Sharing is Caring

In the wake of the LA assault case, the LA Times asks if cyclists and drivers can share the road. I think the answer is pretty obviously yes if you look around the world, so the real question is will we. To regular readers, there isn't much new (description of the crash, cycling is on the rise, fatalities are down, vehicular cycling etc...). It does have some interesting stats.

Between 1998 and 2008, for example, bike commuting in Marin County increased 66% as bicycle crashes declined 34%.

Cycling enthusiasts cite numbers that suggest the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, the 716 bicyclist deaths in the U.S. during 2008 represented a 6% drop compared with 1998. The risk of fatality is 1 per 32 million kilometers bicycled, and the average accident rate for commuter cyclists is one accident every 8.7 years, according to Kate Scheider, research coordinator for Bikes Belong.

When I used to teach defensive driving in Texas, we used to point out that the average driver gets one ticket a year and will be in an accident every 3 years. So that compares well (if that stat is correct).

Bicycling's health benefits -- such as reductions in cancer, heart disease and diabetes -- outweigh its risks by a factor of 20 to 1.

They go on to quote the Rocky Mountain Regional Trauma Center study with it's questionable results, but they do add more context on what the results mean.

"The number of injuries that came in to our trauma center did not increase, and mortality did not increase. What did change is the injury patterns," says Zachary Hartman, a medical student who worked on the research. The exact reasons for the increase in injury severity remain unclear: Hartman speculates that the increased popularity of large vehicles such as SUVs could play a role. Trauma center surgeon Dr. Jeffry Kashuk, who presented the study at the Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons last month, puts some of the blame on Denver city planners.

He'd like to see more money spent on bike lanes and paths. "The city is promoting bicycle commuting without making the infrastructure improvements needed to make bicycles a safe form of transportation," he says.

So it may be the types of injuries increased because American's started driving bigger cars. Another reason to support higher gas taxes. Though the claim that bike lanes and paths make cyclists safer is debatable as well. They do encourage more cycling, and as Rep. Blumenauer says in the article, cycle tracks are probably the future of cycling. The article point to the oft-quoted study that bike lanes cause drivers to pass cyclists at a lower average distance, but I've questioned that study as well.

The article ends by discussing vehicular cycling and LA's bike plan, but doesn't really address the sharing the road question.

Another pair of articles in the Kamloops, BC Daily News discussed sharing as well. In the first article, writer Mel Rothenburger brushed over his own statement that drivers are responsible for 90% of crashes involving drivers and cyclists to focus on the other 10%, which he partially blamed on "assuming a right of entitlement to the roadway". Of course, cyclists do have a right of entitlement to the roadway, but why let that get in the way. He then lists the things that, in his opinion, each does that bugs the other.

What cyclists do to bug motorists:

1. “Cycling in the middle of the road so they can't get past us.
2. “Leaning on their car while they are waiting at a traffic light.
3. “Cycling two (or three, or four) abreast.
4. “Skipping a red light — while the poor motorist is sitting there waiting for the light, just bomb straight by him.
5. “Cycling slowly when there is no room for them to overtake you. They must love it.”

And motorists:

1. “The Rude Right — Turning right at an intersection in front of a cyclist traveling the same direction.
2. “The Close Shave — Cutting dangerously close to a cyclist. Some cars deliberately try to intimidate cyclists with the ‘close shave.'
3. “The Loony Left — Turning left at an intersection in front of a cyclist traveling the opposite direction.
4. “The Bike Blockade — Parking in the bike lane.
5. “The Hail Mary — Attempting to pass a cyclist when the visibility of the road ahead is poor.”

A guest writer wrote in to make the point that two of the five things he mentioned that cyclists do are not illegal or dangerous and that one of them is sometimes legal. Leaning on a car may be annoying and illegal but not inherently dangerous (I've actually never heard of or seen this behavior, must be a Canadian thing, like not littering).  And cycling 3 or 4 abreast is not dangerous either. Only blowing a red light could be labeled as dangerous. Whereas at least four out of five of the annoying driver behaviors are illegal and dangerous (one could argue that blocking a bike lane is not dangerous).

So drivers end up annoyed and cyclists end up dead or injured. Not exactly the same level of importance.

Comments

[Brendan]

The last sentence is the point, isn't it. Being killed by a car is rather annoying. It really should be on the list.

[SJE]

Many of the "annoying" things that cars do, on the list, are illegal. To call it a "rude right, "a "loony left" or "hail mary" minimizes that fact that the driver is operating the vehicle unsafely. Do we call drivers who drive the wrong way down a one-way street "the naughty salmon"?

I'm also much more in favor of separation between bikes and cars after seeing some new data in the last week. I would be interested in Washcycle's take on why this is not part of the solution.

[Contrarian]

SJE -- please post your data. If there is conclusive data about the safety of facilities it would be the first I've ever seen.

[Contrarian]

It's interesting that of the five things cyclists do to annoy motorists, three are all the same thing repeated different ways: "Cycling in the middle of the road so they can't get past us," "Cycling two (or three, or four) abreast" and "Cycling slowly when there is no room for them to overtake you" are three ways of saying "being slower traffic." A fourth one -- leaning on stopped cars -- is something I've only ever seen in a car commercial.

And it's interesting that on the red-light running he focuses on not the legitimate safety concern -- cyclists who violate others' right of way -- but instead on how it makes people who did stop for the light feel.

[Washcycle]

SJE, I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't think that separated facilities are part of the solution. I do. I'm pro-separated facilities. But the evidence I've seen is mixed on whether they're measurably safer. You may be referring to the study BikePortland referred to that showed that separated, on-road facilities are safer than roads without facilities. But the same study said trails are less safe than roads, so a call for paths and bike lanes is a call for less safe and more safe facilities, a mixed bag. I think the fact that Contrarian asked for data backs up my claim that it is debatable, by which I mean that reasonable people take differing positions on it. But, even if there is no safety advantage, there is a ridership advantage, so those who are con will have to make the case that bike lanes make one less safe or carry some other negative affect.

[Chris]

On leaning on a car, I've done that - well, on a bus or truck anyhow. What's funny, in fact, is that a buddy of mine did that out in Warrenton once. And the bus driver apparently called the police.

[guez]

It's true that bad motorist behavior is more likely to kill cyclists than bad cyclist behavior is likely to kill motorists. I wouldn't conclude, however, that this isn't a reason to focus on improved behavior from both parties. In fact, quite the opposite: cyclists arguably have MORE to gain from a truce on the road.

[Nancy]

guez, there's not much cyclists can do sharing-wise that we aren't already doing. It's incumbent upon the people driving the killing machines to take more care.

[Washcycle]

Sure, cyclists should be courteous and considerate. But at least two of the things that annoy drivers - riding in the center of the lane and riding slow - are things that are smart, safe cycling; so how do we reconcile that?

[Froggie]

To be fair, Wash understated some of the legality of those bicycle behaviors. #1 is very debatable...cyclists may be entitled to the lane, but that runs counter to laws where they are to ride along the right side of the lane or road. Only way #1 would be undisputedly legal is if the right side of the lane/road was so full of trash/debris/bad pavement that the cyclist HAD to ride in the middle of the lane.

#3 may not be dangerous, but is definately illegal.

In some jurisdictions, #5 could be considered "impeding traffic", and if the bicyclist does not move over to allow traffic to pass him/her, they can be cited/issued a ticket.

Of course, on the other side, it's already been noted that all but #5 are illegal, though I'd like to point out that #2, while dangerous, isn't specifically illegal in some areas.

[Contrarian]

#1 is explicitly legal in DC any time the lane is less than 12' wide, which is virtually every road in the city.

#3 is legal. DC law specifically allows riding two abreast when traffic is not impeded.

#5 is not impeding traffic. Impeding traffic is driving unneccessarily slow. Operating a slow-moving vehicle at its normal speed is not impeding traffic. Some states (but not DC, VA or MD) have laws requiring slow moving vehicles to pull over, but in all of them the conditions he specifies -- "when there is no room for them to overtake you" -- would exempt you, slow moving vehicles are only required to pull over when there is room to do so. California is the only state I'm aware of where the slow moving vehicle statute applies to all vehicles and not just motor vehicles.

As to your point about motorist behavior #2 not being illegal, every state has safe passing laws that would apply to that.

[SJE]

Contrarian, WashCycle:

Yes, I was thinking of the BikePortland study. Thanks, and thanks for your comments about it.

[Jonathan Krall]

Thanks very much for the pointer. Mr. Rothenburger opens with "I love cyclists" and then goes on to make light of ways in which motorists kill them. Except that he says "bug" instead of "kill."

I wrote to Mr. Rothenburger. Here is an excerpt: "Maybe I have you all wrong. Maybe you constantly make cutesy jokes about the nasty ways your loved ones might be killed. Maybe you really do love cyclists. If that is the case, please let us know how we can earn your hatred. I think that would be less dangerous."

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Froggie]

Contrarian: we have a lot more than just D.C. in this country (and even within the region). Perhaps in DC, #1 may be legal, but it's not elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, #1 is illegal in Virginia

[Froggie]

Post cut off...here's the relevant section on #1 in Virginia: Section 46.2-905.

[Washcycle]

One of the exceptions is "substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right curb or edge" which they define as "a lane too narrow for a bicycle...and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane." If a cyclists is about 2 feet wide and needs to be about a foot from the right edge and needs 3 feet passing distance and a car is about 6.5 feet wide, that means you need a lane to be at least 12.5 feet wide to be "standard". I'm not sure how many lanes in NoVa are that wide.

[Froggie]

By substandard, I think they're referring to lanes less than 10ft (which is pretty much the low-end standard these days, especially on secondary routes). Thus, some of the more rural secondary routes would qualify.

Side note: the Virginia law on passing cyclists is a 2-ft separation, not 3ft.

[Washcycle]

If substandard meant 10ft, wouldn't it have been clearer to say 10ft. I believe you're suppose to assume that lawmakers wrote a law exactly as they meant it to be read [there may even be a Latin term for that]. And what they referred to is "a lane too narrow for a bicycle...and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane." But they don't define safely, so I get to define safely and my definition of safely is 12.5 feet and I'd be pretty comfortable making that case in front of a judge.

[Froggie]

They probably left substandard open-ended, since standards change over time.

For example, 40 years ago, the standard lane width outside the Interstates was 10 feet. These days, at least at the state-and-up level (or the arterial-and-up level), it's 12 feet, though there's still a good bit of leeway for local/county roads or roads functionally classified as less than an arterial.

[Contrarian]

The issue of when a lane is wide enough to share is complex. For a good discussion I recommend McCutcheon's brief from Maryland vs. McCutcheon at http://bikelaws.org/court_ca.pdf (McCutcheon was cited for riding too far from the edge of the roadway).
from the brief:

The 1999 AASHTO guidelines, which have been accepted and adopted by the MD SHA, define any lane narrower than 12’ as too narrow to be shared
between motorized and bicycle traffic...
When speed limits are higher than 40mph, traffic engineers recommend a minimum 14’ width for shared use lanes

The AASHTO guidelines aren't really guidelines, they have the force of law, state agencies are legally obligated to follow them. And every state has approved them.

[Froggie]

Actually, AASHTO guidelines ARE just guidelines...AASHTO does not have any "force of law" to back them up. AASHTO guidelines/policies are followed by the state DOTs "on faith", not by any "force of law".

Now FHWA, on the other hand, does have "force of law". And since FHWA generally follows AASHTO's guidelines...