“Don’t we have a deal with the pigeons?”
“Of course we have a deal. They get out of the way of our cars, we look the other way on the statue defecation.”
- George Costanza and Jerry Seinfeld
The tyranny of speed rules over nearly every road in this great nation. Florida is perhaps the tyrant’s most resolute stronghold. It’s as if gravity or latitude or the warm climate (or perhaps the convergence of the three) have funneled that power into our peninsula from all across the land. Hemmed in by the Everglades, the tyrant’s power concentrates even more as one moves into Broward and Miami-Dade counties. It then squirts out along US 1, the Overseas Highway that runs from Key Largo to Key West. The Highway is now mostly overwhelmed by the tyrant; its miles of ugly strip commercial development making it look like nearly any other four-lane highway. If it weren’t for the palms and tropically-themed signs you might think you were outside Atlanta along some stretches.
N. Roosevelt: sidepath on the left side; destinations on the right.
One-hundred and two miles down the highway you enter the Conch Republic, aka Key West. It’s the end of the road. The tyranny of speed has pushed its invading wedge westward into the island along US 1, and its commercial minions — fast-food purveyors, big box retailers… — have come in behind to claim territory. At its ironic intersection with Eisenhower Drive, it loses nearly all its power as it changes names from N. Roosevelt Boulevard to Truman Avenue and becomes a narrow, two-lane street.
Read more »
Posted in
Bikeways,
Culture,
Politics,
Safety,
Traffic Law,
Transportation Cycling
Enough with the "she's not wearing a helmet" blather, already.
“65% of statistics are just made up.” — unknown
It’s been repeated so many times as to be considered a “fact.” But this “fact,” which has been used to justify mandatory helmet laws across the nation and around the world, is based on a misleading report about a poorly designed study. I’m speaking of course about the “fact” that bicycle helmets reduce head injury risk by 88%. This paper does a great job of explaining the errors in the infamous Thompson, Rivara & Thompson study, published in New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. The key shortcomings:
- The “cases” (bicycle head injury hospital admissions) were significantly different in character from the “control group” population.
- None of the cases involved bicyclist crashes involving motor vehicles.
- The report is claimed to apply to all ages, but the case and control groups were all children.
- Helmet use was “self selected.” Non-head injuries were less severe among helmet-wearers than non-helmet-wearers, implying that helmet-wearers are less likely to get involved in more serious collisions.
According to the Florida Department of Health, there were 622 traumatic brain injuries (TBI) among bicyclists in Florida in 2005. By comparison, during the same period, 14,696 automobile and truck passengers, 1,643 motorcyclists, and 1,189 pedestrians suffered traumatic brain injuries. Cyclists were only 3% of all traffic-related TBIs. The TBI rates per 100,000 population* (2005 thru 2007) are: motor vehicle occupant 82.5, motorcycle 10.7, pedestrian 7.1, bicyclist 3.7. (That’s total population, not “cycling population” or “motorcyclist population,” etc.)
[The above paragraph has been updated with better data. The previous numbers were from a report that evidently only included injuries recorded in the state's "Central Registry."]
Since helmet use is such an important element of the “dangerization” of cycling, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to smack down those ubiquitous “88%” claims whenever we can.
Obligatory Disclaimer: I am not anti-helmet. I wear one most times I ride. I am anti-helmet law because there is some evidence that such laws reduce cycling (especially among kids) and because there is no evidence of a compelling state interest.
Posted in
Bicycles & Equipment,
Safety
Are bicyclists required or expected to permit motorists to violate the law?
Passing within 3 feet is of course a violation now in Florida. As someone who spent 20 years hugging the white line, and the past 10 riding more assertively, and has been passed by probably a million motorists in his lifetime, it’s obvious to me that hugging the edge invites close passing while lane control does not.
Here’s another illustration to show the dangers of having a large group ride single-file along the edge. Thanks to Keri Caffrey for the truck & trailer illustration.
And if a cyclist is hit in such a scenario, count on the driver claiming the cyclist “swerved into me; there was nothing I could do,” and the officer going along with it.
Posted in
Cars,
Safety,
Traffic Law
E-mails are flying and cycling forums are full of the story of the Town of Jupiter (FL) considering passage of a local code limiting the size of cycling groups. As often happens when reactionary minds get together, the proposed law goes too far, requiring nonsense such as bells and “safety” flags on bikes, and it seems to limit the ability for solo cyclists to drive as defensively as State law allows.
Responses from local cycling groups has also been disappointing. The more vocal folks seem to believe the solution is for everyone to ride single file and hug the edge of the road. For years now I have been arguing that the problem with groups rides in Florida is primarily group size. But few if any of the clubs and groups seem willing to try reducing group size.
Keeping the same size groups and going single file along the edge will not solve the problem, and it may make things worse.
Cyclists ride two abreast because humans are naturally social animals. The desire to ride side-by-side and talk to somebody will create constant tension between those attempting to keep everyone single-file and those who just want to enjoy the ride.
Long, single-file pacelines are inherently squirrelly at the end, and dropping back after a pull takes quite a while with a big group, so there will often be at least one rider outside the line.
Hugging the edge invites motorists to pass when it’s not safe to do so. They will squeeze by within the lane (many rural roads have lanes of 10 or 11 feet wide), and in many cases pass closer than three feet.
The problem isn’t cyclists “riding in the middle of the lane;” it’s cyclists making it difficult for motorists to pass by choosing to travel in large packs. Larger groups leads to other problems, too.
Read more »
Posted in
Cars,
Safety,
Traffic Law
I’m not quite sure where people get those all-or-nothing attitudes when it comes to cycling. I’m continually amazed at how many people immediately start up with “Americans aren’t going to give up their cars” when bicycle transportation is brought up.
Similarly, many cyclists (and motorists who seem to revel in hanging out in cycling-related comment boards) seem to think lane control (aka “Taking the Lane,” aka “Commanding the Lane,” aka “Riding in the Middle of the Road,” aka “Impeding Traffic,” aka “Getting in the Way of the Important People in Cars”) is an all-or-nothing proposition. As though lane control proponents do nothing but ride in the middle of every lane.
Of course that’s not the case. We control the lane when it’s prudent; when keeping right will invite motorists to squeeze by dangerously close, when intersection conflicts are an issue, when pavement is bad, when we’re going as fast as other traffic, and in a variety of other situations.
I and others describe a lane that is too narrow to share as less than 14 feet wide. (By the way, it’s not just us arrogant lane control advocates who say this; FDOT does, too. See Florida Green Book, page 211.) But there are situations in which a narrower lane might be shareable; particularly when motorist speeds are low. One of the many benefits of lane control is that it slows motorists down so that they can pass safely. While many cyclists like to tout Florida’s 3-foot law (motorists are required to give at least three feet of space when passing a bicyclist), many of us are comfortable with closer passes when motorists are going only a few miles per hour faster than we are (but want more than 3 feet when speeds are high!). I’m happy with 2 feet when cars are doing 20 mph and the pavement is good.
Read more »
Posted in
Advanced Skills,
Cars,
Safety,
Traffic Law,
Traffic Skills,
Transportation Cycling
Sometimes I just have to shake my head. And take a picture.
This bike lane on US 17/92 in Seminole County, just north of the Orange County line, is correctly placed between the right-most through lane and the long merge lane.
(This Google Map shot was taken before the road was rebuilt, so you won’t see the bike lane there, but shows the wider context; it runs from the Maitland Blvd. interchange to the Spartan Drive intersection; about 900 feet).
But the traffic engineers seem to think motorists should only merge during this very short dashed line section.
Not to worry. The motorists seem to be smarter than that and pass/merge where it makes sense for them.
Posted in
Bikeways,
Safety
This story at MSNBC illustrates how many in the media have a huge blind spot — or in keeping with my title theme, are tone deaf — regarding traffic crashes.
This story made the news of course because bystanders did nothing, but it ignores the more common problem.
The subtitle reads:
“He was mostly ignored by witnesses after accident in Conn.”
Down the page a few paragraphs is this quote from the son of the crash victim:
“You know people keep calling it an accident,” Arce said Tuesday. “It was not an accident. It was a crime.”
And he is absolutely right. The motorists were passing illegally, and neither of them stopped. This crash was not an “accident.” It was a crime even if the drivers hadn’t fled the scene.
I try not to think conspiratorially; I don’t think the subhead is intentionally misleading. They’re just fully immersed in the automotive culture. The “real crimes” in their eyes seems to be that the drivers left the scene and the bystanders did nothing. But as for the wrong-way driving resulting in the striking of an elderly man? “Hey. Stuff happens. What can we say?”
Posted in
Cars,
Safety,
Traffic Law
What is the normal speed of traffic here?
Well, it depends.
A common concern among cyclists and law enforcement is whether or not cyclists are illegally impeding other roadway users (motorists).
Many officers and motorists question a cyclists’ statutory ability to command a lane or drive two-abreast by quoting (or claiming to) the impeding traffic statute.
But some have not read it very carefully.
Here is how it actually reads in Florida statutes:
316.183 Unlawful speed.(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
Notice that is reads “drive a motor vehicle;” not “drive a vehicle.” And while a bicycle is certainly a vehicle, it is not a motor vehicle, so this statute does not apply to bicyclists. If it did it would be blatantly discriminatory. It would mean that bicyclists would not be able to drive defensively by commanding a lane and must place their safety solely into the hands of motorists. It would also discriminate against horse-drawn wagons and carriages, which are still permitted on roadways. Unlike bicyclists, they cannot share a lane with motor vehicles unless the lane is exceptionally wide. Read more »
Posted in
Safety,
Traffic Law
A full-sized van or SUV with its door open would take up at least another foot of this Baldwin Park bike lane.
On April 16 and 17 Metroplan Orlando hosted a Bicycle Facilities Design Course. Thirty planners and engineers from local governments and consulting firms attended. (Kudos to instructors Michael Moule and Craig Williams.)
On the 17th I led an on-bike facilities tour from downtown Orlando to Baldwin Park and back to showcase and discuss examples of good and bad facilities and designs.
I’m sure the attendees learned a lot, but…
During both the classroom design session and in the field, door zone bike lanes were discussed and explained; how it’s impossible for a cyclist to react effectively if a car door is opened too close ahead of the cyclist.
A short while after illustrating the problem in the field, we rode down one of Baldwin Park’s streets with door zone bike lanes. The combined width of the parking and bike lanes is 12 feet; one foot less than the Florida Green Book standard. If your wheel is in the bike lane there, the right end of your handlebar is in the door zone and you are at risk. With 13 feet you can at least keep out of the door zone by staying all the way to the left side of the bike lane.
Nearly every single person drove in the bike lane. I called out to everyone within earshot, reminding them that they were traveling in the door zone.
They all stayed in the bike lane.
This was a group of professional planners and engineers.
As Keri Caffrey has pointed out, this problem goes beyond education. These folks all knew better. It’s about social conditioning. Bicyclists need to not only learn what is actually safe and unsafe, but shed the belief that the “authorities” always know or do what’s best for them, and also shed the belief that standing up for one’s own interests as a roadway user is not merely acceptable, but preferred.
Posted in
Bikeways,
Safety
Tags:
bicycle lane,
bike lane,
bikeway,
bikeway design,
door zone,
engineers,
planners
Last week the late cold front caught me by surprise. My neon yellow jacket was in the hamper, heading for the washer; I figured I wouldn’t need it again until November. So I grabbed my dark green shell to keep the chill off. Not exactly the most conspicuous thing one can wear, but I don’t ride any high-speed roads on my way to work.
As I rode through the intersection of Mills and Anderson, an off-duty Orange County sheriff pulled up along side of me to say that I needed lights because I could barely be seen. Now it’s true that Mills has quite a bit of canopy, so it’s a little dark in the morning; but this was ten minutes past sun-up.
Let’s stop and think for a moment about what he was saying: That an adult bicyclist wearing a dark green jacket is not conspicuous enough to be seen after sunrise on a neighborhood collector street. Law enforcement officers usually have some understanding of stopping distance; it’s important to know when righting up citations and crash reports.
I was riding at about 15 mph. The posted speed for Mills Ave. is 30 mph; so overtaking motorists are approaching me at 15 mph (20 if they’re busting the speed limit by 5 mph). Two-and-a-half seconds of perception and reaction time is the standard used by engineers. At 15 mph that works out to about 53 feet. Braking distance at that speed is about 30 feet. So a motorist doing 30 mph should easily be able to see, react to and slow for a bicyclist going 15 mph after seeing the cyclist only 85 feet away. For the motorist exceeding the posted speed at 35 mph, the total distance is about 110 feet.
Does the officer really think a competent motorist can’t see any cyclist in daylight from only 85 to 110 feet?
When it comes to bicycling it seems, professional training and reason often go out the window.
Posted in
Safety
Tags:
being visible,
conspicuity,
law enforcement,
lights,
overtaking,
police
