[SDCBC] avoiding the right hook, was Re: Gilman / I-5 interchange

[Gene Carman]

So as those "lesser skilled" road users progress from local 
residential streets to "more active" streets, they no doubt will 
encounter situations that they have not yet had to deal with.  Gilman 
and 5 could be such a situation.

While I fully agree with this statement:  "Those who cannot, may not, 
or who choose not to drive a motor vehicle should be able to travel 
the public route with a similar level of safety and convenience by a 
mode of their choice that is within their competencies to handle; 
they just should not be expected to be able to travel any route when 
using a mode at which they are dangerously "lesser skilled."  Bear in 
mind that situations a cyclist may encounter are NOT the same 
situations a motorist may encounter; cyclists must learn that normal 
driving practices they may use while driving a car may not work while 
driving a bicycle...  primarily due to the way cyclists are treated 
by the driving public...  which is NOT as an equal.

Destination positioning for instance should indicate to other users 
of the road the intend and desired direction of the 
cyclist...  however that "message" is ignored often enough by 
motorists, who do not treat cyclists as equals on the road, to be a 
cause of accidents.

With regard to learning how to drive... motorists are constantly 
reminded "best practices"  by signage, and road markings.  I have 
even seen signs even admonishing motorists to wait for pedestrians to 
cross...   Cannot "best practices" be also be so illustrated to cyclists?

A bike lane may not be in the proper position to illustrate a "best 
practice" in this particular instance...   nor may it be the proper guide tool.

Bike lanes also serve to guide motorists regarding the movement of 
cyclists through situations that motorists may not have the skill to 
understand, due to the motorists' lack of understanding of how 
cyclists should be treated as all other traffic.   If all motorists 
treated cyclists as "drivers of vehicles," this entire conversation 
would be moot.  We know however that motorists may not have that 
view, and understanding, thus sometimes "other devices" are required 
to aid traffic navigation.




At 08:15 AM 2/21/2007, Jim Baross wrote:
>This may sound cold, but "lesser skilled" road users probably should 
>become competently skilled before venturing into traffic. That's 
>what we all did or do as drivers of motor vehicles... we learned to 
>drive a car in easier situations and as we acquired more competency, 
>we increased our access to more of the transportation systems. 
>Lesser skilled bicyclists should be very careful about where they 
>choose to ride, and they are advised to learn to become competent, right?
>
>Why should we be expecting all of our traffic situations to 
>accommodate all those uses (walking, bicycling, motor vehicle 
>driving) by any of those who don't know what they are doing?
>
>I don't mean that public roads shouldn't accommodate all people. 
>"Roads are (or should be) for people, not only people in cars."
>
>Those who cannot, may not, or who choose not to drive a motor 
>vehicle should be able to travel the public route with a similar 
>level of safety and convenience by a mode of their choice that is 
>within their competencies to handle; they just should not be 
>expected to be able to travel any route when using a mode at which 
>they are dangerously "lesser skilled."
>
>Most children and adults who are less than competent for the 
>situation when bicycling (or using motor vehicles) should switch 
>modes to one at which they have satisfactory levels of skill.
>
>I advise people who might use a bicycle to get through the Gilman / 
>I-15 intersections to dismount and become a pedestrian; assuming 
>they have sufficient skills to take on that role. The drivers who 
>fail to yield to pedestrians are operating illegally. 
>Reconfiguration of the intersection with traffic control signals or 
>other changes to better control those illegal drivers apparently is 
>not of high enough priority for the City or Caltrans.
>
>At 07:21 AM 2/21/2007, Gene Carman wrote:
>
>>Without the bike lane there at all...  where do you feel lesser 
>>skilled riders would position themselves?   I think it would be to 
>>the right off all the traffic, thus ensuring a right hook.
>
>Lesser skilled riders are likely to choose incorrect positions. The 
>same holds for lesser skilled (and impatient) motor vehicle operators.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070221/d0b051c2/attachment-0001.html