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

[John Eldon]

A few thoughts:
1) Crossing the mouth of a freeway access ramp with a fast free merge or diverge can be even scarier and more dangerous for pedestrians than for bicyclists (and worst for pedestrians pushing baby carriages or walking bicycles), so "dismount and walk" does not really solve the problem at all. For a real adventure, try walking across the mouth of the 2.5-lane s/b I-805 ramp on the north side of Mira Mesa Bl. sometime when traffic is fast and heavy. (Been there ... done that when I worked in Sorrento Mesa.)
2) If I am bicycling and need to make a left turn, I generally have the option of either a vehicular or a two-part turn. Whenever I don't feel that I can make a vehicular left turn safely, I simply opt for the two-part turn and continue on my way. However, a situation such as Gilman @ I-5 gives me no analogous choice.
3) CarTrance spends tons of money building and maintaining ramp metering traffic signals. If the mouths of access ramps were appropriately calmed, some of these meters would be superfluous, and motorists would not have to perform the current dangerous and fuel-wasting stop-then-gun-it maneuver, but could use the access ramp for its originally intended purpose: an acceleration lane.
4) Speed differential between motorists and bicyclists is THE problem. Slowing the traffic on southbound Gilman into I-5 will encourage bicyclists to stop hugging the curb and to position themselves vehicuclarly. I ride 30mph Coast Highway 101 through downtown Encinitas very vehicularly, right down the very center of the right lane. If we could get the real speed (not just the posted speed limit) reduced on s/b Gilman @ I-5, I would be very comfortable taking the left lane, etc., and would no longer find the intersection so bloody intimidating.

----- Original Message ----
From: Gene Carman <gcarman at san.rr.com>
To: Jim Baross <JimBaross at cox.net>; JonIsaacs at aol.com; bikes.alot at cox.net





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.
...

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.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070221/32af5cc0/attachment.html