Compare and contrast this AASHTO recommendation for striping bike lanes with the deadly Minneapolis installation. Explain how they differ, and what that means.
According to the NHTSA's 2007 study (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF), Pedacyclist fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997. Considering that US cities have added thousands of miles worth of bike lanes since this time, and ridership levels have increased, shouldn't we see an increase in deaths and not a precipitous drop?
Another interesting point they make is that Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (72%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. (26%), and during the months of June (11%) and September (11%).
Shouldn't we be seeing an increase at intersections, given the increase in painted bike lanes?
Not really, Jason. Factor in the ages. Ride-outs from driveways are how children are killed (considered non-intersections). Children and teenagers make up the vast majority of fatalities (hence the time, and seasonal peaks).
As for urban: "They asked me why I robbed banks. Because that's where the money is." -- Willie Sutton.
Every study of bike lanes and sidepaths in the US and Europe show a dramatic increase in intersection collisions. It's happening, but "pedacyclist" data is very poorly collected. Even the word "pedacyclist" ought to tell you something about the approach.
BTW: Other DOT studies have shown CYCLING frequency went down during the period you mentiony among children and teenagers.
I'm not sure if I'm seeing the same thing, but both locations appear to contain door zone bike lanes. The Google Street View location appears to have the bike lane on the left side of the roadway, which is only slightly better because there would be fewer people opening the door on that side of the vehicle, perhaps.
"Every study of bike lanes and sidepaths in the US and Europe show a dramatic increase in intersection collisions."
Dramatic increase? What would you consider dramatic? I would think twenty deaths in a single city, or say 30% increases in accident rates would be dramatic, no?
I haven't even found a study that shows a slight increase. I know of one study you've cited in Europe that showed what I would call an infinitesimal increase (.00025%) in accidents at intersections with lanes, but the studies own conclusion stated the benefits (ridership increase, health, etc.) far outweighed any risk noted. The authors themselves were even offended that US VC's attempted to use this study to validate their philosophy.
The point I'll come back to time and time is that given an increase of thousands of miles of bike lanes, crossing tens of thousands of intersections over the past decade in the US, one would definitely see an exponential (read: dramatic) increase in fatalities if these were indeed "death traps". Especially given the point you make regularly that bike lanes only bring out inexperienced riders.
Notwithstanding your argument "pedacyclist data is very poorly collected", which allows for a lot of conjecture...why aren't fatalities increasing?
On a side note, I just interviewed Tempe's Bike Planner (which we'll post soon), and he stated that they're at a 4% modal share for cyclists with 110 miles of bike lanes. They average 1 fatality every one and a half to two years...and these aren't all in bike lanes. That is far from dramatic. What they have seen is an increase in cycling awareness due to the increase in ridership. He stressed that point regularly.
The point you are attempting to make, Jason, is, in fact, destroyed by the document you utilize to justify it.
You contend, "Pedacyclist[sic] fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997." Perhaps, but the rate has actually gone up 0.7% in 2007 when compared to 1932 (1.3% vs 2.0%). Figure 1 suggest that the a more dramatic comparison would be reflected by comparing 1997 with 2003 and almost no difference when comparing 1997 with 2005 or 2003 with 2007.
"Considering that US cities have added thousands of miles worth of bike lanes since this time..." Nearly zero miles of bike lanes were added between 1932 and 1997; the notable high of 1003 in 1975 is equally specious, given the parity of data exemplified by comparing 1997 and 2005.
"Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (72%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. (26%), and during the months of June (11%) and September (11%)." You are ignoring an important point from the document: fully one third of the fatalities reports in 2007 resulted from alcohol related negligence (p.3). Time of day incidents are likely influenced by illumination and other conspicuity factors; not to mention there are more drunks at night. The higher rate of crashes during the summer months is due to the more cycling conducive weather and longer daylight hours.
Unlike as with my attempts to engage you in debate on your own turf, we will have an equitable discourse here. You will not have your comments deleted, nor will you be banned from participation. Cycle*Dallas is an open, democratic forum. Not only will you be allowed to make your points, you will be held to account for the information over which you intentionally gloss. To wit...
I found Table 4 to be quite telling. In numerous forums you and others have argued that Texas (and North Texas in particular) should emulate California, Oregon and Washington in out approach to the accommodation of vehicular cyclists. You, BikeDFW, Angela Hunt, Roger Geller and Andy Clarke all content that segregated facilities encourage cycling in addition to reducing injury and fatality rates. Isn't it interesting that all three of those states had higher fatality rates (CA:2.7%; OR:3.3%; WA:2.5%) than Texas (1.4%) - all nearly twice as high.
Another point I will make pertains to the source. The document you reference is a "Fact Sheet", not a "study". Documents such as this are little more than public relations propaganda (something with which you are well acquainted) and utilize massaged data to prove a particular point. Few are truly objective.
In addition, there are no citations provided. From the notes at the end of the publication, one can assume the data derives from the annual NHTSA surveys (as crunched by the NCSA). I would like to add that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not exist prior to 1966. Thus, any argument suggesting that sources are unnecessary due to internal derivation is bogus. Without proper source attribution, accountability does not exist; without accountability there is no legitimacy.
Said Fred: "I'm not sure if I'm seeing the same thing, but both locations appear to contain door zone bike lanes."
The key difference is that the AASHTO Guide recommends dashed lane markings up to 200' before and after an intersection, to allow turning vehicles to merge into them. Cyclists have a good visual clue that the magic paint has been thinned, and (should) respond with greater caution.
Minneapolis, Austin, and Portland all continue the solid stripe to the intersection. All have had cyclists crushed under the wheels of trucks making legal turns.
We actually have a fairly notable University located off of Mockingbird Lane, less than 5 miles from Downtown.
Also, the Dallas Community College system is considered one of the largest in the nation.
Lastly, The new UNT (Downtown Dallas) Law School bill just passed the House and Senate last week. If all goes well, that school will be online within 5 years.
@velociped
"Destroyed"...really? 75 years and .7% increase...you consider that dramatic?
Also, 1932 to 2007 is far from apples to apples. In terms of physical infrastructure alone, you're talking about millions of more intersections developed nationwide.
"Isn't it interesting that all three of those states had higher fatality rates "
Yes, it is interesting given that their ridership levels are quadruple that of Texas.
Jason said; "We actually have a fairly notable University located off of Mockingbird Lane, less than 5 miles from Downtown."
No, we don't. That's in the City of University Park.
"Also, the Dallas Community College system is considered one of the largest in the nation."
JuCos are commuter schools, not residential campuses, and don't generate cycling OR walking numbers.
"Lastly, The new UNT (Downtown Dallas) Law School bill just passed the House and Senate last week. If all goes well, that school will be online within 5 years."
And that has what to do with the price of apples in Paris, exactly? When we get our mountains, our seaport, our land-use restrictions, and our 50,000 law students, check back, OK?
FWIW, whether the stripe is dashed or solid, 99% of cyclists don't have a clue what it means or how to handle intersections properly.
When bike lanes are placed to the right of where cars and trucks can turn right through them (or left on a one-way), they reinforce incompetent cycling practices. It does not matter whether they are striped "properly" or not.
The bike lane in this story is dashed before the intersection.
The bike lane where Alice Swanson was killed is dashed before the intersection.
Using bike lanes as a substitute for education is unethical because cyclists need MORE education to outsmart them. Using bike lanes to attract cyclists is unethical because without increased education, they reinforce incompetent cycling practices.
Properly-educated cyclists don't need or want bike lanes. Uneducated cyclists are at risk of being misled into danger.
And for some reason, uneducated cyclists rarely put the puzzle together. Instead of recognizing how to manage the conflicts they experience, they cry for more protection. That's why Portland institutionalized bad bike lane design and contorted the laws to conform to it.
The belief that we must coddle them or they won't ride bikes does not create a healthy, sustainable cycling community. It's an unethical shortcut by people who care more about their non-cycling agendas (selling bikes, saving the earth, increasing their land value) than about the well-being of cyclists.
"'Destroyed'...really? 75 years and .7% increase...you consider that dramatic?"
You recite, in you original response, that "Pedacyclist[sic] fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997." Look at the graph! Fatalities have gone down when comparing the punctate data from 1997 and 2007. Compare 1997 with 2005 and the rate has basically stayed the same. Furthermore, look at 2003 as compared with 2007 and the rate has gone up.
My point is that the numbers can pretty much say whatever you what them to say. To focus on individual data points and ignore the overall picture is deceitful.
"...1932 to 2007 is far from apples to apples."
Really? True, infrastructure has increased, but so have the number of motorists, the number of vehicular cyclists and the population in general. When comparing any statistics one has to look at overall trends, not punctate data. The trend over the past seventy years shows there has been little change in the number of fatalities annually.
"Yes, it is interesting given that their ridership levels are quadruple that of Texas."
...and their population density is much higher.
...and their overall population is much lower.
...and their DMVT is much lower (almost one third that of Dallas).
Yet their higher fatality rates are higher and quite significant - especially considering the propaganda espoused by Bike Portland.
It is increasingly obvious to me, Jason, you do not know how to parse statistical data and derive meaningful and relevant information therefrom.
The SMU campus is 4 miles from downtown Dallas. Saying it's not in Dallas might be technically true, but considering the fact that the city of University Park is less than 3.8 sq miles total, one would be hard pressed to miss a simple fact...UP is completely surrounded by one thing: the city of Dallas.
Also, under physical address for their website, SMU states:
6425 Boaz Lane Dallas TX 75205
http://www.smu.edu/AboutSMU/ContactSMU.aspx
"And that has what to do with the price of apples in Paris, exactly? When we get our mountains, our seaport, our land-use restrictions, and our 50,000 law students, check back, OK?"
Seaports and mountains are better for cycling? Lance Armstrong grew up in Plano and lives in Austin...far from either. Also
Tulsa, OK Shawnee, KS South Sioux City, NE Cedar Falls, IA Roswell, GA
all have bike lanes no mountains, and no seaports.
Keri said "FWIW, whether the stripe is dashed or solid, 99% of cyclists don't have a clue what it means or how to handle intersections properly."
Absolutely correct. However, I live in a world of engineering best practices, for better or worse (sometimes worse), and I want to see every guide followed to the Nth degree, no shortcuts.
Washington, D.C. is a good example of a city doing everything just like the Green Book says, but they still ride under the wheels of trucks.
What I see is a lot of conflicting psychosocial babble in the comments, all of which lacks serious experimental verification and which is attempting to make serious points off of really low-fidelity data.
If we attempted to pass off something similar in the aircraft industry, we'd be debarred from contract consideration. The debarment would be totally irrelevant since we'd be sued to a pulp first.
English translation - the aircraft industry would not survive a New York minute if it operated the way the ground transport establishment operates when it comes to safety considerations. Most of these crackpot theories CAN be tested - but ground transport people just don't seem to do that, prefering instead to trade anecdotes & survey comparisons.
If you doubt it, compare the investigation thoroughness of ANY aviation accident with that given to motoring/pedestrian/cycling accidents. Is a pilot's individual life really that much more valuable? There's a reason we lose so many on the roads.
Regardless of this paint & road politics mania (pro & con), remember that, just like in the air, most accidents on the road are due mainly to "pilot error." Also remember when you ride tomorrow, that "pilot error" is the ONLY factor you can control - tomorrow.
Reading all this, I don't regret having changed my college major from psychology to engineering...
"Flying (cycling) in itself is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, extremely unforgiving for those who fail to take it seriously."
Manny, you've never taken me up on my offers to go ride with me in your neighborhood, or mine, or around the city. Let's go play in traffic sometime. It might open up your mind a bit. Better yet, let's take that mayor you call a friend and get his scrawny butt out on a bike, so he can see some things for himself.
Confirming what fred noted from Google Street View, the bike lane in question is on the left side of a one-way road. Unlike St. Paul, Minneapolis doesn't appear to comply with the FHWA MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
Another point of interest is that Minnesota law "Turning at intersection." reads:
"(g) Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane adjacent to the driver's lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn, and shall make the turn, yielding the right-of-way to any vehicles approaching so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard."
Of course, it's a bit difficult for an 18-wheeler to comply with that when turning onto a narrow 2-lane street.
18 comments:
According to the NHTSA's 2007 study (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF), Pedacyclist fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997. Considering that US cities have added thousands of miles worth of bike lanes since this time, and ridership levels have increased, shouldn't we see an increase in deaths and not a precipitous drop?
Another interesting point they make is that Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (72%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. (26%), and during the months of June (11%) and September (11%).
Shouldn't we be seeing an increase at intersections, given the increase in painted bike lanes?
Not really, Jason. Factor in the ages. Ride-outs from driveways are how children are killed (considered non-intersections). Children and teenagers make up the vast majority of fatalities (hence the time, and seasonal peaks).
As for urban: "They asked me why I robbed banks. Because that's where the money is." -- Willie Sutton.
Every study of bike lanes and sidepaths in the US and Europe show a dramatic increase in intersection collisions. It's happening, but "pedacyclist" data is very poorly collected. Even the word "pedacyclist" ought to tell you something about the approach.
BTW: Other DOT studies have shown CYCLING frequency went down during the period you mentiony among children and teenagers.
I'm not sure if I'm seeing the same thing, but both locations appear to contain door zone bike lanes. The Google Street View location appears to have the bike lane on the left side of the roadway, which is only slightly better because there would be fewer people opening the door on that side of the vehicle, perhaps.
"Every study of bike lanes and sidepaths in the US and Europe show a dramatic increase in intersection collisions."
Dramatic increase? What would you consider dramatic? I would think twenty deaths in a single city, or say 30% increases in accident rates would be dramatic, no?
I haven't even found a study that shows a slight increase. I know of one study you've cited in Europe that showed what I would call an infinitesimal increase (.00025%) in accidents at intersections with lanes, but the studies own conclusion stated the benefits (ridership increase, health, etc.) far outweighed any risk noted. The authors themselves were even offended that US VC's attempted to use this study to validate their philosophy.
The point I'll come back to time and time is that given an increase of thousands of miles of bike lanes, crossing tens of thousands of intersections over the past decade in the US, one would definitely see an exponential (read: dramatic) increase in fatalities if these were indeed "death traps". Especially given the point you make regularly that bike lanes only bring out inexperienced riders.
Notwithstanding your argument "pedacyclist data is very poorly collected", which allows for a lot of conjecture...why aren't fatalities increasing?
On a side note, I just interviewed Tempe's Bike Planner (which we'll post soon), and he stated that they're at a 4% modal share for cyclists with 110 miles of bike lanes. They average 1 fatality every one and a half to two years...and these aren't all in bike lanes. That is far from dramatic. What they have seen is an increase in cycling awareness due to the increase in ridership. He stressed that point regularly.
The point you are attempting to make, Jason, is, in fact, destroyed by the document you utilize to justify it.
You contend, "Pedacyclist[sic] fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997." Perhaps, but the rate has actually gone up 0.7% in 2007 when compared to 1932 (1.3% vs 2.0%). Figure 1 suggest that the a more dramatic comparison would be reflected by comparing 1997 with 2003 and almost no difference when comparing 1997 with 2005 or 2003 with 2007.
"Considering that US cities have added thousands of miles worth of bike lanes since this time..." Nearly zero miles of bike lanes were added between 1932 and 1997; the notable high of 1003 in 1975 is equally specious, given the parity of data exemplified by comparing 1997 and 2005.
"Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (72%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. (26%), and during the months of June (11%) and September (11%)." You are ignoring an important point from the document: fully one third of the fatalities reports in 2007 resulted from alcohol related negligence (p.3). Time of day incidents are likely influenced by illumination and other conspicuity factors; not to mention there are more drunks at night. The higher rate of crashes during the summer months is due to the more cycling conducive weather and longer daylight hours.
Unlike as with my attempts to engage you in debate on your own turf, we will have an equitable discourse here. You will not have your comments deleted, nor will you be banned from participation. Cycle*Dallas is an open, democratic forum. Not only will you be allowed to make your points, you will be held to account for the information over which you intentionally gloss. To wit...
I found Table 4 to be quite telling. In numerous forums you and others have argued that Texas (and North Texas in particular) should emulate California, Oregon and Washington in out approach to the accommodation of vehicular cyclists. You, BikeDFW, Angela Hunt, Roger Geller and Andy Clarke all content that segregated facilities encourage cycling in addition to reducing injury and fatality rates. Isn't it interesting that all three of those states had higher fatality rates (CA:2.7%; OR:3.3%; WA:2.5%) than Texas (1.4%) - all nearly twice as high.
Another point I will make pertains to the source. The document you reference is a "Fact Sheet", not a "study". Documents such as this are little more than public relations propaganda (something with which you are well acquainted) and utilize massaged data to prove a particular point. Few are truly objective.
In addition, there are no citations provided. From the notes at the end of the publication, one can assume the data derives from the annual NHTSA surveys (as crunched by the NCSA). I would like to add that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not exist prior to 1966. Thus, any argument suggesting that sources are unnecessary due to internal derivation is bogus. Without proper source attribution, accountability does not exist; without accountability there is no legitimacy.
Jason, thank you for mentioning Tempe, Arizona (a town I know well).
Dallas, TX: Pop. 1,200,000
Major universities: none.
Tempe, AZ: Pop. 174,000
Major University: Arizona State University, with a total student enrollment of 67,082 as of fall 2008.
I would consider a 4% mode share for town where over half the population is either in university or associated with it to be an abject failure.
Said Fred: "I'm not sure if I'm seeing the same thing, but both locations appear to contain door zone bike lanes."
The key difference is that the AASHTO Guide recommends dashed lane markings up to 200' before and after an intersection, to allow turning vehicles to merge into them. Cyclists have a good visual clue that the magic paint has been thinned, and (should) respond with greater caution.
Minneapolis, Austin, and Portland all continue the solid stripe to the intersection. All have had cyclists crushed under the wheels of trucks making legal turns.
We actually have a fairly notable University located off of Mockingbird Lane, less than 5 miles from Downtown.
Also, the Dallas Community College system is considered one of the largest in the nation.
Lastly, The new UNT (Downtown Dallas) Law School bill just passed the House and Senate last week. If all goes well, that school will be online within 5 years.
@velociped
"Destroyed"...really? 75 years and .7% increase...you consider that dramatic?
Also, 1932 to 2007 is far from apples to apples. In terms of physical infrastructure alone, you're talking about millions of more intersections developed nationwide.
"Isn't it interesting that all three of those states had higher fatality rates "
Yes, it is interesting given that their ridership levels are quadruple that of Texas.
Jason said; "We actually have a fairly notable University located off of Mockingbird Lane, less than 5 miles from Downtown."
No, we don't. That's in the City of University Park.
"Also, the Dallas Community College system is considered one of the largest in the nation."
JuCos are commuter schools, not residential campuses, and don't generate cycling OR walking numbers.
"Lastly, The new UNT (Downtown Dallas) Law School bill just passed the House and Senate last week. If all goes well, that school will be online within 5 years."
And that has what to do with the price of apples in Paris, exactly? When we get our mountains, our seaport, our land-use restrictions, and our 50,000 law students, check back, OK?
FWIW, whether the stripe is dashed or solid, 99% of cyclists don't have a clue what it means or how to handle intersections properly.
When bike lanes are placed to the right of where cars and trucks can turn right through them (or left on a one-way), they reinforce incompetent cycling practices. It does not matter whether they are striped "properly" or not.
The bike lane in this story is dashed before the intersection.
The bike lane where Alice Swanson was killed is dashed before the intersection.
Using bike lanes as a substitute for education is unethical because cyclists need MORE education to outsmart them. Using bike lanes to attract cyclists is unethical because without increased education, they reinforce incompetent cycling practices.
Properly-educated cyclists don't need or want bike lanes. Uneducated cyclists are at risk of being misled into danger.
And for some reason, uneducated cyclists rarely put the puzzle together. Instead of recognizing how to manage the conflicts they experience, they cry for more protection. That's why Portland institutionalized bad bike lane design and contorted the laws to conform to it.
The belief that we must coddle them or they won't ride bikes does not create a healthy, sustainable cycling community. It's an unethical shortcut by people who care more about their non-cycling agendas (selling bikes, saving the earth, increasing their land value) than about the well-being of cyclists.
Jason, you just made my point.
"'Destroyed'...really? 75 years and .7% increase...you consider that dramatic?"
You recite, in you original response, that "Pedacyclist[sic] fatalities have gone down 14% since 1997." Look at the graph! Fatalities have gone down when comparing the punctate data from 1997 and 2007. Compare 1997 with 2005 and the rate has basically stayed the same. Furthermore, look at 2003 as compared with 2007 and the rate has gone up.
My point is that the numbers can pretty much say whatever you what them to say. To focus on individual data points and ignore the overall picture is deceitful.
"...1932 to 2007 is far from apples to apples."
Really? True, infrastructure has increased, but so have the number of motorists, the number of vehicular cyclists and the population in general. When comparing any statistics one has to look at overall trends, not punctate data. The trend over the past seventy years shows there has been little change in the number of fatalities annually.
"Yes, it is interesting given that their ridership levels are quadruple that of Texas."
...and their population density is much higher.
...and their overall population is much lower.
...and their DMVT is much lower (almost one third that of Dallas).
Yet their higher fatality rates are higher and quite significant - especially considering the propaganda espoused by Bike Portland.
It is increasingly obvious to me, Jason, you do not know how to parse statistical data and derive meaningful and relevant information therefrom.
The SMU campus is 4 miles from downtown Dallas. Saying it's not in Dallas might be technically true, but considering the fact that the city of University Park is less than 3.8 sq miles total, one would be hard pressed to miss a simple fact...UP is completely surrounded by one thing: the city of Dallas.
Also, under physical address for their website, SMU states:
6425 Boaz Lane
Dallas TX 75205
http://www.smu.edu/AboutSMU/ContactSMU.aspx
"And that has what to do with the price of apples in Paris, exactly? When we get our mountains, our seaport, our land-use restrictions, and our 50,000 law students, check back, OK?"
Seaports and mountains are better for cycling? Lance Armstrong grew up in Plano and lives in Austin...far from either. Also
Tulsa, OK
Shawnee, KS
South Sioux City, NE
Cedar Falls, IA
Roswell, GA
all have bike lanes no mountains, and no seaports.
Keri said "FWIW, whether the stripe is dashed or solid, 99% of cyclists don't have a clue what it means or how to handle intersections properly."
Absolutely correct. However, I live in a world of engineering best practices, for better or worse (sometimes worse), and I want to see every guide followed to the Nth degree, no shortcuts.
Washington, D.C. is a good example of a city doing everything just like the Green Book says, but they still ride under the wheels of trucks.
What I see is a lot of conflicting psychosocial babble in the comments, all of which lacks serious experimental verification and which is attempting to make serious points off of really low-fidelity data.
If we attempted to pass off something similar in the aircraft industry, we'd be debarred from contract consideration. The debarment would be totally irrelevant since we'd be sued to a pulp first.
English translation - the aircraft industry would not survive a New York minute if it operated the way the ground transport establishment operates when it comes to safety considerations. Most of these crackpot theories CAN be tested - but ground transport people just don't seem to do that, prefering instead to trade anecdotes & survey comparisons.
If you doubt it, compare the investigation thoroughness of ANY aviation accident with that given to motoring/pedestrian/cycling accidents. Is a pilot's individual life really that much more valuable? There's a reason we lose so many on the roads.
Regardless of this paint & road politics mania (pro & con), remember that, just like in the air, most accidents on the road are due mainly to "pilot error." Also remember when you ride tomorrow, that "pilot error" is the ONLY factor you can control - tomorrow.
Reading all this, I don't regret having changed my college major from psychology to engineering...
Yup, what's that famous saying?
"Flying (cycling) in itself is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, extremely unforgiving for those who fail to take it seriously."
Manny, you've never taken me up on my offers to go ride with me in your neighborhood, or mine, or around the city. Let's go play in traffic sometime. It might open up your mind a bit. Better yet, let's take that mayor you call a friend and get his scrawny butt out on a bike, so he can see some things for himself.
Confirming what fred noted from Google Street View, the bike lane in question is on the left side of a one-way road. Unlike St. Paul, Minneapolis doesn't appear to comply with the FHWA MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
Another point of interest is that Minnesota law "Turning at intersection." reads:
"(g) Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane adjacent to the driver's lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn, and shall make the turn, yielding the right-of-way to any vehicles approaching so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard."
Of course, it's a bit difficult for an 18-wheeler to comply with that when turning onto a narrow 2-lane street.
Tempe's 4% doesn't include ASU students.
ben said...
"Tempe's 4% doesn't include ASU students."-
Really? Why not? How not? Do ASU students not count?
Who does it include? Does it not include students in cars, too?
More data please.
Post a Comment