Cyclist Richard Moeur stars in this video comparing the time it takes to cross the same intersection as a rolling pedestrian, or as a vehicle operator. A light rail train, a homeless person and a number of motor vehicles also make appearances. Popcorn time…well, actually it only runs for 5 minutes.

My comments:

In the Executive Summary:

The report says:

Conflicts are common on facilities where a motorist must cross a bicycle lane in order to access a right turn bay and where highway exit ramps cross major arterials that have a bicycle lane.

A conflict is a situation in which one road user must take abrupt action to avoid a collision with another. Colored markings are sometimes used to mitigate the problems with what can accurately be described as conflict zones: zones where unusual yielding rules apply, where sanctioned movements require looking in unusual directions, and/or where sight lines are restricted.

On the other hand, colored markings are sometimes used in what I would describe as merge zones, or crosswalks, or bike lane extensions across ramps — places where the motorist or bicyclist must yield right of way according to normal rules, with no unusual impediments.

In other reports, the researchers have describe route choices as “avoidance maneuvers” and merges into an adjacent lane as “encroachments”. Here, they elevate normal traffic maneuvers to “conflicts.” Conflicts may indeed sometimes occur during normal traffic maneuvers, as a result of mistakes in driving, but that doesn’t elevate the locations of these conflicts into “conflict zones”.

Examples of both normal traffic movements and conflict-generating ones are discussed in this report. The distinction deserves to be made clear.

All in all, the researchers’ repeated use of terms describing hazardous and unlawful maneuvers to describe normal and reasonably safe maneuvers raises serious questions about their understanding of the traffic laws, and traffic operation.

Quoting again:

For this study, safety was defined along the following lines:

1. the bicyclist used the bicycle lane to approach the conflict area,
2. the bicyclist used the bicycle lane to negotiate the conflict area,
3. the motorist yielded to the bicyclist when crossing the colored lane area, and
4. the motorist used a turn signal when crossing the conflict area.

Only the last two of these four criteria relate clearly to safety. Whether the first two do depends on whether the markings are properly located considering traffic conditions at the time and place.

To ensure that the data collected reflects the effectiveness of the treatment alone, no educational or outreach campaign was conducted.

This issue poses a legitimate quandary. Markings must be understood to be effective. The colored paint here is between ordinary bike lane markings, and that makes their intention clearer. Still, it would have made the most sense to compare the effectiveness of the markings without, and then with, an educational campaign.

However, the colored paint in this study was accompanied by installation of “yield to bikes” signs, which produced a similar conflation of results as an education campaign would. There was no phased installation, and so it can not be determined to what extent the change in behavior resulted from the signs or from the paint.

In the section Background:

Figure 1 in the report shows a situation in which bicyclists taking the route shown have to yield to motorists in the interest of safety, due to a restricted sight line, and not to defeat the purpose of the on-ramp in allowing motorists to accelerate into the flow of traffic. Instead, the motorists are required to yield to the bicyclists, as at a crosswalk.

Research in the U.K. (reported to me by John Franklin) has shown a problem with fatal collisions between motorists entering from high-speed ramps — looking back to merge into traffic — and bicyclists who continue in the normal through-travel lane position. I will not condemn the routing shown — but for the reasons I have given, it does require bicyclists to yield.

In the photo, I also note that there is a sidewalk, but there are no crosswalk markings. What expectations does this treatment create, in connection with the bold bike lane markings? That motorists should stop and look only upon reaching the bike lane? That pedestrians should use the bike lane as a crosswalk?

In the section Site Descriptions

Figure 4 — shows that all of the three lanes on Dean Keeton cross ramps at a very low angle, worsening sight conditions for bicyclists and greatly increasing their crossing times. Compare with the crossing on Naito Boulevard in Portland, Oregon — which has other issues but which crosses at a right angle.

Figure 7 — This shows a more conventional vehicular routing of bicyclists, straight through to the left of an off-ramp. I find it odd that the green paint begins partway into the merge zone rather than at its start.

In the section Experimental Design

The same four criteria for safety are repeated, and again, only the last two relate directly to safety. It could be argued, for example, that at least the slower and more timid bicyclists are safer riding down the right side of the ramp on San Jacinto Boulevard, turning left and yielding to motorists. As motorists are generally traveling faster than bicyclists and approaching from behind, it can be argued that the last criterion givwen, motorist used turn signal, is irrelevant, because bicyclists would not see the signal. An actual measurement of safety would require counting conflicts, in the usual meaning of the term — abrupt braking or swerving either by a bicyclist or by a motorist.

In the section Terminology

The definitions here are generally good, including, this time, a correct definition of “conflict”. However:

If the motorist accelerated to cut off the bicyclist while the bicyclist was in the conflict area or the bicyclist yielded to the car during a yielding event, the yielding event was not described as ‘car yielded to bicyclist’.

The incorrect term ‘conflict area” is used inside the definition of “yielding event”, and there are not separate categories for motorists cutting off bicyclists, and bicyclists yielding to motorists. Not every motor vehicle is a car.

Illegal event – An event was recorded as illegal if the bicyclist acted in a way that qualified as an event, but also acted illegally or very unsafely.

What if the motorist acted illegally?

In the section Results

Tables 1 and 2 show very little difference in bicyclists’ behavior.

Tables 3 and 4 show an increase in yielding behavior and turn signal use by motorists, but the sample size is very small. Note that yielding at the facilities provided is different from that on San Jacinto Boulevard, because motorists are required to slow or stop in order to yield, rather than only to time a merge. At the on-ramps, there is only one way to go, and at off ramps, motorists are coming from behind bicyclists and supposed to yield to them, so it is unclear to me just what the use of turn signals achieves for bicyclists, Signals are, however, useful when merging from the ramps into faster traffic.

The remaining tables show mixed results and minor differences in behavior, generally somewhat improved except for Table 9, which shows a steep reduction in motorist yielding behavior but with an extremely small sample size.

In the section Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions in favor of the painting appear overstated to me, and particularly in the light of installation of signs at the same time.

References:

None of the four references is directly to a study of a similar treatment — three of the four relate to generalities about what encourages people to ride bicycles and one is about integrating bicyclists into a pedestrian campus. That is a bit surprising because a study of colored lanes, the Portland blue lane study,

(FHWA version); (Version on Portland, Oregon site)

has not only been published but also is referred to in the text of the report. (page 8, second paragraph). Considering the number of European countries referred to in the Austin report, I would not be surprised if European studies also exist.

All in all, I consider this a useful report, though it has serious weaknesses. The finding that the BMUFL sign improved motorist behavior is encouraging, though the improvement was not as great as to be hoped.

That many bicyclists did not take advantage of the signage is to be expected, for three reasons which I can discern:

• many are fearful of riding on roads with narrow lanes in any case;
• there was no educational campaign; and also,
• the signs are primarily directed at motorists.

It is not surprising that the shared-lane marking study conducted at the same time as this study (and which I also have reviewed) showed more success in changing cyclists’ behavior, because shared-lane markings are directed at bicyclists.

I would venture that wide acceptance of cycling on narrow urban roadways requires education; also, particularly for child cyclists, diversion of through motor traffic to other roadways using a “bicycle boulevard” approach like that in Berkeley, California. I would be most interested to see this tested in Austin, which, like Berkeley, has a street grid amenable to such treatment.

In the executive summary, I note the following:

Additionally, safe motorist behavior was defined by two factors: (1) motorists gave adequate space to bicyclists when passing and (2) motorists did not encroach on adjacent lanes when passing.

I can’t make sense of this. That is to say, it is hopelessly confused. The lanes in this study are 11 feet wide, too narrow for a bicyclist and motorist to share safely side by side. If a lane is too narrow to share, then motorists can only overtake safely by merging their vehicles partly or completely into the next lane. Where it is legal to merge into the next lane, as on both streets where the experiment was conducted (four-lane two-way streets), then merging is not “encroaching.”

In the section on Experimental Design, I note that the lateral position of bicyclists was measured at their wheel track, and that of motorists, at the right side of the vehicle’s right-side wheels — see Figure 9 in the report. This measurement is meaningless. Bicyclists’ handlebars extend as much as 12 inches either side of the wheel track, and motorists’ rear-view mirrors may extend several inches to the right of the wheels, and more for large trucks and buses.

In the list of definitions, the term “avoidance maneuver” is used incorrectly, as it is in the bike box report, which I also have reviewed:

Avoidance maneuver An avoidance maneuver was recorded whenever a bicyclist rode outside of the lane (e.g. rode on the sidewalk or cut through a driveway to turn).

This is a choice of route, not an avoidance maneuver, which is an emergency maneuver to avoid a collision.

There are other confused definitions:

Incomplete passing event – An incomplete passing event was recorded when the motorist passed a bicyclist without changing lanes.

This is an in-lane pass, not an incomplete pass. An incomplete pass would occur if a motorist initiates a pass and then decides not to pass.

Encroachment – Encroachment was recorded when a passing motorist occupied two lanes while passing.

This is not encroachment, as already mentioned. It is a straddle pass, as defined and named accurately by Dan Gutierrez and Brian DeSousa, see citation below.

In the section on Results –

The bicyclists’ change in lane position is statistically significant due to the large number of data points. In spite of what the report says, it is operationally insignificant, amounting to only three or four inches. The change in clearance between motor vehicles and bicyclists due to motorists’ different position, on the other hand, is significant both statistically and operationally. (But do remember, the bicyclists’ position is measured at the wheel track, and the motorists’, at the right side of the right-side wheels. Actual clearances are smaller than those described in the report by about 1 1/2 feet. That makes the differences more significant operationally.)

Accounting for this, motorist lateral clearances from the curb and from bicyclists during passing events (Figures 12 and 13) are scary indeed. Clearances following installation of the signs are not as tight, though they also could be greater. Bicyclists’ not claiming the lane invites the close passes.

Quoting:

Regarding motorist behavior, it is interesting to note that the ratio of passing events to non-passing events decreased significantly, while the proportion of passing motorists who encroached while passing increased. These results lend themselves to the hypothesis that as bicyclists took a stronger position in the lane, the motorists who did choose to pass found themselves taking a stronger position in the lane that caused them to encroach on the adjacent lane.

In spite of the incorrect terminology, this result confirms the result of Gutierrez and DeSousa’s research (see citation below)..

And quoting again:

Regarding bicyclist behavior, the implementation of the “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs did not discourage sidewalk riding. It is uncertain whether the bicyclists who avoid the motor vehicle lane are regular commuters and recreational bicyclists who prefer to ride outside of the motor vehicle lane or if they are simply neighborhood children or inexperienced bicyclists. Regardless of their experience level, it appears that the addition of signs did not significantly change the proportion of bicyclists who use the motor vehicle lane.

The data analysis could not identify different categories of adult cyclists but I don’t see why it couldn’t identify children. The researchers use more incorrect terminology, extremely obtuse at that. How is a lane with signs indicating “Bicycle may use full lane” a “motor vehicle lane”?

The finding that cycling on sidewalks increased greatly after installation of the signs on Cesar Chavez boulevard begs for an explanation. I don’t see how installation of the signs would affect this one way or another.

In the section Conclusions and Recommendations:

I quote:

It should be noted that encroachment is only dangerous when there are vehicles present in the adjacent lane, and this study did not note whether or not this was the case.

What is being described is normal changing lanes to overtake a slower vehicle. It is being described as dangerous and as encroachment. This is bizarre.

In the section on References:

None of the references is to another study of the BMUFL sign, as this is the first one. However, Gutierrez and DeSousa’s study of overtaking clearance deserves attention as a study of the effect of bicyclist lateral position. These researchers also developed the accurate and values-neutral terminology, in-lane pass, straddle pass, lane-change pass, which compares very favorably with the confused terminology of the Austin report..

Driver behavior is riding a bicycle according to the ordinary rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. A quick way to describe this is to say that the bicyclist rides like a motorcyclist, but is more often traveling more slowly than other traffic. Like a motorcycle, a bicycle does not occupy the full width of a travel lane. The bicyclist chooses position in a lane depending on travel speed and destination, generally leaving room for other vehicles to pass in the same lane if it is wide enough, but “claiming” the lane — riding in the middle or toward the left side, if it is too narrow to share. The bicyclist changes lane position by merging and negotiating with other vehicle operators. Like other traffic, the bicyclist merges to an appropriate lane position on approaching an intersection.

In edge behavior, the bicyclist keeps to the right side of the roadway except where special provisions have been made to cross. Edge behavior is similar to what is expected of pedestrians on sidewalks. This is the Copenhagen or Dutch model, which treats bicyclists as being rolling pedestrians instead of vehicle drivers.

Driver behavior makes for smoother and more predictable interaction when bicyclists or other drivers are crossing or turning, but more commonly requires motorists to merge left to overtake, and sometimes to slow and follow a bicyclist until a safe opportunity for overtaking presents itself. Edge behavior, on the other hand, more usually allows motorists to overtake bicyclists without merging or waiting, but often places motorists and bicyclists in conflict with one another and out of sight of each other when crossing and turning. Edge behavior also leads to conflicts with pedestrians and with opening doors of parked vehicles.

Bike boxes and edge behavior: The most usual kind of bike box, which I call the “inline bike box” attempts to accommodate bicyclists who are riding along the edge of the roadway, typically in a bike lane, and who intend to continue straight ahead or turn left. This is the type of bike box which the Austin report discusses. Bicyclists overtake on the right of motor vehicles stopped at a traffic signal, pass the first waiting motor vehicle on the right, and swerve left in front of it into the bike box to wait for the signal to change to green.

For a detailed description of bike boxes, I direct you to James Mackay’s comments about American bike box installations and my comments about bike boxes in general.

I’ll make comments on some details of the Austin report, and then I will make a more general statement.

I think that the report fundamentally misconstrues the intent of bike boxes by describing it as safety improvement. So does the Transportation Research Board announcement, in describing the bike box as a cure for the “right hook” — a motorist’s turning right across the path of a bicyclist. The bike box does nothing to prevent the “right hook” when the traffic signal is green — this video shows why not. Not the bike box, but rather, a prohibition on right turns on red, prevents the “right hook” when the signal is red. Right turn on red must be prohibited in order for bicyclists to enter into the bike box, but it also can exist without a bike box. The bike box poses the risk of other types of collisions, as shown on my Web page previously cited. The bike box probably does reduce the risk of “left cross” collisions — when motorists turn left across the path of bicyclists — by placing bicyclists in view of the left-turning motorists — but bicyclists also can do that for themselves without a bike box, by avoiding overtaking on the right.

The intent of a bike box is not safety. It is to accommodate large volumes of bicyclists when motor traffic backs up at an intersection, and to give bicyclists priority over the motorists. In order to accomplish this, the bike box overturns the fundamental principle of traffic operation of merging to an appropriate lane position before reaching an intersection. In that light, the safety of the bike box is open to question, and any improvements to safety must be evaluated in the context of

• whether the bike box is only legitimizing unsafe and unlawful behavior which occurred previous to its installation,
• whether appropriate and effective education, enforcement and engineering measures are in place to mitigate this problem,
• whether the bike box is creating new problems, and
• whether safety actually increases.

Following are my comments on specific sections of the Austin report:

Executive summary

Here’s the first paragraph of the report:

While Austin has a sizeable network of bicycle lanes, traditional bicycle facilities at intersections are often inadequate and can lead to unsafe interactions between motorists and bicyclists. One potential tool to alleviate this problem is the bicycle box. This device is intended to improve the predictability of bicyclist stopping position at an intersection by allowing bicyclists utilizing a bicycle lane to position themselves in front of motorists waiting at a red light. A bicyclist in this position is more visible to motorists and therefore less likely to be hit by a right-turning motorist. Typically, a “No Right Turn on Red” sign is installed at a bicycle box intersection to further prevent bicyclist-motorist collisions.

The report’s executive summary begins by broadly describing a problem with “traditional bicycle facilities”, without describing specifics, then goes on to state that the bike box may alleviate their problems. I infer this to mean that a bike lane that encourages bicyclists to overtake motorists on the right is unsafe, but bicyclists are more predictable and safer if they overtake motorists on the right and then also swerve across to the left in front of the motorists. Right turn on red must be prohibited, because that is unsafe. Nothing is said about what happens when a bicyclist swerves left just as a motorist is starting up on a new green.

Second paragraph, in part:

Safety was defined along the following lines:

1. The bicyclist used the bicycle lane to approach the intersection,
2. the bicyclist used the bicycle box after installation,
3. motorists did not encroach on the stop line or bicycle box,
4. the bicyclist departed the intersection before the motorist and
5. the bicyclist did not make an illegal movement, such as running a red light.

My comments:

1. Using the bike lane to approach the intersection does not define safety. Resulting crash types (right hook, left cross, bicycle-pedestrian collisions) are well-known. A bike lane may be more or less safe than approaching the intersection outside the bike lane, depending on traffic conditions, signal phase and the cyclist’s speed and caution.
2. Using the bike box does not define safety. Safety is defined by the crash rate, or lacking data on the crash rate, by potential for conflicts.
3. Motorist encroachment does not define (or undefine) safety, though it does indicate a problem with the bike box. Encroachment at different times has different outcomes — for example, encroachment when the traffic signal will remain red prevents entry into the bike box, but if the light is changing to green, it may lead to a collision. The report does not make this distinction.
4. The bicyclist’s departing the intersection first does not define safety. Note also that this mentions only one bicyclist and one motorist. If a crowd of bicyclists accumulates in a bike box and then several motorists must overtake later, is this safer than if the bicyclists waited in line with the motor traffic?
5. The bicyclist’s making an illegal movement does not define (or undefine) safety, though illegal movements are generally less safe than legal ones. Swerving left in front of a vehicle to use the bike box as intended is, however, an illegal movement, an issue which the report does not address.

Concerning the intersection of Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane, discussed in the report, here is the Google overhead view of the intersection, showing the bike box southbound on Shoal Creek Boulevard, no green carpet painting of the bike box yet and no bike lane leaving the intersection. The bike lane approaching the bike box is dashed, so there is a conflict between the premise that bicyclists should approach the intersection in the bike lane, and that motorists preparing to turn right should merge into the bike lane.

Google Maps shows bike lanes exiting the intersection of Speedway and 38th, as indicated later in the report. Cars are encroaching into both bike boxes.

This photo also was taken after bike boxes were installed and before they were carpet-painted.

One Google Street View photo shows bicyclists waiting at a traffic light ahead of a bus and properly claiming the lane, but it was taken before the bike box installation.

Background

• References would be useful so it is possible to locate some of the cited studies. Only one of the four references at the end of the document is a bike box study. Other studies, some of which are online and available to the public; are mentioned in the Background section but not cited.
• Also note that this section makes no claim of increased safety based on any of the studies mentioned. There are claims of increased perceived safety and of increased mode share.

Bike Box Detail

The bike box shown is eight feet deep. A bicyclist turning the corner around the right front of a truck with a high hood would not be visible. A typical bicycle is 7 feet long, so there is barely room for a bicyclist to enter the bike box and then steer straight ahead to continue along the street. “No right turn on red” signs were installed, but there is no mention of any of the other safety measures which Mr. Mackay describes (see citation near the start of this review) in connection with European facilities.

Shoal Creek Boulevard at Anderson Lane

The researchers hypothesized that the geometry of this intersection is ideal for a bicycle box because if bicyclists enter the intersection from the bicycle lane rather than from the bicycle box, they will be entering unsafe conditions when they reach the downstream side of the intersection where the lane narrows and a bicycle lane does not exist.

This presumes that bicyclists would otherwise be overtaking motorists on the right and then merging left along the edge of the roadway as it narrows after the intersection — “gutter bunny” behavior. Bicyclists also could merge into line with motorists before reaching the intersection, also avoiding “right hook” conflicts. In any case, the bike box would be usable only when the traffic signal is red. When it is green, bicyclists would either merge before reaching the bike box, or keep to the edge of the roadway over the entire distance. Other treatments which might be more effective here and would work in all signal phases would be a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane (since the road narrows down to one lane south of the intersection anyway) or shared-lane markings. Bicyclist education would help by reducing the amount of “gutter bunny” behavior.

Speedway at 38th

The posted speed limit is 25 mph and the observed hourly traffic volumes ranged from 150 vph to 250 vph in the afternoon.

These very low traffic volumes suggest a bicycle boulevard treatment; however, as Google Street View photos show, this is a bus route; Accommodating a bus route and a bicycle boulevard on the same narrow street could be difficult.

Experimental Design

Phase 2 was the installation of bicycle box markings at each location and videotaping the experimental conditions. The bicycle box at this time will often be referred to as “skeleton bicycle box”. Phase 3 was surveillance of the bicycle box and approaching bicycle lane after it was painted chartreuse with the bordering white lines and all markings kept intact.

The term “skeleton bicycle box” is loaded language, carrying the assumption that carpet painting is preferable.

The five definitions as in the executive summary, measures of behavior and not of safety, are listed here, except that (5) is somewhat different:

(5) the bicyclist does not make an avoidance maneuver or illegal movement.

Avoidance maneuvers, unlike the other definitions listed, do indicate a safety issue. Why not also ask whether motorists made avoidance maneuvers? But also, see the comments about terminology below.

Terminology

This section describes motorist encroachment into a bike lane, however, Texas law states that

To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Also, the bike lane stripe at Shoal Creek Boulevard and Anderson Lane is dashed, confirming that merging into the bike lane is intended. You can’t both be encouraging merging into the bike lane and at the same time calling it “encroachment.”

Avoidance Maneuver – An avoidance maneuver was recorded whenever a bicyclist rode outside of the lane (e.g. rode on the sidewalk or used a driveway instead of using the bicycle lane).

The researchers are confused in using the expression “avoidance maneuver” to describe taking a different route, using the sidewalk or a driveway. An avoidance maneuver is an abrupt, emergency maneuver to avoid a collision. See for example this video from Consumer Reports magazine.

Results

While only data observed during daylight hours was incorporated into the analysis, it is interesting to note that bicyclists riding at night were observed to stop in the motor vehicle lane significantly more frequently perhaps to increase their visibility to oncoming motorists.

More confused terminology: there is no “motor vehicle lane” — Texas has the standard exceptions to the “keep right” rule, and no mandatory bike lane law. The travel lane is open to all vehicular traffic including bicyclists.

The description of motorist stopping behavior at Shoal Creek and Anderson, with encroachment first decreasing and then increasing again, apparently due to habituation, makes the point that a bike box functions better when there are many bicyclists — it does not “scale down” with small numbers, because it increases motorist inconvenience. As a “set-aside” for a minority group, it breeds disrespect if it is not used.

Figure 8, bicyclist stopping position: note that most bicyclists stopped in the bike lane rather than swerving into the bike box, an effect that was even more pronounced after the carpet painting. The Portland bike box study arrived at the same finding.

With 50% encroachment by motorists at Speedway and 38th, the bike box can hardly be described as successful.

Bicyclist use of the travel lane decreased very substantially, and motorist “encroachment” into the bike lane decreased, to the degree that essentially all bicyclists were now approaching the intersection in the bike lane even when the traffic light was green, risking the right hook. The report does not distinguish between bicyclists arriving on the red and those arriving on the green — useful information, as the two situations are very different.

A bicyclist had the opportunity to access the bicycle box when a motorist did not encroach on the bicycle lane or stop line and there was no additional bicyclist blocking the bicycle box.

And this is the only time bicyclists entering the bike box were counted. Bicyclists waiting in the extension of the bike lane blocked entry to the bike box. This skews the results.

The results of this study show that bicycle boxes accompanied with “No Right Turn on Red” signs can improve the safety of bicyclists and motorists at intersections.

So, which of these measures increased the safety?

In any case, the study did not measure safety and it had only one measure of conflicts. At one intersection, it showed a substantial increase in red-light running by bicyclists, and a 50% rate of encroachment by motorists into the bike box. At Shoal Creek Boulevard, there was a high rate of motorist right turn on red despite the sign prohibiting it and despite the encouragement of bicyclists to overtake on the right.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section describes a rather long list of problems with the installations, and then recommends that they be duplicated elsewhere. I also find it unfortunate that, as I mentioned earlier, the report does not attempt to compare the installation of bike boxes with alternative treatments. Given the poor performance of the bike boxes, such a comparison is in order. One thing I do agree about is the need for an educational campaign, but on the other hand, education in how to use the bike box is inconsistent with usual traffic skills and traffic law, particularly in the case of bike boxes lacking the safety measures which Mr. Mackay has described.

All in all, this is a weak study which doesn’t produce the data to support its claim of increased safety, and which reveals several serious operational problems with the bike box installations, suggesting to me that another treatment would be preferable. The rates of noncompliance and unlawful actions by both motorists and bicyclists are so high that they would be regarded as indicating failure if the experiment were subjected to an unbiased evaluation.

Taking the discussion to another level –

However, there is another level to the discussion here. With the bike box, government is calling for a fundamental change in the paradigm of behavior by motorists and by bicyclists. Generally, calls for paradigm change come from the public, are spread by civil disobedience, and meet government resistance, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing. The history of the USA offers many examples, for example, our overthrowing British rule; the ending of slavery; the temperance movement and Prohibition; extension of the right to vote to women and to African-Americans in the South; the recent overturning of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule in the military services.

But with the bike box, government is in the unusual position of promoting actions contrary to its own laws. There is further dissonance in that — at the Speedway at 38th installation in any case — many if not most of the bicyclists are students at the same institution which employs the researchers who wrote this report.

The attempt is, then, being made by parts of government to overturn its own laws by promotion of roadway facilities which require unlawful operation, and which regard bicyclists no longer as vehicle operators, but instead as helpless and defenseless — capable only of following a designated route on the roadway, and of obeying traffic signals. Correspondingly, motorists are being asked to look out for bicyclists who are operating in ways contrary to the standard expectations of operation on the roadway according to the traffic law, and in some cases motorists are being asked to perform impossible tasks.

Bicycling advocacy of this type may also be seen as an attempt at a fait accompli, where the laws no longer can function given what has been installed, and as an attempt to build a constituency for a different paradigm by increasing the bicycle mode share.

The students at the University of Texas are young adults. They all are familiar with the rules of the road from riding in motor vehicles, and most hold driver’s license. On the other hand, without an educational effort, this knowledge does not transfer to their bicycling; typically, college students are either edge riders or don’t believe that bicyclists have to follow any rules of the road. They do not see themselves as drivers. Ironically, though, the student would be a captive audience for any serious attempt by the University to educate them in how to ride their bicycles safely.

The paradigm of bicyclists’ overtaking on the right, and of motorists’ having to look back on their right side before turning right, is deeply ingrained in northern Europe. It has existed since motor vehicles were rare, it is ensconced in law, and it is supported by strict motorist licensing and enforcement. Bike boxes are more recent in Europe, but they are often described as a way to legitimize edge behavior that already occurs with bike lanes: bicyclists’ filtering forward past stopped traffic and overtaking the first motor vehicle waiting at a traffic light. Safety benefits are claimed — in comparison with illegal filtering forward past the stop line when there is no bike box, rather than in comparison with obeying rules of the road for vehicular operation. Bicyclist crash rates in northern European cities are low, but fatal crashes show a predominance of right-hooks in which bicyclists are run over by large trucks, consistent with edge behavior, and with cyclists’ having no concept that they could actively prevent these collisions.

There are historical examples of traffic law paradigm changes. The most dramatic have been the changes from driving on the left to driving on the right in Sweden and Canada. These changes were all undertaken at once, overnight. Changes in law were put in place before those in infrastructure, and bolstered by education campaigns to reach the entire population. What we see instead here is a campaign that chips away at American traffic law and traffic patterns piecemeal, by introducing bits and pieces of European practice in a few places, (only two intersections in Austin), lacking European engineering measures, with no attention to the law and no education campaign, and in a background of motor vehicles’ dominance in the traffic mix. Failure is to be expected.

Aside from this, a paradigm which increases the number of classes of travelers following different sets of rules is bound to increase delay for one class or another, and to promote scofflaw behavior to avoid those delays, unless it has achieved nearly universal acceptance. The results of this study show an adverse outcome, particularly as regards motorists’ behavior. Considering bicyclists as victims, so that everyone except themselves is to look out for their safety, is appropriate for children, but it leads to a culture of arrested development by some, and of scofflaw behavior by others who are impatient with living with the inconvenience of children’s rules.

All in all, the Austin study demonstrates failure from an operational standpoint, but it has very little to say about safety, because no actual data on crashes, or even conflicts, was collected. Some data on conflicts might be retrieved from the video data, but data on crashes would require a much larger study.

Other critiques

There is a critique of the Austin report from Austin cyclist Tim Scarry online; also one by Portland, Maine cyclist John Brooking.

(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

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.

Alabama:

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.

Georgia

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.

Kansas

8-1590.
(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.

Nebraska

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.

Oregon

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.

Utah

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.

(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.

The League describes this as a compromise. It is a compromise with the National Park Service but more than that, it compromises cyclists’ right to travel — and our safety.

Safety depends to a very large degree on the characteristics of individual cyclists, who should be allowed to make up their own minds, or decide for their children, where to ride. A strong, fast adult cyclist is a very poor fit on a crowded path. Many paths in Federal lands are unsafe for children too. Here’s an example on the Province Lands paths in the Cape Cod National Seashore. The roads in this area now carry “share the roads” signs. The proposed legislation would require replacing them with signs prohibiting bicycling.

Descent and sand on the Province Lands path in the Cape Cod National Seasjhore, Massachusetts.

The photo gives you a taste of what the Province Lands paths are like. Family cyclists enter the trail innocently enough from a parking lot, and soon they are confronted with the scene in the photo. In a 1987 study, the National Park Service counted 106 bicycle crashes on the trails in the National Seashore, 11 in the parking lots and 4 on roads. Some of those roads, by the way, are part of a very popular bicycle touring route. It isn’t as if nobody rides bicycles on them. I have a Web a Web page giving more details.

I have prepared a video about these paths, so you can see for yourselves.

The wording also pays no attention whatever to cyclists’ travel needs, saying only that a path need only be within 100 yards of the road, and nothing about whether the path is much longer, or hillier, or serves the same destinations.

The wording isn’t really about safety. It is, as usual, about getting bicyclists off the road for the convenience of motorists. The wording is particularly blundering and insensitive, even for a mandatory sidepath law.

Cycling advocates have succeeded in having mandatory sidepath laws repealed, state by state, over the past few decades, generally after pointing out that prohibitions denied access and required riding on poorly maintained, unsafe paths. The laws that were repealed did generally include a requirement that a path at least be usable — in a sense, a level of service requirement for the path. A path might be slow, crowded with pedestrians, unsafe, hilly, much longer than the road, or deny access to some destinations, but at least it had to be usable. The Transportation Bill includes no such wording. A path could, for example, be heaped with the past winter’s snow and sand from the adjacent road, or awash with mud, or have a fallen tree across it, but the prohibition on cycling on the nearby road would still hold.

Here’s an example of an access issue. The Google map below shows Doane Road and the Nauset bicycle path in Eastham, Massachusetts. The path is the narrow, curvy line near the bottom of the image. There are a number of private residences and points of interest off Doane Road which would be totally denied access by bicycle, under the proposed legislation. Cyclists wishing to get to Nauset Road would have to take a long way around on the path, Tomahawk Trail and Macpherson Way. Or could they get there at all? Depends on the interpretation of the wording “adjacent” and “within 100 yards.”

View Larger Map

Would Doane Road meet the requirement for a Bicycle Level of Service B? That gets us into the issue of the Bicycle Level of Service, and of what a level of service is. There is no reference in the wording as to how Level of Service is to be measured, other than that the Secretary gets to make the call. The so-called Bicycle Level of Service which is probably intended, though not spelled out in the bill, is really only a comfort index, based on research which has been heavily criticized: video was shot with a stationary camera at the side of the road, then reviewed and rated on a TV screen. The comfort rating didn’t, then, account for either the presence or the speed of a cyclist. You may read about it here. The research also pays no attention to crossing and turning conflicts, or to travel time.

At present, Doane Road has a 30 mile per hour speed limit and share-the-road signs, as in the photo below taken on August 1, 2011.

Doane Road, Eastham, Massachusetts, August 1, 2011

To get a level of service B, you need to have bike lanes or shoulders on a road. So Doane Road is out unless the Secretary overrules the Bicycle Level of Service rating.

The bicycle ban in the Transportation Bill also directly contradicts Massachusetts state law.

Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section…

A similar problem exists in other states too. I leave it to lawyers to figure out which law rules.

Another cyclist comments on the Natchez Trace in Mississippi:

A place where I know this will affect riders is the Natchez Trace Parkway. There is a MUP [Multi-Use Path; the technical term is actually "shared-use path"] roughly paralleling about 10 miles of the Trace near Jackson, MS. At some points it is ‘adjacent’, but it is mostly in the woods 100 yds. away. There are 3 or 4 points where the trail can be accessed from the road. While the trail is in good condition, pedestrian users, grade, and winding nature make it unsuitable for fast riding.

The most ridiculous thing is that the Trace (which could not have a BLOS of B) is open for cycling along its entire 400+ miles. If this change goes into effect, cycling would only be prohibited on this section. I know it would be enforced. When I was being ticketed for riding abreast (and too far from the edge), the ranger suggested that if I didn’t feel safe riding near the edge of the roadway, I could
ride on the MUP.

This provision of law can’t stand. If it does pass, legislators who supported it don’t deserve cyclists’ votes, or those of anyone who has an understanding of the right of access.

Next week is the League’s annual Congressional lobbying event, the National Bicycle Summit. I hope that attendees give their members of Congress an earful about this.

You may read my earlier posts about the bike ban here and here.

Update: my next post on this blog“Mandatory sidepath laws, state by state”, gives the wording of the laws in the 7 states which still have them. All but one require the path to be usable, and that one is toothless.

If you click on the title in the image or caption, you can view this at a higher resolution.

Bikes, Cars, Light Rail, E. Jefferson St., Phoenix, Arizona from John Allen on Vimeo.

An intersection with light rail, motor vehicles and bike lanes requires bicyclists to cross from one side to the other of a multi-lane street, resulting in delays of 2 to 3 minutes. Alternative solutions are described.

Commercial Street is one lane wide and officially one-way, but it is heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists traveling in both directions, to the extent that motorists can only travel at a very low speed and often must stop. Bicyclists also must take special care, ride slowly and often stop. Some do and others do not. Pedestrians need to be alert to the hazards. Some are and others are not.

“Shared space” has become a buzzword among people who want to “return the street to the people,” meaning, in reality, make the street into a pedestrian plaza — a social space. Pedestrians, then, serve as obstacles to slow down faster modes. “Shared space” advocates regard this as a benefit, and point to a reduction in the rate of serious crashes. This reduction, however, results from the very low speeds at which travel is possible in such an environment. Even so, there are safety problems. Even cycling at a moderate speed is hazardous to pedestrians — and equally, to cyclists who collide with pedestrians. As the video shows, I had to ride slowly and cautiously to avoid colliding with several pedestrians who made sudden, unpredictable moves.

Another buzzword is “no rules”. Sure, pedestrians can bump into each other without usually causing injury. “Shared-space” advocates, however, often consider cyclists to be like pedestrians — a serious misconception. Cyclists traveling at their normal speed can socialize only with each other, and are antisocial, not social, in a pedestrian plaza. Safe sharing of “Shared space” requires cyclists to travel so slowly that there is little advantage over walking. Cyclists and motorists in “shared space” must pay strict attention to the basic speed rule, to go no faster than is safe under the conditions at the time and place. Violate this, knock a pedestrian down, and then hope that you have good insurance. Other rules apply, as well, in many “shared space” installations: yielding before entering the roadway; overtaking on the left; exclusions or limited hours for motor traffic.

The one rule that most cyclists disregard on Commercial Street is established by one-way signs. Cyclists disregard it for a particular reason: there is no comparable street which allows travel in the opposite direction. Bradford Street, one block farther from the harbor, is hilly and carries regular motor traffic. Commercial Street is the location of businesses which appeal to tourists who pile off the ferries from Boston, while Bradford Street has few such businesses.

What would improve the situation here? The first thing I would suggest is to block off the west (up-Cape) end of Commercial street where it separates from Bradford Street so motor vehicles can’t enter, and to install signs directing them to use Bradford Street. I think that many of the motorists who enter Commercial street are tourists who don’t know what they are getting into. If they used Bradford Street instead, they would get where they are going sooner, and would need to travel at most one or two blocks on Commercial street to reach any destination. It might also be helpful to sanction contraflow bicycle travel, and paint a dashed line down the middle of Commercial street to encourage keeping to the right. Moving parking off Commercial street also could help, especially in the few blocks near the center of Provincetown where traffic is heaviest. That could at the very least allow more room for pedestrians without their getting into conflict with cyclists and motorists. There is an abandoned rail line — partly on a lightly-used dead-end street, and paralleling much of Bradford Street and Commercial Street. It could carry the bicycle traffic heading in and out of town.

Beyond that, I don’t see much that can be done. Commercial Street is what it is, a quaint, narrow street like those in many European cities. Short of a horrible disaster — a huge storm or tsunami which would destroy the entire waterfront — Commercial Street isn’t going to get any wider.