Build it wrong, and you may have to spend as much money tearing it out as you did putting it in. This is not a new problem — it is the story of public housing developments of the 1950s, now being torn down; of a number of urban Interstate highways, and of recent road reconstruction as well — see the “money quote” at the end ofa post I wrote earlier today, on another blog.
Some people are going to say this won’t happen with today’s cycle tracks, but I predict that it will, for three fundamental reasons: most of them are poorly designed; robotic safety equipment in motor vehicles will make the only kind of crashes which they prevent, hit-from-behind crashes, a non-issue within 30 years; and mode shares will change, in some ways which are predictable, others not, so the paradigm of cars vs. bikes will then be not only unfair, but also obsolete, like a black/white segregated school system in a community which has experienced a wave of Hispanic and East Asian immigrants. The ascendancy of electrically assisted bicycles, already underway, is a step in that particular direction. Motor motor scooters, cargo tricycles, pedicabs…just ain’t gonna fit.
Patricia Kovacs, of Columbus, Ohio, has diligently recovered documents about a cycle track failure in that city in the 1980s, from the archive of the Lantern, the University of Ohio’s student newspaper,. She explains them as follows:
A cycle track was built on High Street for 11 blocks along the east side (business side of the street) of Ohio State University. This was a 4′ bike lane at street level, with a 3′ service island on the left of the bike lane. One of the articles of the day called it an 11 block bowling alley.On the west side of the street (campus side), a yellow line was painted in the middle of the sidewalk to separate the pedestrians from the “bike path” (this side at sidewalk level).
The cycle tracks were a failure. The 3′ service island did not prevent the cycle track from being used as a loading zone. The cycle track collected trash because the university, the city streets department and the city parks department pointed fingers at each other regarding who was responsible for maintenance. Nobody had a sweeper that would fit in the 4′ gutter. This area of campus has/had at least 3 bars on each block, and you can imagine the broken bottles on the weekends, especially during football season. The only good thing about this cycletrack is that it brought the local bike shops a lot of business patching flat tires.
The cycletrack on the west side was a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. There might have been signage or pavement markings to indicate the “bike path”, but everyone ignored it. How is a pedestrian supposed to yield to a cyclist when crossing the street? This is one of the major issues I see with the new cycle track designs.I was a graduate student when this cycle track existed, and I recall riding in it once and then avoided it like the plague.The city spent $1M to build the cycle track in 1980, and spent another $1M to remove the cycle track in 1986. I’m surprised it lasted that long.
I have attached several articles from the Lantern, the OSU student newspaper, about these cycle tracks. The articles include more details on the problems with the cycle tracks for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and business owners. The article titled “Bike paths cause more harm than good”, has a photo of the gutter cycle track. The article titled “Renovation nearly finished” shows a cyclist riding the wrong way in the gutter cycle track (I guess he figured that was safer than negotiating the pedestrians on the other side). The article titled “Street renovation improves safety” cited a 29% decrease in crashes. Well, since they stubbed off 4 out of 11 streets, you would expect crashes to decrease by 36%. And who knows if the crashes included bike/ped crashes?
I get buzzed by another cyclist on the Minuteman path.
This is a high-definition video. You get the full experience if click on “YouTube” under the image, expand it to full screen and click on the little gear wheel under the image to get 720 or 1080 resolution.
I’m responding to Adam Auster’s comment on my previous post:
On the other hand the route would cross the sidewalk, which can be quite busy, 3 times. (To say nothing of the crosswalk because you already mention it.)
Eastbound cyclists headed from the path mix with sidewalk traffic on the northwest corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Mystic Street. There are 16 different movements on the corner: from each of the five entrances: the path, the two sidewalk directions and the two crosswalk directions to each of the other four. Only two of those movements are unlikely: those between the path and the Mystic Street sidewalk, which both go in nearly the same direction. In addition, this corner is where crowds wait to cross the street. This is a very complicated and confusing situation, where bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles in the street are concealed by one another.
The eastbound cyclists then cross Massachusetts Avenue on a protected signal phase (though with some risk from illegal right turns from Mystic Street) and are directed to wait in a two-way left-turn area in the middle of the busy intersection until the traffic signal changes. Cyclists are protected by traffic-signal timing as long as they leave the two-way left-turn area promptly, and this is not obvious. The two-way left-turn area is too small to accommodate the likely volume of traffic.
The cyclists are expected to continue from eastwards in the bike lane on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue, which crosses three driveways, and then turn right either at a meandering path before Swan Place, or into Swan Place (It isn’t clear which, from the town’s drawing). From Swan Place, they enter he continuation of the path.
Eastbound bicycle traffic, in my proposal:
Eastbound cyclists turn left to cross across the west-side Mystic Street sidewalk where there are only two conflicting movements: sidewalk traffic in either direction. It isn’t quite clear in the drawing I revised, but I would have cyclists cross on the side of the crosswalk which is away from Massachusetts Avenue.
Eastbound cyclists then cross Mystic Street on the same signal phase as pedestrians. This crossing from west to east is the most troublesome for me, because of the potential for motorists turning right from Mystic Street not to yield to the cyclists. On the other hand, the crossing is signal-protected with a no turn on red sign and/or separate right-turn signal. For this reason and because of the width of the crosswalk and path, a right-turning motorist will be looking for sidewalk and path traffic rather than looking left for Massachusetts Avenue traffic. Most bicyclist left-to-right in crosswalk collisions occur where the motorist is looking left for traffic.
The other likely potential conflict here is with right-turning traffic from Massachusetts Avenue, but here, bicyclists are in full view of the motorists and the bikeway is far enough from the corner that motorists have time to yield.
Eastbound cyclists then cross the sidewalk on the far side of Mystic Street, but again where there are only two movements with which they must negotiate: sidewalk traffic in either direction on Mystic Street.
Bicycle traffic and sidewalk traffic cross over each other in front of Whittemore Park, as shown in the drawing, but again there are only two conflicting movements with which bicyclists must contend. One hardly even counts as a conflicting movement, as the bicyclists are traveling in the same direction as the pedestrians and pass them either on the left or on the right, depending on timing.
Cyclists then cross Massachusetts at the signal-protected crossing to Swan Place. There are no potential conflicts except with bicycle and motor traffic turning left from Swan Place onto Massachusetts Avenue. Cyclists continue on Swan Place, turning left into the continuation of the path. There is a potential conflict with oncoming traffic, as with any left turn on a two-way roadway, but this traffic is very light.
Cyclists turn right from the path onto Swan Place and jog to the right into a bike lane, creating potential confusion for motorists who think the cyclists are turning right onto Massachusetts Avenue. . They then cross at the newly signalized intersection and turn sharply left into a bike lane.
The bike lane is hidden behind vehicles waiting to turn right, until it bears right to be on the right side of the right-turn lane.
Cyclists turning the corner are is in theory protected by a no turn on red signal and separate signal phase, but as noted by several commenters at the public hearing, right turns on red still occur. There is a risk of right-hook collisions and long-vehicle off-tracking crashes.
The bike lane jogs over to the right around the corner, and then cyclists swerve left into a bike lane. Again there is the risk of confusion because the bicyclists appear to be going straight, however, they are on a protected signal phase.
Bicyclists cross in the bike lane or “crossbike” and then must beat their way through the crowd of people waiting on the corner, making one of the 16 possible movements here.
Westbound bicycle traffic, in my proposal:
Cyclists turn right from the path onto Swan Place and continue to Massachusetts Avenue. They then cross at the newly signalized intersection and turn left to continue past Whittemore Park.
The first potential conflict cyclists encounter is with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. They are crossing from left to right, so they must yield to oncoming pedestrians and merge either in front of or behind pedestrians traveling in the same direction.
Cyclists then cross the Mystic Street sidewalk, with only two conflicting movements, same as for westbound cyclists.
At Mystic Street, the cyclists cross on a protected signal phase along with pedestrians. There is risk of collision with motorists who turn right, both at the start and end of the crosswalk, but again, these motorists would be turning right on red illegally, and the bikeway is away from the corner, reducing the risks in the same way as described for eastbound cyclists.
Cyclists then cross the Mystic Street sidewalk, where there are two conflicts, and cross the very unlikely conflict with traffic turning sharply left onto the Mystic Street sidewalk from the extension of the path.
Pedestrians are expected to take entirely different routes using the sidewalks. I predict that many cyclists will continue to use the sidewalks.
On the evening of November 6, 2013, I attended a public hearing about the Arlington Center project. A representative of the city described the town’s plan. There were some changes and clarifications of what was shown at Town Day, and described before the hearing in Adam Auster’s blog post. (Also see his newer posts since the meeting). For one thing, the right-angle parking on Swan Place is gone. As had been pointed out, drivers in two of the parking places would have had to back out into a crosswalk, and drivers in any parking space would back out across the path of bicyclists.
I left the meeting as the discussion shifted to parking, but the graphic I saw indicated that the new plan is to find replacement parking spaces one by one around the town center. Adam Auster’s blog post goes into more detail about that. One important clarification was that we got at an idea of the traffic signal plan — which would include a special bicycle signal intended to alleviate the conflict between right-turning motor vehicles and through-traveling bicyclists at the northeast corner of Mass. Ave. and Mystic Street.
Still, many attendees commented, as I did, that right-hook collisions were likely here with a bike lane to the right of a right-turn lane, because motorists frequently turn right on the through arrow. Many raised objections to the zigzag, pillar-to-post proposed routing for bicyclists (shown in green in the drawing below).
My previous post started by describing how a confident adult cyclist could go through the intersection east to west operating as a driver. I embedded a video illustrating that. But I also said that continuity of the path would be important for young and novice cyclists. Let me now illustrate what I consider to be a promising option. I described it briefly in my previous message, and at the meeting. I’ve added it to the town’s drawing, below. You may click on the drawing to enlarge it.
Possible bicycle route through Arlington Center
The red line indicates a route for westbound Rail-Trail traffic and the blue line, eastbound Rail Trail traffic. The dark gray lines represents a barrier and curb extension. Is anyone surprised that I would make this suggestion? Get over it! I’m a confident road cyclist but I also ride the Rail Trail, and I’m also a realist. What I propose is going to work better than the Town’s current proposal, and would be preferred over any on-road route by many if not most Rail Trail users. On the other hand, what I propose, unlike the Town’s proposal, does not complicate bicyclists’ travel on the road!
Advantages as I see them:
My proposal continues the path as a path through Arlington Center, consistent with the expectations of Rail-Trail users.
It makes full use of the new signals at Swan Place for two-way bicycle travel, rather than only one-way.
If timing of the signals is adjusted appropriately, bicyclists crossing Swan Place on a green light would reach Mystic Street just as the signal changes to allow them to cross, and vice versa. With an average anticipated bicycle speed of 10 mph and motor vehicle speed of 30 mph, this is probably achievable.
My proposal avoids the need for the two-way left-turn waiting area in the middle of an intersection (at the right-angle between the two green bike lane segments at left in the drawing.)
It avoids messing with Massachusetts Avenue, and in particular, it avoids the attempt to have a westbound bike lane on Massachusetts Avenue serve conflicting purposes as a through route and route to the Rail Trail.
It avoids the need for any special traffic signal phases or timing, or added delay for street traffic beyond that imposed by the traffic signal at Swan Place, which is already in the plans.
It avoids the driveway crossings on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue. No driveways cross my proposed route.
It takes advantage of the unusually wide sidewalk in this area. Is there a possibility of moving the fence back and making the sidewalk even wider — or placing the path in Whittemore Park, like the one which is already proposed for Uncle Sam Park?
Bicyclists using this route eastbound could turn left and continue on Mass. Ave.
This route has bicycle and pedestrian traffic cross each other away from intersections, rather than in the crowds on the corners of an intersection, avoiding confusion and sight obstructions.
Potential problems and concerns:
This proposal uses sidewalk space and/or parkland. Arlington is concerned with bicyclists’ using sidewalks — but, primarily, the south sidewalk on Massachusetts Avenue, requiring crossing two legs of the major intersection with Mystic Street/Pleasant Street. Let me suggest that the Town’s current proposed design will do little to reduce sidewalk use, and particularly, westbound. What would reduce sidewalk use is to have a more attractive off-street route — and to remove the path leading to the Massachusetts Avenue south sidewalk from Swan Place.
Bicyclists would ride in the crosswalk area across Mystic Street in both directions. Crossing from right to left in a crosswalk, in particular, has been shown to be hazardous. On the other hand, this is already an established crosswalk, and to be blunt about it, I don’t see any alternative other than a grade separation which would realistically result in less use of crosswalks.
Strong signage and markings would be needed to direct eastbound Rail-Trail users to turn left into the crosswalk area at Mystic Street to continue on the Rail Trail. I suggest a special bicycle signal to indicate clearly that the crossing at Mystic Street is for the Rail Trail.
Three or four parking spaces on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue would need to be removed to continue the trail to the signalized intersection at Swan Place. (Whether the six parking spaces and taxi stand on the south side would also still be removed, is a different question. That certainly would free up space for through travel and a median. The Town does appear to have found several replacement parking spaces. Can it find a few more?)
Additional Comments:
What I have shown is only a sketch. If anything like it is to become reality, technical and political issues would have to be resolved.
The town held up the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue, U Street and 16th Street NW in Washington, DC as an example of a treatment using a special bicycle signal. Problem is, I know that intersection well. I have studied it extensively and it does not work. You may read about it here. Bicyclists at that intersection do not use the two-way left-turn area: they instead ride in the crosswalks, taking the most opportunistic route depending on the signal phase. That is what also happens in Arlington Center, and will continue to happen with the town’s proposed design.
The Town of Arlington, Massachusetts has proposed changes to the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue with Mystic Street/Pleasant Street (really one street, which changes name at the intersection).
I’ve posted a video of a bicycle ride I took through Arlington Center, here:
This video has now been extended with a clip of a second ride through the intersection in May, 2017, when the changes to the intersection were mostly complete.
The ride is easy, and especially because the left turn for Swan Place can only be made when traffic isn’t approaching from the east on Massachusetts Avenue anyway. So, I simply turned into the through lane and kept going. If the leftmost through lane is the only one open, as in my video, it’s an easy merge into the next lane, because the traffic will only be just starting up at the traffic light, at the same time a bicyclist has to merge.
Why Do They shoot Themselves in the Foot?
Graphic from CommuteOrlando site
So, why do other bicyclists in the video shoot themselves in the foot, threading their way along in the narrow space at the right side of the right turn lane — slow, and complicated — and potentially far worse, risking getting themselves right-hooked on the corner?
Just as a refresher about the right hook, CyclingSavvy has the page, What Bicyclists Need to know About Trucks, including an improved version of the earlier graphic at the right.
The advice is clear and simple: don’t overtake into the danger zone next to a truck (or a car, or a bus…). The two drawings below convey the same message. You may have seen them already.
Just in case you might discount the Orlando advice as Not From Here, the black and white drawings here are copied from page 88 of the Massachusetts Driver’s manual. [was pages 100 and 101 of the manual in 2013 when this post was first published — same drawings].
All the people in control of the bicycles in my video are grown-ups. All of them will have had many years of experience in traffic, riding in motor vehicles. Most of them hold driver’s licenses. So, why should they be intentionally and blatantly doing exactly what the Driver’s Manual warns against? These bicyclists are violating the most fundamental principles of traffic safety, just because they happen to be riding bicycles.
To make a complicated explanation simple, it’s because they have been taught to be afraid of traffic coming from behind them, and to ignore other risks — even where those are serious and the risk of traffic from behind is very small. I’m reminded of a saying by the late, great Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman:
Never treat anyone in the public sphere like an idiot. If you treat him like an idiot, he will act like an idiot.
But, that’s another discussion. Let’s move on. To ride as I did and avoid the right hook:
Check for traffic, and turn right from the path onto Swan Place.
Turn left from the middle of the right lane on Swan place into the closest open lane on Mass. Ave.
If necessary, merge right into the rightmost through lane. This is easy because traffic will be waiting at the traffic light ahead, and just starting up as you need to merge.
Continue across Mystic Street and either keep going straight on Mass. Ave., or turn right at the far side of the intersection to go to the path.
About the Proposed Design
Now, moving on to discuss the proposed design: why should street design encourage exactly the behavior for bicyclists which is disparaged for motorists as deadly dangerous? Bicyclists are after all more vulnerable — so, we should also render bicyclists defenseless?
This design is what was installed as of May, 2017, with four significant differences, all of which I would count as improvements: There are no new parking places with a twisty path behind them on Swan Place, the green bicycle route extending from Swan Place starts nearer the middle of the right lane, it has a larger curve radius as it turns left onto Massachusetts Avenue, and the route from right to left across Mystic Street extends directly from the bike lane on Massachusetts Avenue rather than from the street corner.
Right hook collisions have become the single largest cause of bicyclist fatalities in the Boston area as designs which encourage passing on the right have become more prevalent.
Why does the proposed design have to formalize this suicidal behavior — and also, encourage motorists to turn right illegally from the lane to the left of the bike lane? Why can’t the design encourage other, more efficient and safer behaviors? Not only the one shown in my video, either. There are good off-road alternatives too. Please read on.
To understand the problems, it helps to look at the plan view, below. You can click on it to enlarge it.
Arlington Center, Massachusetts
The assumptions behind this drawing are clear enough: bicyclists are witless wonders, capable of only following a green, painted path — but on the other hand, capable of following it where it abruptly shifts right and left and goes around sharp corners. Motorists are 100% cooperative and attentive, and also have the superhuman ability to see bicyclists outside the range of their rear-view mirrors. We can forget everything we know about safety at intersections: painting the pavement green solves all problems. We can ignore the traffic law which requires right turns to be made from the right edge of the roadway.
Specifics: Westbound
Now, as to specifics, we start again at Swan Place, at the lower right. Here is what the proposed design would have bicyclists do.
Bicyclists turn right onto Swan Place. Motorists backing out of the new, proposed parking spaces on the west side of Swan Place will back out into the path of the bicyclists.
There is a shared-lane marking before the intersection. Good enough — bicyclists need to ride in the middle of the narrow lane, that’s the appropriate lane position to prepare a left turn, and that’s easy enough on this lightly-traveled street, BUT then the bike lane to cross Massachusetts Avenue is at the right side of the intersection! Bicyclists are being instructed to bear right, as if they are going to turn right onto Mass. Ave., and then abruptly swerve left. A bicyclist following this designated route needs to be looking back to the left for motorists approaching on Mass. Ave. and back to the right for motorists turning right from Swan Place. The bicyclist’s having first turned right makes it look to motorists as if he or she intends to turn right onto Mass. Ave., risking motorist mistakes and crashes. Bicyclists should instead simply continue across Mass Ave. in line with the shared lane marking. Then they only have to look left and right for traffic. With the traffic light proposed for the intersection, the way will probably be clear on a green light, though it’s best to look anyway. Or is that too simple, and too safe?
Bicyclists are next instructed to continue straight across all the lanes of Mass. Ave, to the bike lane on the other side, and swerve sharply left to where the bike lane continues in the door zone of parked cars. The driver of a parked car checking whether the door would strike a bicyclist must look back at the right moment to see that a bicyclist has turned left and is headed for the door. This is worse because the corner in the bike lane is too sharp for bicyclists to negotiate, and they will cut the corner.
Here, the bike lane also is directly behind vehicles waiting in the right turn lane. This requires motorists preparing to turn right to look in their right-hand rear view mirrors at just the right time, or else miss seeing the bicyclist.
Where a right turn lane follows the parking spaces, the bike lane is striped to its right, leading bicyclists into a “coffin corner” where they can collide with motor vehicles, and can be swept under the rear wheels of turning trucks and buses.
On the corner, the bike lane is interrupted. It resumes several feet to the right, around the corner. To reach it, the bicyclist again turns right to go straight. But here, there are separate signal phases for right-turning traffic, through traffic and the crosswalk. Which traffic signal is the bicyclist supposed to obey? A bicyclist turning right on the right-turn signal will immediately be in conflict with right-turning motor traffic if swerving left to cross Mystic Avenue. There is no space to wait before swerving left, so bicyclists will pile up on the corner when bicycle traffic is heavy — or more likely, will ignore the bike lane across Mystic Street and continue straight across, still risking the right hook. Is a bicyclist at the right side of the right turn lane permitted to go straight across on the pedestrian signal? on the through phase? Are motorists allowed to turn right on the through phase? Who knows?
On reaching the far side of Mystic Street, a bicyclist has to take care, passing through the crowd of pedestrians waiting, and walking in multiple directions, but may then turn right and head for the path. On the other hand, a bicyclist continuing on Mass. Ave. has to go around another corner. It is very much simpler, faster and safer, as my video shows, to continue straight through on the road.
Now, granted, some — many — of the bicyclists using the Minuteman are children and novices, who would be more comfortable crossing Mystic Street in the crosswalk. BUT the design doesn’t offer any convenient way to get from the street to the crosswalk, even though the sidewalk becomes much wider as it approaches Mystic Street. There is also no ramp down to the bike lane across Mystic Street — there is only a narrow ramp down to the far side of the crosswalk. At the far side of Mystic Street, there is also only a ramp from the crosswalk, none from the bike lane.
Also: how are bicyclists supposed to turn left from Mass. Ave. onto Pleasant Street? They may legally use the left turn lane, driving their bicycles — but if they follow the bike lanes, they will have all of the problems described above and also have to wait for the traffic signal to change once more.
Specifics: Eastbound
I have some problems with the other direction of travel as well.
Bicyclists are expected to make the left turn in two steps, meaning that they will have to wait in a small two-way left-turn area. This is too small to hold more than two or three bicyclists at once. The extra wait produces delay.
Parking spaces have been removed from Mass. Ave, which is good — no door zone on this side.
After the driveway to the parking lot before Swan Place, there is a path to Swan Place, but the plan gives no indication how bicyclists are supposed to reach the path from Mass. Ave.
Bicyclists who turn right from Mass. Ave. to Swan Place (or who turn left from Mass. Ave. westbound) ride directly into the path of cars backing out of the right-angle parking spaces on Swan Place.
Some Alternatives
What would I like to see instead?
Bicyclists directed straight across from the shared-lane marking on Swan Place, perhaps with dashed lines leading into the intersection.
Timing the new traffic signal at Swan Place to clear the westbound lanes of Mass. Ave. before bicyclists get the green light to turn left from Swan Place.
Shared-lane markings in the westbound through lanes leading to the intersection with Mystic Street.
Eliminate the three parking spaces which create the door-zone bike lane, so there can be a safe bike lane leading to the wide sidewalk on the north side of Mass. Ave.
A ramp leading to the wide sidewalk, with a designated part of the sidewalk’s width for bicyclists. This should cross over to the side of the sidewalk away from the street, so bicyclists aren’t crossing through a crowd of waiting pedestrians on the corner.
A wide ramp leading down to the crosswalk/bike lane on Mystic Street.
That bike lane should be on the side of the crosswalk away from Mass. Ave., so bicyclists again don’t have to pass through the crowd of pedestrians waiting on the corner.
A ramp up from that bike lane on the west side of Mystic Street.
A signal-protected diagonal crossing so bicyclists headed eastbound can cross the intersection in one step.
Forget about the wandering path from Mass. Ave. to Swan Place, so bicyclists just turn into Swan place to get back to the Minuteman headed east.
Or as much as I dislike most so-called “cycle tracks”, I’d even go for a two-way path starting at Swan Place opposite the bikeway portal and continuing to Mystic Street on the south side of Mass. Ave., but only if there were no driveways across it, and in connection with a signal-protected diagonal crossing at Mystic Street.
Or instead a two-way path in that wide sidewalk area on the north side of Mass. Ave. all the way from Swan Place to Mystic Street. This would require two street crossings but would not require an additional signal phase at Mystic Street.
Find somewhere else nearby to put the few parking spaces that have been eliminated. There’s got to be a better way somehow. Looking at the satellite view, there’s lot of parking in the area and many spaces are empty.
In the long-run, what is really needed here to maintain the quality of the Minuteman is a grade separation for the path. Yes, that’s expensive. But also in the long run, it would pay off in reduced delay and danger for path users, and for everyone traveling through the intersection.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded, and researchers at the University of Nebraska have conducted, a study of fatalities due to distracted driving, Fatalities of Pedestrians, Bicycle Riders, and Motorists Due to Distracted Driving Motor Vehicle Crashes in the U.S., 2005–2010. It is online, here.
The report offers some interesting information, but it can very easily be misinterpreted, oddly excludes fatalities to distracted drivers themselves, and draws some unsupported conclusions about bicycling safety.
Nobody with any familiarity with the bicycling research literature would use the term “Bicycle Riders.” OK, that’s a nitpick but it gets better.
This is in the abstract:
Bicycling victims of distracted crashes were disproportionately male, non-Hispanic white, and struck by a distracted driver outside of a crosswalk.
This duplicates the wording for pedestrians and implies that bicyclists normally ride on sidewalks and in crosswalks.
The abstract also states, without qualification:
The rate of fatalities per 10 billion vehicle miles traveled increased from 116.1 in 2005 to 168.6 in 2010 for pedestrians and from 18.7 in 2005 to 24.6 in 2010 for bicyclists.
No such increase of approximately 30% in bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities has been seen. Why? Because, as the text on page 437 indicates, these numbers apply only to crashes due to distracted driving. There are many other crashes, and the rate of those has been going down.
Also, oddly, the study does not count fatalities to distracted drivers themselves. This is in a footnote to Figure 3, on page 439:
Motorist fatalities include motor vehicle passengers and non-distracted drivers involved in a distracted driving-related crash. Drivers who were distracted and died in the crash were excluded.
As the text of the report describes, only “victims” were counted. Why? The distracted drivers died too.
Statistics on drunk driving count everyone who died including the drunk drivers. Now, there may be a reasonable explanation for a different method with distracted driving: that it is harder to determine whether a dead person had been distracted, than drunk. But the report doesn’t explain this. In any case, it should be possible to arrive at a good estimate based on other data, and we don’t get a true picture of the extent of the problem unless we count everyone.
And, about countermeasures:
Thus, our findings highlight the need for policy solutions emphasizing primary prevention of driving while distracted. Potential solutions may include implementing clear and lighted crosswalk markings, constructing sidewalks, and creating separate bicycle lanes with barriers to separate bicyclists from traffic.
The recommendation about bicycling is a typical “knee jerk” recommendation from researchers who have no expertise about bicycling. Aside from the fact that a bike lane, by definition, is not behind a barrier, the report cites exactly two recent studies by advocates for separate bicycle facilities — whose focus is primarily on increasing mode share by creating the appearance of safety — with no reference to the larger body of research literature which indicates higher crash rates for such designs. As usual in epidemiological studies, there is no examination of crash causation. An examination of the patterns of crash types when distracted driving is involved, compared with other crashes, would certainly be helpful, but there is none here.
A bit of history — Bill Frey, who served Chairman of the League of American Wheelmen (later, League of American Bicyclists) Education Committee, prepared a history of the League’s education program in 1986. Steve Gottlieb, Frey’s successor in that position, has kindly supplied the document in digital form. I have formatted it and added endnotes and a list of references (more to come at locations marked with asterisks). John Forester, founder of the education program, has offered several comments which I have included in the endnotes. The document is here in PDF format.
Washington, DC TV station WJLA, channel 7, has run a story about new bicycle laws passed by the DC City Council and signed by the mayor. The new section reads as follows:
A new section 9d (D.C. Official Code § 50-2201 .04d) is added to read as follows:
“Sec. 9d. Bicyclists’ use of leading pedestrian in tervals.
“(a) A bicyclist may cross at an inter section while following the pedestrian traffic control signal for the bicyclist’s direction of travel unless otherwise directed by traffic signs or traffic
control devices.
“(b) A bicyclist may cross an intersection where a leading pedestrian interval is used.”
Questions have been raised by cyclists in an online group I belong to, for example, “So how are the bicyclists supposed to reach the intersection when no bikeways are present? By lane splitting? Filtering forward on the right? Using the sidewalk? Or are bike lanes and boxes supposed to be provided at all intersections? This will be a boon to red light runners and further the bad mixing of bicyclists and peds as “one category”, or as some like to say, further the pedestrianization of bicycling.”
But I’d like to discuss the video itself.
After 15 seconds of an ad for an Infiniti SUV, you’ll get to see the news story about bicycling [unfortunately, video no longer available.]
Much of the narration in the video is posted in the online article under the headline
D.C. cycling made safer with new rules of the road
That headline is rather interesting not only because of the questions which have been raised, but also because the law isn’t even in effect yet. In a year or two we might have data as to whether cycling has become safer. It would be much more difficult to determine whether that resulted from the new law. A recent study did show that cycling is becoming less safe the crash rate is increasing in Washington, DC — as might be expected when large numbers of new and inexperienced cyclists enter the traffic mix.
The text identifies interviewees — though only by their last names. One is named Clarke. More about that later. Also there are bike-cam shots in which you can see the cyclist’s plaid sleeves. This leads to an interesting discovery. My rundown of the video:
0:00 The words “outrage” and “alarm” are used. Inset on the screen reads “Bike vs. Car.” The TV station is pandering to motorists’ sense of entitlement and identifying inanimate machines as doing battle with each other, as a surrogate for operators of those machines placing them in conflict with each other. The concept of cooperative use of the public streets gets short shrift in this video.
0:49 Bicyclist in the plaid shirt threads the needle between a stopped SUV and a bus, placing him immediately directly in front of the bus. Nice thing the bus wasn’t about to start up. Headache for the bus driver in any case.
0:52 another cyclist waddles out from behind a stopped vehicle in front of another vehicle which is just starting to move.
1:02 the man on the street being interviewed is wearing the same plaid shirt as the one in the on-bike video making dumb moves. In the online text his name is given as “cyclist Billing” and he uses the royal “we.” “We” is WABA: Greg Billing writes blog posts for WABA and has written one about this new law.
1:05 Billing is shown turning left and heading for a door-zone bike lane to filter forward. Shot is cut off abruptly before he reaches the lane.
1:12 Cyclist identified in the text as Senff justifies advanced green on ped signal so “you don’t feel so, I don’t know…pushed.” How that applies when starting ahead of the motor traffic, I don’t know.
1:25 Through-the-windshield shot as car enters a combined bike lane/left turn lane, which figures later in the video too.
1:35 Truth is spoken by a man identified as Bradford: not all bicyclists operate properly.
1:40 Narration is about a bicyclist operating responsibly, but the bicyclist shown in one of many low-angle mood shots has a shopping bag dangling next to the front wheel.
1:45 The narrator complains of a bicyclist overtaking a motorist who is signaling a turn. The bicyclist, seen through a car windshield, is legally in a combined bike lane/left turn lane to the left of a through lane from which a motorist ahead is preparing to turn left illegally. Flex posts would keep a knowledgeable bicyclist from merging out of the bike lane. The driver preparing to turn left couldn’t make sense of the intersection design, and the bicyclist was blissfully unaware of the risk. The layout here is the same as at 1:25 in the video — it might even be the same intersection — and similar to the one at Market and Octavia Streets in San Francisco where fatal crashes have occurred.
1:50 The unidentified Clarke is revealed to be an African-American woman, not Andy Clarke, President of the League of American Bicyclists.
1:54 Billing provides a bike-cam shot, riding at speed in a left-turn lane going too fast to turn left, but the shot is cut just before he reaches the intersection.
2:15 A cyclist is in the door zone and uncomfortably close to a pedestrian.
2:20 — The law has to be voted on by Congress. It isn’t yet in effect.
All in all, there’s plenty enough cluelessness to go around, with this video, but I do agree with Mr. Bradford!
Riding into an intersection on the left side of the street has been shown again and again to be highly hazardous. Bicyclists are supposed to stop at the stop sign, which is set back from the intersection, but then they accelerate before reaching the intersection. Motorists waiting to turn right are looking ahead for left-turning traffic, even in Canada which does not have legal right turn on red.
Note as of November 17, 2013: I have reviewed this post to correct typos, improve wording, and add headings. I have highlighted substantial changes and additions.
Note as of May 23, 2014: I have added links to reviews of the study.
Note as of October 8, 2025: I have finally added images of pages of the report.
The “Bicyclists’ Injuries and the Cycling Environment” (BICE) study — of crash and comparison sites on the routes taken by 690 out of the 2335 cyclists treated in the emergency departments of five downtown hospitals in Toronto or Vancouver, May 18 2008 to November 30 2009 — is held by some as conclusive proof of the safety advantage of “cycle tracks” (segregated bikeways in the street corridor). However, it has been extensively criticized by others.
A report from this study is published in the journal Injury Prevention: Harris MA, Reynolds CCO, Winters M, Cripton PA, Shen H, Chipman ML, et al. Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case-crossover design. Inj Prev 2013;19:303-310. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040561. The report also is online.
Several criticisms have addressed the content of the report itself. These include two by M. Kary, posted in this blog. One of them appeared in edited form in the journal which published the article. Paul Schimek has prepared a presentation addressing the claims in the study. (To view the speaker notes, open it in Google Sheets, or download it and open it in a compatible application such as PowerPoint.)Schimek has also stated:
The City of Vancouver published a bicycle safety report in 2015, which says on p. 49:
“It is important to note that the only protected bicycle lanes that were included in the BICE study were the Carrall Street Greenway, Burrard Bridge, and small segments of protected bicycle facilities along Great Northern Way/Grandview Highway, Beach Avenue, and Stanley Park Drive. The criteria set by the BICE study for classification as a protected bicycle lane were that the facility must be: exactly parallel to the road, within 3 metres of the road, and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and from any sidewalk.” https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/cycling-safety-study-final-report.pdf
This confirms what I said about the study: they had no data on protected bike lanes in Toronto, and only a tiny bit in Vancouver, but mixed in with a larger number of ordinary bike paths not along city streets.
I side with the critics. The results of the BICE study are wildly out of line with those of other research, by a factor ranging of as much as 2000%. The large 2007 Copenhagen study found streets with bike lanes and cycle tracks to have a significantly higher bicycle crash rate than the same streets before the special treatments were installed, and even the Lusk et al Montreal study, despite clear bias in route comparisons and statistical errors (see review here), found cycle tracks to be only 28% safer than comparison streets.
Epidemiology smears largely undifferentiated factors into an overall risk, obscuring rather than clarifying what makes for safety. Epidemiologists think of correlation, rather than of mechanisms. Epidemiologists can tell you where crash hotspots are but have very little to say about crash causation and prevention. In the medical field, this is counterbalanced by medical research and clinical practice. Disease prevention through hygienic practices, immunization, and avoidance of risky behaviors is well-understood. In bicycling, there is no such counterbalance, because of a disconnect between epidemiology and the scientific study of crash causation and prevention. This problem is exacerbated by the controversy over whether bicycling advocacy should be based on educating cyclists how to operate safely as individuals, or whether it should place the promotion of increased bicycle use above all other goals — an approach which appeals to public health advocates — including epidemiologists, in their medical milieu, who stress the health benefits of exercise and point out that they outweigh the crash risks. Skills and behaviors which prevent crashes are ignored, as long as the overall health of the population is seen as acceptable.
General comments about the Toronto-Vancouver study
I myself haven’t reviewed the study itself in depth, but I have published two detailed reviews of it:
The results of the Toronto-Vancouver study are internally inconsistent, and wildly inconsistent with the results of other studies — see comments in those reviews and below.
I have, however, had a good long look at the PDF of the authors’ presentation at the 2012 Velo City conference. I would like to review a transcript or summary of the discussion which accompanied this screen presentation, but I have not found any to review, and so I’ll just go with the PDF. It provides ample fodder for commentary.
The photos often show facilities with obvious built-in hazards as examples of good design, and show examples of installations with no evident problems as examples of hazardous conditions (e.g., a neighborhood traffic circle on a quiet street shown as an illustration of the stunningly high crash rate which the study found for traffic circles).
One photo is used as an example of a low-risk facility and again as an example of a hazard.
Other commenters have noted that the study does not address cyclist behavior. It also suggests as one of its main conclusions that cyclists should ride more slowly downhill, not what I would call a practical suggestion. Photos in the PDF indiscriminately show good and poor cyclist behavior — more often poor behavior.
Comments on specific pages of the PDF. Click on the images to enlarge them.
p. 2 — I don’t know of any reliable source for bicycle use data in the USA. Concerning an attempt to generate it, see this: http://bikexprt.com/research/cpsc/index.htm. That report actually contains two sets of data and if you compare them, cyclists’ average speed is 1 1/4 mph. — and the author of the report didn’t catch this!
p. 4 Citation of safety in numbers depicts Jacobsen’s descending hyperbolic curve, and describes it as best evidence, though it has repeatedly been demolished as only an artifact of faulty math. See for example the posts and comments here:
Also, the photo on this page (likely from Copenhagen, judging by the blue paint) shows a cyclist carrying a handbag on the handlebar, hazardous because it interferes with control of the bicycle and can get caught in the spokes.
p. 5 — the “vehicular cycling” photo shows a cyclist riding in the door zone. Also, it is no fault of the cyclists, but the street has trolley tracks, which regularly dump cyclists. We had a cyclist die in Boston when his wheels got caught in trolley tracks and he fell under a bus.
p. 12 — Shows a photo of a narrow two-way sidepath where cyclists would be blinded by oncoming motor vehicle headlamps at night and, if the cyclists stray or are forced into the street, they are trapped in the face of the oncoming traffic and cannot get back up over a curb. On the side away from the street, they will be toppled if they stray into the curb. The paved width of the path is marginal and there is no recovery if a cyclist strays off either side. This portrayed as an example of a safe facility. The authors have said that in Vancouver there were no wrong-way cycle tracks. Where is this? Update: See comments on this post. The sidepath in the photo is in Ottawa.
p. 15 — Falls due to streetcar or train tracks and other cycling surfaces, or “infrastructure” (What does that mean in this context?) are called collisions. They are not collisions, they are falls. Compare the distinction between a pedestrian’s trip-and-fall incident and a collision between a pedestrian and a vehicle. Describing falls as collisions skews the results, making it look as though falls are less important, and collisions (with a vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian), more so.
p. 16 — repeats the same photo of the two-way cycle track.
p. 17 — repeats the “vehicular cycling” photo.
p. 19 — the level of relative risk for cycle tracks and “traffic diversion” streets (bicycle boulevards) is unbelievable. Note that the vertical scale of the garph is logarithmic. On page 15, we see that nearly half the reported crashes do not involve a motor vehicle. What would then make streets with cycle tracks 2000% and traffic-diversion streets 2500% safer than other streets?
p. 20 — Photos show the only two so-called cycle tracks in the study. Both are distinguished by their lack of cross streets and driveways. Hence, no car-bike collisions! This page makes the claim of 1/20 risk (2000% improvement) for cycle tracks, based on these data and in association with a photo of the separate path on the Burrard Bridge in Vancouver (upper left photo). The upper-middle bike lane photo shows a bike lane in the door zone. The upper-right shared-lane marking photo shows an improperly placed shared-lane marking, in the door zone. The authors do not make such distinctions when comparing crash locations. The authors have recorded intersections and non-intersection locations separately, and so they do not record the effect of design between intersections on the route which cyclists take when entering intersections and so, on crash rates at intersections.
p. 22 — traffic diversion v. traffic slowing — again, defies explanation. The upper left photo shows a cyclist turning past high vegetation which would produce a sight-line obstruction for a slightly shorter cyclist. The lower left photo shows wrong-side parking, which can result in motorists exiting parking spaces unable to see approaching cyclists, see http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/contraflow.htm#scottst. The lower right photo shows a door-zone bike lane, but apparently what the photo is intended to show is the bulbout in the foreground, which would result in a “coffin corner” situation unless right turns are prohibited — note left-turn arrow in background — this is just before an intersection. But also, traffic slowing and traffic diversion are linked techniques, both used together in bicycle-boulevard treatments. How can they be separated for research purposes?
p. 24 — Left middle photo shows cyclists on a path headed for a low curb on a parapet high over a body of water. A path meeting reasonable design standards would have, instead of a curb which would topple bicycles, a railing to keep cyclists from going over the edge into the water. Left lower photo shows sharp curves leading to bollards on a bike path. Bollards are a well-known hazard. Yet the study claims greater safety for these than “no infrastructure” (which means, actually, different infrastructure). This same photo is shown again on page 50 as an example of the hazard of bollards. Lower middle photo is captioned as “shared-use path” but is a cramped situation in what appears to be an outdoor mall, nothing that would normally be designated as a shared-use path.
p. 26 — upper left photo shows a cyclist riding downhill too close to parked vehicles. Upper right photo appears to show a cyclist riding on or near the wrong side of a two-way street. Middle left photo shows a cyclist properly ignoring a poorly-placed shared-lane marking while riding downhill. Lower photo shows a hillcrest, car with brake lights on though it is climbing, no cyclist in the photo. Apparently, the claim of danger is due to limited sight distance at the top of the climb.
p. 29 — once again repeats the unbelievable results, which contradict those of numerous other studies. Also shows the hazardous two-way cycle track from page 12 again.
p. 31 shows a “bike box” except cyclists are entering from the sidewalk at right angles to the street. This is not what a “bike box” is usually intended for. Also, entering from the right immediately before an intersection has been shown very hazardous, because motorists look left for cross traffic. What is the point of this photo?
p. 32 — Why are traffic circles rated so hazardous? Do we distinguish traffic circles and roundabouts? Why are uncontrolled intersections so hazardous when most of them are between very lightly used streets? How do we account for cyclists’ obeying or disobeying signals?
p. 33 — photo shows a cyclist very far to the right when crossing an intersection, on the crosswalk line. This would require weaving to the right when entering the intersection and to the left, back into the stream of traffic, when leaving it.
p. 34 — shows an intersection where cyclists may enter by pushing a button. There is a narrow entry channel between curbs. There is a risk of striking a curb and crashing.
p. 35 — shows two cyclists waiting at a stop sign. Both are ahead of the legal stop line (though that may be needed in order to see cross traffic). One has her foot on the curb at the corner — this far-right position invites the “right hook”, and prevents others from legally turning right. A commenter on this post has pointed out that to push the button which actuates the signal, cyclists must be in the right-hook position. I can add that the cyclists also must be ahead of the stop line to push that button. to sum up: this installation requires behavior which is illegal as well as hazardous.
p. 36 — The traffic circle shown is a small neighborhood traffic circle on a street with slow, light traffic. What is the hazard then, which raises the reported crash rate for traffic circles so high?
p. 37 — claims greater safety at intersections for streets with separated bikeways. This contradicts the observation and results that such intersections have more conflicts and a higher crash rate, as shown in numerous other studies.
p. 38 — The results reflect the speed, type and volume of conflicting traffic and so do not describe how volume and speed affect risk, or accurately describe the risk which depends on the design of a facility. Cyclists are shown waiting for a traffic signal in the “coffin corner.”
p. 40 — How is uphill less dangerous here and more dangerous earlier?
p. 41 — It is surprising that risk does not increase with motor vehicle speed above 30 km/h. Other studies show quite the opposite. What other factors counterbalance speed?
p. 42 — same photos of uphill cyclist on wrong side of road, and downhill cyclist ignoring the poorly placed SLM, as on p. 26.
P. 43 — From the picture, it is not possible to determine whether the cyclists are riding on the wrong side of a two-way street, or on the left side of a one-way street.
p. 46 — “Route infrastructure is a strong determinant of injury risks” — This is correlation, not causation. It compares entire countries with one another. Many other factors differ among the countries cited.
p. 47 — Shows a different photo of thesidepath also shown on page 12, where cyclists would be blinded by oncoming motor-vehicle headlamps at night and, if they stray or are forced into the street, are trapped in oncoming traffic and cannot get back up over a curb. On the side away from the street, they will be toppled if they stray into the curb. The width of the sidepath is marginal and there is no recovery if a cyclist strays off either side. This is portrayed as an example of a safe facility.
P. 48 — “Physical barrier between cyclists and traffic.” As mentioned earlier and shown in the photo, the facility used for comparison is no ordinary cycle track in that it lacks intersections and driveways, and so achieves a complete physical separation. Furthermore, the terminology is faulty. Cyclists cannot be removed from traffic unless they are removed from each other — because they are traffic.
The page also claims that previous research did not distinguish between cycle tracks, bike lanes etc. This is blatantly false — several important studies do. I am thinking in particular of Moritz’s 1990s studies and the 2007 Copenhagen study.
p. 49 — claim that reducing motor vehicle speeds is key does not comport with results shown in this study unless motor speed is below 30 km/h (19 mph). That is not the case with most arterial streets. Claim that reducing cyclist speed down hills would reduce crash rate agrees with other studies, but it must be asked: what are the speeds in question? Is a cyclist who is able to keep up with motor traffic thereby more endangered? What are the behaviors that make high cyclist speed more hazardous? How would the authors propose to reduce the speed of cyclists, who want to get where they are going in good time, and rarely can even reach the speed limit? Cyclists then suffer a disadvantage both uphill and downhill. As the study looked only into locations, not behavior, that question begs for an answer.
p. 50 — the same photo of a bicycle path with bollards, shown on page 24 as an example of a safer facility, is now shown as an example of obstacles which should be removed.
p. 51 — claim of objective measurement leaves out the elephant in the room — behavior.
Conclusion
As already mentioned, the numerical results are beyond credibility. It is also clear that the authors do not know what constitutes safe cycling behavior or what their photographs are showing.
