witness, by the way, saw her looking straight ahead. It's possible they saw her at different times. Yet another witness said they thought she realized she would crash before the impact but was unable to avoid it. The investigator interprets this as though she "perceived the hazard but, due to her speed, was unable to reduce her speed and stop in time." There are two parts to this equation though, namely speed and distance. One could just as easily say she "perceived the hazard but, due to the short distance, was unable to reduce her speed and stop in time." Nowhere does the report try to determine how fast she was actually going.
The driver actually broke the law, but that wasn't noted. Alice Swanson didn't break a single law, but was reprimanded for not executing the same duties as any other vehicle operator.
The main cause of the crash is stated above. The driver never saw Alice Swanson even though she was where she was supposed to be. Alice Swanson had the right of way and the driver failed to yield. With today's technology (cameras are very cheap) there is no reason why trucks should have blind spots so large that they can't see a cyclist in the bike lane. A few dead cyclists can not be just the price of removing trash from the city.
And now the Mayor tore down her memorial and dumped it at a coffee shop. Classy.
Update: WABA reports meeting with representatives from the Mayor’s office, DPW and DDOT this morning. They urged the Mayor’s office to reach out to the family. They are sending the family a letter expressing their sadness at the removal of the ghost bike and the fact that an official police report has not been released to them. Everyone agreed to work on rapid implementation of safety measures at the intersection (right turn yield to bike signs, bike box, colored bike lane) and to work with the family on a more permanent memorial to Alice at the intersection.
I got to this sad story via a link from Weather Underground. Bike on.
Posted by: Curtis | August 31, 2009 at 07:43 AM
Pretty much what I suspected, that turn sucks in a truck (Ive had to do it) you HAVE to turn wide or drive over the sidewalk with your back wheels (in fact you will tear down the stop sign on the corner if you dont). As with most places in the city pedestrians are everywhere and the driver was focused on making sure that he didnt hit any of them (pedestrians will wander everwhere outside the crosswalk lines too) and as he was looking forward a bike overtook him rapidly on the right (done this a bunch of times on a bike myself) and he missed her. The fact that she hit the truck behind the cab and went under the rear wheels indicates that he had started his turn and she failed to yeid.
Look it sucks, but as a truck driver and a bicyclist there is no way to see him at fault enough to charge him here, sorry.
Posted by: think a little | August 31, 2009 at 09:03 AM
"Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge or the roadway"
For clarity the phrase "close as practicable" is the key here.
Watch a metro bus, or a garbage truck or a box truck turn sometime.....you have 8 feet from the front to rear wheels in a car so you can turn right from the curb, a truck has a 18-24' wheelbase. In order to make the turn without driving over the sidewalk, your REAR wheels have to be fully in the intersection before you turn AND you have to be off the curb by 6-8' to make it happen. Hence the "This vehicle makes wide right turns" signs on buses and trucks. This is why the law states "close as practicable" as opposed to next to the right curb, large vehicles can not turn when next to the curb.
Don't believe me? Shoot me an email and we can meet in my company's parking lot and you can try it out for yourself
Posted by: think a little | August 31, 2009 at 09:10 AM
Even if the driver had his vehicle as "close as practicable" to the right curb, he still had an obligation to make sure the right lane - the bike lane - was clear before crossing it. He didn't do this.
Also, if the only way to make a right turn at that intersection is to do so unsafely then you shouldn't make a right turn at that intersection.
Posted by: Washcycle | August 31, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Washcycle-
1. My guess is (based on what you've stated from the police report) is that it was clear when he started to turn and she ran up the inside.
2. Under the "no turns if unsafe" the behavior of everyone in this city (peds, cars, & bicyclists) makes every turn unsafe.
Posted by: think a little | August 31, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I don't understand this. Does he have a right side mirror? One would think he's obligated to check it--particularly if there's a bike lane that he's aware of. It's his job to check, and if there's a cyclist there he has to yield. I agree with your reading of the rules--it can't possibly be her fault. I would look at the carting company's ties to the district government. Seriously. If it was a car, who do you think would be at fault? I'm not sure it's criminal--the mere laws of physics dictate disaster even for ordinary negligence--but the fault issue is crystal clear, at least to me.
I ride by that memorial almost every day and it serves not only as a reminder to both two and four wheeled cyclists that they should be extra careful. I am surprised, frankly, that the District never put signs there such as "CHECK BIKE LANE BEFORE TURNING". That is a nasty intersection, and after labor day it's only going to get worse.
Suggestion: Try a FOIA request to DPW to determine who filed the complaint.
Posted by: ANon | August 31, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Rather than bellyache about the memorial being removed how about being thankful it was allowed to stay for a year?
Posted by: Jason | August 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Under the "no turns if unsafe" the behavior of everyone in this city (peds, cars, & bicyclists) makes every turn unsafe.
True. though cyclists and pedestrians aren't killing people when they fuck up.
Guess it's the principal of the thing, though.
Posted by: ibc | August 31, 2009 at 11:49 AM
A neighbor broke his collarbone when a motorist turned left across his path into a parking lot. the driver wasn't cited; the cyclist was cited for failure to control speed.
It's a rare accident that couldn't have been avoided if one party didn't do something different -- almost anything. So it's easy to say that if the cyclist had been going slower, the accident would never have happened. The flaw in the MPD reasoning is that you can't be required to anticipate the illegal actions of others -- a "reasonable and prudent" speed doesn't mean you have to be able to stop at any time. It means you have to be able to stop when you have an obligation to stop.
I'll offer a slightly different analysis from Wash. The trucker was making a legal turn -- as Think points out, he was making it from the part of the pavement where it was "practicable" to do so. However, he didn't have right-of-way. He had to yield to other vehicles, and he didn't.
What I'm really curious about is what "intersection improvements" WABA and the city have in mind. The only improvement I can see would be to bring the intersection into conformity with federal standards -- end the bike lane well before the intersection, and stop encouraging cyclists to ride to the right through the intersection. However, DDOT won't do anything that mixes cyclists with other traffic.
Posted by: Contrarian | August 31, 2009 at 12:29 PM
ANon-
You are at an intersection, you are watching peds for a break in flow to make a right turn, you see a break, you glance in your right mirror (one second), look forward (2 seconds) confirm the break in foot traffic, and start the turn....pretty standard right?
A bike going 12mph moves 60 some feet in that distance, enough to go from outside the range of vision of the miror to under the wheel. Remember a truck only has side mirrors, and not a center rear view mirror--so you range of visiblity is very limited. If I could post a non-ascii picture Id show you the cones of vision...
here is a good video of the size of a trucks blind spots (now this is for a semi, not a garbage truck, but the vision cones are pretty simmilar) Also note the size of the mirrors the driver has to see from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP-NIUL6LzY
the FMCSA also has a good website devoted to the topic as well
http://www.sharetheroadsafely.org/noZone/wideRightTurns.asp
Posted by: think a little | August 31, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Contrarian wrote:
"A neighbor broke his collarbone when a motorist turned left across his path into a parking lot. the driver wasn't cited; the cyclist was cited for failure to control speed."
That police response is inexcusable, basically blaming the bicyclist for a right hook. What jurisdiction was it?
Sometimes going faster can actually reduce right hooks, since it makes it harder for the driver to pass you and you can shift over to take the lane in front of the driver before the turn.
More from Contrarian:
"The only improvement I can see would be to bring the intersection into conformity with federal standards -- end the bike lane well before the intersection, and stop encouraging cyclists to ride to the right through the intersection. "
Yes! I hate it when urban bike lanes go right up to the intersection. I've been involved in redesigning striping of Woodmont AVe. in Bethesda and we're making sure the line ends before the intersection (at Hampden).
Posted by: Jack | August 31, 2009 at 01:08 PM
end the bike lane well before the intersection, and stop encouraging cyclists to ride to the right through the intersection. However, DDOT won't do anything that mixes cyclists with other traffic.
Now you've done it! Can it be long before 'w' makes his appearance? Run!
Posted by: ibc | August 31, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Whenever a driver turns across a bike lane, he has to look to see that no one is in it. I do this automatically. However I'll concede that drivers in the city have a a huge number of things to track and watch out for -- drivers (lawful or crazy), pedestrians (predictable and not), lane closures and obstructions, atypical traffic features (most DC circles), service road cut-overs, lane obstructions, big potholes, road signs, and so on. Definitely the truck driver broke the law and should be cited for failing to yield, but I do have some understanding of why he missed the bicyclist. That's why it's so important to ride defensively.
But to the poster who said the driver shouldn't be "charged": The driver absolutely should get a citation. You don't let an offense go just because the driver didn't notice somebody in his blind spot. It should be automatic unless the other vehicle operator did something illegal. Next time I'm backing out of a parking spot and an SUV next to me blocks my view, if I'm hit it, then it's the other driver's fault? Hardly.
However, to levy more punishment on the driver in the Swanson case than a citation, I think you'd have to show more negligence.
There is no way a bicyclist should be considered at fault for riding straight at or below the speed limit in a striped bike lane, barring other circumstances. The behavior is not always smart, but it's legal.
Posted by: Jack | August 31, 2009 at 02:19 PM
I am very sympathetic to the truck driver for what was, surely, a mistake. However, a mere citation for the accidental death of Alice Swanson, and Swanson's citation for speeding, is completely ridiculous. It denies the courts the chance to properly evaluate the facts, and for the policy issues to be properly aired.
As for commenters regarding the removal of the ghost bike: I can understand that this sort of thing should not be allowed to stay forever. However, while the city has not even released its report into the incident, this smells like trying to sweep things under the rug.
Posted by: SJE | August 31, 2009 at 03:07 PM
WTOP reported that businesses in the area of the ghost bike requested the bike be removed. Honestly, that bike was not preventing any customers from accessing a business. I think it's more that some idiot nearby doesn't like bikers at all, and wanted something taken down that represents a reminder for others to sympathize.
Posted by: Jan | August 31, 2009 at 03:31 PM
@Jason Rather than bellyache about the memorial being removed how about being thankful it was allowed to stay for a year I don't believe it is an either or situation. I choose to be thankful it was allowed and to bellyache about the manner in which it was removed.
@think, thinking about this more (at your suggestion). It seems the proper way to make this turn - if in fact a truck can't be in the bike lane in the intersection and safely make the turn - is to start in the bike lane further back. It's technically illegal to sit in the intersection. From 2405.1
No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, in compliance with
law, or at the direction of a police officer or traffic control device:
(a) Within an intersection;
So he should have been behind the stop line in the bike lane (or in it as much as possible) and only pulled out when it was safe to make the complete turn.
@Contrarian. GGW has the safety improvements at their site, namely:
* Extend the bike lane with dashed lines all the way through the intersection as a visual reminder to drivers that, if turning right, they'd be potentially crossing cyclists' paths.
* Add a bike box, so that bicycles can pull ahead of the cars when waiting. That would ensure the cars can see the bikes, and won't turn into them.
* Make the light at 20th and R no right turn on red.
* Add a sign saying "Yield to Bikes."
Finally, WABA reports meeting with representatives from the Mayor’s office, DPW and DDOT this morning. They urged the Mayor’s office to reach out to the family. They are sending the family a letter expressing their sadness at the removal of the ghost bike and the fact that an official police report has not been released to them. Everyone agreed to work on rapid implementation of safety measures at the intersection (right turn yield to bike signs, bike box, colored bike lane) and to work with the family on a more permanent memorial to Alice at the intersection.
Posted by: Washcycle | August 31, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Wash, simply making the bike lane line dashed instead of solid will not solve the problem that large trucks have turning. [Don't you ever see those diagrams on the backs of trucks saying "This vehicle makes wide turns"?]
Also, having a bike box ahead of the regular travel lane won't keep cyclists safe if they are attempting to get to the bike box while the light changes and traffic starts to move and turn. I am not against giving cyclists priority, but we shouldn't build facilities that lure unwary cyclists into danger.
If anything, bike lanes should disappear before intersections and cyclists should be encouraged [through signs and paint on the road and/or education] to merge with other traffic when approaching intersections. This way, cyclists protect themselves from right hooks instead of having to rely on the alertness of others.
Not passing on the right is an important concept whether bike lanes exist or not and cyclists just shouldn't do it.
Unfortunately, this doesn't stop drivers from speeding up to pass and right hook cyclists, but if cyclists are aware that any vehicle to their left MIGHT turn right at any time there is an intersection or driveway, cyclists could protect themselves better.
Posted by: Nancy | August 31, 2009 at 05:12 PM
@ WashCycle-
My point is not that he needs to start the turn farther back, but that his rear wheels need to be about 6-8' off the curb to make the turn....watch a school or metro bus make a right turn sometime and you'll see what Im trying to say. (or check out the link to the safe zone video I posted)
Posted by: think a little | August 31, 2009 at 06:52 PM
Since this tragic accident I'm very careful never to get up alongside large vehicles. If one stops ahead of me then I stop too and wait.
As for the bike lanes. Bike Lanes = Kill Korridors. I'm taking the lane, thank you very much. I'll leave the segregation strip for all the drivers who believe their need to double park is sacrosanct.
I think a year for a ghost bike memorial is long enough. Though it's crappy if some business owner just cut it off themselves.
Perhaps on the anniversary there could be a small memorial and a speech or two on what has been done in the year past to improve things and what still needs to be done. Then the bike could be removed and, maybe, replaced by a small marker of some sort (even spray painted).
Posted by: JeffB | August 31, 2009 at 07:48 PM
#1 -- be careful. You get right hooked, left hooked, and the driver most likely won't even get a citation. You are just road kill.
#2 -- how ia this memorial hurting anyone? Too sad that it's coming down.
Posted by: old guy | August 31, 2009 at 08:16 PM
Listen children, the Alice Swanson tragedy has one lesson. Don't pass trucks, buses or any vehicle larger than a Hummer on the right when moving through an intersection. The "protections" of the bike lane disappears in the intersection. You must either slow down and wait for clear evidence of the trucks intention or "take the lane" behind the massive vehicle.
There is no legislation or traffic regulation that is going to make you visible.
Posted by: Tom | August 31, 2009 at 08:40 PM
@Nancy, those are WABA's recommended changes, but I think bike boxes are a great way to help keep cyclists safe.
@think, I know that wasn't your point. My point is that the driver broke the law by stopping in the intersection, which is illegal.
Posted by: Washcycle | August 31, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Wash, not to belabor the point, but how do you get TO the bike box safely? I assume cyclists would be passing stopped traffic [including trucks and buses] on the right, but they have no idea how long that traffic will be stopped.
I also don't see how bike boxes "keep cyclists safe." Yes, it is safer to be in the bike box area rather than at the curb at an intersection [where the bike lane puts you], but that's a kludge for bad bike lane design.
Posted by: Nancy | September 01, 2009 at 07:59 AM
Nancy,
Unless you are certain that the light will stay red and all the cars will not move, there is nothing wrong with passing on the right at a light.
If the light changes and the cars start to move, then you are in danger of being in a blind spot if you are overtaking a large vehicle.
The best (most safe) solution when approaching large vehicles (ie. trucks and buses) is to take your place in the lane behind them. Just like you would do if you were in a car.
I do this every day behind massive tour buses on Independence Avenue. Never had a close call.
Posted by: Tom | September 01, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Tom, I ride the way you do. I know how to keep myself safe. What I'm asking Washcycle to explain is why _he_ thinks bike boxes keep cyclists safe, even though they will lure inexperienced cyclists into passing vehicles on the right when it could be dangerous to do so.
Posted by: Nancy | September 01, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Several posters have raised the prospect of civil action against the truck driver. It is virtually impossible that the Swanson family would be able to collect anything.
The legal precedent is not very favorable to cyclists, or accident victims in general. As discussed earlier here (http://www.thewashcycle.com/2008/09/dc-contributory.html) DC law says that an injured party cannot recover if he in any way contributed to the accident. The courts have repeated found -- in Washington v. Garcias and WMATA v. Young -- that cyclists have a special duty of "self-preservation" which requires them to anticipate the actions of others, even illegal actions. In WMATA v. Young, the court wrote that Young, "negligently rode up alongside a bus that was going to make an improper right turn from the left lane." Note that this "self-preservation" duty was created out of whole cloth by the court. It actually runs counter to the letter of DC law, which says that cyclists have the same rights and duties as operators of other vehicles. Note also that both Washington v. Garcias and WMATA v. Young involve large vehicles illegally turning in front of cyclists -- a garbage truck and a Metro bus, respectively. It's hard to imagine an accident that a cyclist couldn't have avoided if he had anticipated it, so under this reasoning any accident involving a cyclist is at least partly the fault of the cyclist. And in DC, if you're partly at fault you get nothing.
So, to recap, we have:
* A judicial system that is biased against cyclists, and has enshrined its bias in case-law that is unsupported by statute.
* A police department that exihibits anti-cyclist bias in enforcement (although you could argue they are merely conforming with the court decisions).
* A legal doctrine that favors accident causers over accident victims.
* A DDOT that by policy creates bicycle facilities that are unsafe and contrary to federal guidelines.
Clearly there is a lot of advocacy work to be done here. The big lesson: no one is looking out for your safety but you. Ride accordingly.
Posted by: Contrarian | September 01, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Good luck, Nancy. I'm sorry to intrude.
Posted by: Tom | September 01, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Nancy, you are correct. To get to a bike box safely one rides past traffic in the bike lane and then moves over into the bike box. Here is an obnoxious video that shows how.
Bike boxes allow cyclists to get in front of cars where they're easier to see and less likely to be hit by turning vehicles. In act, many jaybikers run lights as a way of creating a defacto bike box situation. I don't think the issue with bike boxes is passing on the right - as bike lanes already encourage that - but swerving in front of cars. And I think that's the issue you're talking about. Namely, it is dangerous if you move into the bike box just as the light turns green.
How do you deal with that? First of all, many times you approach a light right after it turns red and can be pretty sure that it will stay red for a while. Ideally a special warning light would go with a bike box to warn you in other situations. This is how they work in Europe. Even without the warning light, we often have countdown clocks that a cyclist can see (I can't be the only cyclist who uses these to determine how fast to approach a light). But the countdown lights aren't necessarily visible to a cyclist. We could add a bike countdown light above the bike lane.
Even without warning lights one study showed slightly improved results. "All things considered, the innovative treatment worked reasonably well....No conflicts took place while using the bike box in the normal sense. In summary, the bike box is a promising tool to help bicyclists and motorists avoid conflicts in certain kinds of intersection movements. More boxes need to be installed and evaluated to further understand their effectiveness in different settings."
Another study is underway.
Posted by: Washcycle | September 01, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Thanks, Wash. I think that's a cute video, actually. However, I think bike boxes aren't appropriate in all situations, and I'm afraid that the local DOT will install them injudiciously, the same way they install bike lanes [in the door zone, and to the right of right turn lanes, for example].
Getting safely to the bike box is still an issue, and this was not addressed in the cute video.
Bike boxes aren't necessary if cyclists just take the lane they need to be in [and as long as local laws don't force cyclists to be in the wrong place]. Bike boxes are still a kludge.
Posted by: Nancy | September 01, 2009 at 08:28 PM
I've never used a bike box, but here's how I think about it. You (or maybe just me) ride up to the intersection in the bike lane same as always. Once up there, you can move over into the bike box if the pedestrian sign says walk, otherwise, you're still in front of the cars behind you.
It's not that much of a departure from what goes on now. A lot of cyclists from my unreliable observation ride (illegally) past the stop line and into the crosswalk - sometimes even moving in front of cars, using it as a de facto bike box. This gives cyclists a chance to do the same think legally.
I hear what your saying about taking the lane, but I also worry that complete reliance on vehicular cycling is a recipe for perpetual 2% load share.
Posted by: Washcycle | September 01, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I am a cyclist and I have to say that the person in the wrong is not the truck driver, it was the cyclist. She had a responsibility to notice a truck in an intersection and try to determine what it was going to do...
Posted by: Rich T. | September 03, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Another good question is why he made a point to leave the bike lane empty? The only reason to leave the bike lane empty is because you think someone might use it, which means you ought to realize that there might be someone in it when you move over into it.
Posted by: Washcycle | September 03, 2009 at 09:58 PM