WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(41 posts)

The Road Diet Experience: Are You Experienced?


  1. By David Preston

    Although the term “road diet” is a misnomer—it’s actually the cars that are on a diet, and not the road—it refers to the process of channeling and/or slowing traffic on multi-lane roads by reassigning one or more car lanes to other purposes. These other purposes can include new or expanded left-turn lanes, parking lanes, bicycle lanes, or more pedestrian-friendly intersections.

    During a discussion (on another thread) of the recently completed Fauntleroy Way SW diet, someone living in the area said that Fauntleroy has a “whole new vibe” as a result of the changes. Prompted by that comment, I decided to hop on my bike and go check out the new vibe from a bicyclist’s point of view. Starting at 3:45 PM on Monday, August 30, I pedaled my way slowly north on Fauntleroy from the south end of Lincoln Park to SW Alaska street. Here’s what I found:

    Figure 1: Heading north on Fauntleroy Way SW at the north end of Lincoln Park.

    This is an example of a dedicated bike lane. Ideally, for a bicyclist, this is what Fauntleroy would look like all along the way: a nice mellow road with unobstructed views, light traffic, and a few parked cars. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. In fact, this is one of the longer stretches of contiguous bike lane along Fauntleroy, and it only runs for a few hundred feet.

    Figure 2: Intersection of Fauntleroy Way SW and California Ave SW, heading northeast toward downtown.

    By now, just a couple of blocks beyond where the first photo was taken, the dedicated bike lane has been merged back into the street traffic (more on this later) and the road has expanded from one car lane to two thru lanes and a left turn lane.

    If I had wanted to turn left (north) onto California Ave SW, I would have had to dash across two car-filled lanes into a turn lane that most drivers believe belongs to them. It’s not much consolation to me that the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has placed a Lilliputian decal inside the turn lane; the decal is tiny (about 12 inches high) and is all but invisible to motorists. Therefore, I advise dismounting and crossing at the crosswalk for any bicyclist who wants to turn left here.

    Figure 3: Sexy new crosswalk at Fauntleroy Way SW and 40th Ave SW.

    Note the casual way this pedestrian is making her way across the street with her luggage. This new crosswalk illustrates one of the main advantages of road diets for pedestrians: after a crosswalk upgrade, pedestrains are better able to see traffic coming from all sides, and traffic is better able to see them as well.

    Figure 4: Sexy Crosswalk: the view-gle from Google.
     

     

    Figure 5: Parking FAIL! (Vicinity of Fairmont Park.)

    This is not a typical situation, but along the way I did encounter a number of parked cars, or parts thereof, sticking out into “my” lane. Some were wide-body vans that just couldn’t help themselves, but some were just sloppy parkers, like this person. In some cases, the main part of the car was in its own lane, but its mirror was sticking way out into mine, right about at the level of my head.

    Did you know . . . natives of the remote island nation of Melapotamia believe that if you look into a mirror by accident, your face will be stuck there forever?

    Even where parked cars give cyclists plenty of room, there’s still the danger of someone lurking in one of those cars opening his door into you as you ride by, which could be deadly. When this happens, you can take your choice of getting whacked by the door or being squashed by a semi as you veer away from the door and out into traffic.

    Figure 6: “Sharrow” at the corner of SW Edmunds St. and Fauntleroy Way SW, heading north.

    A “sharrow” (share + row) is a lane that is shared by bicycles and cars. What’s the difference between a sharrow and a regular traffic lane? —Not a damn thing, except that a sharrow has a bike decal on it. Big deal.

    The car in the photo above has just made it through the intersection and is illegally cutting across lanes, probably getting ready to make a right onto SW Alaska. Good thing a there wasn’t some poor schmuck of a bicyclist there too, naively expecting the driver to “share.”

    Sharrows on Fauntleroy are legion, and they pop up in the most unexpected places. On the northbound stretch alone, I counted at least six times when I had to transition, within seconds, from being in my own low-speed bike lane to sharing a lane with high-speed cars.

    Figure 7: Mark & Oliver’s Semi-Permanent Hudson Street Yard Sale and Old-Fashioned Traffic Study Hoe Down.

    I had just turned around at SW Alaska and was making my way home when I passed these two excellent gentlemen selling stuff in their yard near the corner of SW Hudson and Fauntleroy. They’re not actually as psychedelic as the photo makes them look, but I think the “Purple Haze” t-shirt Oliver was wearing may have affected the exposure. In any case, it’s a good photo, don’t you think?

    Here’s a small sample of the cool stuff they were selling.

    Figure 8: Cool stuff for sale. Check out the gorilla suit Mark and Oliver’s partner George is modeling. You just don’t see quality like that anymore.

    When I asked Mark and Oliver about the “new vibe” that Fauntleroy had supposedly been resonating since the road diet, they said they’re feeling it. “It’s 100% better!” Mark said instantly. He described how, since the diet, he no longer feels that he’s taking his life in his hands every time he crosses the street. Before the diet, two lanes of car traffic each way meant that visibility was extremely poor for car and pedestrian alike. On the far side of the street, a driver in the first lane might stop and wait for you to cross, but maybe the driver coming up behind him in the second lane doesn’t see you because his vision was blocked. You could easily find yourself run down by that second drvier.

    Now, with just one lane of traffic on each side of the street, it’s much safer for a pedestrian to cross at all points along the way.

    I asked Mark and Oliver if they’d noticed more traffic jams on the road now and they said they hadn’t. They did note, however, that traffic now seems a bit less fraught. Before the diet, there was an average of one fender bender every two months at the Hudson intersection, as absent-minded drivers smacked into cars that had stopped and were waiting to make a left turn. But now, with dedicated left-turn lanes on both approaches, the accident rate has dropped to nil. (This is something SDOT could probably confirm.) Mark noted that a lot of drivers are still getting surprised when the road narrows just north of Hudson, and, as I stood there, I saw this happening with my own eyes. Southbound left-lane thru-driver’s who were not expecting their lane to end would trespass into the SW Hudson turn lane for a few seconds before making a hasty merge. However, while this maneuver is technically illegal, I’m guessing it is not a major safety issue.

    Bottom line: Life is better for Mark and Oliver after the road diet.

    Figure 9: Smoother moves. As the purple haze of early afternoon decays to a mellow shade of green, my new pal Mark explains how traffic used to act, before the road diet. Or maybe he’s just practicing for the big hula contest.

    By now it was nearly 5:00 PM and the surging ferry traffic on Fauntleroy was making my spidey-cyclist sense tingle like a Mylar balloon caught in the power lines. Or something. I selected a VHS tape from the $1.00 bin (“America’s Sweethearts”), said my goodbyes to Mark and Oliver, and their silent partner George, and pedaled off to find the rest of America.

    My conclusion:

    The Fauntleroy road diet is working for pedestrians and people who live along Fauntleroy. To a lesser extent, it also benefits drivers, by making left turns easier and safer. While traffic isn’t moving any faster, it’s not exactly being throttled either, and road stress appears to be down overall. Long live the new vibe!

    For bicyclists, the benefit of the Fauntleroy road diet is marginal. While it has provided a few more miles of dedicated bike lanes, these new lanes are not continuous and they often end abruptly, forcing cyclists to merge back in with fast-moving traffic when it is not safe to do so. To my mind, the bike lanes are a wash.

    And George thinks so too.
    Don’t you, George?

    Still, it's progress.

    David Preston is a freelance writer and editor living in West Seattle. You can contact him at: DP_Editor at Comcast dot net.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  2. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Can you not merge into a sharrows lane? I thought they were to share. I'm missing something here.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  3. WorldCitizen! I've missed you, too. Where in the world have you been?

    Yes, cars can merge into sharrows. Absolutely. If you are asking about the driver at Hudson, however, his crime was crossing directly from his turn lane into the far lane before fully making it through the turn. When turning out of an intersection, you have to stick to your own lane through the turn. After the turn, you can then merge into another. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when you have to make another turn immediately, but this case was not such an exception.

    I'm using this photo mostly to illustrate the cavalier attitude many drivers take toward lane markings. Bike decal or no, many drivers still tend to act like it is they who own the road. This is why, IMHO, sharrows are not a good thing.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  4. pixel pusher
    Member Profile

    Nice write up, DP. I ride that stretch to and from work 4-5 days a week and I can say without a doubt that I feel safer now than before the road diet. It is certainly not perfect (sharrows southbound from Alaska to the ferry?) but I believe that this is the kind of action we need to take for people to start getting out of their cars and onto their feet. And the congestion and backups that were predicted by the nay-sayers has not occured at all. I think we need to look at the success of this stretch of road and find other areas where this plan might also work.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  5. The casual pedestrian in crosswalk doesn't even seem phased by the chupacabra lurking nearby!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  6. David, thanks for the personal experience report!

    SDOT reports more facts and numbers about the unfortunately-named "road diets":

    http://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2010/08/12/rechannelizations-make-roads-safer/

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  7. David, thanks for risking life, limb, bicycle, and camera to bring us this this in-depth, informative, and very entertaining look into the Fauntleroy Road Diet!

    Mike

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  8. David:

    Props for writing/illustrating this extensive post. I've ridden NB on Fauntleroy recently and it was nice having a bike lane. SB, take your chances.

    I would appreciate your perspective on how this would apply to Admiral up/down hill from Olga. I seem to think Admiral is the orange to the Fauntleroy apple but if it is really a orange/lemon comparison, that would be great to hear/read.

    I also believe that Sharrows are meant to be aiming devices...and I say that as a part-time cyclist. Especially on Admiral WB past Olga.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  9. Re: Proposed Admiral Way SW Road Diet

    I got burned on this because, in a separate thread, I predicted it would be unpopular and many people told me where to get off.

    So I got off. ;-)

    I'm probably not going to bike ride on Admiral, but I might drop by to check out the traffic flow one of these days. A dedicated hobby bicyclist I know told me that she and her hubby rode up Admiral for the first time recently and it wasn't nearly as much of a struggle as she thought it would be. As a result, I've changed my mind about this. I now believe that when the bike lane goes in there, the Admiral Hill may get "discovered" by lots of cyclists.

    Again, I'm not a fan of sharrows, but on the other hand, any time you put a picture of a bike somewhere—on the street, on a sign, on a bumper sticker, on a billboard—you are raising the issue of bicycles generally, and that's got to be a good thing. And the feedback I've gotten so far from other cyclists is that sharrows are better than nothing.

    City cyclists, please chime in here . . .

    Austin? Anybody?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  10. I'm on foot more than I'm on my bike really, but I guess I did interject a fairly random and unpopular opinion entirely without followup in the other thread.
    I agree that the sharrows are better than nothing for the same reason, that they increase awareness that there are bikes on the road. It seems as if a lot of drivers have the "Road Is For Cars" mentality and the reminder that there are in fact bikes out there sharrowing the road with them will get some drivers to wake up from tunnel vision mode. Are they better than a dedicated hike/bike path that spans the city, connects all neighborhoods and doesn't interact or interfere with automobile traffic at any point? No. While I think there are many other better alternatives to the sharrow, I also am not of the opinion that nothing should be done for cyclists just because there are better ideas or options that would probably be cost prohibitive and unpopular with the average taxpaying consumer.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  11. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    DP:

    Thanks for the clarification. I was worried I was missing something big driving around the city carelessly merging into sharrow lanes.

    Yeah, I'm in agreement that the sharrows are better than nothing. I Just wish we could get a Burke-Gillman type trail through West Seattle. Bikers deserve better than dealing with pissed off drivers who feel entitled to the entire road. I don't think drivers will change enough to make a big difference in attitudes across the board, so the answer seems to be deal with them, bike like you're invisible and push for dedicated lanes/trails as much as possible.

    Any idea where a dedicated bike trail could run on the peninsula? That seems like an investment everyone can get behind...both bike haters (to get those damned bikes off the road!) as well as bikers/bike lovers (to keep away from those reckless entitled drivers!).

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  12. Re: bike paths

    You know, I think there could be a bike path up Admiral that loops under the bridge at Avalon—or maybe at some point north or there—and connects up with the Alki trail. Why the hell not? It seems like there's already enough of a set-back on the west side of the Admiral Hill, but maybe not. In any case, it's a conceptual leap from a road diet to a bike trail. Painting stripes on a street is much easier than carving a path out of the woods.

    Anyway, that's one of the things I'll be looking at if I ever trot back out to Admiral.

    Also re: bike paths

    For practical purposes, there is really no such thing as an off-street "bike path" in Seattle. Burke-Gilman and similar trails are really bike/walk/fun/skate paths, and for pedestrians on these paths, bicycles are a terror, much as cars are a terror to bikers on the road. (I'm sure walkers on Burke-Gilman will bear me out on this.)

    There's really no solution to the problem of mixed traffic on paths and trails, other than to build more sidewalks and paths and trails everywhere, in order to drain some of the traffic off the existing high-usage ones.

    The same principle holds true, I think, for off-leash parks and all kinds of other recreational amenities. The best way to keep everybody in Seattle happy is to create more open spaces, green spaces, and dedicated-use areas at the same time as we're throwing up new condos.

    As the population increases in Seattle, we are going to feel the squeeze on our infrastructure ever more acutely. To lessen that squeezed feeling, our city planners will need to create more and more places for people and their furry pals to play.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  13. karen farnsworth
    Member Profile

    The decal at Fauntleroy and California shows where to position yourself to trigger the turn light. If you do not put your pedal over the decal you have to wait for a car to trip the signal.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  14. as a driver.. i am all for dedicated bike trails...

    i am tired of following a bike doing 15mph in a 35mph zone while i wait for an opportunity to pass...

    as a retired rider.. i don't see what the fuss is about sharing bike trails.

    I was lucky enough to do my time at Oregon State University where there was an extensive trail system that facilitated bike traffic. We shared with everyone including the occasional critter... and still managed to get where we where going.

    a polite "behind you" when cycling, skating or running generally cleared the path..

    if my experience on local paths is any indication .. that polite behind you seems to have gone out of style :(

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  15. yeah-me
    Member Profile

    yeah-me

    The road diet really benefits drivers trying to turn ON TO Fauntleroy also.

    I live in an adjacent neighborhood and use Faunty as my way out of WS -- getting onto it used to be a daring feat. Now it feels much safer.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  16. Drivers getting fed up at the couple of extra seconds it might take to pass a cyclist (but usually doesn't) seems like a big part of the bikes on the road issue.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  17. austin...I don't mind the extra seconds. I do mind the attitude that "I'm a biker, I'm gonna go 15 miles under the speed limit, and you can be damned" kinda thing. And sometimes it's damned difficult to pass without putting yourself, the biker and other traffic in danger. I think that being aware of surroundings is something that some people just don't have a clue about.

    Sharing the road goes both ways, not just for drivers.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  18. While it is true that sharing the road goes both ways, it is more of the drivers' responsibility to do so because they are the ones operating the more dangerous, more maneuverable, and more numerous vehicles. If a driver can't pass a bike without putting themselves or others in danger, just waiting the few seconds until it is safe is not the end of the world. That is the problem. Most drivers think that it is in fact the end of the world. And the idea that cyclists are being selfish by not always going 30+ mph just because drivers think they should is ridiculous.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  19. JanS: I have yet to see a bicyclist with an "I own the road" attitude, although that might be how it appears to you, from behind the wheel of your car. Think about it, though . . . the bicyclist has to go a lot slower than you; it's not like he really has a choice in the matter.

    I have occasionally seen bicyclists trying to "own" their particular lane, but I suspect that's more of a safey thing than a rudeness thing. In those cases, the bicyclist is probably just trying to make himself as visible as possible, thinking that if he cowers at the far edge of the lane, drivers will take advantage and whiz by him at speed.

    Cars have all the advantages over both cyclists and pedestrians. That way, whenever there's a collision between them, it's always the body that's NOT protected by a couple tons of sheet metal that gets the worst of it. Please try to remember that whenever you're driving anywhere near one of these exposed and vulnerable creatures.

    Thank you.

     

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  20. come on guys... a few seconds?

    i followed a cyclist nearly a mile on fauntleroy yesterday before i could pass them..
    and at 15 miles an hour it takes longer than a few second to travel that far
    the cyclist had lots of opportunities to pull over towards the right hand side of the road
    i unfortunately wasn't quite so lucky unless i used the turning lane to pass..
    which i didn't.

    btw.. the cyclist i patiently followed glared at me when i was finally able to safely pull out and pass them...

    what was that all about?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  21. That is truly weird, JoB. A cyclist would have to be highly dedicated to keep any driver behind him for a whole mile along Fauntleroy.

    He would have either had to be travelling down the middle of the road(southbound) or travelling completely outside the dedicated bike lanes (northbound.) Where was it on Fauntleroy, and which direction were you headed?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  22. Why wouldn't you use the turn lane? I can hear the tires of almost every car that passes me as they go over the little bumps on the stripes into the center turn lane. Unless there is a massive traffic jam in the center turn lane, I think that it's okay. Maybe that's why the cyclist was glaring at you, for not passing him.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  23. Thanks DP for your reply. If I had to get to the top of the hill at Admiral and California, I'd ride to where Fairmount Ave meets Harbor Ave and go up there. Same diff, and you end up at the same place. Maybe it is a case of going where it is safe rather than jousting with cars. Which may be the point, but Admiral is a hill I don't climb often.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  24. using the turn lane a a passing lane turns it into a risking head on collison lane.
    and yes.. that was one dedicated... but slow cyclist.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  25. Ok, I'll bite into this one since I do ride Fauntleroy via bike both before and after the road re-configuration...Before I used to take the sidewalk along the east side of the roadway both north and south. Now I feel much more confident on the road since I have some "preserved space" and vehicles are not traveling so fast and aggressively. THAT was my main fear as a cyclist. Speed + aggression = bad problem for cyclist.

    Regarding merging with traffic when a lane ends is a matter of practice. Often, if a cyclist predicts (and rides with a rearview mirror which helps) when it's possible to make a lane change (this is oftentimes several car lengths before the bike lane even ends!) and uses the proper hand signals it's actually quite easy. If a cyclist is not experienced then your method of a sidewalk cross can be used.

    Sharrows are problematic. If installed properly, mid-lane, they are more effective. Often in Seattle they are installed too far to the right, giving the impression that cyclists must ride over them and then placing themselves too far right into the door zone and running the risk of a vehicle "close passing" them. Riding in traffic a bit more to the left of the Sharrow lane on southbound Faunt is much safer, in spite of the feeling that it's more dangerous.

    As for the driver who didn't want to pass the cyclist, that was her choice. The cyclist, at 15 mph, is going a pretty good pace. They had placed themselves accordingly so the driver couldn't use the same lane At The Same Time to pass. She could have used part of the turn lane to pass the cyclist, a perfectly legal manouever. Instead she waited until she could pass - which is perfect. The cyclist was under no obligation to move to the right, because the person likely judged the option as not safe to do so (close pass and door zone).

    In the end, driving from Alaska to roughly just south of Fairmount Park to pass, how many seconds of time are really "lost?" Does it matter? The book "Traffic" should be required reading for everyone who drives a car. JoB, you should pick it up and give it a read. It'll give you some perspective and insight about driving and the use of roadways by multiple users.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  26. Can't pass up that opportunity!

    From Google maps, looks like about half a mile. So, at 35 mph, it would take .5/35/60 minutes, or 2.38 (rounded).

    At 15 mph, it would take .5/15/60 minutes, or 5.55 minutes (rounded).

    5.55-2.38=3.17 minutes, or 190.2 seconds.

    So the cyclist cost JoB a little over 3 minutes. I daresay it felt like much more, but the cyclist likely thought her safety worth the price.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  27. Julie...

    the sharrow lane may only extend for 1/2 a mile.. but i followed that cyclist for a full mile...

    and i wasn't so worried about the time as i was about the impatient drivers behind me...

    one of whom chose to pass both the rider and myself and nearly caused a collision that would have taken both of us out in the process...

    the same impatience on the part of drivers that necessitated the turn lane in the middle of the street rears it's ugly head when anything slows the progress of traffic.

    I am not anti-bike at all...

    i think we need to invest in safe separate bike lanes to facilitate traffic and encourage more bike traffic.

    Al...

    i read Traffic when it came out...

    apparently i focused more on the safety part of the book than the part about taking advantage of free pavement regardless of how you cause brake lights to flash behind you .. thereby causing the traffic tie-ups you contend to avoid ;->

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  28. Even worse, JoB: Not only did I focus on the "Alaska to just south of Fauntleroy Park" rather than the 1 mile of your post, I was calculating too late at night and I'm embarrassed to say I was careless, and my calculation was bad, too!

    The correct calculation should be:

    1 mile at 35 mph: 1/35 TIMES 60: 1 minute 43 seconds

    1 mile at 15 mph: 1/15 TIMES 60: 4 minutes

    4 minutes minus 1:43 = 2 minutes 17 seconds.

    I just couldn't resist the opportunity to do the calculation. I know you're not anti-bike!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  29. "i read Traffic when it came out...apparently i focused more on the safety part of the book than the part about taking advantage of free pavement regardless of how you cause brake lights to flash behind you .. thereby causing the traffic tie-ups you contend to avoid ;->"

    Aha. Then you should re-read it. In the very first chapters it explains the use of roadways; i.e. they are not exclusively for motor vehicle use, but for "transportation" purposes. "Traffic" is not exclusively a term for motor vehicles which is a huge point of the book. And what's also interesting is that the psychology of driving is discussed in detail. You PERCEIVE you are held up when in all actuality you are not really slowed down all that much. That person in front of you has every right to use "his" bit of roadway, just as much as you and he does not have to yield the right of way and his safety just so you, in the faster, bigger, more dangerous vehicle can proceed as if you alone owned the piece of property you are driving over. As for those cars behind you, you are still ahead of them - and proceeding safely. You have no way to inform them of what's going on, they will need to drive safely as as well with no communication between anyone (also discussed in the book). That is not the "fault" of the cyclist who, as far as I can tell, was riding safely and properly.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  30. Al...

    whoa nelly.. what a lot of focus on rights...

    i didn't fault the cyclist.. i fault the system.

    however, i do think the rider would have been a lot smarter to utilize the options she had to safely pull to the side without losing either speed or flexibility...

    the rider is safer if they ride in such a way that facilitates faster traffic whenever possible... because if they don't drivers will try to pass..

    the ugly truth is that while i might have the patience to follow a bike using the entire roadway for an entire mile..
    i am the exception.. not the rule.

    in the Sunday newspaper..

    a noted biker was quoted as saying that he no longer bikes to work because of increased traffic and the increasing number of new bikers who do not understand the rules of the roadway...

    i contend that the rules of the roadway include far more than what is printed int he driver's manual.

    and have to add that i see examples of that behavior on the part of bicyclists every time i get in my car,,,

    or share a path on foot with an ever increasing number of bikers who think they are on a speedway track designed for racers.

    there are paths in Lincoln park that are no longer safe to walk dogs on because it is nearly impossible to get both yourself and your dog out of the way when a bicycle speeds up from behind you without bothering to let you know they are coming.

    though to be perfectly fair.. runners are as inconsiderate on the trails in Lincoln park as bikers...

    it doesn't seem to matter whether people are on foot or on skates or skateboards or bikes or motor cycles or cars or .... they seem to be universally focusing on their own rights and completely unconcerned with yours...

    if i am against anything... I am against people everywhere who are so embedded in getting everything they have a "right" to that they are totally insensitive to those with whom they share space...

    sorry about the typos and slipped keys.. i am too tired to edit this mroning

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  31. I don't know about you, but I thought that the Spokane street viaduct "road diet" worked out just swell.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  32. JoB: I'm glad we agree on putting in more dedicated bike lanes/paths. I retract my earlier statement about bicyclists never being rude. I don't really see it (or maybe I just don't notice it) as much as you do, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening. I guess bicyclists are capable of being rude, just like everyone else.

    I do think you're overstating the problem of bicycles hogging the road, but it's not because you're anti-bike or anything. Rather, it's because of your particular driving habits and your take on the "rules of the road."

    Based on your comments on this and other threads (e.g., the zipper merge thread) I am assuming that you have a very conservative approach to both merging with and passing other traffic, whether a bicycle is involved or not.

    That's fine. However, there is a trade-off when you do that. If you're going to wait until you've got what you consider to be a comfortable space in which to pass the bicyclist, then you should expect to spend a little more time behind bicyclists. You should also expect traffic to pile up behind you a bit.

    You never did answer my question about where you were on Fauntleroy, exactly, when you were stuck behind the bike for a mile, but I'm going to assume it was southbound, because southbound has got the longest stretches without dedicated bike lanes. (If there was a dedicated bike lane where you were at, there's no reason why the bicyclist wouldn't have been in that.)

    In any case, on those parts of Fauntleroy with no dedicated bike lane there are always two travel lanes, one of which is always a sharrow.

    The photo below shows a sample stretch of southbound Fauntleroy (7100 block), with the sharrow + car lane configuration.

    Let us imagine that your vehicle is the darkly colored car inside the circle. As you can see, there's plenty of room for a car to pass a cyclist on that stretch of road—check out the motorcyle in the NB lane for perspective—and a bicylist would have to be straddling the sharrow AND the car lane to prevent you from passing for a whole mile. But honestly, why would any cyclist hog two lanes like that, when he could have his own full lane (the sharrow) to occupy? It makes no sense.

    What I think is happening here is that you are being SO cautious that you won't go around the bicyclist even when there is enough room to do so safely.

    And again, that's your decision. But try not to be surprised when you don't see the bicyclist pulling over to the far side of his lane to accommodate you. (Why should he?) And don't be irked at the drivers behind you honking their horns and "riding your tailpipe," as you've put it. Because those other drivers are just doing what comes natural.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  33. why indeed would a bicyclist do that...well, because they can. Yes, there are rude bicyclists, and yes, some even think they own the road, and look down on , frown on auto drivers as being somehow less than they are. But it's like that in almost everything, when you think about it. And it's those people who give bicyclists a bad name. Just because something is there (a sharrows, a speed limit, etc) does not automatically mean that it will be utilized correctly. Not all drivers are impatient asses, and not all bicyclists are perfect :)

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  34. DP..

    this little old lady once aced a performance driving school.. so it's likely my driving style isn't THAT conservative.

    Agreed.. i am more conservative than i once was because my reactions aren't what they were decades ago...

    but still ... they are better than average. quick reactions have saved me from many an accidental impact with drivers who think themselves far more competent.

    One thing that school taught me is that defensive driving is the most important skill any driver can learn.. and i do drive very defensively because there are a lot of complete idiots behind the wheel these days.

    when your driving maneuvers cause other drivers to put their foot on the brakes ...
    you have crossed the line between aggressive and unsafe driving.

    the problem with the kind of aggressive use of every spare bit of pavement that is often justified by quotes from the book Traffic is that it causes a sea of brake lights in it's wake...

    causing the kind of traffic jams the self satisfied proponents say they are purposefully avoiding.

    of course they never see them...
    having sped along their merry way...

    people like me.. who drive defensively...
    keep people like that from the accidents they so richly deserve..

    I will be driving long after those accidents waiting for a place to happen have totaled their cars.

    i call that safe...
    but you can call it conservative if you want to

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  35. Oh JoB, I do appreciate your responses. And yes, I am going to defend my "right" to be on the roadway and use the roadway in my legal rights as a cyclist (or motorcyclist or driver). However, I'll re-iterate, this doesn't mean that I give up my right of way just because someone else wants to pass me.

    If I, or whomever, is riding a bit futher to the left than YOU want, that doesn't mean I HAVE to pull over for you. Fauntleroy is fraught (yes, fraught) with parked cars, opening vehicle doors, buses, etc. that a cyclist has to manoeuver around, while simultaneously negotiating with passing traffic. This demands defensive RIDING ergo the lane position. It's more dangerous to keep swerving in and out of traffic, riding unpredictably than to maintain a consistent route down the roadway.

    Just because you, or any other person, think that riding a bicycle is dangerous business doesn't make it right to think that they don't belong on the road. What makes cycling dangerous is most often the very drivers that are sharing the road with the cyclist. If everyone drove defensively and followed the rules of the road (and I don't think you did anything wrong here - you weren't comfortable passing and you didn't which is correct) then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  36. Al,

    sharing the roads with inattentive drivers while on a bicycle is inherently dangerous. Those hybrid creatures can kill you in the blink of an eye.

    I speak from experience. I chose a bicycle for my major source of transportation until i became too ill to do so. It's one of the things i miss most.. but I have scars on my face that have never quite faded due to one near collision and scars on my leg from being run off the road.

    I have lost two friends to bicycle/auto collisions..
    and they were both careful riders.

    i would never have suggested a bicyclist should pull over next to a line of parked cars...

    but i do think that bicyclists sharing the road with autos would be a lot safer if they pulled over into a prolonged area free of parked cars when they have cars following them.

    that is what i meant by "safely pull over without losing speed or flexibility" ...

    that bicyclist had every right to consume that entire lane at any speed she chose...

    but having the right doesn't make that the safest choice. An experienced rider would know that...

    As long as you have inexperienced and/or stupid people on bicycles sharing a road with inexperienced and/or stupid people in cars there are going to be accidents...

    and the bicyclist is going to come up on the short end of a collision every time.

    Bicyclists would be a lot safer and commutes a lot faster if there was a good consistent dedicated bike lane available...

    personally, i would ban on street parking on arterials and put in dedicated bike lanes....

    Now.. wouldn't that just stir up a major fuss.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  37. Ah, JoB, I think we are in agreement that the streets are a dangerous place due to the amount of motor vehicles being driven, especially those manned by drivers who are aggressive and dangerous!

    ;-)

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  38. Al. :)

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  39. DP, thanks for the article. It was a trip! As for the Admiral work, I don't know if it will make things better for cyclists. Admiral from Olga to the bridge is part of my regular route, and I usually ride down the right lane at speed limit (which is still not fast enough for some people) and up the hill on the sidewalk. A dedicated lane downhill might be nice when it's raining, so I could feel safe slowing down, but usually this stretch is ok. I think I would continue to take the sidewalk uphill.

    The stretch of road from Olga to Starbucks I avoid at all costs. I don't know if that stretch is part of the plan, but to narrow that to one lane would be a huge improvement, most of all to pedestrians who have no safe place to cross, and I think cars would also benefit with a much safer road.

    As far as having a lane on the road vs a dedicated bike trail, both are nice, I usually prefer road to path. There really is no such thing as a dedicated bike trail, as there will also be roller bladers, dog walkers, very new learners, speed walkers, stroller pushers, you name it. Trails are nice, but I see them more as recreation than as a network of roads to get you somewhere.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  40. BikerDude
    Member Profile

    The Admiral section from Olga to the WSB why change it, it is fine as it is. I have ridden my bike up and down the hill numerous times and it is fine as is. I have also ridden from Olga to California in the sharrow and felt just fine.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  41. Well, it looks like there really aren't going to be any major changes along Admiral after all. All traffic lanes will stay the same, with a new pedestrian crossing at the north end. A parking lane will be swapped for an uphill bike lane.

    A gain for a few bicyclists; a loss for a few car parkers.

    "Move along people. Nothing to see here."

    http://westseattleblog.com/2010/09/admiral-way-restriping

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^