Tag Archives: motor vehicle

Michael Colville’s Pitch

About the video here by Mikael Colville of copenhagenize.com:

Mikael Colville’s talk in the video is introduced by a video clip of a rather sorry infrastructure situation, with a crowd of bicyclists slowly making their way forward, cramped in a narrow passage to the right of an opaque barrier, while a line of cars turning right must yield to the cyclists after turning past the barrier. To me, this choice of a clip conveys the message “look, we are morally superior, motorist, we’re going to make it hard for you: you have to yield to us.” It doesn’t say anything about making bicycling more convenient, or anything but a nuisance to people who might think of switching from motoring. Or that whoever chose this location had any other sense about infrastructure — certainly none about sight line hazards.

And the music — the Rolling Stones’ Sympathy for the Devil! Now there’s an odd choice!

Similarly, at the end, there is an overhead drone shot of a bridge which has recently been restriped from four to two lanes of motor traffic, to add street level bike lanes next to already existing bikeways behind curbs. The implication is that bicyclists are winning by taking space away from motorists, and that space is to struggle over, not to share. In this case, on a bridge, I’d agree that bike lanes are suitable, but are four needed? What happens where they turn off at the end of the bridge while motor vehicles can go straight? We don’t see. Who knows?

The talk is all about marketing. The core of his message is that guilt-tripping people about environmentalism doesn’t work, and we must use marketing to make bicycling look attractive. Two products which Colville discusses for purposes of comparison, sewing machines and vacuum cleaners, are both highly useful labor-saving devices which quickly became popular for that reason, but he doesn’t mention that. He does praise improvements which made them more compact and useful in the home, but mostly, he praises the decorations on sewing machines which made them more attractive to homemakers.

My mother owned a Singer treadle sewing machine, and indeed it was a beautiful product — to some degree because of the flower stencils but also because of its elegant product design, with a table to hold supplies and attachments, and into which the machine could be folded down to make the table useful when the machine wasn’t in use. Treadle power was perfect for the pre-electrical era, and the wheel on the right end of the machine could start, slow or stop it with precision. Not to speak of my mother’s machine’s being several decades old and still working perfectly.

My mother also owned a 1950-ish Kenmore (Sears brand, made by Electrolux) vacuum cleaner, and it was an esthetic horror, shaped like an airplane fuselage, painted dull gray and very loud. She made much more use of the vacuum cleaner than of the sewing machine.

Colville says that we must market bicycling like these products. He deprecates “the 1%” of people who will wear fancy cycling clothing” — guilt by association with political class struggle, divisive, and also a reference to the categorization which Roger Geller made up, pulling the numbers out of his head, only to be followed up by a home-town study which found that his numbers were exactly right (surprise!).

Colville says that people are conservative and don’t want to stand out. But, tattoos peek out from under his plain white T shirt.

I don’t think that bicycling can be sold by marketing alone. It must be practical and useful like a sewing machine or vacuum cleaner, or people won’t use it for daily transportation. Though some people like to show off with Spandex and carbon fiber bikes, others wear street clothes and ride beater bikes. Some do both. Should instructors even care? We make bicycling more practical for any cyclists by helping them to do it well — and offering informed opinions on what works, or not, in bicycle planning and infrastructure.

Duck Boat crashes

We had a duck boat run into a motor scooter from behind on Saturday, May 7, 2016 in Boston, killing one of the riders. It isn’t clear from the news story why this happened, though I expect that the poor forward visibility from the duck boat was a factor. Did the motor scooter operator pull ahead of the duck boat, riding and stopping in its large blind spots? Or did the duck boat operator run into the back of the motor scooter in spite of its being in hiss field of view? As usual with crashes involving two-wheelers — bicycle, motor scooters, motorcycles — and despite there having been many eyewitnesses, the Boston Globe offers no information as to the cause of the crash. Investigation is underway, although if it proceeds as with recent bicycle crashes, detailed results may not be made available for a long time, if at all.

Another duck boat crash occurred in Seattle, 5 killed, 62 injured — but that one was due to failure of an axle, which sent the duck boat into the side of a bus in an oncoming lane of traffic.

What is to be learned from these crashes?

For one thing, the duck boats are surplus from the Second World War. Though they served gallantly in that war, they are over 70 years old now: mechanical failures are not out of the question. The duck boats’ design as amphibious vehicles placed the driver high above the road over a high hood, with poor visibility to the front — a problem which has led to fatalities of pedestrians in crosswalks with large trucks. The duck boats do not have a front bumper, but instead, have a hull which can push unfortunate pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles underneath. These vehicles probably would not be legal, except that they are antiques.

Another issue with the Boston crash may be of education. Did the motor scooter driver not understand the peril of riding in blindspots of large vehicles? Boston is relentlessly installing bicycle facilities which direct bicyclists to ride into blindspots. It does not appear that the collision involved any such installation, but motor scooter operators are permitted under the law to use them, and their existence, along with a lack of instruction as to their perils, contributes to hazardous behavior elsewhere as well.

In the context of all these issues, my misgivings about the Vision Zero campaign described in the Boston Globe on April 17 need no further mention.

Lane Control on Lexington Street

Here’s a video showing a bicycle ride on a constant mile-long upslope, at speeds of 10 to 12 miles per hour (16 to 20 km/h), on a suburban 4-lane speedway with narrow lanes and no shoulders, the most challenging street in the community where I live. Motor taffic was very light, and auite fast. Points made:

  • Lane control is not about riding fast: it is about controlling one’s space.
  • Lane control is necessary so motorists will overtake at a safe lateral distance on a street with a narrow right-hand lane.
  • By requiring motorists to make full lane change, lane control lets a cyclist with a rear-view mirror confirm well in advance that motorists will overtake with a safe lateral distance.
  • With the light traffic on a multi-lane street, a slow bicyclist does not cause any significant delay to motorists.
  • Most motorists are cooperative.
  • A few motorists are abusive — even though they can easily overtake in the next lane —  but they too overtake safely.
  • American traffic law supports lane control.

Lane Control on Lexington Street from John Allen on Vimeo.

A Cyclist Signs Up for Advanced Driver Training

What was an avid cyclist doing in a place like this?

I like to ride my bicycle but sometimes I have to drive.

Over 40 years ago on dirt roads and snow in Vermont, I learned to steer into a turn; to manage the situation when a car loses traction, rather than to blank out or panic.

I shot the video above recently, in a class with hands-on driver training which goes well beyond that. All of the instructors are racers. They test the limits of traction at every turn on the racecourse. But here, they are teaching skills for crash avoidance on the road.

My son took the class with me. He had taken a conventional driver training course and already had his driver’s license, but he had no experience handling a car at the limits of traction.

The InControl course begins with a classroom lecture. Our instructor, Jeremy, explained that driver training is broken in the USA: that over 40% of new drivers have a crash within the first two years; 93% of crashes result from driver error and so, are preventable. He also explained that he would be teaching about steering, braking, hazard perception and avoidance.

Jeremy handed a quiz sheet with 16 questions to check off, true or false. We were told to hold onto our quiz sheets because we would review them later.

The most compelling part of the course is the hands-on practice. It is conducted under safe conditions on a closed course, in a huge, empty parking lot, in cars with a low center of gravity; an instructor is always in the car. As shown in the video, we did the slalom — at first with an instructor driving; then each student took a turn driving. We learned how great the effect of small increases in speed can be on the ability to maneuver. We practiced emergency stops, then swerving while braking; we had the backing demonstration and the tailgating test, as shown in the video.

To learn how to anticipate potential hazards takes time, and experience. The InControl class can discuss this but not teach this. A driving simulator like the ones used to train airline pilots would help to build that experience under risk-free conditions. Video gaming technology is approaching the level that it could do this at a relatively low price. Computers are up to the task, but they would need multiple visual displays and a special “driver’s seat” controller. Lacking that technology, I have traveled many miles with my son, both as a driver and as a passenger, coaching him. His many more miles of experience stoking our tandem bicycle were a fine lead-in.

What did I learn in this class, with my nearly 50 years of experience as a licensed driver? Several things of importance — among them:

  • Despite my decades of experience, I answered several questions on the quiz incorrectly. I’m not going to provide a crib sheet– go take the course.
  • There is a very significant advantage to having different tires for summer and winter use, due not only to snow but also to temperature difference. Winter tires have “sipes” — small grooves –to develop a “snowball effect” — actually picking up snow so it will adhere to other snow, and improving traction. Tires should be replaced when tread is still twice the height of the wear bars.
  • Side-view mirrors should be adjusted wider than I had been accustomed to — so their field of view starts where the windshield mirror’s field of view ends.
  • The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s standards for a 5-star safety rating are lower for SUVs than for passenger cars, as a result of industry lobbying (Any surprise?)
  • Importantly, that antilock brakes do more than allow shorter stops. They allow steering during emergency braking, and we practiced this as shown in the video.
  • Most importantly, to me as a cycling instructor, that learning to manage risks is essentially the same for bicycling as for driving a car. The attitude is the same, and hazard recognition and avoidance are similar. One important difference is that a well-trained cyclist’s brain is the antilock braking controller on a bicycle.

As I write this today, my son has driven himself to his classes at the local community college 12 miles away. Like any parent, I cross my fingers every time he goes out the driveway, but I am pleased to report that he has is cautious and calm as a driver and that his driving inspires confidence, with exceptions at a very few times.

I wish he didn’t have to drive. I don’t like the environmental burden it imposes, and I don’t like the risk. If public transportation were at all reasonable, he would be using it. If the college were half as far away, he’d be riding his bicycle at least on days with good weather. For now, his getting a college education wins out over those concerns…

Six categories of bicyclist/motorist interaction

Let me propose six different categories of cyclist and motorist interaction. This is a first try, so it’s open to modification.

1) Vehicular — to quote John Forester, who developed the concept of vehicular cycling, “bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.” In vehicular interactions, bicyclists and motorists alike use lane positions as described in the traffic law for vehicles, and reach those positions by merging. Purely vehicular operation  is, however,  to an extent a red herring category, because nobody, Forester included, has ever claimed that bicyclists can merge across heavy, high speed motor traffic.

2) Mostly vehicular, but with greater recognition that high-speed motoring is more compatible with bicycling if there is width for motorists to overtake without having to merge, and that bicyclists (including operators of motorized bicycles and mopeds) can’t manage to merge on roadways with high speeds and heavy traffic, making special treatments appropriate in some cases.

3) Motorists may merge across designated bike lanes. Bicyclists travel these lanes, stop for traffic lights and stop signs, but are  are (in theory) not required to merge into or across motor traffic.  In theory, because double-parked vehicles, people getting out of parked cars, slower bicyclists etc. often require bicyclists to merge out of a bike lane anyway.

4)  Neither bicyclists nor motorists merge. They only cross each other’s paths by making crossing and turning movements at designated locations. Essentially, bicyclists are treated as pedestrians. Motorists must yield to bicyclists as they do to pedestrians, and bicyclists must slow and stop as needed so motorists have time to yield. This is the typical treatment where a designated multi-use path crosses a road.

5)  Motorists must drive at pedestrian speed or come to a complete stop to avoid collisions with bicyclists they can not see, but there are special signs or markings to make motorists “aware of bicyclists”. — meaning, “aware that there might be a bicyclist.” Examples: bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes, bike boxes, blind entrances from driveways where conflict zones are indicated by colored paint, signs etc.

6) ) Motorists are required to drive at pedestrian speed or come to a complete stop to avoid collisions with bicyclists they can not see, but there are no special signs or markings to make motorists “aware of bicyclists”. Example: “shared space” plazas where direction of travel is not defined by curbs or lane lines, and traffic may travel in any direction.

These categories are in order of decreasing demands placed on bicyclists until we get to the last two, where the demands placed on motorists become excessive and so bicyclists must anticipate more motorist mistakes.

These categories also are in order of decreased efficiency of use of roadway space and of increased travel time.

As to safety, that depends on behavior, but  there is a tradeoff of safety against efficiency with all of these.

Street Traffic Regulations: classic book online

My friend Bob Shanteau writes:

Another reason scofflaws give [to justify their behavior] is that traffic laws are intended only for motorists, reflecting a total ignorance of the origins of those laws.

Google has made the 1909 book “Street Traffic Regulation” by William Phelps Eno available online.

This book makes it clear that the first rules of the road preceded the dominance of the streets by motor vehicles. The behavior of … scofflaw cyclists now closely mirrors the behavior by all road users that Eno observed in the early 1900’s, leading to the need for street traffic regulation in the first place. He focused his efforts on education about his proposed rules of the road. That education is what the bicycle scofflaws of today sorely lack.

Idaho special bicycle laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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