Not signed in (Sign In)

General: How to be safe and comfortable in traffic

Bottom of Page

51 to 100 of 160

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
    • CommentAuthorjay
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    Serge:
    There seems to be a sense within the bicycle community that pretty much anything goes, that there is no one correct way to behave, and different techniques work for different people. Can you imagine a driving instructor saying something like that? Or a SCUBA or pilot instructor? How about the training chief at a nuclear reactor?


    beany: I think there are equally good things to be said about being completely unpredictable on the road... I think being too predictable on the road lulls roads users into a false sense of security.


    Yes, diversity in bicyclist behavior (i.e., unpredictability) should be cultivated and not squelched, as should diversity in all non-dangerous-to-others uses such as play, pedestrian use, commerce, etc. The expectation of chaos on the street makes the street safer for all users. As Tom Vanderbilt's book illustrates, the most dangerous aspect of the street is the illusion that the street is safe and controlled, which lulls drivers into inattention and unsafe speeds (cf. his discussion of trees vs. guardrails).

    Give me streets teeming with wrong-way cyclists, right-way cyclists, stop-sign runners and stop-sign stoppers, skateboarders, roller skaters, little red wagons, stray dogs, tractors, pushcarts, rickshaws, barbecues, and the occasional marching band. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    Except Segways. Those are just ridiculous.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> jay:</cite><blockquote><cite> Serge:</cite>
    There seems to be a sense within the bicycle community that pretty much anything goes, that there is no one correct way to behave, and different techniques work for different people. Can you imagine a driving instructor saying something like that? Or a SCUBA or pilot instructor? How about the training chief at a nuclear reactor? </blockquote>

    <blockquote><cite> beany:</cite> I think there are equally good things to be said about being completely unpredictable on the road... I think being too predictable on the road lulls roads users into a false sense of security.</blockquote>

    Yes, diversity in bicyclist behavior (i.e., unpredictability) should be cultivated and not squelched, as should diversity in all non-dangerous-to-others uses such as play, pedestrian use, commerce, etc. The expectation of chaos on the street makes the street safer for all users. As Tom Vanderbilt's book illustrates, the most dangerous aspect of the street is the illusion that the street is safe and controlled, which lulls drivers into inattention and unsafe speeds (cf. his discussion of trees vs. guardrails).

    Give me streets teeming with wrong-way cyclists, right-way cyclists, stop-sign runners and stop-sign stoppers, skateboarders, roller skaters, little red wagons, stray dogs, tractors, pushcarts, rickshaws, barbecues, and the occasional marching band. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    Except Segways. Those are just ridiculous.</blockquote>
    Very interesting.

    Okay, I'm with you. But do you think all roads should be like that? I mean, i'm hip to the Monderman stuff, those circles in Bird Rock, but do you really want to even ride your bike through utter chaos?

    For example, the chaotic Mission Beach boardwalk is great for recreational riding, but pretty useless for bicycle transportation.

    Do we want 10-15 mph urban traffic jams?

    I'm having trouble envisioning how this would fly politically.
    • CommentAuthorjay
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    Yes, I'd be ecstatic if every street in town were like the Mission Beach Boardwalk. In fact, as I was typing that post it struck me that the Boardwalk is the only really successful street in San Diego.

    Perpetual 10-15 mph urban traffic jams would be ideal. That's about the top end of speed for traveling and living on a human scale anyway -- any faster than that and you cant really stop and say hi to someone. Whether it flies politically doesn't matter, if people are using the street in mass numbers then there's nothing that the top-down folks can do but adapt.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> jay:</cite>Yes, I'd be ecstatic if every street in town were like the Mission Beach Boardwalk. In fact, as I was typing that post it struck me that the Boardwalk is the only really successful street in San Diego.

    Perpetual 10-15 mph urban traffic jams would be ideal. That's about the top end of speed for traveling and living on a human scale anyway -- any faster than that and you cant really stop and say hi to someone. Whether it flies politically doesn't matter, if people are using the street in mass numbers then there's nothing that the top-down folks can do but adapt.</blockquote>
    Let's consider a typical short San Diego trip, say a UCSD professor's commute from a home in Bird Rock to UCSD. Per google maps that's 7.4 miles and they estimate 17 minutes by car, or 26 mph.
    Slow that down to a 10 mph average (which is probably about right by bike due to the climb), and you're talking about stretching the commute from 34 minutes a day (round-trip) to an hour and a half. That's an extra 5 hours a week, or about 250 hours per year, or 10 <em>extra days</em> per year devoted to travel time. Is that really "efficient"? Now multiply that by 2 million people in the county, and consider that the average trip is probably even longer (many are much longer - consider the impact to those who make deliveries, for example)... is this model sustainable?
    •  
      CommentAuthoril Pirati
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    .

    Consider that in that hour and a half you are not just "commuting." You are exercising, receiving therapy, practicing a hobby, and getting better acquainted with your city. So it may take a bit longer, but you're accomplishing a whole lot more, and using a lot less natural resources. It's not like everyone is using that extra 40 minutes they save driving to research cures for cancer or tutor needy children. They're spending that time watching "Real Housewives of the OC" and "Ellen."
    I see nothing but good things coming out of an across the board reduction of personal vehicular traffic speeds.
    • CommentAuthorjay
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    If average travel speed were 10-15 mph, then our city would change so that meaningful jobs were integrated into communities where people live -- the way cities have been from the beginning of time until the early 20th Century. It's a model that works and always has.

    The unsustainable model is what we have now, where companies (and Universities, etc) are clustered in UTC, Sorrento Valley, Carlsbad, etc., and people live in Bird Rock, Clairemont, Poway, North Park, etc. It only happen because of the illusion of speed -- the idea that you spend less time commuting if you drive 60mph than if you drive 10mph. That idea has proven to be untrue.

    In other words, with a citywide average travel speed of 10mph, your hypothetical college professor would live in a vibrant part of San Diego that was a legitimate college town. On his walk or bike ride to work, he'd see his students, colleagues, and researchers, who also live in the community. He'd ride by his favorite cafe and restaurant, and after work he might stop on his way home for a craft beer, and he'd run into friends he hadn't seen in a while. His life would be insanely rich, with no increase in his commute time.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> il Pirati:</cite>.

    Consider that in that hour and a half you are not just "commuting." You are exercising, receiving therapy, practicing a hobby, and getting better acquainted with your city. So it may take a bit longer, but you're accomplishing a whole lot more, and using a lot less natural resources. It's not like everyone is using that extra 40 minutes they save driving to research cures for cancer or tutor needy children. They're spending that time watching "Real Housewives of the OC" and "Ellen."
    I see nothing but good things coming out of an across the board reduction of personal vehicular traffic speeds.</blockquote>
    Oh, I get that. But the suggestion here is that all traffic should move that slow, not just traffic that benefits from exercise.
    And I used 7 miles one-way in my example. That's conservative. I know many people who commute 20 miles each way, and further.

    Serge
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> jay:</cite>If average travel speed were 10-15 mph, then our city would change so that meaningful jobs were integrated into communities where people live -- the way cities have been from the beginning of time until the early 20th Century. It's a model that works and always has.

    The unsustainable model is what we have now, where companies (and Universities, etc) are clustered in UTC, Sorrento Valley, Carlsbad, etc., and people live in Bird Rock, Clairemont, Poway, North Park, etc. It only happen because of the illusion of speed -- the idea that you spend less time commuting if you drive 60mph than if you drive 10mph. That idea has proven to be untrue.

    In other words, with a citywide average travel speed of 10mph, your hypothetical college professor would live in a vibrant part of San Diego that was a legitimate college town. On his walk or bike ride to work, he'd see his students, colleagues, and researchers, who also live in the community. He'd ride by his favorite cafe and restaurant, and after work he might stop on his way home for a craft beer, and he'd run into friends he hadn't seen in a while. His life would be insanely rich, with no increase in his commute time.</blockquote>
    Okay. But the real culprit here is not just the high speed roadway system alone, but also NIMBY (not in my backyard) thinking that has lead to zoning that legally disallows the kind of high density living that is conducive to sustainable modern life. As long as our zoning laws prohibit the building of high density home and work places, I think we're struck with long average trip lengths. That's just basic math. Or am I missing something?
    •  
      CommentAuthoril Pirati
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    .

    I don't blame Urban Sprawl on zoning. I blame zoning on Urban Sprawl. I guess it's sort of a chicken-egg situation, but I don't think "government" told everyone to go live in the 'burbs. People chose to live in the suburbs, based largely on the illusion of speed and ease of commute, and government followed the trend and corporate interests with zoning. It’s a never ending spiral as long as the superhuman (size and velocity) personal vehicle is the fundamental unit of transport and infrastructure design.
    • CommentAuthorHillbilly
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    I read the book Pedaling Revolution by Jeff Mapes recently and it talks alot about this subject - mainly urban infill, bicycle-centric living, urban planning and development and how cities have handled it in the past. It's a really interesting book and a good read if you haven't already checked it out.

    Book
    • CommentAuthorLarry
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    Wow, cool, this discussion on tips for riding has turned into one on land use! Nice! I really think there's a lot of agreement here.

    Just read The Green Metropolis by David Owen, where he says that New York is the greenest city in the world, and congested traffic is good for the environment. He or someone else said that streets where there is a lot of jay walking are safer and that this is an indication of the quality of life in the area. So yeah, I tend to agree with Jay. We need better zoning that allows for more dense mixed use, and buildings that could be 3, 4 stories tall without nearby residents complaining. And don't provide parking for them.

    I say this as someone who moved out of North Park to University City 8 years ago -- in hindsight seems like a bit of a bonehead move, leaving NP just when it was getting trendy (not that I'd fit in there anymore :face-smile: ). Everytime I'm at Twiggs or in more recent years at the Linkery or Urban Solace, I think, Damn, I miss my old neighborhood! And if I want to go there at night, that means driving. (That said, our part of University City has a lot more walking and local amenities than our North Park neighborhood had when we left, and a lot of people do live/work here.)

    I think the kind of unpredictable, vibrant streetscape Jay is talking about happens a lot more naturally on some of the streets in the central city, like University and 30th, that are already pretty narrow, with lower speeds than on our typical suburban arterials (and there's a BID there, right?). The big question is how to turn the burbs into something better, more vibrant, less car-oriented. I once proposed a bunch of stop signs on Genesee -- you can imagine how well that went over. When we redevelop up here it tends to be the massive redevelopment of the UTC shopping center with 30-story buildings and all the parking to match -- thankfully that's dead for now due to the economy.

    But we can do what we can. Today I rode over to check out the new bike lanes on Clairemont Drive (a meeting to support them, along with the reduction in one vehicle lane in each direction, is tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m., South Clairemont Rec Center -- hope to see you there). I took the lane on the flat part of Clairemont Drive where there's no bike lane, two lanes in each direction, and cars parked on the side most of the way. For the drivers I bet seeing me out there in the lane was a bit unpredictable (and I'm guessing the drivers who saw Serge on LJVD were surprised no matter how often they saw him).

    Every time I take the lane like this, I feel like I'm taking back some pavement from the cars. I'm like a human traffic calming device -- several of the cars did have to slow down a lot. (Of course, since I work at home I was able to do this at lunch time. Traffic was moderate, and everyone moved over into the left lane very politely. Much better than drivers on Nobel Drive. If you commute during rush hour on Clairemont Drive, what's your experience?). And I never considered doing this on Washington through Hillcrest and Mission Hills back when that was part of my commute, but maybe I'll try it some day.

    So yeah, let's take back pavement in every way we can -- reduce the number of vehicle lanes to make room for bike lanes like on Clairemont Dr, put in sharrows and those BAUFL signs on streets like Nobel and a bunch of mid-city streets, and take the lane every where else as much as possible. I really think sharrows are the one type of street treatment that most of us can agree on.

    (end of endorphin-fueled screed :face-smile: )
  12.  
    One thing also to consider, streetcar systems were the original reason for sprawl, not the car. This is especially true in Los Angeles, where people were moving to Van Nuys in 1911 since they could take the train into Los Angeles (then being more the downtown district). Cars just replaced the streetcars/interurbans. Simplistic answer, but this isn't quite the proper forum. My commute is four miles each way, and is faster by bicycle. On average, anything within 10 miles is quicker or the same by bicycle than car, for me.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> il Pirati:</cite>.

    I don't blame Urban Sprawl on zoning. I blame zoning on Urban Sprawl. I guess it's sort of a chicken-egg situation, but I don't think "government" told everyone to go live in the 'burbs. People chose to live in the suburbs, based largely on the illusion of speed and ease of commute, and government followed the trend and corporate interests with zoning. It’s a never ending spiral as long as the superhuman (size and velocity) personal vehicle is the fundamental unit of transport and infrastructure design.</blockquote>
    Take any job center, like downtown, Rancho Bernardo, La Jolla, Sorrento-Mesa, UTC, Palomar Airport Rd, etc. Now draw a 5 mile radius circle around it. What percentage of the people who work there can live within that circle, even if only people who worked there (and their families) lived there? La Jolla, for example, has a lot more traffic flowing in on weekday mornings than flowing out, and vice versa from 4-6. Same with the UTC area. Physically, the density dictated by zoning is just too low to house everyone within "human distances" of where they work. Note that this is not the case in big cities without zoning, or with much looser zoning, like NYC, SF, Chicago, etc. But L.A. and SD? Our population density is way too low. Why do we have sprawl and other places don't? Zoning is the main distinguishing factor, every time, though freeways are in the mix too, for sure.

    Low density zoning decreases the housing supply close to places where people work, which raises prices there, and, of course, limits how many people can live there. Free market economics naturally drives high density living, and that's how people freely develop where they live. However, when we add artificial legal constraints on how many people can live per lot, per block, per mile, limit building heights, etc., then density cannot develop naturally. That of course drives the demand for housing further away, and a means to get there efficiently. It's all hopelessly intertwined, but zoning is definitely a huge part of it.
    •  
      CommentAuthoril Pirati
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    .

    I agree that zoning has a lot to do with the current situation in SoCal. But I think that the American embrace of the automobile led to the current situation being permissible and even encouraged by the public. So now, when for the first time in 50 or 60 years, people want to shorten the distance between work and home, it has become very difficult to do so because of zoning. But zoning didn't start the trend did it? Cheap suburban housing, interstates, and affordable automobiles allowed the situation to develop.
    This conversation has spiraled way out of the ball park! Wow. I like to ride my bike in the street, and I chose to live close enough to where I work that commuting by bicycle is not a huge sacrifice of time. That's my effort to bring this thing back to center.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> il Pirati:</cite>.

    I agree that zoning has a lot to do with the current situation in SoCal. But I think that the American embrace of the automobile led to the current situation being permissible and even encouraged by the public. So now, when for the first time in 50 or 60 years, people want to shorten the distance between work and home, it has become very difficult to do so because of zoning. But zoning didn't start the trend did it? Cheap suburban housing, interstates, and affordable automobiles allowed the situation to develop.
    This conversation has spiraled way out of the ball park! Wow. I like to ride my bike in the street, and I chose to live close enough to where I work that commuting by bicycle is not a huge sacrifice of time. That's my effort to bring this thing back to center.</blockquote>
    That's a good point. It would be interesting to look at the history of zoning laws in SoCal and see how they correlate with freeway growth.

    Regardless of which started the other, my point is that to reverse urban sprawl, we have to allow for the high density populations necessary for people to live human distances from work and most everywhere they need to go each day. So a necessary (but not only) thing to do is get rid of, or making radical changes to, the zoning laws. That is often overlooked.

    Beyond that we probably should stop funding all these frinking freeways. I mean, EIGHT lanes? In ONE DIRECTION?? :face-crying:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    Serge:Beyond that we probably should stop funding all these frinking freeways. I mean, EIGHT lanes?
    In other words, we need to reduce the demand for freeway capacity -- by reducing the demand for auto transportation -- not increase the supply, which will inevitably just increase auto transport demand.
    • CommentAuthorburnsadam
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    get really good at riding in a straight line, and hold your line.
    •  
      CommentAuthoril Pirati
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    .

    Interesting study out of the UK examining bicycle accidents by cause and fault. Hit from behind FAR more prevalent than discussed earlier in the thread.
    • CommentAuthorjay
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    il Pirati,

    I think the reason for the discrepancy is that earlier in the thread some posts (and studies they referred to) were making a distinction between cyclists being hit by an unsafely overtaking car, and being hit from behind by a car not intending to overtake; and other posts and the study you linked to do not differentiate between the two, classifying them both as "hit from behind."

    The difference is germane because the theory that taking the lane (5 ft+) is safer rests on the idea that by blocking the lane, it reduces the opportunities for drivers to carelessly/unsafely overtake the cyclist, thus reducing the opportunities for this highly common crash.

    If on the other hand, the "hit from behind" accident is usually just a driver who isn't looking at the road, or who does it on purpose, then being out of the flow of traffic -- not taking the lane -- would seem to be safer, as it puts the cyclist further from these types of drivers.

    My understanding of the statistics that I've been able to find is that "unsafe overtaking" represents almost all of the "hit from behind" accidents, and thus it's safer to attempt to reduce opportunities for overtaking, reduce vehicular traffic speed, and be as visible as possible to drivers headed the same direction as me.

    However, I agree with the previous poster who said everyone's personal experience has to be their guide as to what's the best way for them to ride -- I don't think there's a right answer that everyone should be forced to follow. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I value chaos on the street as a benefit to both safety and community, so I think it's great that different people ride differently.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite> jay:</cite>il Pirati,

    I think the reason for the discrepancy is that earlier in the thread some posts (and studies they referred to) were making a distinction between cyclists being hit by an unsafely overtaking car, and being hit from behind by a car not intending to overtake; and other posts and the study you linked to do not differentiate between the two, classifying them both as "hit from behind."

    The difference is germane because the theory that taking the lane (5 ft+) is safer rests on the idea that by blocking the lane, it reduces the opportunities for drivers to carelessly/unsafely overtake the cyclist, thus reducing the opportunities for this highly common crash.

    If on the other hand, the "hit from behind" accident is usually just a driver who isn't looking at the road, or who does it on purpose, then being out of the flow of traffic -- not taking the lane -- would seem to be safer, as it puts the cyclist further from these types of drivers.

    My understanding of the statistics that I've been able to find is that "unsafe overtaking" represents almost all of the "hit from behind" accidents, and thus it's safer to attempt to reduce opportunities for overtaking, reduce vehicular traffic speed, and be as visible as possible to drivers headed the same direction as me.
    </blockquote>
    Well stated, Jay. There also the "drift" type of crashes to consider, where a distracted motorist on an otherwise empty road fails to notice an off-to-the-side-and-thus-apparently-out-of-the-way cyclist (typically riding in a marked shoulder or bike lane) up ahead during one of his inevitable periodic quick course correction checks, and later drifts off course and into him. Those surely count as "hit from behind", but are yet another type of accident for which being more conspicuously positioned clearly in their path (to grab their attention during the course checks) is arguably safer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
     
    My 'challenge' is La Costa avenue, between I5 and El Camino Real in Carlsbad.

    It's a 55mph speed limit road with a joke of a bike lane. In 2007 traveling east ... I got sideswiped from behind by a SUV, hit and run, and I was riding at 21mph at the time. Cargo box took the hit, I ended up with a lot of road rash, but managed to ride home (didn't want to 'lock up') after being treated by the paramedics and healed up fine.

    I've taken to "sheep dog" behavior on that road. If I see vehicles coming from behind I will make some swerves to the left, before they get to me, just to get them nervous. This seems to do the trick.

    RANT: There is a common tendency around here, as with this road, to 'improve' it by adding a median. In most cases the bike lanes are reduced to joke status.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
     
    Horrible Bill:

    Do you have any info on the car that hit you: we can go wide with the info to try to track them down!
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009 edited
     
    Suburban or Tahoe. I didn't get the plates. Police tried to get to them. They didn't even slow down and the other vehicles didn't try to get to them either.

    That silly box on the back of the bike saved me.

    You know, one of those DriveCam's would be nice to have on a bike.
    • CommentAuthorPraxis
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
     
    Fantastic thread. Call me a fence-sitter, but I'm partial to both sides of this debate. In my experience it seems to be *highly* situationally dependent where the best place is. Often that's the taking the lane. Sometimes, depending on environment, traffic, and/or rider, it is my experience that there are positions that are safer. And sometimes, I'll actually take a slightly higher risk of personal injury so I'm not inconveniencing someone as much. Call it what you want.

    As for education, I'd say part of the problem is that there isn't agreed upon standards. There are competing, intelligent theories that are nonetheless not compatible with each other. The other problem is that bicycling on the road is not generally viewed as safe by the general public, in my experience.
    • CommentAuthorPraxis
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
     
    Larry:Today I rode over to check out the new bike lanes on Clairemont Drive (a meeting to support them, along with the reduction in one vehicle lane in each direction, is tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m., South Clairemont Rec Center -- hope to see you there).


    Hey, I live right by there. Where's the lanes? Are they the ones west of the library down/up the hill? I don't do that stretch often but last time I did I scratched my head thinking there used to be two lanes there.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2009 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite> Praxis:</cite>Fantastic thread. Call me a fence-sitter, but I'm partial to both sides of this debate. In my experience it seems to be *highly* situationally dependent where the best place is. Often that's the taking the lane. Sometimes, depending on environment, traffic, and/or rider, it is my experience that there are positions that are safer. And sometimes, I'll actually take a slightly higher risk of personal injury so I'm not inconveniencing someone as much. Call it what you want. As for education, I'd say part of the problem is that there isn't agreed upon standards. There are competing, intelligent theories that are nonetheless not compatible with each other. The other problem is that bicycling on the road is not generally viewed as safe by the general public, in my experience.</blockquote> Glad you like the thread, Praxis. I think these are the most important issues to everyone who rides bicycles on streets. To be clear, I don't think anyone, certainly not me, suggests that, <em>in general</em>, taking the lane is always the best place to be. But in the specific context of riding alongside parked cars, yeah, riding somewhere outside of that door zone (and not necessarily <em>just </em>outside of the door zone, often much further out is required to inhibit close and unsafe passing), is recommended by most bicycle traffic experts. These videos provide graphic explanations for why that's the case. ------- <em>Moderator Edit: The two below movies are already posted. Double-posting not allowed - video links deleted here. Go to <a href="http://sdbikecommuter.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=204&page=2">p. 2 of the video thread</a> for the videos. FOUR DOOR CAR: Avoiding the Door Zone, Part 1 TWO DOOR CAR: Avoiding the Door Zone, Part 2
    •  
      CommentAuthorbatmick
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2009
     
    I'm gonna choose sides here too. In all my years of commuting, and that includes high density urban traffic, I have not once been "doored". When I ride I have my eyes open and am especially wary of all cars, parked and moving. Don't trust anybody and thus have been able to not get into situations where I would get surprised.
    I have, however, been sidewiped, bumped into and cut off by cars who thought I had ventured onto their turf or who merely did not notice me in their lanes. And no matter if I was right or not, they have the upper hand in this confrontation. Therefore I will try to stay in the bike lane and near parked cars with my eyes open as much as I can.
    Sure it would be nice if my riding all the way over in traffic would send a signal that would eventually lead to changes in behavior of drivers and maybe even changes in the way city planners build bike routes but honestly I don't think that will happen any time soon. Most of them don't think farther than their windshield.

    For now I will enjoy my ride, try to ignore cars and clueless other cyclists as much as I can, and try to survive my way.
    • CommentAuthorSerge
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2010
     
    <a href="http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2008/07/10/the-swinging-door/">The Swinging Door</a> is an excellent blog article on the topic of dooring posted by Keri Caffrey at commuteorlando.com in July of 2008. Key excerpts: "Sadly, when we examine the statistics, too many cycling crashes are directly or indirectly a result of “staying out of the way.” When we unhitch ourselves from this damaging belief system, cycling becomes safer and less stressful." ... "In the meantime, ride where you know is safe regardless of any stripes. Remember, it is not your wheel track but the distance of your handlebars or body from the door that is important. An almost-missed door can result in a worse outcome than a direct hit. <em><strong>Stay 5 feet from parked cars, if that means a bike lane stripe is to your right, ride as if the stripe is not there</strong></em>." [original emphasis preserved]
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2011
     
  30.  
    I know this question is a big shift from the more big-picture tone of recent posts, but as it relates to attempting to safely and comfortably operate a bike on SD streets, I can't find a better topic to add it to. (If I missed one that's a better fit, let me know.)

    Question: Did I miss a memo or something,designating that beach cruisers are not bikes?
    You can imagine my confusion, as I see them being sold and repaired in bike shops all the time.

    Please help me out before I make the horrible mistake of once again going out on my beach neighborhood streets in a helmet and reflective jacket, riding in the street as though I were on my "real " commuting bike.

    PS --This is an issue I have been wanting to explore further in my bike commuter blog, www.virtualroadkill.com, so if you don't mind being quoted for it please whisper to let me know.
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    Did someone tell you that they weren't?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011 edited
     
    VirtualRoadKillAli:Question: Did I miss a memo or something,designating that beach cruisers are not bikes?
    This subject is close to my heart, particularly due to several events the last few days. Beach cruisers are everywhere in my 'hood - great, the sheer amount of bicycles make motorist be a little more attentive and courteous. But - they seem to break the vehicle code more than any other, uhm, vehicle: Love 'em; hate 'em:

    Exhibit 1: Last Friday: I rode in south-west direction (down-hill) at perhaps 25mph making a right turn at an intersection where I had the right of way. Right at the apex of the turn, I suddenly notice a salmon beach cruiser right in my line of travel (he also had the Stop sign). I made corrective action; missed him by a couple of feet. No apologies.

    Exhibit 2: Saturday night, in darkness: I ride south on Cass - 25mph. Notice something ahead of me in the lane some 300' - no lights. No biggie, I thought - I will pass when time comes. A split second later he is right in front of me - of course, it was a cruiser, salmoning, in the dark with no lights, making no evasive action (he could not have missed my Edelux headlight). I made corrective action; missed him by a couple of feet. No apologies.

    Exhibit 3: Today: Rode east on Garnet to turn left on Dawes. Waited for an opening in oncoming traffic and started my turn. Out of nowhere from the left comes this beach cruiser, salmon riding on the sidewalk and crossing Dawes as though he were a pedestrian at full bicycling speed (Garnet is a signed "no riding on sidewalk" zone). He would have broadsided me. I made corrective action; missed him by a couple of feet. No apologies.

    I am glad they're riding and all, but can't help but wondering what's the matter with these people: Their riding endangers themselves as much as it endangers others.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHMeins
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011 edited
     
    Some would praise you for your civility, since salmon riders don't know they are doing something wrong and would surely curse you roundly if you called them on it. Ever since a downhill salmon collided with an uphill cyclist on 101 in Solana Beach almost 20 years ago and killed a father of two, I have not been able to contain my disparagement for this oblivious breed. Whenever I confront one I am told f*** you 100% of the time. Then there's the retired competitive rider I know who will use his well-developed bike handling skills to lay them out on the pavement in the blink of an eye. I don't believe in intentionally hurting innocent retards, but it just goes to show the broad range of reactions experienced cyclists have to the danger and annoyance salmon riders cause.
  34.  
    Did someone tell you that they weren't?


    Nope, but how I am treated while on one makes me seriously wonder if I am making a huge mistake--like rollerskating down the middle of the street or something.

    I spent some time and effort and $--not a lot but significant for a "rescue" I pulled out of the weeds by our house--on fixing up the "Bumblebee" seen here...

    ...and was shocked to have my first time out on it being rudely honked off the street while obeying the rules of the road just the same as I do every day I commute on my converted mountainbike.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    VirtualRoadKillAli:I know this question is a big shift from the more big-picture tone of recent posts, but as it relates to attempting to safely and comfortably operate a bike on SD streets, I can't find a better topic to add it to. (If I missed one that's a better fit, let me know.)

    Question: Did I miss a memo or something,designating that beach cruisers are not bikes?
    You can imagine my confusion, as I see them being sold and repaired in bike shops all the time.

    Please help me out before I make the horrible mistake of once again going out on my beach neighborhood streets in a helmet and reflective jacket, riding in the street as though I were on my "real " commuting bike.

    PS --This is an issue I have been wanting to explore further in my bike commuter blog, www.virtualroadkill.com, so if you don't mind being quoted for it please whisper to let me know.


    Sean Wallace rides a Beach Cruiser on occasion. Therefore it is a real bike. :face-devil-grin:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    VirtualRoadKillAli:Question: Did I miss a memo or something,designating that beach cruisers are not bikes?
    VirtualRoadKillAli:...how I am treated while on one makes me seriously wonder if I am making a huge mistake--like rollerskating down the middle of the street or something. ...and was shocked to have my first time out on it being rudely honked off the street while obeying the rules of the road ....

    I realize your angle on bike cruisers was completely opposite of what I imagined when I replied.

    PS! I own a beach cruiser, too, and use for it riding the tide line during low tide, which is a b-l-a-s-t!!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    billd:A left cross crash caught on video:

    Article:

    http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/11/30/classic-left-cross/

    Ways to avoid getting caught by a left cross:

    http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/06/13/animation-preventing-the-left-cross/


    All good advice, but the motorist is still at fault IMHO. He needed to check to see if there was on-coming traffic in that right lane.

    If we had strict liability here ....
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011 edited
     
    VirtualRoadKillAli:...and was shocked to have my first time out on it being rudely honked off the street while obeying the rules of the road just the same as I do every day I commute on my converted mountainbike.
    Sounds like they thought you were on a bike, and therefore not allowed to use the road. It's no different on a cruiser apparently.

    Drivers have been really bad lately. I still haven't received a response from the Port of San Diego over Thursday's assault by someone driving one of their pickups. If I don't get one by tomorrow I will be calling them.
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    bikingbill:All good advice, but the motorist is still at fault IMHO. He needed to check to see if there was on-coming traffic in that right lane.

    If we had strict liability here ....
    Agreed, but I'm still taking measures to avoid being hit by idiots.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    billd:
    bikingbill:All good advice, but the motorist is still at fault IMHO. He needed to check to see if there was on-coming traffic in that right lane.

    If we had strict liability here ....
    Agreed, but I'm still taking measures to avoid being hit by idiots.


    Absolutely. Passing on the right? Not wise.
    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011 edited
     
    bikingbill:Absolutely. Passing on the right? Not wise.
    Which is why I rarely do it and am super wary about right hooks and left crosses when I do it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2011
     
    bikingbill:... the motorist is still at fault IMHO. He needed to check to see if there was on-coming traffic in that right lane.
    Absolutely, 100% at fault - not seeing somebody does not nullify the vehicle code, and he should have yielded regardless. As far as the other motorist - ceding the right-away from your lane is also dangerous if there is a chance you're not the only one in that lane.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGeoff
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2011
     
    You see this type of accident on roads with multiple lanes in a single direction, even more so with motor vehicles. To wit: #1 lane vehicle is stopped by traffic ahead, and sees a car waiting for a gap to turn left. They stop, leaving a gap, and wave the left turning vehicle through. You have no business directing traffic as a vehicle especially in this situation. Since you cannot see vehicles approaching from behind on your right, you have no idea whether the way is "clear". That vehicle, if they wave someone on, deserves a third of the blame in the accident (the turning vehicle gets most, while an insignificant portion is attributed to the struck vehicle for going too fast for conditions, i.e. stopped traffic next to you and crossing an intersection/roadway entrance). I have written accident reports this way. They have stood up in civil and traffic court.

    I think there are two bicycle-specific left-hooks to worry about: the one like in the video, where you are "hidden" by the vehicle proceeding in the same direction as you; and the open-space hook when an oncoming vehicle mis-judges your speed (or blatently ignores right-of-way because your vehicle is "inferior"). I try to mitigate both using the same method - moving left (when safe) when crossing an intersection, and standing on the pedals. I feel it gives me increased visibility and "authority" as a taller/larger object. Oncoming traffic can see you sooner, especially when you're following a car. This method becomes useless when bike lanes are present, though, and clearly is meant for lower-speed streets where I can integrate with the flow of traffic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGeoff
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2012
     
    Pedestrian airbag for cars.

    I can't make this stuff up. Thank you, car makers, for making our sidewalks and crosswalks safer.
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2012 edited
     
    On Sunday in OB I encountered some really special cager behavior. So, I know to be careful at all intersections, including checking for red light runners before entering on green, but this guy was something else.

    My buddy and I are riding down this hill approaching a green, and we noticed a guy approaching the intersection on the cross street, but he was slowing and stopped. Nothing to worry about, right? I mean, he really stopped. What we didn't notice was that he was yacking on the phone and probably high (judging from his eyes which we did get a good look at a few moment later). So he treats the RED LIGHT as if it's a 4-way stop, and just proceeds against the red after coming to a full stop.

    Now, I've seen red light runners before, but I've never seen this before. So of course my buddy yells and screams and gets his attention. Because he had started from a dead stop he wasn't going that fast yet and was able to stop in the middle of the intersection, giving us enough room to get by in front of his vehicle after he had stopped. Both of us left some rubber on that hill, but neither of us went down or hit anything thankfully. He seemed genuinely apologetic. "Sorry I almost killed two dads. My bad."

    Anyway, add this to the list of potential hazards to watch for at intersections.... not only motorists who run red lights, but motorists who stop and then GO on red.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbikingbill
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2012
     
    My youngest son is named after such an incident in Palo Alto, CA (1989) on the Bryant Street Bikeway. Except in that case, the driver of the large station wagon looked at me, proceeded across the intersection, and I put my shoulder squarely into a door.

    At the time I was north of 300lbs (yeah, really) and suffered no injuries to myself or my Miyata 1000LT. The door? Not so lucky.

    The most satisfying crash of my cycling career.

    Coincidently, Bryant is a Giant. 15 years old, over 6' 4" and growing, and size 15+ shoes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2012
     
    I received this one from the message board of my bicycling friends in Santa Cruz County Cycling Club (make sure to click the link at the bottom of the quote box):

    Motion Induced Blindness

    It works exactly like it says, and is one major reason people in cars can look right at you (when you're on a motorcycle or bicycle)---AND NOT SEE YOU.

    From a former Naval Aviator. This is a great illustration of what we were taught about scanning outside the cockpit when I went through training back in the '50s. We were told to scan the horizon for a short distance, stop momentarily, and repeat the process. I can remember being told why this was the most effective technique to locate other aircraft. It was emphasized (repeatedly) to NOT fix your gaze for more than a couple of seconds on any single object.

    The instructors, some of whom were WWII veterans with years of experience, instructed us to continually "keep our eyes moving and our head on a swivel" because this was the best way to survive, not only in combat, but from peacetime hazards (like a midair collision) as well. We basically had to take the advice on faith (until we could experience for ourselves) because the technology to demonstrate it didn't exist at that time.

    Click on the link for a demonstration.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSigurd
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2012
     
    ...and along the same lines:

    • CommentAuthorbilld
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2012
     
    • CommentAuthorSerge2
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2012
     
    This video shows the opposite of what to do to be safe and comfortable in traffic. These guys are curb hugging, running stop signs, riding in door zones, and in a parking lane until they are eventually hit by a motorist who drifts into them.



    At 2:34, I would already be controlling the lane at this frame, having been aware of the long gap after that last car, the signal to move out of the release position (in the parking lane) back into control (the traffic lane). At 2:38, four seconds later, you can see how it looks from the helmet cam in the parking lane and imagine how it looks from a car - a long straight empty stretch of road. Those are the perfect conditions for motorists to overlook cyclists in a shoulder, parking lane or bike lane. A motorist who has been postponing attending to a distraction, like texting, looking up a phone number or something, is much more likely to do it at this point. However, a cyclist up ahead controlling the lane is going to grab his attention. The crash occurs at 2:40.

51 to 100 of 160

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >