Category Archives: Sidepaths

Another crosswalk confusion, and a fatality

In response to my post about confused yielding requirements where shared-use paths cross streets, Ryan Reasons has published comments on a recent fatal truck-bicycle crash in the Seattle, Washington area.

The photo below is from the KOMO TV/radio station news photo gallery.

view of crash scene

View of crash scene

My response to Ryan’s comments went into enough detail that I have decided to make a post of it. My response follows his comments below.

Ryan’s comments

@John S. Allen
The sort of confusion you describe may have cost Gordon Gray his life last Wednesday after he collided with a cement truck. The sheriff’s department says that Gray, a 70-year-old bicyclist from Washington state, was cycling on a MUP when he ran a stop sign, entered a street running parallel to the MUP and was struck.

King County Sheriff’s Sgt. Stan Seo says the Kenmore man was biking southbound on 65th Avenue Northeast Wednesday morning when he was hit by a cement truck heading west on Northeast 175th Street. Seo said Friday that according to investigators, it appears the cyclist did not stop at a stop sign and was hit in the intersection. He says the cyclist had turned off the Burke-Gilman Trail shortly before the accident.
The Associated Press,

If one accepts Sgt. Seo’s account of the events leading to the collision, then Gray was cycling on the MUP when he turned onto 65th Avenue to enter Northeast 175th street. (See this Google street map.) [You may  click on the link to open the view in Google maps, or click on the image below  to enlarge it — John Allen]

Location of Gordon Cray crash

Location of Gordon Gray crash

Note that the Google map shows three stop signs of possible relevance. The stop sign on 65th Avenue is located just north of the MUP and crosswalk. The other two stop signs are located on the MUP at opposite ends of the crosswalk.

Once Gray entered 65th Avenue from the MUP and headed south, did Gray have a legal obligation to stop at the stop sign on 65th Avenue? I don’t think so, because after turning south onto 65th Avenue the stop sign was behind Gray and facing north.

Let’s assume Gray committed a traffic violation (running a stop sign) when he turned from the MUP onto 65th Avenue. Does that mean Gray is legally at fault for a collision which occurred on his subsequent turn from 65th Avenue onto Northeast 175th Street?

The account given by local law enforcement suggests Gordon Gray will be blamed for his own death, even if Gray is not fully at fault. That seems like an injustice for Gray, an undeserved vindication for confusing cycling infrastructure, and fuel for more of the ugly jeers that accompany the deaths of cyclists who truly are at fault.

My response:

This is an interesting situation, and especially so as cyclists’ exiting from bikeways into parallel streets becomes more common with the increasing number of sidepaths (or “cycle tracks”, or so-called “protected bike lanes”). The path in question runs parallel to and just north of an east-west street (Northeast 175th Street) and crosses another street (65th Avenue) which Ts into it from the north, with a marked crosswalk. There are stop signs for the path at either end of the crosswalk, and there is a stop sign on 65th Avenue Northeast before the crosswalk, as is usual. So, once Gordon Gray was in the crosswalk, there was no stop sign directing him to stop at Northeast 175th Street.

This is not the same situation I described in the earlier blog post. What I described is the confusion from having stop signs at the ends of a crosswalk. Traffic in the street is supposed to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk but confusion arises because the stop signs indicate that cyclists in the crosswalk must yield to traffic in the street it crosses. These two requirements contradict one another. The confusion manifests itself in drivers on the street stopping and yielding to cyclists, whom the stop signs direct to stop and yield to the drivers in the street. It is unclear who may proceed. In practice, the cyclists usually proceed, and often without coming to a complete stop, but also cyclists are faster than pedestrians, and a motorist’s stopping often requires a cyclist to stop when they would otherwise not have to, because the motor vehicle would have passed before the cyclist reached the crosswalk. There are also the issues which occur at other crosswalks, that the first motorist in one lane may stop, but a motorist in another lane may not, requiring extra caution of cyclists due to their higher speed and longer stopping distance than those of pedestrians.

What you describe appears to be that cyclist Gordon Gray entered the crosswalk, and then entered the parallel street. Indeed, there was no stop sign facing him once he had entered the crosswalk, as he did not pass the stop sign for traffic on 65th Avenue Northeast. The legalities here are somewhat confusing. Probably the stop sign before the crosswalk did not apply to entry onto the parallel street. Was Gray required nonetheless to yield before entering the parallel street? He would have been, if he had passed the stop sign on 65th Avenue Northeast. A T intersection without a stop sign is an uncontrolled intersection, and so he would still be required to prepare to yield, perhaps also to yield: in some states, at least Massachusetts, where I live, stop signs are not posted where one street Ts into another, but yielding is required. A concern for self-preservation would also require being prepared to yield, whatever the legalities.

There are a few things which the news report does not indicate:

  • Which way was Gray going? Was he originally westbound on the path? Then he would have had to look behind himself for the truck.
  • Was he attempting to head eastbound on Northeast 175th Street (or westbound on the wrong side), and so he was attempting to cross in front of the truck?
  • Just what was the truck driver doing, or about to do? There is a large concrete plant with two driveways, across Northeast 175th street from 65th Avenue. Concrete mixer trucks in the same colors as those in the news photo are visible parked there in the Google Maps overhead view. It is possible, for example, that the truck driver was signaling a turn, suggesting to Gray that he would turn left into the driveway east of 65th Street Avenue Northeast, but instead was continuing into the next driveway when his truck struck Gray. The location of the truck in the photo at the top of this post suggests that.

Berri at Cherrier, Montreal

Gerald Fittipaldi, who is on an e-mail list with me, has posted a video on Flickr of cyclists traveling through an intersection where a two-way bikeway turns from one street to the other.

Clicking on the link above, or the still image below, will bring up the video on your computer screen.

Bicyclists at the intersection of Rue Cherrier and Rue Berri, Montreal

Video of Montreal intersection

Mr. Fittipaldi has described the intersection:

Below is a video of a protected intersection for bicyclists in Montreal. This is at the crossroads of two heavily used 2-way cycle tracks. Metal pylons are used to form a large protective space for cyclists queueing to make a left turn.

This is the intersection of Rue Cherrier and Rue Berri in Montreal. I’ve been there. The “protective space” operates as a two-stage left-turn queuing box for left-turning traffic, but it also serves right-turning traffic traveling in the opposite direction.
Bikeways which are separated from the travel lanes of the street are commonly referred to as “protected,” and Mr. Fittipaldi refers to Berri and Cherrier as a “protected intersection.”
The term “protected” is used in traffic engineering to refer to a movement during which conflicting movements are prohibited, however, at this intersection, bicyclists crossing Rue Berri are exposed to conflicts with traffic turning right and left from Cherrier. At the start of the video, bicyclists get a few seconds of advanced green, but otherwise there is no separate signal phase or turn prohibition.
The bikeway across Cherrier does get a protected green while southbound motor traffic on Berri waiting to right or onto the frontage road is held back by a red light as shown in the video, and similarly for northbound traffic, by a left-turn signal: see Google Street View with the sign “attendre la flèche pour virer à gauche” (Wait for the arrow to turn left). I’ve included an image from the street view below. The “protected space” is visible in the background

The sign reads, in French, "ait for the arrow to turn left."

The sign reads, in French, “wait for the arrow to turn left.”

Because of the two-way bicycle traffic in narrow corridors on one side of the street, unconventional encounters between bicyclists are common. For some reason, flickr’s time indication in the video runs from high to low. At 00.46, near the start, the video shows bicyclists headed toward the camera passing to the right of another who is headed away from the camera. Another bicyclist may be seen riding against traffic on the far side of the intersection. Later, at 00:28, a large number approach in the crosswalk rather than in the bikeway. Several bicyclists merge left around the waiting area to continue on Cherrier. At 00:12, one bicyclist ignores the waiting area, which is already crowded, timing his left turn to the signal change.

Thanks to the time of day at which it was shot, the video shows all but one bicyclist headed westbound on Cherrier and turning left onto Berri — for which the area inside the pylons serves as a conventional two-stage left-turn queuing box. But, because both streets have two-way one-side-of-the-street bikeways, right turns using the installation are made by going around the outside of the intersection clockwise, from the left side of Berri to the left side of Cherrier. This is very time-consuming compared with a conventional right-turn. as shown at 3:00 and following in my own video.

For other movements as well, signal compliance is poor, and some bicyclists take unconventional shortcuts. That is the case with one bicyclist already mentioned, and with both bicyclists in this Google Street view:

Two bicyclists ignore the designated route at Berri and Cherrier

Two bicyclists ignore the designated route at Berri and Cherrier

— also with the bicyclist at the right here, on Cherrier just east of Berri.

Bicyclist riding opposite traffic on Rue Cherrier

Bicyclist riding opposite traffic on Rue Cherrier

Godzilla’s toothpaste decorates Seattle bikeway

A new bikeway has recently opened on Broadway in Seattle, Washington state, USA.

Someone has posted a video of a ride on the newly-opened bikeway.

(To get a better view of the video, click on “YouTube” and open it up full-screen.)

This is an uphill ride, very slow in most places. Traffic was light on the street, and even lighter on the bikeway. It will be interesting to see how the situation develops when traffic is heavier.

The bicyclist who made the video is clearly aware of the hazards, as he or she repeatedly checks for turning traffic before crossing intersections. Others might be more naive.

What most catches the eye though about this installation is the “Godzilla’s Toothpaste” barriers between the bikeway and parking spaces — an artistic touch, to be sure, though also a collision hazard, and sure to be pummeled by cars pulling into parking spaces. The toothpaste is visible a few seconds from the start of the video and also later.

As described by Seattle cyclist Joshua Putnam, the installation of the bikeway followed from a series of events, like a chain of dominoes falling over, except that some the dominoes were bicyclists. The first of these events was installation of a light rail line in the street. Then, bicycle crashes became much more frequent.

Light rail lines in streets are a serious hazard for bicyclists, from wheels’ getting caught in the flangeway, and from bicyclists’ having to choose their line of travel to avoid that risk. The problem is worsened by the tracks’ curving over to the edge of the street at stops — necessary so there can be a raised platform and wheelchair access.

To address the hazard it created with the trolley tracks, Seattle installed a two-way, one-side-of-the-street bikeway, on this two-way street. Such bikeways pose problems anywhere, due to the increased number of conflicts and unusual movements at intersections — but also much of Broadway is steep, and bicyclists traveling opposite the usual flow of traffic on the bikeway are going downhill. Crossing an intersection or driveway from right to left on the near side has been well-established as highly hazardous.

Before the trolley tracks, before the bikeway, bicyclists could travel downhill as fast as the motor traffic. Now, the safe speed is hardly more than walking speed, and with repeated checks for crossing and turning conflicts. As is the usual practice, large swatches of green paint have been spread on the street to demarcate zones where bicyclists and motorists operating according to their usual expectations are concealed from each other until too late to avoid collisions.

Motorcyclists also are at risk from the trolley tracks, but they are excluded by law from the bikeway.

Danish story, video and comments on the Albertslund-Copenhagen “bicycle superhighway”

A reader pointed me to a news story on the blog about the Copenhagen/Albertslund “bicycle superhighway” which is getting attention and publicity. The reader’s comments on my previous post read:

Yeah, its kind of joke, but to be fair they are not called superhighways in Danish but Super bicycle tracks, and even then most agree that they are not really that super. There is a video of the entire route here if you scroll down a bit:

The two next ones which will open are another story though, as they mostly have their own right of way, and use viaducts or bridges to cross streets.

So, better things may be on their way, but…I ran the article through the Google translator, and it appears in the link below in (sort of) English. The page includes the sped-up video of the entire route.

Here’s the video — warning, Shell diesel fuel ad at start, and you can only stop the video when you click on it, see the ad again and click on it to open a bigger ad! This workaround was needed to make the video visible on this page.

The one unifying factor of this route is an orange line painted lengthwise to identify it. The first part of the route is relatively tame. Barriers, unprotected intersections and other hazards pile up near the end.

Some representative quotes (I’ve translated from Googlish to English, thanks to an online dictionary and my knowledge of the neighbor language, German.):

From the article:

“I did not expect that I just had to detour on ordinary roads in residential neighborhoods. I did not see much of the green wave that is supposed to be in town. I do not think you can call it a super bike path,” the [politiken dk test rider] concluded.

From comments on the article:

– The section of tunnel under Motorring 3 is dark and miserably lighted. There are many riding schools (which, incidentally, should be forced to close and move out into a rural area!). The tunnel is usually filled with horse s***, and because you can not see in these tunnels due to poor lighting, you can only hope that you do not ride through any of it.


– In the westbound direction, at the pitch-dark tunnels, you have to negotiate two sets of barriers. The point of these, other than to impede traffic, I do not know. But when you have to use all your mental energy to get through these, they constitute more of a hazard than a safety precaution.


I have commuted between Roskilde and the northwest part of Copenhagen 2-3 times a week on a recumbent trike with an electric assist motor for 6 months ( When I used the “super path” the trip was about 3 km and 15 minutes longer. Especially the part of the route in Albertslund is very indirect and inconvenient. There are detours, barriers and ramps in most places, and it will for example not be possible to ride in a velomobile, as far as I can judge. The new route is comfortable and free of exhaust, but as commuter route it gets a failing grade compared with Roskildevej [a parallel, 4-lane divided but not limited-access highway with one-way sidepaths].


– I didn’t see anything which shows that cyclists have priority over the other traffic. Unfortunately, the only thing new that I see is approximately 100 meters of new asphalt in two places near Rødovre, so that it is easy going. There are simply no real improvements for cyclists in relation to other road users! You can still find barriers, sharp turns, bumps and traffic lights. Why is there no new cycle path, e.g. along the western forest road, so you do not have to drive through neighborhoods with pedestrians and children playing? Why are barriers not turned 90 degrees, so users of the route have right of way?

Even if there were brand new asphalt on the entire route it would never merit the title “super”. Only when a route enables more or less continuous travel at high average speed (which motorists know from motorways) does it, in my opinion, deserve the massive marketing it is currently getting.


…Bus passengers cross the bikeway. It seems quite unreasonable that there are no islands at bus stops where passengers have to wait when they get on and off. Thus cyclists must stop, and so, so much for the “super bike path”.

Fatality on Montreal cycle track

As reported in a Montreal Gazette article, a Montreal cyclist was killed on July 24, 2012 when traveling in a two-way cycle track at the location shown in the Google Street View image below. The cyclist entered the intersection from the same direction as the red-shirted cyclist shown in the Street View. A large box truck turned right from the location of the gray car in the foreground. According to witnesses, both had the green light. The trucker was required to yield to the cyclist.

Location of fatal truck-bicycle crash in Montreal

Location of fatal truck-bicycle crash in Montreal

Responses were diverse. A commenter on a Montreal blog identifying himself as BrunoG posted one (here in my translation from the French) which I think especially hits the mark:

I don’t want to sound like a chronic complainer, but I think that bidirectional cycle tracks on one side of the street add a particular element of danger. Because the path was bidirectional, the cyclist was riding opposite the direction of the truck, on the right (from the trucker’s point of view) — that is, opposite the direction of traffic (again, as seen from the truck). Like anyone who turns right, the trucker had to have the automatic reflex to shift his attention between right and left, close to the truck: to the left to be sure that he would not run over a pedestrian who might be crossing against the red light; to the left ahead to be sure not to collide with a car or truck coming from the opposite direction and possibly turning left and cutting across in front of him; and on the right next to his truck so as not to run over a pedestrian who might be crossing on the green light. But he probably didn’t look ahead and to the right, because he didn’t expect that a cyclist would arrive traveling opposite traffic. (He nonetheless had the duty to do that, as the path is bidirectional, but he didn’t do that because intersections with bidirectional cycle tracks probably represent less than one intersection in 10,000 in Montreal.)

Personally, I feel safer in the street, riding in the same direction as traffic, than on a bidirectional cycle track where I risk death at every intersection (the path on Rue Rachel being an off-the-charts example of the danger of these paths).

What I find especially distressing is that someone has died because of the inherent danger of an urban accommodation which was thought to be safe. I extend my greatest sympathy to those who were close to the victim.

Another cyclist, YULavélo, posting in the same thread, merely expressed sadness:

This accident affects me unlike those in earlier months and years, because this is a location I pass through every week at the same hour of the day. Because it could have been me, or I could have learned, on returning from work, that it was my partner. That’s what I think about. That someone, somewhere, might have learned of this through the media: that a son, brother, friend, boyfriend died riding on a cycle track, on the green light, wearing a helmet, going to work. A great sadness overcomes me when I think about this. That life is such a fragile thing, so horribly fragile, that it can end, tomorrow, on the corner of Christophe Colomb and Mistral, on a route which he may have known by heart, as he accelerated, on the green light, in the cool air of an early July morning, with light traffic.

The question of the responsibility of the trucker doesn’t come up, as we now have a no-fault system whose only purpose is to empty the courtrooms, a no fault system which is a reflection of the vast, great era of impunity in which we live, an era of every man for himself and winner takes all.

And even if he was responsible and is recognized as such, this does not put back the cyclist, this brother, boyfriend, friend, lover, worker, on his mount, in the morning light, in his little pleasure of going to work by bicycle.

I am sad, and the stupid commentaries on the Web sites where the news was posted– whether on the right or on the left, are only background noise which doesn’t even touch on that sadness.

The “stupid commentaries” referred to here are on the right, hatred of cyclists and on the left, recriminations against motorists.

Ian Brett Cooper, in a comment on the Gazette article, pointed out some factors which may have contributed to the crash:

At the time of the accident, the sun had just risen and was directly in front of the driver. The cyclist was in the sun’s glare and as he approached the intersection, he was shielded from the driver’s view by signs on the traffic light [pole].

[Update August 11, 2012: If you click on the Google Street View image to enlarge it, you’ll see that the compass rose has the trucker heading southeast; in July, the sun rises north of east. The signs could easily have hidden the cyclist, though. If the trucker was steering left to clear the corner, the signs would have produced a blindspot moving forward along the cycle track. Another oddity of this “protected” cycle track is the wide driveway entrance which crosses it after the intersection. A vehicle entering or leaving the driveway at the right time could have concealed the cyclist, and so could another vehicle proceeding through the intersection ahead of the truck.]

My friend Khalil Spencer commented in an e-mail:

To a significant degree, cycletracks operate similarly to sidewalk cycling, and have many of the inherent risks vis a vis motor vehicle traffic. If done correctly, the thru bicyclist and turning truck driver would probably have separate green light cycles similar to a protected pedestrian crossing. Sadly, both the cyclist and truck driver apparently had the green. Cyclists are supposed to be “protected” from motorists by the cycletracks. But the only way to protect at an intersection is to either design so there are not conflicts (not sure how to do that) or with the intervention of an administrative device such as a protected light cycle.

I replied:

Conflict points in intersections can’t be eliminated, but they can be reduced in number and in difficulty. That is what the conventional rules of the road are designed to achieve. Designs which send traffic into an intersection from unusual and unexpected directions at unexpectedly high speeds have the opposite effect.

The number of conflict points is lower on a street with fewer lines of traffic. Actually, this works to bicyclists’ benefit because a travel lane which can only accommodate one line of motor traffic can accommodate two or three of bicyclists. In that way, narrow local streets which aren’t suitable for through travel by motorists can serve well as through bicycle routes.

Conflicts can be managed by controlling the type, volume and speed of traffic. That’s why we have main streets, Interstate highways, bypasses and truck routes as opposed to in-town shopping streets, residential streets, bicycle boulevards and preferred bicycle touring routes…

I think that Montreal will begin to get a handle on its problem when it decides to convert one of the narrower east-west avenues through downtown (I’d vote for the Boulevard de Maisonneuve) into a bicycle boulevard where bicyclists and slow, local motor traffic operate according to the standard, uncomplicated rules of the road. A bidirectional cycle track is the antithesis of this approach, because it adds conflicts, complexity and confusion. The fundamental assumption underlying it is that motorists can be subjected to and held responsible for new and unusual task burdens in order to protect the bicyclist, who is a helpless victim incapable of operating according to the rules of the road. To be sure, this correctly describes children, and part of the problem is the idealistic but unrealistic concept that children should be able to travel all around urban areas safely by bicycle. Adding to the appeal of the bicyclists-as-children approach is that the typical Canadian or U.S. adult is stuck in a state of arrested development, never having cycled since childhood.

There are some protected signal phases in Montreal. The bicycle phase of the signals is so short that they are widely ignored. The person who described this situation to me was on a group ride to inspect those facilities, and told me that he learned some new and unpleasant words in French when his waiting for the light blocked the other cyclists from proceeding.

Link to my letter to Senator Scott Brown

My letter to a staffer of Senator Scott Brown about the mandatory sidepath provision in the Federal Tranportation Bill is online. Feel free to re-use it, or parts of it.

Mandatory sidepath laws, state by state

I don’t like mandatory sidepath laws for bicyclists, but I like the one in the Transportation Bill, applying to roads on Federal lands, even less.

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road unless the Secretary determines that the bicycle level of service on that roadway is rated B or higher.

I have had a look at state laws on the Internet.

I’m pleased to report that I couldn’t find the ones which Dan Gutierrez earlier listed on his map for Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota and Louisiana. Dan has updated his page: these laws appear to have been repealed.

The national trend has been for repeal of these laws. While the states have been repealing them, the Federal Transportation Bill, as of March, 2012, includes a provision which is more draconian than any of the remaining state laws, in that it would ban bicycles on a road even if the path is unusable. It might be called the “you can’t get there from here” law, to quote a New England expression. See my previous post for the details.

States with mandatory sidepath laws are shown in red in Dan Gutierrez's map

States with mandatory sidepath laws are shown in red in Dan Gutierrez's map

Mandatory sidepath laws, as far as I can determine, now are on the books in only 7 states: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah and West Virginia. All except for Oregon require the path to be usable; the Oregon law has been explained to me as not actually having any effect, because government agencies will not take on the legal burden of having to defend paths as being safe.

Some of the laws have additional limitations on where path use can be made mandatory. See comments below. The boldface is mine.


Section 32-5A-263
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

(c) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.


Note discretionary application, and design standard and destination accessibility requirement for the paths.

O.C.G.A. 40-6-294 (2010)

40-6-294. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths

(c) Whenever a usable path has been provided adjacent to a roadway and designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders, then the appropriate governing authority may require that bicycle riders use such path and not use those sections of the roadway so specified by such local governing authority. The governing authority may be petitioned to remove restrictions upon demonstration that the path has become inadequate due to capacity, maintenance, or other causes.

(d) Paths subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this Code section shall at a minimum be required to meet accepted guidelines, recommendations, and criteria with respect to planning, design, operation, and maintenance as set forth by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and such paths shall provide accessibility to destinations equivalent to the use of the roadway.


(d) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.


60-6,317. Bicycles on roadways and bicycle paths; general rules; regulation by local authority.

(3) Except as provided in section 60-6,142, whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a highway, a person operating a bicycle shall use such path and shall not use such highway.


My understanding, based on a sicussion with former Oregon state bicycle coordinator Michael Ronkin, is that this law is never enforced, because state and local authorities will not risk ruling that a path is suitable.

814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.


Note that this applies only where signs have been posted directing bicyclists to use a path.

41-6a-1105. Operation of bicycle or moped on and use of roadway — Duties, prohibitions.

(4) If a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may be directed by a traffic-control device to use the path and not the roadway.

West Virginia

§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

(c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.

Examples of Sidepaths in National Parks

A commenter on the Washcycle blog where I first read of the mandatory sidepath provision in the Transportation Bill had the following to say:

In most parts of the country NPS, BLM and other stewards of Federal land are the furthest things imaginable from builders of bike paths

It only takes a little research to prove that statement incorrect.

Consider the Cape Cod National Seashore.

I happen to have posted an article with photos of the Province Lands paths (near the tip of the Cape), so you can see what kind of path we’re talking about here.

The Nauset path near the south end of the park also parallels a road. These paths in the National Seashore were built long ago to a very low design standard. Roads paralleling these paths now have Share the Road signs, reflecting the reality that many bicyclists prefer to ride on them. The roads also are more direct, and serve some trip generators which the paths do not. With the proposed law, the NPS would have to take these signs down and replace them with bicycle prohibition signs, and the park rangers would have to busy themselves with chasing bicyclists off these roads, reflecting a prohibition which is inconsistent with traffic law elsewhere in Massachusetts.

More examples:

Yosemite National Park

Valley Forge National Historical Park

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge

Grand Teton National Park:

And quite a number more, I’m sure. Just search under the activity “Biking” on the page

Transportation Bill Includes Draconian Mandatory Sidepath Provision

Concerning the transportation bill currently making its way through the U. S. Senate committee process, please see this analysis on the Washcycle blog.

The bill has adverse effects on funding, and also it contains the most draconian mandatory sidepath provision I’ve ever seen. Get-bikes-off-the road provisions like this one were deleted from the laws of most states which had them in the 1970s. This is on Page 226 of the bill:

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.­The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

The Washcycle comments on this:

Even if the trail is in very bad shape, and the road is perfectly safe, the Secretary will have no leeway to allow cyclists to continue to use the road if a trail is available. This is very bad policy. Among other things it would end biking on portions of the Rock Creek Parkway where the speed limit is 35 mph.

Note that this applies not only to roads in parks but to any Federally-owned road. If there’s a trail within 100 years of a road, then to get to a destination on the other side of the road this law would require you to lug your bicycle through some environmentally-sensitive area in a National Park, or through private property, or swim across a river. If the trail is covered with snow but the road is clear, you would still have to use the trail. The legislation does not even state that the trail has to serve the same destinations as the road, or refer to any standards for design, etc. Excuse me. The conclusion the states reached in the 1970s is based on a simple principle: let bicyclists decide. If the trail is better than the road, they will use it.

Furthermore, the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over traffic laws. The states do. The predictable outcome is dozens of court battles which will be an embarrassment to the Congress. There also is liability exposure in restricting bicyclists to a substandard path.

I am sending a version of this message to my Senators, John Kerry (D-MA) and Scott Brown (R-MA). Both, by the way, are avid bicyclists.

All I see in the America Bikes document about the bill is about funding. I want confirmation that the lobbyists all of the America Bikes member organizations are working to have this provision deleted. I am a member of three of these organizations: the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals, the League of American Bicyclists and the Adventure Cycling Association, and I need to know that they are supporting my interests. And, as a member of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) task force currently working on revisions to the Uniform Vehicle Code, I am especially concerned about this provision.

When the marketing department plays traffic engineer

The photo shows “Cycle Lane” raised barriers, from the company Traffic Logix, on Long Island, New York, USA.

Traffic Logix Cycle Lane raised barrier

Traffic Logix Cycle Lane raised barrier

Here’s a quote from a page on the company’s Web site promoting  the barriers.

CycleLane is a smart, safe solution that provides a visual separation between vehicle and bicycle lanes. It ensures clear separation of traffic, with a unique sloped profile to prevent vehicles from entering the bike lane. The side adjacent to the vehicle lane has a high profile while the side parallel to the bike lane has a lower profile to divert bicyclists away from traffic and back into the bike lane.

Whoever wrote this evidently is not familiar with the physical concepts of center of mass or coefficient of friction. This device is a tripping hazard. A bicyclist who strays into it will not divert away from traffic, but instead will topple over into the next lane. There also is the possibility of a stopping-type incident with over-the-handlebars ejection when a bicyclist’s front wheel strikes the end of one of these barriers.

The barriers also are shown so tightly spaced that a bicyclist cannot merge into or out of the bike lane.

For these reasons, the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, section 9C.02 says the following:

10 Posts or raised pavement markers should not be used to separate bicycle lanes from adjacent travel lanes.


11 Using raised devices creates a collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist. In addition, raised devices can prevent vehicles turning right from merging with the bicycle lane, which is the preferred method for making the right turn. Raised devices used to define a bicycle lane can also cause problems in cleaning and maintaining the bicycle lane.

The product is almost beyond belief; its design leaves the manufacturer wide open to liability lawsuits when bicyclists are injured or killed. The promotion could place frosting on that ugly cake, with claims of false advertising.

Still, this is only the most extreme example I’ve seen of ill-conceived, or at best, untested and unproven, marketing-driven purported safety measures targeted toward bicyclists. Some, like this one, are products, but others are design treatments which create the perception of safety without necessarily increasing actual safety.