Does Green Box Biking Reduce Right Hook Collisions?

These boxes have not been in use very long. Maybe we should wait a few months or even a year to see how they affect traffic before we overly criticize them.

Problem with "vehicular cycling" is that really no one wants to do it. Without bike lanes and other facilities, only between .5 and 1 percent of the population will choose to cycle. With bike lanes, Portland is getting over 5%.

Maybe banning right turns on the red might be more effective, even just on bike routes. Most of the rest of the world, including Europe doesn't allow right turns on the red. Unless you're stopped at the light, it doesn't really prevent the right hook.

My experience as a driver is that the green boxes increase the busyness of the visual field and make it harder, not easier, to see bicyclists.

I commuted here by bike before lanes and boxes and all the expensive stuff got thrown at this issue. I am of the camp which holds that these things actually reduce safety, because they give cyclists a false sense of not needing to ride defensively.

The press and the "bicycle community" always flog the issue of FAULT in an accident. From a safety perspective, we should be focusing on AVOIDABILITY. Most of these front page accidents here have been completely avoidable by the cyclist, had the cyclist been riding defensively. Yet the "bicycle community" rants about them being the fault of the driver. Well, maybe the law does assign fault to the driver, legally. But, that doesn't mean the cyclist was smart to proceed heedlessly. The whole point of riding defensively is to reduce YOUR risks from OTHER PEOPLE's errors. Errors will occur. If everybody is riding defensively, instead of assuming that the bright green bike lane conveys immunity from the laws of physics, there would be fewer injuries and deaths.

Last night we had a t-bone accident in which the cyclist blew through a red light and t-boned a pickup. The "bicycle community" was all over the blogs trying to make this a motorist fault because the red-lighted street is a "bicycle boulevard". Apparently, the designation of a "bicycle boulevard" is supposed to make it safe to run reds! Sorry to have to break it to you, but, if you run reds, you will eventually be in a t-bone!

I am for mainstreaming. I think it is safer. It makes clear that we all have to share responsibility and ride/drive defensively.

As a full time car-free bicyclist, riding in a very bike unfriendly city, I would have a hard time putting my faith in paint on the pavement.

I would never trust it, but the danger lies in some bicyclists thinking that their "special place" will protect them. Special or not, if there is a collision, whether the fault of the automobile driver or the bicyclist, the person on the bicycle will be the loser.

Another issue is that of the out-of-town driver. The local people will come to understand how the bicycle lanes are supposed to work, but a driver from another city will have no idea what that green area means, and proceed to make a right hand turn just as he has for decades.

Does a bicyclist really expect to be seen, and if seen, to be treated as an equal vehicle, complete with right-of-way when appropriate? All too often, the bicyclist is viewed as an overgrown child who should get off that toy and get a car like everyone else.

Maybe in the cycling oasis of Portland there are some drivers who empathize with the bicyclist, but in the rest of the country, the person on the bicycle needs to take full responsibility for getting himself safely through any intersection, regardless of whatever green or blue paint the city has put down.

Be sure to read the Adventure Cyclist link above in the main article. John Schubert makes his points very well.

These have been installed in London for years. While on the whole they have proved useful, there have been several accidents which they appear to be responsible for.

In each case, cyclists have moved through stopped traffic to reach the box. The first vehicle in the cue is a large lorry. The lorry driver can't actually see the cyclist in front of them, because they are so high up. Lorry pulls off, cyclist does not. End of cyclist. But perhaps the boxes in London are not as much as 10 feet in length.

One to watch though.

Will.

I have used the bike boxes in Portland, and I liked them.

It means different things to different people, but to me it is about symbolism. When a car driver is on a street with bike signage, bike boxes, green lanes, etc., the driver KNOWS she is in a bike-area.

What I *do* object to is calling Portland a "bike-friendly city".

My experience has been that the city will have fabulous facilities, educational programs, and educated enforcement, but only in the area between the hills and I-205, nearly completely ignoring the fact that the vast swath of City of Portland that is East of I-205 gets ignored in many ways. When there are bike tours or programs or events, you can be guaranteed that it is a wealthier, white populace from the trendy neighborhoods participating. Advocacy organizations are very proactive when there's an issue in the close-in neighborhoods, but rarely step foot on the East side.

I have used the bike boxes in Portland, and I liked them.

It means different things to different people, but to me it is about symbolism. When a car driver is on a street with bike signage, bike boxes, green lanes, etc., the driver KNOWS she is in a bike-area.

What I *do* object to is calling Portland a "bike-friendly city".

My experience has been that the city will have fabulous facilities, educational programs, and educated enforcement, but only in the area between the hills and I-205, nearly completely ignoring the fact that the vast swath of City of Portland that is East of I-205 gets ignored in many ways. When there are bike tours or programs or events, you can be guaranteed that it is a wealthier, white populace from the trendy neighborhoods participating. Advocacy organizations are very proactive when there's an issue in the close-in neighborhoods, but rarely step foot on the East side.

Right of way means nothing when you're staring up at 6 feet of earth and a headstone.

A lot of vehicles just have stupid blind spots. Of course there are plenty of people, illiterate taxi drivers for one, who speed 10 feet past me just to cut me off with a right turn and then claim "I didn't see you". Open your eyes numnuts!!

Anyway, even though we have the right of way in most instances, we should none the less realize the visual limitations of the cars that are ahead of us, even if they're just lazy and don't check the right mirror or heaven forbid, turn their fat heads around to look first before going right. He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day.

Good Luck!!
vsk

Thanks to Treehugger for continuing to write thoughtful and though-provoking stories about bicycling.

A few comments:

First, we can't create a conflict free environment. Whether it be conflict between people or conflict between vehicles. When you have 26 million miles a day traveled each day by hundreds of thousands of people in a city, it's unrealistic to think you can reach some sense of perfection. Those conflicts then get magnified and occasionally sensationsionalized -- sometimes to push an agenda.

Second, bike boxes will not eliminate conflict. However, they have shown to reduce right turn conflict. They also increase visibility and awareness. (note to the writer: They are actually 14 feet deep, not 10.) So far, all observations are that people are generally operating their vehicles more safely in the locations where we put the boxes. We will continue to monitor them and are conducting a full study with a team of professors from Portland State University. But, that will take time as all traffic studies do.

Third, don't believe the hype. There is no "war" in Portland. The two recent, high-profile incidents were sensationalized to an unfortunate degree. We'll never reach perfect harmony. However, my experience riding in this city daily is that it continues to become a safer and more pleasant place to ride. You may enjoy the perspective from today's paper: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1216178716246880.xml&coll=7

Forth, don't believe the hype. John Schubert comes to the conversation with an agenda. Where was he in 2006 when we had 0 bicycle fatalities and an 18% increase in ridership? Did he read the fatality reports about the crashes he writes about? I doubt it because there are a number of complex factors involved in those, like all, crashes. In 2006, the highest profile bicycle fatalities in Oregon were related to vehicular style riding. I wouldn't want to see a "Vehicular Cycling's Agony" column because I think it doesn't respect the families, the situation, or is accurate. But, John somehow held back on that one.

Not even John and the vehicular cycling champions he hangs with (and have set the rules for engineering in our country for decades) can create a conflict free environment. Although, their agenda and proactive work to dominate and chair the Bicycle Technical Committee for the Federal Highway Administration (which John is a member) has created an almost bicycle free environment in our country.

Some may consider us the best cycling city in the country, but that's not a very high bar. We have a lot of work to do to become a truly world class cycling city. Some of that has to do with providing a better network in areas that we annexed like east and southwest Portland. Some of it has to do with creating a wide, family-friendly bike boulevard network. Some of it has to do with developing world-class bicycle transportation facilities for streets with short blocks and lots of driveways. Some of it has to do with improved education and enforcement services. There's a lot of work being done on all of these fronts.

Thanks for making the world a better place by riding your bicycle.

Greg Raisman
Community and School Traffic Safety Partnership
Portland Office of Transportation

I think one of the biggest challenges is getting cyclists to use them as so far in Portland and NYC it seems only the most educated of cyclists do.

But no matter if they "work" or not, ANYTHING that keeps cars back further away from the crosswalk is a win for everybody: cyclists/pedestrians/children/seniors/disabled.

As for Schubert and those like him, the wave of this country is swinging quickly to those who want more facilities for cyclists, esp. safe, physically separated ones on extremely wide and dangerous throughfares. Only a small percentage of cyclists are ever going to use the roads the way they are designed. I do like riding in with traffic and have no problem with it, but just about everyone I know isn't gonna get on a bike until the roads are safer.

My friend, Le Squatch:

There is no mandate that cyclists move over at the box. Even if they stay in the same line as the bike lane, they are using the box. It provides the benefit of improved visibility no matter where the cyclist positions themselves.

The only regulatory elements of the design are for the motorist. A stop bar and a NO TURN ON RED sign. All other elements are guidance. So, a cyclist has the option of moving laterally in the box. That will most likely occur when there are multiple cyclists present. When I've seen more than 2 cyclists present so far, there starts to be more lateral movement. However, the lack of lateral movement does not mean they're not using it by any stretch.

this system is in use in Taipei
seems to work well

I'm with Derek, at least in promoting defensive driving, and while some infrastructure improvements can help imho, there is one path that is serving no one well - promoting conflict between motorists and cyclists.

In contrast, laying a groundwork for expectations would yield far better results. I drive and bike and even as hyper aware as I am after 40 years of riding, it's still hard sometimes to know how to react to a bicyclist. it would be very helpful to start a campaign where motorists and cyclists alike attended a voluntary "drivers training" class where a groundwork of reasonable expectations and behaviors are learned so uncertainty is dramatically reduced in those fleeting moments when motorists and cyclists are trying to figure out what to do to avoid an accident. (never underestimate the value of taking the inititive and directing traffic - it works)

The blessed souls who attend these workshops/training classes should get rear window decals and jerseys to be displayed with pride. The current trend towards an adversarial approach will make it much harder to get motorists cooperation to make infrastructure change and foster the only thing that will ever make biking safe - coordination between any given motorist and any given cyclist when life and limb are hanging in the balance.

The golden rule for safety is always the same. Do your part, do the other guy's part, do the city planner's part and then some, but find a way to live another day. As intrinsically dangerous as flying is, it is this mantra of responsibility that keeps most pilots alive to see retirement.

I'd like to see a standard bike lane with a green bicycle light coming on 5s before the main light. This gives the cyclist more time to clip in, get moving, and in single file.