[SDCBC] Joggers in the Bike Lane - WTF

[Serge Issakov]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John Eldon <j.eldon at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>  Shared space is a great idea where traffic speeds are very low and can be
> kept that way. I would not want to try this social experiment on Palomar
> Airport Road or on the Orange County road in question. The increase in the
> rate of rightward drifts coincides with increasing vehicle speeds,
> increasing driver isolation in vehicle design, and increasing levels of
> sleep deprivation among the general public.
>
> John E.
>


Hi John,

I understand what you're saying, but you're assuming that on high speed
arterials the effect the bike lane stripe has on inhibiting motorists from
crossing into the separated space on the other side of the stripe is greater
than the effect a cyclist up ahead in the shared space of the motorist's
lane has on being noticed and so not being hit by the motorist.  It seems to
me the opposite is true: the effect a cyclist up ahead in the shared space
of the motorist's lane has on being noticed and so not being hit by the
motorist is greater than the effect that the bike lane stripe has on
inhibiting motorists from crossing the stripe, whether the bike lane is
occupied by a cyclist or not, because of the significant role the
attention-inhibiting stripe apparently plays in making the cyclist less
likely to be noticed, coupled with the fact that the stripe is far from
perfect in keeping motorists from drifting across it.  Because the stripe is
far from perfect, what's ultimately important in keeping the cyclist from
being hit is for the cyclist to be noticed, and that's exactly what the
stripe inhibits.

Your position is intuitive and quite popular, but it's not supported by any
evidence I've been able to find.  To be sure, the stripe does
*encourage*motorists to keep left of the stripe - whether a cyclist is
present or not;
noticed or not - the unswept debris that collects in bike lanes is ample
evidence of that.  But that's not the whole story.  The whole point of the
shared space philosophy is that the flip side of the right-of-way clarity
provided by the stripe is that it also reduces driver attention and care,
and that effect needs to be accounted for as well.

Since I've been paying attention to this issue starting a few year ago, I
have read or heard about far too many incidents of non-intersection
inadvertent drifts into unnoticed cyclists (and joggers) in bike lanes or
striped shoulders, and just one incident (rural Arizona with narrow lanes
and rolling hills) in which a cyclist in a shared space outside lane was hit
by an overtaking motorist.  That doesn't mean there weren't some that I
didn't hear or read about; I'm sure there were.  So it's not definitive
evidence, but from what I can tell it sure seems that overtaking collisions
in shared space lanes are hit-by-an-asteroid rare, while drifts into
cyclists (and joggers) in bike lanes and striped shoulders are all too
common.  In theory we know that this could be explained by cyclists using
roads with bike lanes much more than roads without bike lanes, but we know
that's not true in practice (there are just too many roads without bike
lanes; roads used by cyclists).  The attention-inhibiting effect of the
stripe is the only practical explanation I have been able to find.

And it's not a social experiment that needs to be tried.  The vast majority
of roads in America (including in San Diego) already do not have bike lanes,
and yet the incidence of overtaking collisions is practically unheard of on
such roads in which the entire outside lane is shared space, especially if
you don't count the crashes in which the cyclist is riding at night without
proper lights/reflectors, the cyclist swerves into the motorist's path, or
the motorist fell asleep.

But even in the incidents in which the motorist dozes and hits the cyclist,
he must be dozing off and drifting just before he reaches the cyclist (if he
had dozed and drifted earlier, presumably he would have crashed then).  So
if there is anything the cyclist can do to delay the dozing by just a few
more critical seconds, it is to grab the motorist's attention before he is
otherwise about to close his eyes for the final time, and, again, according
to the shared space philosophy, grabbing the motorist's attention is exactly
what is inhibited by ROW-clarifying attention/care-inhibiting stripes.

Here's a slightly different way to look at it.  I think we want overtaking
motorists to be a little bit stressed by our presence in the road up ahead,
because it's that little bit of stress that causes them to take notice of
our presence, slow down, adjust laterally, not get distracted, drift or fall
asleep.  That *bit o' stress* is what causes them to pass us consciously,
conscientiously, carefully and safely.   Isn't that what we want?   The bike
lane stripe works against us because it alleviates the very *bit o'
stress*that would otherwise contribute to our safety.

Serge

NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by
any organization in which I am involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080307/0398067d/attachment-0001.html