Those seeking to improve the situation of bicyclists, PARTICULARLY through laws or regulations, should first consider the possibility of unintended consequences…
Helmets protect rider’s heads. Bicycle riders sometimes suffer head injuries. So it would go without saying that mandatory helmet laws would improve cyclist safety, right? Well,maybe not when substitution effects (or other human nature effects) are factored in. Mandatory helmet laws have the unintended consequence of suppressing cycling. Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Children’s Injuries — by Pinka Chatterji, Sara Markowitz found children cyclist’s head injuries are down, and so are other injuries, and so is the amount of cycling; from the abstract:
we find helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among children. However, laws also are associated with decreases in non-head cycling injuries, as well as increases in head injuries from other wheeled sports. Thus, the observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws
More broadly, people behave differently when they are helmeted; people (drivers) around cyclists behave differently depending on whether or not the cyclist is helmeted. These are human nature effects and very hard to quantify, but exist nonetheless. Risk homeostasis affects both riders and drivers.
The azcentral.com news story was very detailed as to location, E McDowell Rd & N Granite Reef Rd (which is a.k.a. N 84th St), and direction of the bicyclist, “eastbound on the north side of McDowell Road” , and motorist, “turning right from southbound Granite Reef Road onto westbound McDowell”.
I was under the mistaken impression that : So the bicyclist was riding on the sidewalk counter-flow (not recommended, but not illegal). Unmentioned in the news story was this is a signal-controlled intersection. SOMEONE VIOLATED (or attempted to violate) THE SIGNAL. So, oddly, that relevant fact is omitted. Also the conclusion “No citations were issued to the driver” is sort of unusual; generally speaking the answer always is something to the effect of the incident remains under investigation. I realized I just made that, the part about being on the sidewalk, up. I read something into the story that was not there.
Scottdale PD clarified to me that “the bicyclist was at fault as she was riding eastbound against westbound traffic in the roadway.” This doesn’t really sit well with me; it seems much more likely she would be riding counter-flow on the sidewalk, and then entered the crosswalk… but there you have it.
ACR and ASDM
I do not have the ACR. I forget what the story is with how to get crash reports from Scottsdale. The database ASDM 2712556 more or less corroborates the newspaper account and the clarification I got from Scottsdale PIO, the only irregularities are why were there so many “OTHER” codings:
NonMotoristLocation: OTHER_97 why other?
(cyclist) UnitAction: OTHER_97 why other?
(cyclist) Lane: LANE_3 (this does indicate cyclist was in the road, as opposed to crosswalk)
JunctionRelation: INTERSECTION (this also indicates crash was not in crosswalk area, a crosswalk location should be coded as intersection_related)
(cyclist) Violation1: DROVE_RODE_IN_OPPOSING_TRAFFIC_LANE (this is inconclusive in the sense that police often use this violation for sidewalk cyclists even when not illegal)
There’s not really anywhere in the database where it’s possible to ascertain that the driver was turning right on red; though it can be inferred from the lack of a signal violation assigned to the cyclist; i.e. that’s consistent with the motorist having a red light, and having made a right-on-red.
Right on Red?
Just to brush up on the rules about making right turns on red (and, as i mentioned above, the news story only indicates that the driver was turning right, and not whether his signal was red or green); a driver must, first and foremost, stop completely; then may proceed turning right but only after yielding to “pedestrians and other traffic”. A driver who does not stop in the first place would be in violation of 28-645A(3)(a); a driver violating the right of way would be responsible for28-645A(3)(b):
(b) The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.
Bike Lanes?
It has sometimes been suggested that the presence of bike lanes increases riding against traffic. Without drawing any conclusions: I note from the google maps that N Granite Reef Rd is a dividing line along McDowell between no bike lanes to the west (the direction the bicyclist was coming from), and bike lanes to the east (presumably where the bicyclist was going).
[Update as of 2/23/2013, neither bill mentioned below has been assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]
It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)
There are two bills that would modify §28-735, Arizona’s 3-foot passing rule. The first is only a technical correction, however the second seeks to modify the onerous “section C”. By far the best and most simple correction would be to simply eliminate section C altogether. In any event, the present proposal seeks add specific reasons (excuses?) why a bicyclist might not be in an otherwise passable bike lane; e.g. preparing to turn, passing another cyclist…
Section C was added by Senator Bee as a “floor amendment” (ie. last minute) and is widely viewed as anti-cyclist. More background on the law here, called HB2625 from the year 2000. Although I don’t know of any time section C has ever actually kicked in; it has caused confusion causing some to either mendaciously or ignorantly claim that 3-foot passing minimum does not apply to overtaking bicyclists traveling in a bike lane (including more than one Flagstaff police officer).
[Update as of 2/23/2012, HB2528 it is not assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]
It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)
HB2528 makes it explicitly illegal to harass a pedestrian or bicyclist.
Numerous people have pointed out that the language of the bill is odd in that to be in violation of it, the victim must fall. I’m not sure why it was written that way.
The topic of motorized bicycles (henceforth referred to as MBs) always seems to be controversial. Regardless, the current set of definitions and laws seem to have been drafted in such a way that has led to some interpretations with, in my opinion, absurd results.
There are a set of proposals that seek to amend/clarify MBs positions at kcsbikes.com, and while I don’t necessarily support the specific proposals, but i do think some “reform” of the MB law is definitely needed!
Here are some thoughts off the top of my head about possible reforms:
I can’t imagine the cc limit would ever get raised
The mph business should be changed to an *equipment* limitation and not an operating limitation; see other state’s laws on the topic e.g. CA language CVC 406b, something to the effect of the motor “is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than xx miles per hour on level ground”. There should be no prohibition on operating speed (the usual speed laws, that apply to everybody, of course apply to MBs, as they do to bicyclists and no explicit reference is needed or desirable)
somehow cities/localities should try be prevented from trying to (mis)apply local “play vehicle” ordinances to MBs
While we’re at it, a good clarification would be to state explicitly that the definition of moped that the speed mentioned is an equipment definition; some have argued this is an operational restriction, though I would disagree. I.e. 28-101(31) “Moped” means a bicycle that is equipped with a helper motor if the vehicle has a maximum piston displacement of fifty cubic centimeters or less, a brake horsepower of one and one-half or less CAPABLE OF PROPELLING AT a maximum speed of twenty-five miles per hour or less on a flat surface with less than a one per cent grade.
Apparently some places (the prime example i know of is Tucson), the police/city currently consider MBs operated at 20 or above to be mopeds (or possibly motorcycles); and that this leads to a cascade of potential criminal charges and large fines including 1) driving without a drivers license (if applicable), 2) violation of financial responsibility / no insurance, and 3) driving without registration. Continue reading “Motorized Bicycle Law Reforms Proposed”
So this revolves around the law dealing with traffic signals that are “inoperative” 28-645C
C. The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has an official traffic control signal that is inoperative shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection and may proceed with caution only when it is safe to do so. If two or more vehicles…
So: 1) make a complete stop, and 2) proceed only when safe. Simple enough. But what does ‘inoperative’ actually mean?
Always stop and wait for red lights. You not only ensure your safety, but you also increase respect for cyclists as law-abiding road users.
But some traffic lights don’t turn green until they receive a signal …
If your bicycle doesn’t trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or stop and wait until it is safe to go through the red light. Going through the red isn’t against the law, because the light is inoperative (Arizona Revised Statutes 28-645).
Below the line is a bunch of semi-unorganized research that may or may not shed light on the subject!
PennDOT was, I believe, the first State DOT to adapt Street Smarts, from Chapter 9:
If your bike does not trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red is not against the law, because the light is defective. Refer to Sections of Title 75 (Vehicle Code in this pamphlet) pertaining to pedalcycles Section 3112”
Detectors are made that work for bicycles, at little or no additional cost. Federal design guidelines exist for these detectors. If you put enough pressure on your local and state government, bicyclists can avoid the crashes and the city can avoid the lawsuits which may follow.
Here is Section 3112. Traffic-control signals:
(c) Inoperable or malfunctioning signal.—If a traffic-control signal is out of operation or is not functioning properly, vehicular traffic facing a:
(1) Green or yellow signal may proceed with caution as indicated in subsection (a)(1) and (2).
(2) Red or completely unlighted signal shall stop in the same manner as at a stop sign, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign as provided in section 3323 (relating to stop signs and yield signs).
Comment: Standard traffic signals sometimes do not detect bicycles. You may be unable to pass through a signalized intersection because the green signal is never received. When faced with this problem, you may treat the signal as malfunctioning and take the following steps to safely proceed through the intersection. First, determine that the signal will not detect you. Try to position the bicycle directly over the saw cuts in the pavement behind the white painted “stop bar” at the head of the lane. These cuts, which often take the shape of an elongated hexagon, contain the loop wires that detect vehicles. If no cuts are evident, you may have to guess their location. Wait for a complete cycle of the signal through all legs of the intersection.
If you still believe that the signal will not detect you, treat the red signal as a stop sign and proceed through the intersection only after yielding the right-of-way to all intersecting traffic (including pedestrians) that may be close enough to constitute a hazard during the time when you are moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.
For what it’s worth: i believe AZBSS is exactly correct.
the question for your traffic engineer is: what does he think a automobile or motorcycle driver at a demand light that won’t change should do?
put it in park (or put down the kickstand) and go push the ped button? wait indefinitely?
Ha! I didn’t think so.
p.s. i think mionsky’s “3 minutes” is comically long. I was thinking about this the other day as one car after another –easily a dozen; not one of them stopped — was streaming through a right-on-red at 10 – 25mph at a freeway ramp… they weren’t even pretending to stop.
—
I will try to check the annotated statutes for that, could be something interesting.
I checked “traffic laws annotated, 1979” and the PedBikeLaws “Resource
Guide”, but couldn’t find that section is in UVC at all! I remember
that Mionske wrote that it was illegal in every state.
I checked ADOT crash data [0]. (Since that seems more promising than
anything else I have access to, and also the police have a reputation
for not enforcing rules against cyclists, except in the event of a
crash).
SOME, but not all, ACR have a field with
TCD_INOPERATIVE_MISSING_OR_OBSCURED, but it seems that’s an
intermediate thing that may have existed in 2010 but not in 2009 or
2011? For example, that is in field#18 “contributing circumstances”,
checkbox#10 (subfield “road”) in phoenix#2010-00400550.
There are several intriguing crash reports, but none are accessible on
the phoenix TAR site.
mysql> SELECT eViolation1, eViolation2, u.UnitNumber, FileNumber, IncidentDate, OfficerNcic, OnRoad, CrossingFeature FROM 2009_person p, 2009_unit u, 2009_incident i WHERE p.UnitID=u.UnitID AND i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND eRoadCondition1='TCD_INOPERATIVE_MISSING_OR_OBSCURED' AND eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST' AND u.UnitNumber=1;
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| eViolation1 | eViolation2 | UnitNumber | FileNumber | IncidentDate | OfficerNcic | OnRoad | CrossingFeature |
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| FAILED_TO_YIELD_RIGHT_OF_WAY_103 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 4074 | 2009-03-05 | 723 | 32nd St Front | Medlock Dr |
| FAILED_TO_YIELD_RIGHT_OF_WAY_103 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 8044 | 2009-05-06 | 723 | 16th St | Meadowbrook Ave |
| OTHER_97 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 8742 | 2009-05-14 | 723 | Bell Rd | 20th St |
| SPEED_TOO_FAST_FOR_CONDITIONS | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 11052 | 2009-06-22 | 723 | Coral Gables Dr | Central Ave |
| OTHER_97 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 13789 | 2009-08-04 | 723 | Thomas Rd | 57th Ave |
| FAILED_TO_YIELD_RIGHT_OF_WAY_103 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 18918 | 2009-11-02 | 723 | 12th St | Bethany Home Rd |
| INATTENTION_DISTRACTION | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 22705 | 2009-12-29 | 723 | 32nd St | Willetta St |
| OTHER_97 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 22727 | 2009-12-31 | 723 | 16th St | Glendale Ave |
| OTHER_97 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 1425 | 2009-01-23 | 723 | Roeser Rd | 16th St |
| OTHER_97 | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 8747 | 2009-05-14 | 723 | Cactus Rd | 40th St |
| DISREGARDED_TRAFFIC_SIGNAL | DROVE_RODE_IN_OPPOSING_TRAFFIC_LANE | 1 | 11105 | 2009-06-19 | 723 | Palm Ln | 75th Ave |
| DROVE_RODE_IN_OPPOSING_TRAFFIC_LANE | NOT_APPLICABLE_0 | 1 | 14100 | 2009-08-14 | 723 | No Data | Windrose Dr |
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
12 rows in set (2.76 sec)
I also tried these:
eControlType=’FLASHING_TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL’
u.eRoadCondition1 IN (‘TCD_INOPERATIVE_MISSING_OR_OBSCURED’,
‘NON_HIGHWAY_WORK’, ‘OTHER_97′)
In the process I came up with a bicyclist charged with a ped statute
(28-646A2): phx#10001611367, adot#2553949. Ed: that may partially
explain the Phoenix PD claim/interpretation that “bicyclist shall not
ride in crosswalk”.
“If you ever have a crash or get a traffic ticket because a traffic
light won’t turn green, it’s the fault of whoever installed the
detector”
I think that’s an unfortunately optimistic misrepresentation of
reality: the statute says “may proceed with caution only when it is
safe to do so”. Any PD and most judges will agree that a crash is
compelling evidence that it was not safe. So I think it’s almost for
sure that a bicyclist will lose in a traffic court trial (and that
assumes they’re not so seriously injured that they can’t challenge
it). Being found responsible for the traffic ticket may influence a
later lawsuit (but see ARS 28-1599). *If* the cyclist challenges the
PD report, hires a lawyer, sues the jurisdiction, and then appeals a
couple times, then there’s reasonable chance they can win..
If you’re unable to justify the current language, and feel compelled
to change it, you could consider recommending to make a right turn, a
U turn, and a 2nd right turn… (But I acknowledge that level of
disservice is only a small step from the marginalizing advice to
“dismount and cross as a pedestrian”).
Justin
[0]
mysql> SELECT FileNumber, IncidentDate, i.IncidentID, OfficerNcic,
OnRoad, CrossingFeature FROM 2011_incident i, 2011_unit u, 2011_person
p WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND p.UnitID=u.UnitID AND
p.ePersonType=’PEDALCYCLIST’ AND u.UnitNumber=1 AND
(p.eViolation1=’DISREGARDED_TRAFFIC_SIGNAL’ OR
p.eViolation2=’DISREGARDED_TRAFFIC_SIGNAL’) AND
u.eControlType=’FLASHING_TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL’;
mysql> SELECT u.eRoadCondition1, FileNumber, IncidentDate,
i.IncidentID, OfficerNcic, OnRoad, CrossingFeature FROM 2009_incident
i, 2009_unit u, 2009_person p WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND
p.UnitID=u.UnitID AND p.ePersonType=’PEDALCYCLIST’ AND u.UnitNumber=1
AND (p.eViolation1=’DISREGARDED_TRAFFIC_SIGNAL’ OR
p.eViolation2=’DISREGARDED_TRAFFIC_SIGNAL’) AND u.eRoadCondition1 IN
(‘TCD_INOPERATIVE_MISSING_OR_OBSCURED’, ‘NON_HIGHWAY_WORK’,
‘OTHER_97′); — u.eControlType=’FLASHING_TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL’; —
UnitAction ControlType EnvCondition Defect OfficerNcic xsection/junk
Lane nonMotorLoc
mysql> SELECT eViolation1, eViolation2, u.UnitNumber, FileNumber,
IncidentDate, OfficerNcic, OnRoad, CrossingFeature FROM 2011_person p,
2011_unit u, 2011_incident i WHERE p.UnitID=u.UnitID AND
i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND
eRoadCondition1=’TCD_INOPERATIVE_MISSING_OR_OBSCURED’ AND
eUnitType=’PEDALCYCLIST’;
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:50:24PM +0000, Michael Sanders wrote:
> Are you aware of a cyclist being ticketed for running a red light because they couldn’t trip the detector? If so, was it challenged and what was the outcome?
>
> I’m having a conversation with a traffic engineer who believes we are providing bad advice when we state in ABSS that: “If your bicycle doesn’t trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or stop and wait until it is safe to go through the red light. Going through the red isn’t against the law, because the light is inoperative (Arizona Revised Statutes 28-645.C.< http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm > – “C. The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has an official traffic control signal that is inoperative shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection and may proceed with caution only when it is safe to do so. If two or more vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time and the official traffic control signal for the intersection is inoperative, the driver of each vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection and the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of the vehicle on the right”).
> No definition of what is “inoperative” but this traffic engineer believes it means “dark” . . .
>
> Other documents / sources:
>
> Arizona Driver License Manual and Customer Service Guide . . .
> Inoperative Signal Lights: When approaching an intersection with an inoperative traffic control signal, treat it as you would a 4-way stop. Come to a complete stop before entering the intersection and then proceed when the roadway is clear. If two vehicles arrive at the intersection at about the same time, both must stop and the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the driver on the right (
http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1420&lngFormInfoKey=1420 , p. 34).
> John Allen’s version of SS uses the word “defective” – “If your bicycle doesn’t trip the detector, you have to wait for a car to do it, or else you have to go through the red light. Going through the red isn’t against the law, because the light is defective. If you ever have a crash or get a traffic ticket because a traffic light won’t turn green, it’s the fault of whoever installed the detector” http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter9a.htm
>
> Also from John Allen web page: “. . . understand that the actuator problem, because it involves outright, inexcusable illegality, is a legal crowbar which can work to bring the traffic engineers to respect bicyclists . . .” Traffic Signal Actuators: Am I Paranoid? http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/actuator.htm –
>
> And Bob Mionske says on the topic: “Once you have located the cut lines in the road and positioned your bicycle above the cut lines, what if the light has still not triggered? . . . It turns out that in every state, this is one instance where you can legally run a red light. . . . to be sure that the signal is defective (and to be able to demonstrate in court that you had sufficient reason to be sure), you should sit through the equivalent of one complete light-cycle — about three minutes — without the light being triggered. If you still don’t get the green light, the light is defective, and you can then proceed through the intersection, yielding the right-of-way to any approaching vehicles” (Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist, p. 42).
>
> League of American Bicyclists: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/ride_better_tips.php
> 3. Unresponsive signals
> * In most states, after three minutes, you can treat a red light as a stop sign
> * Pass through a red light only as a last resort
> * Yield to other vehicles while crossing the roadway
—
The “Words and Phrases” book has this case:
Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1992. Traffic light at intersection that showed
steady green and yellow light was “malfunctioing,” not “inoperative,”
and, therefor, it was not contributory negligence for motorist to enter
intersection without stopping. West’s F.S.A. 316.123(2), 316.1235,
316,1235(1). City of Miami v. Burley, 596 So. 2d 1133.
That was, I believe, a case appealed from superior court to the state’s
appeals court, involving the city’s attempt to recover damages when a
citizen’s vehicle facing conflicting signal indicators crashed into a
city vehicle, decided against the city.
I will photocopy the case at a later date, but it specifically
distinguishes between “inoperative” meaning “not functioning at all” and
“malfunctioning”, meaning working imperfectly or only partially.
It seems that failure to detect a bicyclist/motorcyclist is an
“imperfection” and not an “inoperability”, as contemplated by that
statute, as interpreted by the FL court.
Arizona Republic as well as other news outlets reported some stats recently; year-over-year alcohol DUI arrests were down, while drug DUI were up. The comparison to 2003 was startling — the number of arrests is up some twenty fold(! can that really be?). Actually looking at the (limited amount of) data, it looks like for some reason, 2011 was unusually high — perhaps some extra funding for DUI task force activity? Just a guess.
Coincidentally, i am reading One for the Road: Drunk Driving Since 1900 / Barron H. Lerner. There is a presentation here that sort of outlines the book. Though the author is an epidemiologist, the book is written more from a historian’s point of view. Very interesting. lots of non-obvious twists and turns and unlikely alliances. For example, in the early 1980’s both MADD (whom everybody knows) and RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers) were both rapidly growing grassroots movements; MADD when on to grow enormously and achieved national stature whereas RID withered. MADD choose to take (beverage) industry money and also aligned themselves with media groups (e.g. NAB, National Assoc of Broadcasters) whereas RID went the opposite way. Media groups were opposed to nascent advertizing limitation. As a result MADD got infinite exposure, and RID got none.
—
Arizona drug-related DUIs rising
By Jim Walsh The Republic | azcentral.com
Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:55 AM
An unexpected benefit of photo-enforcement? Or maybe it should be obvious that bad guys have a tendency to be bad drivers?
Police reported Wednesday that they have solved two savage and infamous Valley crimes: one a 21-year-old Arizona State University student dragged to death in May…
Sifting through 500 leads, using photo enforcement, advanced computers and the U.S. Marshals Service, Tempe police Tuesday booked Joseluis Marquez, 20, on first-degree murder in the death of Kyleigh Sousa, 21.
A photo-enforcement picture of Marquez driving a golden 2008 Dodge Charger, snapped May 8 in Tempe, was key to the arrest, said Tempe Police Cmdr. Kim Hale. The car, a rental, was traced to the Los Angeles area.
Finding the car, detectives worked backward to identify the driver, who traveled between California and Arizona, police said.
It was 18 days after the photo was snapped that Sousa was fatally dragged outside an International House of Pancakes at 225 E. Apache Blvd. Marquez, driving the Dodge, snatched her purse and drove off, police say. Sousa, her hands entangled in the purse straps, was dragged 30 feet before falling to the asphalt parking lot, suffering a skull fracture and detached artery.
There was a glowing article in theatlanticcities.com with the tantalyzying headline Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Cut Cycling Injuries in Half, referring to this study, published in a peer-reviewed, albeit public health and not a transportation, journal:
The design of the study is intriguing: it’s based on randomly choosing a “control site” along the participant’s (i.e. the crash victim) route.
Cycle Tracks are NINE TIMES safer?
Undoubtedly, the incredibly safety differential of “cycle tracks” will be the main take-away. The study found them to be NINE TIMES safer compared to their reference street (essentially a “worst case”: a mulitlaned arterial with on-street parking and no bicycle facilities whatsoever). The actual result is OR 0.11 (0.02, 0.54) — that is to say Odds Ratio of about 9 times safer, compared to the reference road.
Ok, so I don’t understand a lot about statistics, but the wide range between the lower and upper confidence interval (27X) is a clue. In short there is not very much/many cycle tracks in the study, mentioned only as “despite their (cycle track’s) low prevalence in Toronto and Vancouver”. There were two reported collisions, and 10 control sites on cycle tracks (out of N=648). In the critique of the study by John Forester he found during the study period there was apparently only one cycle track, the Burrard Street bridge, in both cities — my that is a “low prevalence” — here is his take-away:
In the much more impressive cycle-track issue, the authors proclaimed enormous crash reduction without informing the readers of the two relevant facts. First, that their data came from only one installation. Second, that that installation was not along a typical city street but in the only situation in which a plain cycle track could possibly be safe, a place without crossing or turning movements by motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians…
And even regarding the Burrard Street Bridge cycle-track, the timeline seems to conflict/overlap somewhat with the study dates. According to a surprisingly detailed account on wiki a test of what sounds to be the cycle-track was “to begin in June 2009. The proposed trial began on July 13. It saw the southbound motor-vehicle curb lane and the northbound-side sidewalk allocated to bicycles, with the southbound-side sidewalk allocated to pedestrians. The reassigned lane was separated from motor vehicles by a physical barrier” The timeline of the study was for bicyclist injuries presenting to the ERs “between May 18, 2008 and November 30, 2009″.
But wait? According to this (from mid-2011, i think, the date is unclear), Tesche said there are other cycle tracks: “However, we were able to examine separated bike lanes elsewhere in the city, including Burrard Bridge, Carrall Street, and other locations that met our definition: that is, a paved path alongside city streets that’s separated from traffic by a physical barrier,” Teschke told councillors.
Some Other Things i Noticed
The highest median observed motor vehicle speed along major roads was 44kph (27mph)! This is comically low compared to what I am used to here in Phoenix. Interesting trivia answer: 27.79mph — the fastest time on record for a person running.
One-third of the incidents involved collisions with MVs. The balance were various types of falls or collisions with objects. The one-third number is pretty close to the 26% reported by another ER-based survey of bicyclist injuries ( Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data. linked here ); though this isn’t directly comparable, e.g. in the former case, mountain biking was not eligible for the the study, whereas in the latter it was any sort of injury incurred on a bike.
There was a bunch of interesting data collected in the survey (which the author’s are nice enough to give a link to) that are not in the final study. I’m not sure why. I would have been interested to see various spins on lightness/darkness vs. cyclist’s light usage.
The Injury Prevention Article
and here’s another similar article, or perhaps pretty much the same(?):
NYC Protected Bike Lanes on 8th and 9th Avenue in Manhatten
According to a report (it’s really a brochure) by NYC DOT cited by americabikes.org; these are the “First protected bicycle lane in the US: 8th and 9th Avenues (Manhattan)”…”35% decrease in injuries to all street users (8th Ave) 58% decrease in injuries to all street users (9th Ave) Up to 49% increase in retail sales (Locally-based businesses on 9th Ave from 23rd to 31st Sts., compared to 3% borough-wide)”. I don’t know if or what the data are to back up these claims. I also don’t know much about how these are structured, what was done with signals, how long these are, or how long they have been in place… here is a google street view at 9th/23rd. (these segments show up in Lusk’s May 2013 AJPH article, discussed below)
Methodology aside, though the study claims an increase in safety, it found only a modest increase: “RR [relative risk] of injury on cycle tracks was 0.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.85) compared with bicycling in reference streets”. I.e. a 28% reduction in crashes.
Bicycle Guidelines and Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States
Anne C. Lusk, PhD, Patrick Morency, MD, PhD, Luis F. Miranda-Moreno, PhD, Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, and Jack T. Dennerlein, PhD Published online ahead of print May 16, 2013; it was in the July printed edition of American Journal of Public Health. “For the 19 US cycle tracks we examined, the overall crash rate was 2.3 … per 1 million bicycle kilometers… Our results show that the risk of bicycle–vehicle crashes is lower on US cycle tracks than published crashes rates on roadways”. What are published rates? Later they say “published crash rates per million bicycle kilometers range
from 3.75 to 54 in the United States”. The first number is footnoted to Pucher/Irresistible (which is discussed and linked here), and the second to, if you can believe it, a study of Boston bicycle messengers (Dennerlein, 2002. I haven’t bothered to look that one up). In Pucher, it’s in Fig 10 where they quote US injuries at 37.5 per 10 million km for the period 2004-2005, sourced to US Department of Transportation (2007), which is/are Traffic Safety Fact Sheets according to the footnotes. Pucher does, um, mention that injury rates comparisons across countries are particularly suspect; Figure 10 would lead on to believe the UK and US have similar fatality rates, whereas US injury rates are quoted as SEVEN TIMES higher. (Pucher’s claim/point is that NL and DK are very safe, while US and UK are very dangerous). In any event TSF does not list injury rates per unit of travel, only number of injuries, e.g. TSF 2005 quotes 45,000 injuries (these are presumably some sort of statistical estimate?). To get the rate estimates, he uses one of the surveys (household trans survey?).
Paul Schimek gathered data on the 19 cycletracks listed in table 3; he added another column “intersections per km” and sorted them into two groups, 1) Urban Side Paths and 2) Side Paths with Minimal Crossflow. And as would be predicted by traffic engineering principles, the former had very high (7.02) versus the latter which had very low (0.57) crashes per 1 Million bicycle kilometers. The published letter-the-editor of AJPH is available in full on pubmed (or draft version on google docs) which is well worth reading. He, by the way, provides an estimate for whole US bike crashes at 3.5 per 1M bike km’s; which fits rather nicely between the high/low cycletrack numbers. The bottom line is that the AASHTO guidelines (which prohibit the on-street barriers; but permit bicycle paths adjacent to the roadway where there is “minimal cross flow by motor vehicles”) , contrary to Lusk’s assertions, are well-founded. This blog post at bicycledriving.org also discusses the same AJPH article, with links to both Schimek’s published letter, and Lusk’s published response. This is wrapped up in an article the Paul wrote A Review of the Evidence on Cycle Track Safety, Paul was kind enough to send me draft copy dated October 10, 2014.
Oh, and here is John Forester’s review of Lusk’s May AJPH article. In summary, Forester says “This review does not evaluate Lusk’s method of calculating car-bike collision rates. However, the cycle tracks with high collision rates are all in high-traffic areas with high volumes of crossing and turning traffic, while the cycle tracks with low collision rates are all in areas with low volumes of turning and crossing traffic. That is what should be expected, but it says nothing about any reduction in collisions that might have been caused by the introduction of cycle tracks. The data of this study provide no evidence that cycle tracks reduce car bike collisions”.
What about Davis, CA?
Sycamore Lane Experiment:1967 parking-protected cycletrack, Davis, California (Photo: Bob Sommer)
The article/thesis paper Fifty Years of Bicycle Policy in Davis, CA 2007
Theodore J. Buehler has a deep history. Davis, home of course to UC Davis, installed and compared designs including what we would now call a cycle track in the late 1960’s as “experimental” designs, (emphasis added):
Lane location relative to motorized traffic
The early experiments included three different types of bike facilities (see examples at the top of this section):
bike lanes between car lanes and the parking lane (Third St.),
bike lanes between the parking lane and the curb (Sycamore Lane), [what we now call a cycle track, or protected bike lane]and
bike paths adjacent to the street, between the curb and the sidewalk (Villanova Ave.).
… The on-road lanes worked best, the behind-parking lanes were the worst, and the adjacent paths were found to work in certain circumstances.
Perhaps telling, perhaps not, I have archived the .pdf referenced above as I can no longer find it on the bikedavis.us website. There is a similar version of Buehler’s paper that was published through TRB with the same title (but with a co-author, Susan Handy); its conclusions are worded somewhat differently; instead of best and worst, they just say “Eventually all lanes were converted to the now familiar configuration of the bike
lane between the moving cars and parked cars” without saying why.
Notations from the City of Davis website says (retrieved 1/19/2017. Emphasis added):
Sycamore Lane Experiment: This 1967 bike lane used concrete bumpers to separate parked cars from the bike only lane. The parked cars screened the visibility of bicyclists coming into intersections and cars would unknowingly drive into the bike lane. This bike lane design was eventually abandoned.
The 1967 separated bike lanes on Sycamore Lane didn’t prevent conflicts with turning vehicles. Today at this intersection there are special bike-only traffic signals that provide cyclists their own crossing phase. These innovative bicycle signals were the first of their kind to be installed in the United States.
2012 Teschke: Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study
Selection bias: uses comparison streets instead of a before-after situation; study claims greatly increased safety on cycle tracks, but the cycle tracks chosen for the study were not representative of a typical cycle track, in that all were on roads with limited or nonexistent road intersections. It is not surprising that bicycle facilities that have little or no possibility of interaction with motor vehicles are safer than those that have many such possibilities, and if all bicycle tracks were completely separated from turning and crossing traffic, they would indeed be safer than cycling on the road. The problem is, cycle tracks with few road intersections are very rare indeed.
2011 Lusk: Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street (Montreal, Canada)
The infamous Lusk study. Selection bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but its street comparisons are flawed – the streets compared were in no way similar other than their general geographic location. Busy downtown streets with multiple distractions per block were twinned with bicycle tracks on quieter roads with fewer intersections and fewer distractions..
* Only 40% of bicyclist injuries were due to moving motor vehicles (data are from emergency department visits).
* 12% of injuries were due to non-moving motor vehicles. These include dooring, but it is not presented separately. The figure rises to 20% of injuries on “major-roads.” They do not separate roads with and without on-street parking.
* Ordinary bike lanes appear to reduce risk BUT the presence or lack of on-street parking may be a confounding factor. The risk reduction is only AWAY from intersections. At intersections there was a 4-fold increase in risk (but not enough data to be statistically significant).
* Further, there was no evidence that bike lanes reduce the risk of collision with moving motor vehicles (see Table 6).
* There were only 18 injuries on one-way PBLs, which was not enough to determine how they affect risk EXCEPT that there was enough to say that they increase the risk of bike-ped injuries.
* Even with only 21 injuries on two-way PBLs, there was enough evidence to show that they increase risk by an order of magnitude, specifically collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians (Table 6).
The study is yet more evidence that looking at motor vehicle crash statistics (which ignore incidents not involving mvs) will not give a true picture of the safety effects of bike facilities.
.
Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users
Another Marshall and Ferenchak study Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users; was commented on in this letter by Paul Schimek. In the study, F&M claim safety-in-numbers was not shown, but that “Better safety outcomes are instead associated with a greater prevalence of bike facilities – particularly protected and separated bike facilities”. Schimek observse that they mixed “trails” (off-street paths removed from roadways) with true protected and separated bike facilities. He also points out “Third, a significant p-value does not imply a causal relationship. With 112,918 observations, it is not difficult to find coefficients that pass conventional significance tests”. (is that “p-hacking“?). As well as some other observations.
The headline number, “up to 53 percent” reduction presumably comes from Table 66. p.104 CMFs for converting to an SBL; Before condition: Traditional or flush buffered bicycle lane / After condition: SBL with flexible posts CMF 0.468 (i.e. a reduction of 52.8%) along with some statistical significance factors.
The “53% reduction” touted by the FHWA is flawed and/or misleading… the report specifically excludes intersection crashes entirely, and only looks at segments between… this rather remarkable fact isn’t well-publicized — notably it’s not mentioned in the abstract, which is the only thing most people read(!) — here is what the report states
… The second challenge is the inconsistent nature of SBL applications, particularly at approaches to intersections. Initially, the research team hoped to develop CMFs for segments and intersections, but their attempts to model intersections and/or entire corridors were unsuccessful. Consequently, the team focused on developing robust CMFs for segments. Future work may be to conduct research that estimates the safety effect of the various types of SBL-to-intersection transitions.
— p.104 “Future Research” in the full report
This was confirmed by email with one of the authors, who stated:
We did a quick check on the intersection-related crashes to develop CMFs for intersections as well. But since it was out of the scope of the project and because of the funding restrictions, we could not extensively explore intersection-related crashes. Depending on the availability of resources, we might analyze intersection crashes as well in the future.
The report doesn’t seem to have any data with regard to bicyclist crashes/falls with or caused by the vertical element (whether it be a bollard, flexpost, parked car or whatever); these crashes are known to happen but are not reportable as traffic crashes, and as such are a known unknown that we really need the answers to before putting up barriers everywhere (on urban streets).
Keri Caffrey of cyclingsavvy has a longer critique, which is, as usual, loaded with excellent graphics depicting common crash scenarios; here’s the crux of it:
The FHWA document states that 1/3 of Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) crashes are caused by overtaking motorists. In the data from the Orlando Metro area, overtaking crashes accounted for 10% of KSIs and overtaking in bike lanes was 2.1% of KSIs (14 crashes in 7 years). The percentages for overtaking KSIs will certainly be higher when adding rural roads to the dataset. Overtaking crashes are worse on rural roads. But that’s not where they’re wanting to put separated lanes.
Which is to say, real-world metropolitan crash data varies dramatically from overall averages; the places where the SBL projects are being proposed are mostly or virtually all distinctly metro/urban settings. An SBL, at best, reduces the mid-block crashes where a driver drifts into a (an UN separated) BL and KSIs a bicyclist. And worse yet, is the junctions (both intersections and driveways) can introduce new crashes — and remember, the referenced study EXCLUDED intersection crashes
Related and by the way, I had a lot of trouble finding the “Green Lane Project” spreadsheet, lots of dead links, which is referenced in the FHWA report:
The article looks at the uncomfortable truth in Arizona traffic crash stats — that ped rates appear to have gotten worse even as MV rates have fallen (see ‘Disturbing Trend?’ here). The article neglects to mention that Arizona trends worse than average in overall (overall US; and overall counting motorist, pedestrian and bicyclist) traffic fatalities.
Why is Phoenix Dangerous by Design? As I pointed out when the 2010 Arizona statistics came out: “there were more bicyclists killed within the City of Phoenix (9) than were killed in the entire state of Massachusetts(6)”; it appears that Arizona/Phoenix values building out more ultra-wide (lots of lanes), ultra-fast (speeds 40mph AND UP). These car sewers are not conducive to human life; and that goes for not only pedestrians but for bicyclists and motorists as well. This is also the gist of the paper/article Beyond Safety in Numbers: Why Bike Friendly Cities are Safer.
There’s a bit of undertone from certain parties that this is largely a pedestrian problem, e.g. Phoenix police spokesman James Holmes said. “Lots of accidents are midblock”. There are a couple of problems with this attitude — one is that with long blocks (the norm on Phoenix’s arterial streets), traffic both speeds up, and there is simply more mid-block (that is to say, it becomes increasingly unreasonable for a pedestrian to walk out of their way to a crosswalk).
Setting all that aside, reading on we find that (only)” Thirty percent of the fatal pedestrian collisions in 2010 were the result of the pedestrian not using a crosswalk”, and “In 49 percent of the fatal collisions, the driver was not at fault”. Which is to say: 70 percent of peds in collisions were using a crosswalk, and right around half the time the ped is at fault (even under the laws, that clearly fault peds over motorists, particularly at mid-block), and the other half the time the motorist was at fault.
The WSJ did a “special section” on innovations in transportation; and the largest piece was about autonomously driven vehicles and how that might play out in the (not so distant) future. I was sort of surprised at the slant/tone of the lead article, written by Dan Neil, the Journal’s “car guy”:
The cost of automobile accidents in the U.S. (measured in death, disability, health care and property loss) totals $300 billion annually, according to AAA estimates. The cost of traffic congestion (lost productivity, wasted petroleum, among other factors) AAA reckons at about $100 billion. Taken together, the costs of automotive death and delay equal 2.6% of GDP [plus many more negative externalities of automobile use; pollution, enforcement, etc, etc]. Our new robot chauffeurs can help… Continue reading “Who’s Behind the Wheel? Nobody.”
FHWA-HRT-23-078