Printable View
That's not a sharrow, that's a legally protected bike lane. Cars are required to yield if moving into the lane (just like any other lane) and can only do so when about to turn right or pull over to the shoulder. Sharrows in California look like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/wp-con...ds/Sharrow.jpg
Agreed that the right turn across the bike lane is problematic (but still the driver's responsibility to yield when crossing).
When I ride to the American River bike trail in Sacramento I ride in an unprotected bike lane on a 4 lane divided road. At one point a freeway off ramp comes in from the right after making a tight spiral. Cars coming off the ramp have to cross the bike lane while the bikes have to cross the off ramp to get to the curb. Because of the tight spiral you can't see cars coming off the ramp until late. There used to be a ghost bike near there--up by the closest stop light. Because of the AR bike trail and because it passes the main entrance to Cal State U Sacramento there is a lot of bike traffic. Surprised there's only been the one ghost bike.
Ghost bike means all that's left of a rider and their bike?!? Or a prop to get cars to slow down?
A ghost bike is a memorial to a dead cyclist, usually painted white and permanently located (locked to something typically) near the site of the incident.
Don’t they have the charge of “Inattentive Driving?” Sure, it’s the most minor of traffic offenses…but “inattention” is LITERALLY the word the DA used. 🤷🏻♂️Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Inattentive = reckless??
Sort of weird logic where the facts of a collision aren’t enough evidence to charge a motorist with the most minimal charge available
And yet, the “following too close” standard is held as a instant ticket for the following driver with a huge burden on the following driver to prove otherwise, if even possible (ie video evidence of the front driver making purposeful dangerous choices resulting in a collision)
It's mind blowing that they couldn't be bothered to ticket the guy for failure to maintain lane and/or failure to yield. At least make him pay a few hundo in fines and suffer through traffic school, FFS. Even that shitstain DA in South Dakota had to pay $1,000 in fines and plead to some minor misdemeanors.Quote:
Originally Posted by smartyiak
Inattention is usually considered to be negligence, while reckless driving requires a higher degree of wanton disregard for traffic laws. However, as noted, a vehicular manslaughter charge in CA only requires basic negligence, not gross negligence or reckless driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
Toss the bikes out of the equation, any dillweed rolling coal deserves a lobotomy.
Re: inattentive: it is also handy bc I’ve seen plenty of times civil cases resolve when the Plaintiff’s attorney walks in and says: your guy admitted guilt in criminal court….id like the police limits please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Sure it was only a $25 fine and 2pts in traffic court …but who wants to argue to a civil jury that they’re guy wasn’t at fault when he already admitted to being inattentive?
Re: reckless: as Dan said: here in DE, Reckless requires a higher mens rea; Inattentive Driving is the lowest driving charge aside from Speeding+5.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Re: inattentive: it is also handy bc I’ve seen plenty of times civil cases resolve when the Plaintiff’s attorney walks in and says: your guy admitted guilt in criminal court….id like the policy limits please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Sure it’s only a $25 fine and 2pts in traffic court …but who wants to argue to a civil jury that they’re guy wasn’t at fault when he already admitted to being inattentive?
Re: reckless: as Dan said: here in DE, Reckless requires a higher mens rea; Inattentive Driving is the lowest driving charge aside from Speeding+5.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It still seems safer than keeping the bike lane to the right of the right-turn lane. If you put the bike lane all the way over it's easy to end up stopped at the intersection next to cars that have only been looking left so that they can turn right on the red. They have no idea you've pulled up on their right, cross-traffic to their left clears out, and they turn right into you. This is a very common way to get greased, especially with trucks, trailers and other large vehicles that make wide right turns and have poor visibility on the passenger side.Quote:
Originally Posted by teledad
Take a minute and think about how insane this is. Even at a modest speed of 40 mph you are traveling 60 feet per second.Quote:
Originally Posted by smartyiak
Been a while, so I don't ride through intersections like that often but I feel like the last x times I did I always moved left out of the bike lane before that "merge" point. Holding that line just seems suicidal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I think the safest move is to claim the turn lane, then move back to the bike lane when you get to the light.
Yeah, there's the CA approach, where the right-turn lane crosses the bike lane early, and the OR approach (which I think is typical in most other states too), where the bike lane stays to the right of the turn lane all the way to the intersection. Both have their own dangers, but I do think the CA approach seems like it _should_ have lower potential for issues than the OR approach.
Having said that, drivers and cyclists in PDX are usually pretty hip to the right hook thing. I'll hang back from a large vehicle that's signaling for a right turn unless there's a bike box. Most drivers in the area seem to have learned they need to check the bike lane before turning. I only remember 2 right hook close calls in 15 years of commuting into downtown Portland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
That's some srsly fuckedup traffic engineering. Prob a retrofit with too many constraints to allow a safer design...
Bikes need to be on that big wide unoccupied sidewalk in that pic. Mark a bike lane to give bikes right of way over pedestrians within the paint on the sidewalk.
I understand sidewalks are sacrosanct pedestrian country in some places, but in other places it's entirely apropos for non-TdF wannabes to ride on the sidewalks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80WyBxo0Hto
You guys might be interested in protected intersections, which strive to address some of these issues.
https://nacto.org/publication/dont-g...intersections/
I agree with those that point out there is a simple kinetic energy problem when mixing vehicles and bike/pedestrians. The Dutch in particular look at our unprotected bike lanes on streets with vehicle speeds over 30 mph as being crazy. People think the Dutch just smartly built a pedestrian and bike centric system, when the reality is that they discovered that they had a lot of bike/ped fatalities and decided to do something about it.
Enforcement is one piece of the puzzle, but we really need to build complete streets that recognize the ROW doesn’t belong exclusively to vehicles.
Edit - The NACTO bikeway design guide and the NACTO website in general have a lot of really accessible design guidance if you are looking at something your local agency has done and are wondering why they did it. It’s not the sole guidance out there, but is really accessible to the non-engineer IMO.
Sidewalks are for small children and morons riding full-suspension Huffys because they got too many DUIs. Studies consistently show that sidewalks are the most dangerous place to ride: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...the_literatureQuote:
Originally Posted by highangle
Anyone who suggests riding on the sidewalk has clearly never done it. It's immediately obvious that it's sketchy AF. Visibility is often terrible. Every single side-street becomes an intersection. Cars are parked across them all the time. Curbs are often not ramped. I could go on. I suppose it's fine if you don't need to ride faster than 5 mph.
Good luck getting those built anywhere outside of a handful of major cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by old_newguy
I knew highangle would say that. I agree that bikes shouldn't have to ride on the sidewalks, and lots of situations where sidewalks are impractical, but on a road like in the photo, I would have been up on that sidewalk. And I consider myself fairly high risk tolerance. But nothing terrifies me more than being on a bike on a multi-lane suburban road with a "bike lane" not removed from traffic. Just too many idiots out there. If I die, I want it to be for my fuck up like in an avy or an act of God like a great white comes and chomps me. Not some dipshit checking their instagram.Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
Funny thing is that true urban riding seems much less risky to me than suburban. I much rather ride around downtown Seattle in rush hour traffic (where cars are forced to drive slow by congestion) than that intersection where Knapp was killed.
Bike riding on sidewalks legality varies by jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions like Seattle it’s legal but you are supposed to yield to pedestrians… which makes riding one impractical.
This was on a route of mine in Seattle. Guerrilla group of bicicle advocates installed their own illegal "buffer." City initially took it town but then the city changed their mind and reconstructed the buffer themselves.
Attachment 387399Quote:
Seattle’s Transportation Department didn’t have immediate plans to install any kind of buffer between car and bicycle lanes on Cherry Street when a guerrilla group of bicycle advocates decided in April to do it themselves. There should be more of these type of pylon buffers out there.
Under the cloak of anonymity, a group calling itself “Reasonably Polite Seattleites” used temporary adhesive to place flexible plastic pylons between the busy, steep lanes on Cherry Street underneath Interstate 5.
“We wish we didn’t have to spend our own money on common-sense, unobtrusive traffic calming treatments, and risk arrest installing them, in order to feel safe riding in this city,” one of the advocates wrote to the city.
Though the city initially removed the posts, it has now spent about $20,000 to make the group’s wishes a reality.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...e-lane-buffer/
Historically, the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities are due to failure-to-yield situations, mostly at intersections. Being hit from behind is actually pretty uncommon, but most of that data is pre-smartphone so the current risk is probably higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Traffic moving at bike speed changes the game completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
That's pretty awesome. Bollards like that might be problematic in cities where it snows regularly in winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
We went to Jazz Fest in New Orleans a few years ago and rode bikes everywhere and it was awesome because of this ^^. The French Quarter is always so packed with people and cars we were faster on bikes most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I assume everyone has heard of VisionZero?
Managing the kinetic energy and momentum transfer between bike/ped and vehicles is the trend right now and many other countries are ahead of us in this regard.
It’s behind the push for 20 mph speed limits in urban areas for example.
Joey, one of the things you experienced is that the context of the place is telling drivers they are not the #1 priority and that other users have similar or higher priority than they do. So they slow down, chill out, pay attention, give way.
It’s why bikers like Alta feel out of place in a 4 lane arterial with 30 mph speed limits and unprotected bike lanes. The environment is telling you it’s dangerous, because it is. You aren’t the priority there.
The goal with a lot of this stuff currently is to realize that you can write any law you want about who has right of way or priority, but people make mistakes and we shouldn’t have a system where when someone has a momentary lapse they or someone else dies or is seriously hurt. The system needs to be redesigned and reconstructed with more than vehicles in mind. Sometimes it’s expensive. Sometimes it’s cheap.
Do speed limits even matter in urban areas? I have never seen an officer patrolling for speed in my 16 years living in Seattle/Tacoma. I represent people on DUIs (and speeding tickets) in the area and most of my clients get caught by the Seattle/Tacoma PD because they crash their car into something, not because a cop caught them speeding. I think congestion, and tight streets, and general morals, is the only thing that keeps people from driving balls to the wall around town.Quote:
Originally Posted by old_newguy
Totally different story on the freeways through Tacoma and Seattle. The State Patrol is out to get you. Go a few miles over, or swerve out of your lane, and they will nab you, at least after the sun sets. During the day, they just want to keep traffic moving.
I think you are probably right, but is a relatively cheap thing to do to change the climate around speed in residential areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
On collectors and arterials I am starting to see more speed cameras to address the lack of resources to enforce.
It also allows agencies to say “our target speed is 20 mph, the 85th percentile as measured speed is 30, therefore we have justification to implement traffic calming to reduce the 85th percentile speed”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
"And those awful expansion joints! Having to stop for lights and avoid pedestrians every quarter mile...might as well leave my $2000 aero helmet at home! Does no one care about my dreams to make myself more beautiful and fit?"
Tough shit. Until you ban automobiles and reimagine Contra Costa with discrete bike roads for your privileged little hobby, that sidewalk is intuitively safer than crossing the turn lane under a green light or arrow.
Different story if the bike lane has its own light, or crosses on the sidewalk at the ped xing. Orders of magnitude safer. Fuck your aerobic zone, you self-centered son of a bitch.
Show me on the doll where the cyclist touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
Don't want to interrupt this well meaning/reasoned argument, but only 2 out of 19 cities that make up Contra Costa county allow riding on sidewalks*.
So, for the other 17 cities, should drivers keep a look out for these self-centered bicyclists trying to manage their aerobic zones on the way to school, work, etc.? Is this too much for a driver to do?
* A few others allow minors only, and some of those even prohibit minors from riding on sidewalks in specified business areas.
As a pedestrian sidewalk Nazi, I'd take 3 extra steps to grab and fling a minor cyclist into oncoming traffic.
:crossbones::crossbones:
Not really.
Unless they hit me first.
Facts? A real welfare queen Alaskan like higehanger all sternoed up cares not about facts
fifyQuote:
Originally Posted by PB
In this case: A teenage lobotomy?Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssoBUb2cJk
In Sacramento in busy spots it's common to have the bike lane painted green and located between the right turn lane and the thru lane. Seems to work well, except in that one spot I mentioned earlier. The most common mistake I see where there isn't a marked right turn lane is for cars to turn right without first pulling as close to the curb as possible - so that bikes can't pull up next to them on the right. The bikes can pass them on the left or wait for them to turn. If the bike gets there first they should claim the space so that the right turning car can't pass them on the left before turningQuote:
Originally Posted by dan_pdx
I think you have me confused with your father?Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
RIP Tyler Droeger
https://www.ksl.com/article/50252231...rfield-county-
Utah's vehicular homicide law requires the driver to be drunk or texting (https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Ch...76-5-S207.html) so this likely will be another legal murder.
If a bike gets there first, he/she should walk 7' over to the sidewalk ped xing and push the cross button.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
You’re slipping. Don’t forget the non-binary peeps, Mang…Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
What about Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, Reckless Driving, and Reckless Endangerment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Ch...18050820180508
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Ch...00010118000101
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Ch...00010118000101
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Ch...00010118000101
xx/xy is a mere linguistic expedient. Did not intend to leave you out or otherwise exclude you from the set of bipedal road hazards.Quote:
Originally Posted by 54-46