Bike boxes in Portland Intersections

January 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Following up on some recent cyclist deaths in Portland where cyclists waiting in bike lanes at red lights were crushed by right-turning trucks (discussed here), the city is introducting 'bike boxes' to encourage bikes to wait out in front of stopped traffic. The city also plans to promote lower-traffic streets as 'bike boulevards' as an alternative to bike lines on high-traffic streets.
posted by PercussivePaul (83 comments total)

I wasn't aware that there were a number of deaths from this. That is very, very sad and depressing.
posted by davejay at 1:58 PM on January 11, 2008

Every bit helps. Unfortunately, this does not change situations where moving vehicles that turn right will not stop for cyclists that are going straight.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:58 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

It'll be interesting to see the reactions of drivers to these. I wonder if there will have to be some marketing so that people understand what the "bike box" is for and how to use them.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:05 PM on January 11, 2008

I've always felt uncomfortable using bike lanes in that situation. There's a reason that you're only supposed to turn right from the rightmost lane. Adding an extra bike-only lane to the right of the car lanes seems inherently unsafe if cars turn right from the car lanes. Some intersections simply merge the bike lane and the right-turn lane for 30-50 feet before the corner, which seems safer to me.
posted by hattifattener at 2:07 PM on January 11, 2008

Driving around Portland can be hairy, to say the least. I'm really glad to see these and anything else that makes cycling safer, but the difficulty remains in improving the human operator of the vehicle such that they can process that much more information. In summer months driving along the waterfront or downtown one frequently encounters traffic rerouting and numerous potential hazards independent of cyclists, and the net effect is of feeling overwhelmed. There is also a tendency of cyclists to presume they are front and center in the driver's attention field when they are at best one of multiple hazards competing for attention. Add in plenty of tourists and older retirees (frequent residents of the exploding urban core) and future catastrophes are a given. These seem like a good start, though.
posted by docpops at 2:10 PM on January 11, 2008

More local coverage here. Portland already has at least one (which will be re-painted to match the others), NYC and SF have a least a few already and are getting more as well.
posted by togdon at 2:11 PM on January 11, 2008

Some intersections simply merge the bike lane and the right-turn lane for 30-50 feet before the corner, which seems safer to me.

Someone needs to comment who knows better, but I thought there had been prior efforts to institute this sort of thing before the cyclist's recent deaths and the biking community fought against it.
posted by docpops at 2:12 PM on January 11, 2008

I've always wondered what the point of those bike boxes was.
posted by chrismear at 2:12 PM on January 11, 2008

I've always wondered what the point of those bike boxes was.

To concentrate those critical mass fuckers into as small a space as possible so I can get as many of them as possible in one pass.
posted by dersins at 2:15 PM on January 11, 2008 [7 favorites]

Cars will stay out of the bike boxes just as well as they stay out of crosswalks - which is to say, not at all. i can't count the number of times i've had to explain to a driver what the little white lines were for after they nearly tapped me with their bumper by edging forward.
posted by nadawi at 2:16 PM on January 11, 2008 [3 favorites]

I live a short distance from the bike boxes that are already in place and, to me, they aren't confusing in the least. This specific intersection also has a "no right on red" posting, the violators of which are the only motorists I see crossing the box during a stop. I have, however, had a couple of close calls at other intersections with cyclists, but never at this one.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 2:17 PM on January 11, 2008

> to encourage bikes to wait out in front of stopped traffic.

I swear that sounds like encouraging bikers to wait out in front of oncoming trains "where the engineers can see them."

It's just dangerous to ride a bike among hurtling 5000lb masses of hot metal, and there's the end of the matter. Bikers, just be patient until the oil runs out. You'll get yours back, and more, when the happy day comes.
posted by jfuller at 2:23 PM on January 11, 2008

Cars will stay out of the bike boxes just as well as they stay out of crosswalks

I suspect you're right. Bike boxes alone won't alleviate the tensions between cars and bikes. There needs to be a billboard/television campaign to educate drivers and cyclists on the best way to share the roads. Creating more bike routes and paths is a step in the right direction, but in many cases the paths are poorly planned and implemented due to a lack of public understanding.

I spent years trying to be the "good" cyclist. Riding defensively, staying to the paths etc. But experience has taught me better. One is safer to use one's own judgment. Often this means being as visible as possible - taking the lane - when traffic is congested and drivers are growing impatient and aggressive. While I may get yelled at more, I rarely feel endangered by drivers too busy talking on their cellphone.....
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:26 PM on January 11, 2008

I commuted by bike and MAX (rode downtown to catch the MAX to work, zoobombed on the way home) so much when I live in Portland that I ended up getting rid of my car entirely. Never participated in critical mass, fyvm dersins. My operating assumption was that all cars were looking for a plausible excuse to kill me, so I just used up a whole lane when I was in the city. Traffic is so slow in town that I never held anyone up. They should really just do away with bike lanes entirely and make all the bikers ride in traffic. As long as you're following all the traffic rules, signaling your turns, and properly adorned with flashing lights it's much safer.
posted by mullingitover at 2:29 PM on January 11, 2008 [4 favorites]

It's great that cyclist's problems even register on the civic consciousness in Portland. Bike-boxes might not be the be-all-end-all of cyclist safety measures, but it's a good start.

Where the problem-solving might really begin, however, is in driver training and licensing. It's far too easy to become a licensed driver, and until the slew of deficits to training and general road-knowledge required for licensure are addressed at the very basic levels, problems like this will persist.

Still, yay Portland for even trying.
posted by Pecinpah at 2:30 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

The one linked article from the old post didn't sound like it was at a red light. It seemed like the cyclist was going straight through a green light, and a garbage truck was turning right in front of him. Don't see how the bike box will help there.
posted by smackfu at 2:36 PM on January 11, 2008

When I was a kid, I was taught at school that when at an intersection, you get off the bike and walk it across like a pedestrian.

To me, that's the safest way. Period. But clearly, that's a hassle in a place like downtown Portland. A hassle to the point of making biking ineffective as a means of transportation, which should definitely be encouraged, not discouraged.

But I can't help wonder why we insist that bikes and cars always share the road. I see bicyclists on the road and always wish they could get off. the. damn. road. because. they're. gonna. get. killed. I wouldn't accept a car going that slow and driving as erratically as bikes often do. Why do bikes get a pass?

Bike boxes seem a step in the right direction to get a smarter separation between the cars and bikes. So, hooray. Let's see if it works.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:38 PM on January 11, 2008 [3 favorites]

I can't speak for Portland, but those bike boxes will be nothing but a source of road rage in Vancouver. Here you can turn right on a red light and if it's busy out and you're sitting behind a guy on a bike...well...I can certainly see some aggression getting worked out.

I think bike routes do need to be configured to keep cyclists off the main roads, in a perfect world. The problem is cyclists end up taking windy lanes with no lights to help them cross main streets or get from point A to point B with any efficiency, so I can't blame bikers for wanting to skip them and stick to main routes.

Are the roads in Portland wide enough that cars in the right lane will be able to easily pass the cyclists once the light is green and the cyclists out front start getting outpaced by the car traffic?
posted by Salmonberry at 2:38 PM on January 11, 2008

Also, I think elwoodwiles and mullingitover would likely be pulled over and cited by the cops here. This is the kind of city that would phone that "THERE IS A CYCLIST IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD FOR FUCKS SAKE" kind of shit in.

I would totally snitch and then demand I get a Crimestoppers reward for it. Over and over. I'll split it with you guys, I swear!
posted by Salmonberry at 2:45 PM on January 11, 2008

smackfu: the accident happened technically during a green light, but it was a newly turned green, and the bicyclist had been stopped beside the truck during the red where the driver either couldn't or didn't see her. these boxes will put the cyclist in front of the truck during the red lights, so they get out of the blind spots, and have first crack at the intersection without right hand turners coming at them.

salmonberry: did you see the diagram in the article? or read the bikeportland post? they both show that the box only is in the right hand lane just before the stoplight. once the cyclists get up to speed, they must return to the bike lane. so traffic outpacing them isn't a problem.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 2:49 PM on January 11, 2008

"Biking community"? The hell?
posted by ethnomethodologist at 2:50 PM on January 11, 2008

Cool Papa Bell writes "But I can't help wonder why we insist that bikes and cars always share the road. I see bicyclists on the road and always wish they could get off. the. damn. road. because. they're. gonna. get. killed. I wouldn't accept a car going that slow and driving as erratically as bikes often do. Why do bikes get a pass?"

The BTA is very politically active in Portland. If it came down to one bikes or cars in downtown, the cars might not win.
posted by mullingitover at 2:50 PM on January 11, 2008

mullingitover writes "My operating assumption was that all cars were looking for a plausible excuse to kill me"

Oh , so you are the guy from Grand Theft Auto !
posted by elpapacito at 2:51 PM on January 11, 2008

ethnomethodologist writes "'Biking community'? The hell?"

PDX has the BTA, and down here in LA we have the less respectable (but far more awesome) 'Midnight Ridazz."
posted by mullingitover at 2:56 PM on January 11, 2008

acid freaking on the kitty, sorry, this is the one I was referring to:

As the garbage truck approached the green light at North Greeley Avenue, it slowed down and started to take a sharp right turn. The cyclist, who had gained speed from the descent, was headed straight when the truck turned. The cyclist was crushed by the truck's rear set of tires.

posted by smackfu at 3:00 PM on January 11, 2008

oh yeah: I wouldn't accept a car going that slow and driving as erratically as bikes often do. Why do bikes get a pass?

um, yeah, you would. cuz it's the law.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 3:00 PM on January 11, 2008

smackfu: ah, yeah, you're right about that one. i was referring to the one outside the crystal ballroom. the north greeley incident wouldn't be changed one bit by these boxes.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 3:01 PM on January 11, 2008

London (UK) has had these on many intersections for over ten years. In practice, they're ignored by the majority of drivers.
posted by normy at 3:02 PM on January 11, 2008

I'm surprised it took 10 posts before we got a critical mass murder fantasy.
posted by MillMan at 3:13 PM on January 11, 2008 [4 favorites]

there's a bike box in victoria at a particulary weird corner where drivers tend to race off the line. the main route of traffic is around a left bend onto a bridge, with the alternative to go straight or to the right.

i've used it many times, and found that it gives cyclists the chance to get out front and be seen, and to stop drivers from flooring it before they even get the chance. it also concentrates groups of cyclists which makes it impossible for drivers to pass without changing lanes, which makes it much safer.

i don't know what the safety stats are before or after, but i think it works great.
posted by klanawa at 3:14 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

When I ride, I do not slither up along the curb while cars are stopped at a light; I pull up in the middle of the lane behind a car and wait my turn. When traffic starts moving, I move back over to the curb and start to ride.
posted by No Robots at 3:19 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

I can think of at least one such 'bike box' in Vancouver. here.
There are a few more instances of bike lanes doing interesting things like being directed into the middle of the road. They tend to have these on designated bike routes at unusual or very busy intersections.
posted by PercussivePaul at 3:21 PM on January 11, 2008

I've been a cycle commuter in two cities in my country (Hamilton and Auckland, in New Zealand) that have these boxes. Generally they and the preceding 50 metres of cycle lane are actually surfaced with coloured paint, so they're impossible to miss or mistake. New Zealand drivers are as rude and stupid as any drivers in the world, but they do seem to respect the boxes, and I really like them. The average cyclist can make a faster getaway than a car, so it's no great inconvenience for the car.

In other cities, when I find that there's a turning lane in between the cycle lane and the rest of the road, I swing out into it and then into the straight ahead lane (after looking for cars of course), precisely so that I'm visible and hard to miss. It's my experience that motorists always underestimate the speed of cyclists if they see them at all, and when they cut you off, they believe they had plenty of time. Every time someone's cut me off, they have been contrite and surprised, so I don't give them the chance to make that mistake.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:24 PM on January 11, 2008

ut I can't help wonder why we insist that bikes and cars always share the road. I see bicyclists on the road and always wish they could get off. the. damn. road. because. they're. gonna. get. killed. I wouldn't accept a car going that slow and driving as erratically as bikes often do. Why do bikes get a pass?

There is a whole lot of case law around that. Remember that the road is not just for cars, but for all vehicles--bicycles, horse drawn buggies, and farm equipment to name three. The case law (a major president in Ohio) basically has it such that "too slow" is based on the type of vehicle, not relative to some absolute.
posted by MrGuilt at 3:31 PM on January 11, 2008

Check out one of today's entries on BikePortland. Excerpt :

The driver, who Wurster says was initially very kind and sympathic, began to object and complain once the citation was issued. Wurster was shocked at what happened next, “The cop was very stern with him and said, ‘would you still be complaining if you had killed him?’.”

Wurster told me that the driver was “taken aback” after hearing that from the cop and he added, “I was very proud of the (Portland Police Bureau) this morning.”
posted by suckerpunch at 3:33 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

the road is not just for cars, but for all vehicles--bicycles, horse drawn buggies, and farm equipment to name three.

True. But a little common sense would dictate that if you are driving a 35-pound vehicle, you keep an eye on the 5-ton truck, if you enjoy being alive, all principles aside.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 3:46 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

To concentrate those critical mass fuckers into as small a space as possible so I can get as many of them as possible in one pass.

Hey, that's me! I think you meant to say ...so I can get as many of them a delicious pizza pop as possible...

That sounds much more plausible. I'd love a pizza pop, thanks!
posted by monkeymike at 3:46 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

um, yeah, you would. cuz it's the law.

There's the law, and then there's the spirit of the law. The law says that the road is shared. The spirit of the law says that the road is shared such that you don't cause undue burden on others. If you're a peloton of bicyclists, for example, there are guidelines for how the group should be organized (e.g. not spread across the entire road).

We also don't generally allow bikes on freeways. So we recognize there should be a total separation in some instances but not others.

Mind you, I'm not railing against bicyclists. It's just an odd conglomeration of law, attitude and engineering that gets people killed.

Remember that the road is not just for cars, but for all vehicles--bicycles, horse drawn buggies, and farm equipment to name three.

It may be intended for all vehicles, but it certainly isn't engineered for all vehicles at the current time. And therein lies the problem -- trying to shoehorn allowances for bicycles (which should be there) into a system that wasn't built to accept it (slap your grandfathers for not thinking ahead).
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:50 PM on January 11, 2008

Being a "good" bicyclist is not first about getting out of the way . If your common sense doesn't tell you that intentionally making yourself less visible is a bad idea you get what you deserve. Unfortunately we all suffer from bad drivers and bad cyclists.

TAKE THE LANE!

The flip side of taking our proper place is we can't take so many short cuts. I too take the lane behind cars at red lights. I don't snake up to the front. Well sometimes I do, but I stop first and then do so carefully. Don't just do it automatically. After traffic starts and people have seen you and it's safe you can move back to the right.
posted by Wood at 3:50 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

I live in Seattle, and we have had a few cyclists killed or injured by right-turning vehicles. I commute by bike, and I think that bike lanes and "sharrows" are a terrible idea. You have right turning vehicles on the left, and car doors and people pulling out of parking lots on the right. And of course bike lanes are often covered in glass and other debris. Designated bike boulevards are a better idea (if they don't have new streetcar tracks that eat tires...), but dedicated bike lanes to the right of parked cars are even better. Right now I make due riding in traffic. I would rather have people occasionally honk at me than run over me.
posted by Smilla at 3:51 PM on January 11, 2008

As someone who lives and bikes in Portland to work every day, and takes advantage of one already installed bike box and several currently designated bike boulevards, here is what I have observed about general car-bike relations:

1) In cars, it often feels like people's sense of entitlement is directly proportional to the size of their vehicle. Although, the rule of thumb that a person's sense of entitlement is directly proportional to their ego could also be the case.

As a giant truck accelerates by me, very quickly, I often wonder if that driver would feel guilty if they killed me. I assume they would, because I give them the benefit of the doubt for being a compassionate human being. But it seems that this thought never crosses their mind as a possible circumstance on wet narrow roads crowded by vehicles or rocks, or whatever. Why not? Is having to go ten miles an hour slower (in a neigborhood) really that much of an inconvenience? For 300 yards?

2) Cars are much nicer to pedestrians than bikes, even though pedestrians are much slower.

When someone gets out of their car or is standing beside it, drivers often recognize, hey! There's a person! I should be careful. But it feels as though drivers register bikers as hey! There's an asshole! Lemme crowd them out of the lane!

3) Everyone assumes that bikers are environmentalist freaks.

I love the environment. Yes. It gives me air to breathe and food to eat and mountains to climb and all that jazz. But a lot of bikers bike for other reasons too. Like money. Like it costs 70 bucks a month for a bus pass and way more than that to commute by car everyday. Biking is a necessity for me, as it is for many of my friends. We're fortunate that we live in a city that makes it possible for us to get jobs miles away from our homes and still arrive in a reasonable amount of time without depending on a car for transportation.

4) People riding bikes are trying their best to get to their destination safely, not trying to ruin car drivers' days.

5) Having lights (especially in the winter) is IMPERATIVE for bikers and cars to navigate safely in this rainy, grey town. I rarely shake my fist at someone, but if I do, it is to try and get them to turn their lights on.

That's about it. If I had my wishes, there would be designated streets in downtown that were biker only, making it safe, with less headache, for everyone.

P.S. I once heard that in Germany, when taking a driving test, if you did everything perfectly and then failed to check your side mirror before getting out of the car, you still failed. Gotta watch out for those bikers. Don't wanna open your door up quickly and send one flying....
posted by whimsicalnymph at 4:11 PM on January 11, 2008 [5 favorites]

Cool Papa Bell: There's the law, and then there's the spirit of the law.

so when you're cited by a policeman for reckless endangerment, is your defense that the bicycle (or slow car) was violating the spirit of the law? good luck with that one.

We also don't generally allow bikes on freeways.

once again, because of the law (letter AND spirit).

I don't think you're going to persuade anyone in law enforcement or prosecution that a slow bike in the road doesn't have the right to be there.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 4:27 PM on January 11, 2008

By allowing cyclists to wait in front of motorized traffic

I already do this and I didn't ask anyone's permission.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 4:29 PM on January 11, 2008

Ugh, did we really need to bring the Mercury's Bikes VS. Cars fight here? The 2 week break was just too long, wasn't it?
posted by mnology at 4:36 PM on January 11, 2008

Going through our first winter in Portland now, and we (both cyclists) are constantly freaked out at how damn hard it can be to simply see cyclists at, say, 3 pm on a gray drizzly day, when we do break down and drive.

Not to mention how many of them/us are a) wearing black or other dark colors, not "dorky" day-glo, b) not wearing helmets (too cool on my single speed!), and c) have no or too few lights.

The more you look like a complete dweeb, covered in bright colors and flashing lights, the earlier you are to see, and it's way too hard as is right off the bat.
posted by gottabefunky at 4:48 PM on January 11, 2008

If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that bicycles are passing cars on the right in intersections, and getting creamed when the driver turns right (after signaling, it is to be hoped), presumably because the driver is not expecting such lunacy.

Well, I sure as hell wouldn't be expecting it. If you're on a bicycle, don't pass cars on the right in intersections (unless they've pulled out to turn left).
posted by Crabby Appleton at 4:57 PM on January 11, 2008

Cars are much nicer to pedestrians than bikes, even though pedestrians are much slower.


It's precisely because bikers flit by that the riders are in danger. We have comparatively few bikes here in car-centric Long Island but I have a couple of times nearly hit bikers because I haven't seen them. They zip out of a parking lot and pull up quickly on the right. They are nearly invisible. A pedestrian can be seen, isn't most likely walking in between cars or close to the side of the car and thus actually safer in most circumstances.

I love the idea of more bikes here and I know a lot of drivers are assholes but cyclists zipping around cars when drivers simply aren't expecting them or trained to see them is dangerous.
posted by etaoin at 5:01 PM on January 11, 2008

The BTA is very politically active in Portland. If it came down to one bikes or cars in downtown, the cars might not win.

The fact is unless you're crippled or have to haul stuff, there isn't any reason whatsoever to have a car downtown. The bus, max and streetcars are all free downtown, and even at a brisk walk you can get from just about anywhere to anywhere between the hills and the river in 20 minutes, tops. You can't drive much faster than a walking or, at best, biking pace downtown anyway, and you could spend that long again just trying to find a place to park. I think the only reason the city doesn't just go ahead and ban cars is that they're concerned that white-collar business would move away to all those anonymous business parks that form a noose around the metro area.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:05 PM on January 11, 2008

Not to mention how many of them/us are a) wearing black or other dark colors, not "dorky" day-glo, b) not wearing helmets (too cool on my single speed!), and c) have no or too few lights.

The more you look like a complete dweeb, covered in bright colors and flashing lights, the earlier you are to see, and it's way too hard as is right off the bat.

Actually, I've sometimes wondered if it's the cyclists' clothing itself that makes drivers so aggressive. When that waterproof gear flaps in the wind it's like the red rag waving at the bull.
posted by attaboy at 5:08 PM on January 11, 2008

Crabby Appleton, in one case the cyclist was waiting, stopped, in the bike lane, between a truck and the curb. The truck turned right and the real wheels crushed her as they swung around. It's hard to blame the cyclist for waiting in the bike lane. But in the driver's defense it is very difficult to see cyclists waiting behind and to your right, and you don't expect them here. The bike lane itself was part of the cause of the problem. The 'bike box' should prevent this type of accident from occurring by guiding cyclists to wait out front.
posted by PercussivePaul at 5:14 PM on January 11, 2008

Yeah, if I'm on a bike, and approaching an intersection where inattentive motorists (i.e., most U.S. motorists) are likely to turn right, bike-lane-schmike-lane, you bet your sweet bippy I'm taking the full lane good and early. I may take it anyway, if the bike lane/shoulder/on-street parking is obscured enough with cars or garbage cans or whatever—I gotta right not to get doored, you know.

Another thing about bike boxes is that cycles are narrower than cars, and when the cars start piling up they'd be stupid to sit in the car line (risking death at the bumpers of irrationally hostile motorists), instead of slipping up the side of it. The bike box gives them a place to slip up to. Then when the light changes they all dump out and sort back into a (car-passable) line while traversing the intersection. (Bear in mind that from a standstill, over that distance, my 21-speed is as fast as any car, so this is not actually holding anybody up.)

Ultimately, though, you're never going to persuade people about this by talking. Gotta see it in action. I learned the wonders of bike boxes by using them (on a motor scooter) in Taiwan. (Actually, Taiwan would be very educational for a lot of American drivers. Lesson 1: A car really is a big, awkward object compared to the human scale. Lesson 2: Watch where you're ruddy going, or you're gonna die. I felt very safe in Taiwan traffic, because everyone was paying attention.)

Nor are you gonna persuade too many people with Critical Mass. It was a good idea when it was legal assertion—demonstrating that law (sharing the road) is broader than custom (reluctantly sharing the road with anyone whose vehicle can kill you). When they introduced their own custom (corking) in violation of law, they lost everything they ever won except the warm fuzzies.
posted by eritain at 5:37 PM on January 11, 2008

"Where the problem-solving might really begin, however, is in driver training and licensing. It's far too easy to become a licensed driver, and until the slew of deficits to training and general road-knowledge required for licensure are addressed at the very basic levels, problems like this will persist."

How very true. I was always surprised at how easy it is to get a license, and also surprised at how many people fail the tests miserably. Then again we have a lot of people driving around with *no* license whatsoever.

Too hard to stop people, I s'pose.
posted by drstein at 6:00 PM on January 11, 2008

Something that I realized that even I, as a cyclist, seem to forget in the whole "Share-the-Road" debate. One of the most common "solutions" for bicycles is to create bike trails throughout a city. Problem with this? They're not always welcome, they're not always well lit, they do encourage violence (rape, assault, robbery etc) and, here's the kicker, THEY'RE MORE CONCRETE.

One good reason for sharing roads is that the roads are already there. If we could do it over and make tiny bike-only roads throughout cities and get rid of car traffic that would keep out people who choose to drive. So, how about, instead of keeping out the bicyclists by keeping out bike lanes and bike trails... you SHARE THE ROAD. And be alert.

Yes, I agree that cyclists need to be more responsible in their use of the road. But, automobile drivers need to do their part too... like get the heck off the phone.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 6:37 PM on January 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Sam.Burdick writes "like get the heck off the phone."

Indeed, I see far more drivers on their cell phones (which is as dangerous as driving drunk) than cyclists. Last night I saw a guy cruising along in his SUV, carefully composing a text message. I don't see many cyclists doing that.
posted by mullingitover at 6:47 PM on January 11, 2008

Yeah, I very rarely see drivers on cyclists.
posted by smackfu at 7:19 PM on January 11, 2008

I'm sad to hear about the deaths in PDX. I've lived all over the country, including Portland, where I was a messenger, and it really is a bike-friendly city in comparison to other parts of the country.

The bike box is an interesting solution. One of the big problems with American bike lanes is that it lulls cyclists into a false sense of security. Intersections are always dangerous for cyclists, and I can think of plenty of places where the bike lane continues straight, next to the sidewalk, when there is an obligate right-turn for motor traffic.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 8:08 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

Metafilter could also use something like this. Maybe in future threads about cycling, we can make a box for small, unhappy men like Dersins to put their comments, and the rest of the discussion can proceed forward without being derailed.
posted by freshwater_pr0n at 8:11 PM on January 11, 2008 [4 favorites]

I don't have a problem with sharing the road with cyclists, but like most I just think that telling people to share a road designed, really, for only what type of vehicle is a recipe for a problem. And here's the thing - even in new developments you see roads being put in without bike friendly lanes/boxes/routes.

In Stanley park there is a causeway that cuts through the middle. The sidewalks are wide, now, and the rule is cyclists share them with pedestrians and cars stick to the road. Cyclists must stay on the sidewalk next to traffic going in their direction (one sidewalk for north bound bikes, one for southbound). The seawall around the city has a wide walkway that has a bike dedicated lane. Is that ever an option or is it just as unsafe? Creating wider sidewalks that allow for both bike and pedestrians to share? I don't know if that's any safer, just wondering if it would be an solution.
posted by Salmonberry at 8:34 PM on January 11, 2008

With little video cameras and small monitors as cheap as they are, I don't see why we accept trucks having blind spots in the first place.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:44 PM on January 11, 2008

Salmonberry, my experience of shared cycleways/pedestrian footpaths is that they are only suitable for sightseers and tourists in scenic areas. If you are trying to get somewhere in a hurry you can't ride safely at normal speed, because some pedestrian will unexpectedly get in your way, and you'll both get hurt.

My ideal solutions are a) dedicated cycle routes (which are possible in greenfields developments or in cities with green belts and connected park systems) and b) distinct cycle lines, not shared with car parks, and "boxes". If I can't have those two then I'll ride on the road and use the whole lane if necessary.

You're absolutely right that it comes down to design.

The city I live in now actually has diagonal bicycle crossings at some major intersections (ie there's a button on a pole and a light system like a pedestrian crossing, and having pressed the button your wait and then you get a "cross" light indicating brief window where you can safely ride through on the diagonal). They're neat, but they're very new, and only going in as intersections get rebuilt.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:49 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

When I ride, I do not slither up along the curb while cars are stopped at a light; I pull up in the middle of the lane behind a car and wait my turn. When traffic starts moving, I move back over to the curb and start to ride. (No Robots)

This is the best simplest idea for the potentially deadly right turn scenario. Plus, it politely gives some cars the chance to turn right on red, if that is an option.

I am not familiar with bike boxes.

I am, though, familiar with bike/car interactions. For a while, I commuted on bicycle, and that was the first time (and this was fifteen years ago!) I realized how many drivers were effectively incapacitated from making rational driving judgments because THEY WERE TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES.

Aside from a few crazy bike messengers (apologies to the Bike Messenger Community), most of us are just trying to get to work, get to the grocery store, or get a little exercise. Believe me, motorists, we are just trying to get from one place to another without going to heaven, hell, or dung beetle reincarnation. And, many of us are your brother and sister drivers when we're not in the deadly bicycle seat.

Can't we all just get along?
posted by kozad at 8:59 PM on January 11, 2008

Some cyclists seem to be hell bent on killing themselves. I often see people riding irresponsibly here in Portland. Plus there's the whole "I'm saving the environment by riding a bike, so I'm better than everybody else on the road, so I'll just do whatever the fuck I feel" attitude that prevails in this town too. It's a wonder we don't have weekly deaths.
posted by Sukiari at 9:01 PM on January 11, 2008

"It's far too easy to become a licensed driver"

Well said. The worst driver I have ever known passed her test on the first try! Thank science for all of us, she got a Mini instead of the frickin SUV she wanted.
posted by Sukiari at 9:03 PM on January 11, 2008

I commute to work in Chicago and I'm pretty sure the bikers here already use a sort of "bike box" by pulling up to the intersection, crossing the pedestrian crosswalk, and then parking there while waiting for the light. The cars are stuck several feet behind you but you're still far enough out of the way of crossing traffic that you don't block the road. Also, cars can make right turns behind you. Also, because you're out into the intersection, you're more visible.
posted by Mid at 9:04 PM on January 11, 2008

(commute on a bike, duh)
posted by Mid at 9:06 PM on January 11, 2008

A: How many freakin' Portlanders do we have on this damn site?
B: What percentage of them commute by bike?

Seriously. What the hell?

And yeah, I'm from Portland and, yeah, I commute by bike. This frickin' utopia is getting under my skin...
posted by thomsplace at 10:10 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

Some cyclists seem to be hell bent on killing themselves. I often see people riding irresponsibly here in Portland. Plus there's the whole "I'm saving the environment by riding a bike, so I'm better than everybody else on the road, so I'll just do whatever the fuck I feel" attitude that prevails in this town too.

Not sure what your point is. That there's an equal number of both stupid, reckless bicyclists and stupid, reckless drivers? Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That's not the problem. The big issues progressive cities like Portland are trying to grapple with are:

-Encouraging biking as an low-impact, no-pollution, cost-efficient way to make congestion and air quality higher for everyone

-Reducing overall deaths and injuries.

No matter how scrupulous, careful, and law-abiding cyclists are, they are completely vulnerable to even the smallest lapse of judgment by a driver with a 5000 lb. steel-clad car.

It's a wonder we don't have weekly deaths.

I feel the same way. I have at least two near-death-or-devastating-injury experiences every time I go into Manhattan. And I can tell you it's not because I'm being an aggressive, heedless bike jerk. It doesn't matter if I obey the law and am as careful as possible- it's impossible to bike "defensively" enough to protect yourself against drivers who can't be bothered to pay attention to what's around them and follow the basic rules of road safety.

I'm sorry you seem to have had so many experiences with maverick cyclists, but even those of us who consider ourselves ambassadors for good bike behavior are toast the minute some guy decides he's too busy to check his mirrors or look to see what's beside him (my helmet-donning, traffic-law obeying, no headphone-wearing, conservative cyclist self spent three days in the hospital and six weeks with a cast and leg brace last summer thanks to one of them, and I was lucky).

In the grand calculus of traffic safety, errant cyclists aren't the problem. They aren't the ones talking on their cell phone, changing their itunes playlist, or text messaging, and they aren't the ones causing deaths and devastating injuries. They are, however, the people getting killed.

Cities who are taking urban re-design seriously are trying to improve overall quality of life for all their residents. That means reducing traffic, air pollution, and yes, the number of people killed in accidents. Asking drivers to go a little bit slower for a few yards in a major urban center seems reasonable.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the "I'm an environmentalist so I'm better than everyone else" psychological insight into the character and motivations of cyclists. You certainly aren't describing me. I don't make those sorts of judgments about people who drive cars. I think they are like most other New Yorkers- convinced that their goals are more important than anyone else's, determined to get to their destination as fast as possible, and utterly self-absorbed (NB: love this city, wouldn't live anywhere else).

I think it would take a very long time- and a massive overhaul of driver education- to make drivers take visual account of bicycles. But it wouldn't be that hard- in Germany, there's a whole section of the drivers' ed curriculum on recognizing and accommodating bicyclists. All it takes is the political will. In the meantime, the only safe options seem to be dedicated separate bike lanes (i.e. cordoned off or otherwise separated from the road) and taking the claim that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as cars seriously, and using the lane as if we were a car.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 10:32 PM on January 11, 2008

I wonder if there will have to be some marketing so that people understand what the "bike box" is for and how to use them.

Yes. A friend of mine in marketing was hired by the city to do it. We knocked around a few ideas the other day. "Think: out of the box" was the obvious slogan. Got a better one? Post it and I'll pass it along.
posted by nonmyopicdave at 10:57 PM on January 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

mullingitover writes "Never participated in critical mass, fyvm dersins. My operating assumption was that all cars were looking for a plausible excuse to kill me, so I just used up a whole lane when I was in the city. Traffic is so slow in town that I never held anyone up. They should really just do away with bike lanes entirely and make all the bikers ride in traffic. As long as you're following all the traffic rules, signaling your turns, and properly adorned with flashing lights it's much safer."

Yep, this bike box is a kludge on a stupid implementation; namely bike lanes at grade with vehicle traffic. When I was commuting in Victoria I had the choice of one of two main N/S drags. One had bike lanes and the other didn't. The one without was much safer because you didn't have to worry about twits making an unsignalled right hand turn in front of you, one just took the lane for each intersection.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that bicycles are passing cars on the right in intersections, and getting creamed when the driver turns right (after signaling, it is to be hoped), presumably because the driver is not expecting such lunacy"

Your not, the cyclist is in a dedicated bike lane to the right of traffic lanes. They have the right of way. Cyclist are no more in the wrong in these situations than you would be if someone turned to the right in front of you from the left hand lane of a multi lane street.
posted by Mitheral at 11:08 PM on January 11, 2008

Hey dersins (and anyone that favorited him), I challenge you to get off your ass and bike to work for one week. If that doesn't change your perspective, continue with your bullshit. One week is all I ask.
posted by anomie at 12:11 AM on January 12, 2008

I'm in London too. Bike boxes work aren't much good - and those lined off "bike lanes" on the side of the road are f--king useless, unless you like being badmouthed by taxi and van drivers whenever you point out they're in your lane. What does work (on busy roads) are bike lanes which are separated by a kerb. All of which I means that if you make a bike lane or box which cars can go in they will; funnily enough you just can't rely on drivers' good or law abiding natures.
posted by rhymer at 1:15 AM on January 12, 2008

No time to read entire thread. However, someone said it was "too easy" to get a license, so drivers were under-skilled.

I'm sorry. I appreciate where this notion is coming from. However, I can tell you: if it is too difficult to get a license, you'll end up with unlicensed drivers that are far worse! That's what we deal with in South Africa. Apart from the driving method required (K-something, absurdly prescribed methodology), there is a severe shortage of testers, and waiting lists on the order of 6 months, to take a test it is far too easy to fail. The roads are full of unlicensed drivers that are complete morons (eg: slowly drive down a freeway entrance ramp; pass in no passing zones).

In Germany, my practice at intersections was to pull up front so I was visible. Just seemed to make sense to me. The right turn thing didn't seem to come up much, but then, I was adept at choosing less-trafficked streets, and spent more time on off-road bike paths. Only my home street required biking in a busy place.

I can't understand a rainy city being popular with cyclists.
posted by Goofyy at 7:50 AM on January 12, 2008

dersins, if you take the one week challenge, you might infiltrate the cycling community and then you can really strategize.
posted by Cheminatrix at 9:15 AM on January 12, 2008

I honestly don't get the vitriol against bikers (this is coming from a metal-coffin-driver). I mean, how often each day are you really inconvenienced by a bike on the road? Just how much city driving do you people do? I think these bike boxes are a wrench in search of a nail--that is to say, a hammer will do a much better job. The hammer being: get into the lane when approaching a light. Most cyclists can out-accelerate a car in a city setting (not the lead car at a light, mind you, if the driver gets the notion to play Mario Andretti), but the #2 car back has to wait for the lead car, so you can't just floor it.

New Zealand drivers are as rude and stupid as any drivers in the world

Appreciate the sentiment, but I highly doubt this.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:44 AM on January 12, 2008

Hey dersins (and anyone that favorited him), I challenge you to get off your ass and bike to work for one week.

When the weather is nice, I frequently bike to work. I enjoy bicycling around town, do it often, and I understand the safety issues from both sides.

I think the vast majority of bicyclists are infinitely less dickish on the road than the vast majority of drivers of motor vehicles.

That said, cirtical mass riders are often self-defeating idiots and assholes who take what goodwill bicyclists do have in the community and completely squander it to make their point, which is... what, exactly? That a bunch of bikers have the capability of being just as dickish as a bunch of SUV drivers?

Good job, guys.
posted by dersins at 10:22 AM on January 12, 2008

Mitheral: ...the cyclist is in a dedicated bike lane to the right of traffic lanes. They have the right of way. Cyclist are no more in the wrong in these situations than you would be if someone turned to the right in front of you from the left hand lane of a multi lane street.

That's the problem right there - allowing the right-most lane (bikes) right-of-way over the right-turning motor vehicles. This is a traffic design flaw; in no other situation would such dangerous right-of-way be allowed and the cyclists who treat this situation as a natural right of way, laws or not, are only putting themselves in danger. Passing on the right is always a dangerous choice.

That arrangement is also an unnecessary source of friction between cyclists and drivers; a right-turning vehicle is frequently blocked by cyclists who either stop too far into the intersection, or who bomb through red lights. Both those bike moves are technically illegal, btw (improper stop, and running a red).

So, the bike box, or some other measure that merges cyclists into the right-hand lane of motor vehicles at intersections, is a better arrangement. (of course dedicated, auto-free bike-ways are safest for cyclists)

My own habit when cycling is to first of all, never blindly assume that I can depend on a legal right of way for my safety; physics and human behaviour trump bylaws every time. Where the bike lane goes right up to the intersection, I stop far enough back so that motor vehicles can safely make right turns on a red when possible. When there's no bike lane at an intersection and if I'm going straight, I will pull into the center of the lane, or when possible, I will move to the left edge of the right-most lane to permit right-turning vehicles to proceed to MY right, as any other vehicle would expect.

In North America, bicycles are still a novelty and a nuisance to most people, unlike most of the rest of the world, where they are an accepted and popular mode of personal transport. Most dedicated bikeways in North America are "recreational" and not useful for commutes, and as the Portland accidents show, current thinking and execution of bike lanes is dangerously wrong.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:37 AM on January 12, 2008

Artful Codger writes "That's the problem right there - allowing the right-most lane (bikes) right-of-way over the right-turning motor vehicles. This is a traffic design flaw;"

Yep, like I said it's idiotic and so dangerous I prefer to avoid at grade bike lanes whenever possible.
posted by Mitheral at 10:43 AM on January 12, 2008

I truly hope these bike boxes work. Last June, my sister-in-law was killed by someone without a license or insurance who suffered from a medical condition which probably contributed to the accident. As far as we know, the police/DA never pressed any charges against the unlicensed uninsured driver. Here is the article about the accident from the Eugene Register-Guard. Elaine was riding her bike on a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon. She was wearing a bike helmet, riding in the bike lane and obeying all the traffic laws. Elaine left behind an 18 month old son who still cries for his mother.

A driver who may have been suffering from a medical condition struck and killed a 43-year-old [sic, Elaine had just turned 42] Eugene woman on West 18th Avenue Saturday.

Elaine Lenore Shotridge was traveling east in the bike lane near the intersection at City View Street at 12:16 p.m. when she was hit from behind by an older Volvo station wagon driven by Phillip James Miller, 42, of Eugene.

The Volvo then struck a traffic pole, spun around and hit a Honda stopped at a red light on City View Street, before coming to rest in the yard of a vacant house, Eugene police officer Ben Hall said.

Shotridge's mountain bike was dragged between 100 and 150 feet, he said. Shotridge was taken to Sacred Heart Medical Center, where she later died.

Miller was taken to Sacred Heart Medical Center, where he was in serious condition Sunday night.[Miller seemed in good health when my wife paid him a visit in his hospital room a few days later]

The accident happened just after Holly Woodward arrived for her shift at the Stop-N-Shop Market near the intersection.

"I made a cup of coffee, turned around and heard a small crash and then I heard a really loud crash," she said.

A co-worker ran outside, where she discovered Shotridge unresponsive in the middle of West 18th Avenue, she said. Woodward had to stay with the store, but immediately called 911.

"There was nothing we could do for her," she said.

Police closed off West 18th Avenue from City View Street to Arthur Street for the afternoon as they investigated the crash.

A bike tire lay across the street from the crumpled blue frame of Shotridge's bicycle.

The passenger side of Miller's tan Volvo was severely dented, with the wheel carriage twisted and windshield smashed.

Woodward said witnesses who came into the market said they thought Miller may have lost consciousness shortly before he hit Shotridge.

"Several people around here thought he started swerving just before he hit her," he said.

Police are investigating whether a medical condition had caused Miller to lose control of his car shortly before he hit Shotridge, Hall said.

Excessive speed, alcohol and drugs have been ruled out as factors in the collision.

"It's starting to sound more like a horrible accident due to a medical condition," Hall said.

Miller suffered injuries that were not life-threatening. The driver of the Honda, 27-year-old Tobhiyah Miller-Katlin of Eugene, was not injured, Hall said.

It is unknown whether Shotridge was wearing a bicycle helmet. Officials were uncertain whether it would have helped protect her, police spokeswoman Melinda Kletzok said.

Shotridge is at least the second Lane County cyclist to have died after being hit by a car this year. On April 23, Claude Weimer, 72, of Cottage Grove, was killed when he was hit by a van at an intersection of the Row River bike path and Row River Road. At least three bicyclists died after being hit by cars in 2006.
posted by Devils Slide at 1:11 PM on January 12, 2008

It seems like a strange accident. Back in my days of cycling I used to park right at the curb to wait for lights. Because I wore cleats I actually left the shoes in the pedals and leaned against the traffic signal pole until the light changed. Doing this left plenty of room for right-turning vehicles to get around me and it was a simple matter of checking to see if the coast was clear when the light changed. This was all done in busy downtown streets, typically at rush hour.

These days the bikers I see never wait for lights and typically burn through a light without checking for cross traffic.
posted by JJ86 at 1:16 PM on January 12, 2008

That said, cirtical mass riders are often self-defeating idiots and assholes who take what goodwill bicyclists do have in the community and completely squander it to make their point, which is... what, exactly?

Your point which, ironically, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BIKE BOX.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:07 PM on January 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

Bike lanes are dangerous to bicyclists for precisely the right turn problem. On my bike I always take a full lane at the intersection if I feel I need it. Last thing I need is some SUV thinking they can squeeze past me. They can wait.
posted by Nelson at 3:51 PM on January 12, 2008

We've had these in toronto for ages. People look at you funny when you use them, but they still respect your presence.
posted by tehloki at 1:27 PM on January 13, 2008

I believe that someone posted earlier that they were surprised there aren't weekly bicycle deaths?

Just set you favorite RSS filter to do a google feed of "Bicycle Death". You'll get at least one daily, if not more.

It is depressing as hell to me. Especially since some of these are damn stupid. In 2005 in my hometown of Madison, WI one of our local high-profile bicycle advocates was hit by a driver while he was LOOKING IN HIS MIRROR AT THE BACK OF HIS THROAT WTFBBQ!!!!!1111oneone!!!!11

http://www.bfw.org/about/jessicabullen.php

So yeah, there's alot of bicycle deaths in this nation almost weekly. So... cheers.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 9:19 AM on January 17, 2008