John S. Allen’s Bicycle Blog

Riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is rarely a better choice than riding in the street, but it is better on the Hawthorne bridge in Portland, Oregon, which has a narrow roadway with a treacherous steel-grid deck.

I first rode across this bridge in 1987. As of my more recent exploration of the bridge in September, 2008, the sidewalks have been widened significantly, and the routes to and from them greatly improved.

More recently yet, I have read a blog posting by Mark Stosberg about the bridge. He and I agree about riding on the sidewalk. He even links to my Web site as a reference. He states correctly that there are “no roads or driveways to cross on the bridge while traveling westbound.”

But just about there, my agreement with him begins to fade.

He says that “[o]n the Hawthorne bridge sidepath there are zero conflict points between bikes and cars.” That’s only so when traveling westbound or when connecting to riverfront paths. Still, despite the conflict points for eastbound travelers, I regard the hazards from crossing and turning traffic as much fewer and less serious here than in more typical sidepath installations.

Mr. Stosberg also says that “the curb physically separates the bike traffic from the cars, providing extra safety and security compared to a painted stripe on the road.” What’s the point of this comparison? There was no such choice to make, with the limited roadway width and grid deck. Beyond the ends of the grid deck, however, bicyclists are directed to the roadway, where there is a painted stripe. Apparently, the Portland authorities’ judgment of security and safety put bicyclists on the sidewalks only where unavoidable.

The words “physically separated” sound comforting. But they can be deceptively so. Let’s not just repeat comforting words — let’s instead examine the separation on the Hawthorne Bridge, and the security and safety it provides.

Only very rarely, in a crash, would a motor vehicle mount the bridge’s unusually-high curb onto the sidewalk. But on the other hand, a bicyclist straying off the sidewalk and down the curb would be very unlikely to stay upright, and would be at risk of being run over by a motor vehicle. The riskiness of riding on the sidewalk is increased by the presence of pedestrians, whose movements are unpredictable, and by bicyclists’ designated line of travel close to the curb.

Mr. Stosberg’s blog posting does not mention these hazards. And the photo with the posting shows, not the bridge roadway and sidewalk, but instead, a location just beyond its end, where the roadway is wider and paved with asphalt, and the curb is much lower.

Despite the many improvements that have been made to the Hawthorne Bridge, it shows some major compromises to safe design, mostly due to pre-existing conditions.  People contemplating using the bridge,  government officials charged with building facilities, and the public which elects the officials and pays for the projects benefit from frank and open discussion of the hazards..

Possible safety improvements would include making pedestrian traffic one-way opposite the direction of bicyclists on each sidewalk — if that could be enforced; or installing a barrier between the sidewalk and the roadway — but that would be expensive.

For more information about the Hawthorne Bridge, I commend readers to photos which I have posted, and to a video of a ride across the bridge.

Mr. Stosberg is welcome to post a response to this posting. So are you.

Ah, the dancing bear experiment.

Please bear with me.

You are smarter than the average bear.

So, please, don’t be the bear.

The dancing bear experiment is clever indeed in showing how people can be misled, but is itself misleading.

The dancing bear is slipped as an unexpected element into the midst of an orderly and societally understood pattern, the passing of the soccer ball among several players. The experiment cleverly misleads the viewer, concealing the bear (see comments at end of this posting), but the experiment also is misleading on another level, in suggesting that such concealment is the norm.

The experiment is also unrealistic in that both the viewer and the dancing bear are passive. There is no actual interaction possible between them, as, after all, the experiment is canned.

Riding a bicycle on the road according to the orderly and societally understood rules of the road is like passing the soccer ball. Riding as a ‘road sneak” is like being the dancing bear.

So, don’t be the bear. Follow the rules of the road, and ride to be visible. Test that other road users have seen you, using assertive/defensive road positioning that requires a reaction from the other road users, up to the point where you would have to yield if they don’t.

Example: when approaching an intersection with stop signs in the cross street, and a vehicle is in the cross street is coming up to the stop sign, merge away from the curb as needed to put yourself in plain view of the vehicle’s driver, where the driver expects to look for traffic. Keep moving and keep pedaling nearly to the point at which you would have to make a quick stop. Your good braking technique makes it possible to be more assertive than you otherwise would. When the driver stops, you know that the driver has stopped because of *you.*

Another example: before merging farther into the street, for this reason or any other (e.g., to overtake a double-parked vehicle), signal your intentions early enough to give the next driver behind you plenty of time to react. Then check that the driver has slowed, or else merged to overtake you safely.

A bicyclist who violates the rules of the road and operates passively will get into “dancing bear” situations much, much more frequently than one who obeys the rules of the road, rides to be seen and interacts with other road users.

The good lesson of the dancing bear experiment is that it is possible for road users to become distracted, even from things which are in their plain sight. The bad lesson is that it finishes with an essentially fatalistic message, “think of yourself as a victim.” It has nothing at all to say about how to avoid being one.

Yes, bears can be taught to ride bicycles. But again, you are smarter than the average bear. And those are the bare facts as I see them.

*****

Some ways that the experiment conceals the bear:

* The viewer is asked to concentrate on the team in white. The other team is in black, like the dancing bear.

* The team in black is of four rather thuggish looking young men with stubble beards. Ugh, who wants to look at them! The team in white is much more photogenic and has two male and two female members, more distracting.

* The white team’s passes are first at the left side of the image, then at the right. The bear moves from right to left.

* In the middle of the video there is a pass by the white team that is delayed, so it hard to follow, and then a high pass that goes over the bear’s head from left to right. Meanwhile, there is a pass by the black team that looks as though it is from from the white team until it lands in a black player’s hands. This confusion occurs just as the bear passes across the middle of the image.

Here’s another experiment: ask someone who has not seen the video before to follow the passes by the black team, and then ask whether that person notices the dancing bear.

And yet another: ask a person who has not seen the video before to keep looking at the middle of the screen, and then ask whether that person notices the dancing bear.

This last experiment is most similar to actual traffic operation, in which a driver’s attention concentrates on directions in which other road users are expected to be found.

On another Web page, I have discussed the features and operational characteristics of so-called “bike boxes”, in which bicyclists wait for traffic signals ahead of the stop line for motor traffic. I recommend that page as background information for this discussion.

In this posting, I will discuss rationales advanced for the installation of bike boxes.

There are two principal rationales for a bike box, one of which I regard as valid but which might better be served by a different implementation. The other rationale, I find very distressing.

The first rationale is to accommodate a high volume of bicycle traffic, where bicyclists might have to wait through multiple signal cycles behind motor traffic, or else might filter forward and then not have room to wait. I recommend that bicyclists wait behind the first motor vehicle, so as not to be caught on the light change, and to negotiate with the driver of the second vehicle in line. That places the bicyclist in the exhaust of the first vehicle, but that’s better than risking a right hook collision. The exhaust problem has become far less serious in countries which have mandated pollution control on motor vehicles. But — there’s only so much room behind the first vehicle for a couple of bicyclists. A bike box behind the first vehicle would formalize that option, but unfortunately, the length of vehicles varies.

A bike box is advantageous in terms of bicyclists’ travel time when going straight through the intersection, if it facilitates filtering forward past stopped traffic — though, on the other hand, it increases motorists’ travel time. The bike box makes no significant difference in a bicyclist’s through travel time when the bicyclist arrives on the green.

But a bicyclist can get caught at the right side of the roadway when approaching the bike box, and the light turns green. Merging into the flow to go straight, or make a vehicular left-turn, is more advantageous unless traffic is very congested. (And that’s one reason among others that use of a bike lane should not be mandatory!)

The other rationale for a bike box is to encourage more people to ride bicycles by increasing comfort. I find this rationale very scary when the supposedly comfortable facility includes a deathtrap. I call this the “Pied Piper” approach to bicycle planning. It involves some convoluted thinking — bicyclists fear motorists, so, build facilities which appear less scary to the bicyclists.

A bike box with a pre-green signal interval (red and yellow in European practice) provides a warning for a bicyclist not to overtake and swerve in front of the first motor vehicle waiting at the intersection as the light turns green. He/she can still get stuck waiting for through traffic to clear, and the signal to turn red, then green again, if the intention using the bike box was to prepare a left turn (as with a Vancouver, BC bike box and some in New York City) or to cross to the other side of a one-way street (as with a bike box in Eugene, Oregon).

Motorists waiting behind a bike box without the pre-green are expected to look for bicyclists in their right rear-view mirror while also scanning the intersection ahead. That increases the likelihood of mistakes in both tasks, but also, the right rear-view mirror doesn’t provide complete coverage of the area where a bicyclist may be, particularly for the driver of a truck or bus with a high cab and a hood. If the motorist doesn’t look into the mirror at the right time, the bicyclist may have passed outside the field of view seen in the mirror. That is the rationale for additional mirrors, beepers, bicyclist-presence actuated flashers etc. that have been proposed to warn motorists of bicyclists overtaking on the right, and warn bicyclists of motorists preparing to turn right — none of which measures have been implemented in practice and all of which are technological solutions, with the attendant problems of implementation rollout and reliability.

So: what to recommend? here’s what I suggest. Never overtake a long truck or bus with less than 5 feet of clearance to its side, not even in a bike lane. Preferably, overtake on the left or move forward in line with other traffic, but in a traffic jam, you may filter forward *slowly* in a bike lane. Be aware of thehazard of car doors opening from either side, pedestrians stepping out form in front of tall vehicles, etc. Never swerve across in front of a vehicle unless you can be entirely sure that it will not start to move. Make eye contact with the driver, signal your intentions. If you can’t see the driver in a high-cab vehicle, just don’t swerve left. Pulling into line behind a vehicle that is waiting for a traffic signal or stop sign is reasonably safe if you obey these precautions. Swerving across in front of a vehicle waiting first in line, even with a bike box, is only safe if you can be sure that the traffic signal is not about to change.

Alternatives to the bike box?, For less-skillful bicyclists in urban areas, I favor the bicycle boulevard concept, in which bicyclists and motorists share a roadway according to the normal vehicular rules of the road, on a street with low traffic volume — typically, a residential street paralleling an arterial, using diverters and small traffic circles to keep down the volume and speed of motor traffic. This approach avoids the problems with attempting to accommodate conflicting movements with special facilities on a street that also carries heavy motor traffic. There are tradeoffs, to be sure: the bicycle boulevard isn’t a main street, so it may not provide such a direct route between as many trip endpoints — and unless bicycle transportation is taken very seriously, the bicycle boulevard may not have as favorable signalization as a main street. I have seen and ridden bicycle boulevards in Berkeley and Eugene, and they do seem to work rather well in those cities. No, I don’t have use or crash data, only my personal observation.

Idaho law allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign. See http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K
It also allows a bicyclist to treat a traffic signal as a stop sign.

I would support the traffic signal aspect of this law as a second-rank stopgap for the installation of signal actuators that detect bicycles and that are smart enough to adjust the signal timing to the speed capability of the vehicle.

Today’s electromagnetic loop detectors can detect bicycles if properly designed and installed, but many jurisdictions are still installing ones that can not, or installing them incorrectly. (For example, even Portland, Oregon installs bicycle-sensitive detector loops only in the bike lane, and so a bicyclist preparing a vehicular left turn, or overtaking traffic on the left, will not be able to trip the signal). Bicycling advocates should promote best practices in application of loop detectors, the most common detector technology.

But detector technology is improving, with video. ultrasonic and infrared detectors becoming able, at least in theory, to distinguish a bicycle from a motor vehicle. Bicycling advocates should promote continued research, development and application of improved signal detection technologies through professional organizations and through the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

All this said, there will still be intersections where the technology is not up to date, or where the detector is malfunctioning, or where fixed-interval signals produce a long red even though there is no cross traffic. I think that it is reasonable for bicyclists to be permitted to proceed cautiously on the red under such conditions. This special permission could, however, get out of control — on the one hand, with the engineering profession abdicating its responsibility to provide signals that work, and on the other hand with bicyclists abusing the rule and crossing at times when other traffic has to yield to them.

As to the stop sign provision: the most important message of the stop sign is to yield to cross traffic. Usually, a yield sign would be sufficient. Almost nobody, bicyclist or motorist, comes to a complete stop for a stop sign unless there is cross traffic to which to yield, or a short sight distance that requires a stop. Stop signs are heavily overused in this country, but unfortunately, stop signs are the first thing the public thinks of in order to increase traffic safety. For my comments on how this contrasts with European practice, please see this other posting.

Also, bicyclists don’t have a car hood in front of them and are able to see the intersection before pulling out into it, so a stop is needed less often. And bicyclists can restart faster and get across a smaller gap without stopping and putting a foot down. So I offer warmer support to the Idaho stop sign provision.

Parts of European cities have a modern streetscape, — Paris, due to Baron Haussmann’s urban-renewal projects in the mid-19th century; many other cities, due to bombing in World War II and subsequent reconstruction.

But ancient, narrow streets without sidewalks are very common in European cities and towns. As an example, in 1989 during a bicycle tour in France, my wife and I walked east from the central plaza of the provincial town of Loches along a main street to attend a historical lecture. We had to zigzag from one side of the street to the other to find narrow sidewalks on the way to the lecture at a public school in town.

In this light, let’s examine the removal of signs, signals and markings from part of the Bremer Straße, the main street of the German town of Bohmte, which has received heavy news coverage recently. North American news media generally express wonderment that such a radical and unusual plan could reduce the crash rate, as claimed. Consider the article by Craig Whitlock published in the Washington Post on Wednesday, December 26, 2007.

The headline reads:

“Europeans try to solve traffic woes by throwing out most road rules”

A quote from the article reads:

“Generally speaking, what we want is for people to be confused,” said Willi Ladner, a deputy mayor in Bohmte. “When they’re confused, they’ll be more alert and drive more carefully.”

The article also mentions an underlying, rather familiar reason for the town’s traffic problems: merchants didn’t want a bypass, because it would divert traffic away from their places of business.

But the headline, and the following quote, are off-base:

“Only two traffic rules remain. Drivers cannot go more than 30 mph, the German speed limit for city driving. And everyone has to yield to the right, regardless of whether it’s a car, a bike or a baby carriage.”

The reported speed limit is incorrect — it’s actually 30 km/h, about 18 mph, a common speed limit for low-traffic residential streets in Europe. And the posted speed limit is not the only speed limit, in Bohmte or anywhere. There’s also the fundamental speed limit rule — to drive no faster than is reasonable under the existing conditions.

The article’s statement about yielding to the right could mean either of two things, both of which apply: drive on the right, and yield to a vehicle entering from the right — the universal rule for uncontrolled intersections.

So, removing signs and signals emphatically does not remove road rules. It only imposes different rules.

Confusion may increase for readers of the article! But on the Bremer Straße, uncertainty, rather than confusion, has been increased by the removal of signs, signals and markings.

(I thank Don Cook of the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan for making this distinction!).

To get some perspective on the situation, you may view a Google map of Bohmte, though the section of the Bremer Straße with its special red-colored pavement doesn’t show up yet in the images posted in February, 2008. Some crosswalks are shown with red pavement — a usual color in Germany to identify zones where drivers pay special attention (another rule!).

Uncontrolled intersections are very common in European cities and towns, stop signs less common than in North America. European drivers understand that the vehicle on the right has priority when two vehicles arrive at an uncontrolled intersection at the same time — also, that an intersection with restricted sight lines requires slow, careful driving. And it is always necessary to look out for pedestrians and bicyclists.

So, the main street of Bohmte has merely been reduced to the status of many other streets. Without the signs, signals, markings and sidewalks, slow and careful driving is necessary, as on many other European urban streets.

This approach also increases safety as long as everyone travels slowly enough to avoid collisions. But if used to excess or inappropriately, this approach defeats the major advantage of bicycling or motorized travel. If a street is too narrow for motor vehicles to overtake bicycles, motor vehicles must go as slowly as bicycles. And if pedestrian space is not defined and available, bicycle traffic as well as motor traffic must slow to walking speed.

Then, fuel economy decreases, while travel time and pollution increase. On a street used mostly for local trips, a mode shift to bicycling and walking may follow as motoring becomes less convenient. On an unavoidable through route, there will be a a “bottleneck” — a reduction in speed but not in volume of the through traffic. — Bohmte being one example; another, in North America, is Burlington, Ontario before the high bridge was constructed –see Google map of Burlington.

European drivers generally understand uncontrolled intersections. Americans, not so much. The first intersection down the street from my house on a dead end in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA is an uncontrolled intersection. Most neighbors understand that they need to be prepared to yield, but some assume that if they don’t see signs or signals, drivers in the cross street will yield to them. There was a nasty collision a few years back when two vehicles entered this intersection at right angles, traveling around 30 mph.

A common response to such an incident in the USA is to post stop signs or signalize the intersection, further increasing drivers’ expectation that they can rely on signs and signals. Old-school traffic engineers resist this trend, but politics often overrides their advice.

The real confusion in the Bohmte situation is in the minds of advocates of urban reform. The removal of signs, signals, markings and sidewalks is diametrically opposite the common approach which installs all of these — and bike lanes too — but advocates of urban reform get excited about both.

Why? Both approaches are seen as ways to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles in the urban landscape. While streets shared with congestion-free, slow motor traffic work well for bicyclists, shared streets all too often reflect a vision primarily from the point of view of pedestrian advocacy, which neglects the different needs of bicyclists. I have seen too many advocates for traffic calming assume that plazas and sidewalk-less streets crowded with pedestrians make good bicycle routes. They most certainly don’t, and so bicyclists deserve to take a good hard look at the unintended consequences when such measures are proposed!

The Muenster poster may be viewed at:

http://www.hubsess.com/uploaded_images/26080732636761.jpg

The caption reads “amount of space needed to transport the same number of people by bus, bicycle or car.” But the pictures under the caption don’t show vehicles transporting anyone. They show vehicles parked in the middle of the street. The presentation is highly misleading, because vehicles transporting people use more space than parked vehicles. And the way moving vehicles use space may not be immediately obvious.

Several reasons:

1) Throughput  — the number of people transported past a given point within a given time — depends on speed as well as density of road use. A bicycle can go faster than a pedestrian; a motor vehicle can go faster than a bicycle. If passengers cars travel twice as fast as bicycles, then only half as many passenger cars in the same length of street achieve the same throughput, even assuming only one person per car. There has to be only the one bus, to achieve the same throughput.

2) Vehicles in motion aren’t crammed together the way they are in the pictures. Note that nobody is actually on the bicycles! Bicyclists if actually moving would take up three or four times as much space as the parked bicycles shown. If, as is common, bicyclists were riding to the right of other traffic in a single line, those shown would extend for more than the length of the block. There would be half as many passenger cars as shown, given the assumptions I’ve already made, or the one bus.

3) Buses need special reserved space for bus stops, cars take up street space when parked or stopped to load/unload, bicycles don’t. The comparison doesn’t address these issues at all.

4) The poster does not address waiting time and walking time, which both figure in trip time. Bicycles generally can be parked near trip endpoints; a private motor vehicle often requires a longer walk to/from a parking place, and a motorist may also spend time looking for onr. With buses, there is the walk to/from the bus stop, as well as waiting time at the bus stop and at a transfer location, if any.

5) The ability to travel with baggage or passengers is different for each mode. The private motor vehicle is most convenient (unless you are the driver who has to make a trip just to take a passenger or parcel somewhere); the bus is convenient for travel with other people but not with a lot of baggage; the bicycle is least convenient/flexible with passengers and baggage.

6) The cost of each mode is different and is borne in different ways.

7) The ability of people to use different modes is different. Young children must be accompanied by an adult no matter how they travel. Older children, elderly people or people with disabilities might not be able to ride a bicycle or drive a private motor vehicle, but could take the bus. Only adults can get driver’s licenses.

To summarize: The headline “amount of space needed to transport the same number of people by bus, bicycle or car” is misleading, because the vehicles shown are parked, not moving. All in all, the poster makes an apples vs oranges vs. pears comparison. Each mode is preferable for some trips, but the comparison shown doesn’t get at the underlying issues as to why a person will choose one or another mode, and it misrepresents the space requirements it purports to illustrate.

Was it the strength workouts at a gym, a new routine for me at age 60?

Was it the judo class I took so long ago, in high school — my father’s hopeful but feckless plan for me to fend off a pair of bus-stop bullies? I had little talent for judo, my father never gave me the needed lecture on persistence, and I quit after a few weeks. I did learn how to break a fall by slapping my hands on the mat.

Was it the bicycling gloves? That part is for sure.

So, last night, I was following my bicycle’s headlamp beam out to the street at my church. The front wheel went off the edge of a narrow sidewalk, slid along and wouldn’t climb back up. Faster than thought, I toppled over. The technical term is “diversion fall.”

But also faster than thought, my hands flew off handlebars and the palms of both gloves judo-slapped the pavement.

I slowly picked myself up.

In 1975 I broke a collarbone in a fall like this. Now I must be hurt somehow too. There often isn’t pain right away.

Knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, wrists, hands? No, no, no no, no and no. Not a single scratch or bruise or scrape.

I picked up the bicycle and slid the bicycle computer back into its bracket on the handlebar. I popped the front fender stay clips back into place. I spun the wheel and the computer still worked. I started for home slowly in case the bicycle might have other complaints. The gear shifting was a little bit odd but I wasn’t going to try to fix it in the dark.

Today I take the bike out of the garage to adjust the gears.

This time I was lucky, but it wasn’t only luck.

This is a review of the article Cars and Bikes Can Mix, When the Rules of the Road Are Clear, which appeared in the New York Times on June 5, 2007 and is available online.

That’s a good headline, except that the problem is usually with behavior, not the rules of the road. The author is an all-too-typical bicyclist who has not learned or been taught good information, and the article has a number of significant errors. It isn’t up to the Times’s standards.

* The article mentions the League of American Bicyclists “Share the Road” campaign but without identifying it. The author would do well to attend a League Bike-Ed class.

* The article leads with what bleeds, descriptions of fatal crashes. Fear factor is clearly at work here.

* Pictures of crash types show them but not how to avoid them — useless information.

* “Thanks to the proliferation of designated bike paths and the growing use of helmets, deaths among bicyclists have declined to around 600 a year from about 800. Still, 600 is 600 too many, as are the approximately 46,000 annual injuries that cyclists suffer in crashes with motor vehicles.” Bike paths don’t have a significant effect on the fatality rate; most riding is on streets. The 600 to 800 figure is about right for the USA, but the article confusingly makes several references to New York City. Cyclist fatalities per year have declined substantially since the 1970s, but largely due to a decline in cycling by children. There has been a small uptick in cyclist fatalities, along with other traffic fatalities, in the past few years.

* “Prompted by organizations like Transportation Alternatives, the city has created hundreds of bike paths on or near city streets.” The facilities on streets are bike lanes, not bike paths. Hundreds of miles, I think, not hundreds of facilities. Paths adjacent to city streets, with few exceptions, should not be described as a safety improvement, as they have a poor safety record due to crossing and turning conflicts at intersections.

* “Bicycles are legally entitled to use most roads, though they must ride on the shoulder when the speed limit exceeds 50 miles per hour.” Bicyclists are required to allow other traffic to overtake when safe in all states, but are required specifically to use the shoulder only in Maryland, Alaska, New York and Colorado. Each of these states has exceptions to the rule, for example to turn left or if the shoulder is not usable. See Paul Schimek’s guide to traffic laws.

* The author advises motorists: “[w]hen turning right, signal well ahead of time, turn from the middle of the intersection rather than across the bike path, and make sure no bike is on your right before you turn. Do not pass a cyclist if you will be turning right immediately after.” Again, the author confuses bike lanes with bike paths. Her advice for motorists to turn right from the left lane is contrary to law, which requires that motorists merge into the bike lane. “[A]nd make sure no bike is on your right before you turn.” This is a problem when turning right from the left lane — the look to the rear can distract motorists from the traffic situation ahead in the intersection; and the bike lane can give bicyclists a false sense of security in moving forward into motorists’ right rear blindspot. Bicyclists best avoid this by merging left, or not advancing to the head of the bike lane when a vehicle is waiting there.

* “More than half of collisions occur when cyclists and drivers are on perpendicular paths,” Poorly stated, inaccurate and misleading. The expression “Perpendicular-path” collision apparently is an invention by the author. Most car-bike crashes occur due to crossing and turning movements — not necessarily perpendicular, for example if a motorist overtakes a bicyclist and turns right. What the author doesn’t say, apparently because she doesn’t understand it, it that only about 7% of car-bike crashes are the widely-feared rear-enders.

* “Signal all turns and stops and make full stops at stop signs.” The author gives rote advice which fails to convey the purpose of signaling. Bicyclists need to signal to indicate the desire to merge when preparing a turn, to overtake stopped vehicles and in many other situations. The law in most states exempts bicyclists from signaling when the hands must be on the handlebar for control. There is in any case no need to signal once in the position to turn — the bicyclist’s position makes the intention clear. Bicyclists can’t signal when using handbrakes. But there is generally no need to signal when slowing or stopping, as a following driver can see past the bicyclist, who is usually going slower anyway. The purpose of a bicyclist’s slow signal is generally to indicate to a following driver that it is unsafe to pass.

* “Never ride on the sidewalk - sidewalk crashes are 25 times as frequent than crashes that occur on major streets. Safest are streets with bike lanes.” The 25 times figure is from Moritz’s survey of adult bicyclists. Some other studies show sidewalks to be, whew, only 4 or 5 times as dangerous. The Moritz study shows streets with bike lanes to be slightly safer than others, but no study makes a valid comparison with all other things (available width, traffic volume etc.) being equal. In addition, there are certain particular hazards in bike lanes of which bicyclists should be aware — right-turn conflicts, car doors etc.

* “Ride in a straight path. If you must pull out into the lane used by drivers, turn around first to be sure the coast is clear.” No, not “turn around” — look back, signal if necessary to get a driver’s cooperation, then look back again to be sure you have it.

* “If you are stopped at a light or stop sign to the right of a car or truck, the driver might
not see you.” Don’t go there. Stop behind the first vehicle. Stopping next to the front of a vehicle can be deadly, as the rear wheels can sweep across your path if it turns right. This is especially so with long trucks and buses.

* “Try to make eye contact with drivers before you change lanes or turn left.” It helps to see whether the driver is looking toward you, if possible, but the real test is to make sure the driver has yielded to you.

* “Wear brightly colored clothing in daylight (though I was wearing an electric blue running suit when I was hit and the driver still failed to see me);” She probably had positioned herself out of the driver’s view, or in a direction the driver wouldn’t normally look, or else the driver was lying.

* “If you cycle at night, you are supposed to have a white headlight and red taillight (preferably a blinking one) so drivers can see you.” Not “supposed to” but the law, which in most states requires a rear reflector and/or steady taillight (though blinking ones work too) and in many states, requires additional reflectors. Additional reflectors are a good idea in any case.

* “Scan the road 100 feet ahead for possible hazards.” Why 100 feet ahead? Scanning distance depends on speed, road and traffic conditions.

Whew.

Hello — I’m John S. Allen, bicycling advocate, author and expert witness.

I am starting this blog to post timely material about bicycling concerns. My main concerns will be with bicycling advocacy, education and facilities design, with an occasional technical tip and ride report thrown in.

Enough for now — read on.