Look both ways

George is correct. Many of the struggles to improve walkability come from the fact that NCDOT owns most of the roads in the state. Only the state of Texas owns more mileage.

I believe that the ocean liner that is NCDOT is slowly turning in the right direction, and they deserve credit for doing so. Of course, there are also thousands of practicing engineers who have spent 2 decades doing nothing except designing roads to move cars at the expense of any other priority.

There is another culprit that no one seems to have addressed yet...cell phones. Why hasn't the state outlawed the use of cell phones while driving, or enven the municipality? I was almost t-boned last night at an intersection while I was driving though in the middle of a green light (not even at the beginning), and wouldn't you know it the person driving was talking on a cell phone not paying attention to the fact that they had a red light (amazing what you can see when they are within feet of your car).

And I'd like to now thank my Uncle Frank for pulling some strings and getting me into a police defense driving course when I was 16.

Theresa,

I couldn't agree more. I petitioned Town Council last year to add this to their list of legislative priorities that they recommend to our local state legislature delegation but it didn't make our Town priority list (you don't want to have more than a couple of things on the list if you hope to have any move forward). There has been a bill in the State Legislature to ban cell phone use while driving for, I believe, about 4-5 years now. It stalled in committee again last session (which seems to be its inevitable fate each session). I don't know what it will take to get the state legislature to develop some spine on this but it probably won't happen as long as our lobbying rules remain so loose.

Wayne, you're minimizing something. Regulations are only
important to a degree. As we all well know, when there
is a car-bike collision, the bicyclist loses. It does him no good
to say, from his hospital bed with ten broken bones
"I was right and the driver was wrong".

I would like to know some of the actual details of the
Highway 54 accident. Why was any bicyclist on that road
at 6:30 pm? Was he wearing highly visible clothes? Did he have a taillight? A helmet?
The photo of that portion of the road in the paper showed
almost zero pavement to the right of the white line and
a dropoff to dirt. The text of the article said that the
region of the road was pothole-filled.

I gave up riding to Durham on Erwin Road because it
was grossly unsafe -- I felt like I was always
"six inches from death". Old CH road is far safer.

I hope that we can use these tragic accidents to promote
to DOT that walking and bicycling are bonafide means
of transportation and that our roads need to accomodate
them.

About five years ago, when Dr. Matsukawa was killed
crossing Manning from Thurston-Bowles to the
dental school, UNC went on a pedestrian safety kick,
building new crossing facilities and having campus
police stationed at the crossing to direct traffic.
It must have worked, because the list of the number of
car-ped accidents that was recently published showed
that there were zero accidents on South Road. This is
incredible, considering the number of people who
cross South Road at Fetzer and other places along the road.

Ruby, for how many years have we been trying,
unsucessfully, to get DOT to agree to a pushbutton-
activated crosswalk on West Franklin St? I remember
this movement from the early 90s. It has always been
more important for DOT (who owns Franklin ST.)
to move cars efficiently than to deal with those
evil pedistrians who want to slow down the traffic.

"This www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/drivershandbook/chapter4/basicDrivingP... would imply that there is. Hmmmm."
Comment at 4:47am 1/27/2006 by johnk http://

John, that gibberish applies to interstates, but the DMV in its ignorance doesn't know that.

Joe, we all know that in a collision with a dump truck the SUV driver loses. And in a collision with a train, the drump truck driver loses. So?

You also wrote: "Why was any bicyclist on that road
at 6:30 pm?" Ugh, because he was going someplace?

"Was he wearing highly visible clothes? Did he have a taillight? A helmet?" Probably not, but a helmet would not have made any difference. A thin piece of styrofoam is merely designed to reduce the impact of a simple fall, a very low standard. Helmets do not have magical powers. They do make bicyclists feel protected however, so they likely risk compensate. They also are great at de-humanizing people. Ever notice how motorists sometimes exhibit greater caution in the presence of unhelmeted riders?

"The photo of that portion of the road in the paper showed
almost zero pavement to the right of the white line and
a dropoff to dirt." Bicyclists should not ride on shoulders, especially narrow ones! Use More Lane!

Ruby, there are lots of cycling facilities around here. They are called roads. My wife and I use them everyday, and assert our right to them.

Ed, you wrote:
"I don't think there is any disagreement that bicyclists are in danger on our roads. And one of the reasons is because they often travel under the speed limit."

I'll disagree with all of that. A big misperception is that high speed motoring, or high speed disparity, causes bicycling collisions for lawful riders, but this is simply not the case. Bicyclist high speed and motorists' misperception of that is a far bigger contributor to collisions. And the fact that bicyclists are often slower than the speed limit has never been shown to be a contributor to collisions. This is simply a fabrication of those who want to create a separate transportation system for bicycle drivers. These include so-called "bicycle" advocates who want to make it "bicycle friendly" (shouldn't they advocate for bicyclists, not inanimate objects?), as well as some motorists who selfishly want bicycle drivers off the road and out of their way. Strange bedfellows indeed. Many of the so-called bicycle advocates don't actually care about bicycling per se; they are more anti-motorists/environmentalists who want OTHER people to bicycle instead of driving their evil cars.

Now, as far as crosswalks for pedestrians is concerned, a few painted lines do not impart magical protective powers, especially at night!

Wayne
Separate but equal is not equal

In one post, Ed Neely clipped a quote that included the following: "...nor is there a law that gives cyclists the right to ride two or more abreast." But, while this may be true of NC law, it is not in general necessary for there to be a law allowing people to do something for it to be legal for them to do it; all that is needed is that there is not a law against it. On the interpretaion I argue for of the NC statutes, there is no prohibition on riding abreast. Also, after the large Critical Mass demonstrations some years ago, the Chapel Hill council modified a local statute to allow riding abreast.

The recent deaths of cyclists and pedestrians draw out the strange psychological aspects of automobile dominance in our culture. Words like "road kill" are applied to human beings. It is a case of blaming the victim. For example, it is assumed that it is the pedestrian's "fault" if they were not in a crosswalk when they were hit. But people in Chapel Hill safely cross outside of crosswalks all the time. It is hard to imagine how a responsible automobile driver, paying adequate attention to what is going on around them, could ever hit and kill a pedestrian.

In more general terms, I believe in the Green Transportation Hierarchy (GTH), which is based in part on the principle that "the more you wield, the more you yield." Sometimes it is said that all transportation modes should be treated equally. In practice, though, automobiles are favored over other modes. In any case, I do not believe that all transportation modes should be treated equally. Walking, biking and transit should be favored over automobile use; this is the essence of the GTH. Of course, along the lines of the equal protection clause, people should be treated equally. I should be treated the same when I am driving a car as you are treated when you drive a car. But that is a different matter.

It is sad to see a wrong-headed new enforcement policy on the UNC campus. An officer told me today that it is her understanding that, starting next week, she is supposed to ticket people for crossing outside a crosswalk even if they are not impeding traffic. This appears to be inconsistent with the statute. And again, this is blaming the victim. Cars hit and kill people on foot and on their bikes, not the other way around.

If the town tries to effect a similar new enforcement policy, it will fail. The effort should be on speed limit enforcement for motor vehicles. The limit of 20 mph on Franklin Street downtown is never really enforced. We don't even see SHARP units out there any more.

You should do what your mother (or whoever) told you. You should look both ways before crossing the street. But there is nothing wrong, or necessarily unsafe, about crossing against the light or outside of a crosswalk. Adults can judge for themselves when it is safe to cross, and it is an excessive intervention in the lives of adults to demand that they always obey the letter of these laws. I am not an advocate of unsafe jaywalking. But I am an advocate of safe jaywalking. It helps maintain the sense that there are pedestrian zones in which drivers must slow down and respect people on foot. Cautious jaywalking is your civic duty!

It is tragic and heartbreaking that so many people have died recently from automobile dominance, and then get blamed for their deaths. On the whole, there really is not much of an enlightened radical attitude about these things in town.

Someone is starting up the Critical Mass again today.

Anybody want to start up a "jaywalkathon?"

James, you state "I am not an advocate of unsafe jaywalking. But I am an advocate of safe jaywalking. It helps maintain the sense that there are pedestrian zones in which drivers must slow down and respect people on foot. Cautious jaywalking is your civic duty!"

Who is to decide what constitutes 'safe' versus 'unsafe' jaywalking. Several years ago I complained to the Duke University Medical Center administration because a large number of hospital employees jaywalk on Erwin Road in front of Duke Hospital, just north of the intersection with Fulton Street. The difficulty for me, as a motorist, was that at 7 AM I was heading up a slight grade right into the rising sun. The jaywalkers were often crossing behind large trucks in the travel lanes or buses in the center turn lane. It was often difficult to see these jaywalkers even if there were no other vehicles. When they would step out from behind a bus it was frightening.

Unfortunately, it turns out that even though there is a statue on the NC books against jaywalking, there is no penalty prescribed, and thus it is unenforceable. You might argue that if I hit an "'unsafe' jaywalker then they bear the responsibility. But why should I or anyone else have to be subject to the trauma of being associated with another person's death, even if we weren't at fault?

Wayne, I am going to advocate for the seperate unequal bike lanes for now. I prefer teaching my daughter to avoid riding out in the road because it pisses off drivers. Where I grew up riding in Guilford County I don't think I'd be blogging now if I had made that a habit in the 70s. Courtesy, patience, sharing the road. I can "cling like a leper to the side of the road" for 20feet to let someone pass, I am just banking on them not passing me unless they know they can and feel comfortable with it. I guess you're banking on never being the victim of road rage from someone who doesn't see your right to that lane.

Wayne,
You wrote:

Ed, you wrote:
“I don't think there is any disagreement that bicyclists are in danger on our roads. And one of the reasons is because they often travel under the speed limit.”

I'll disagree with all of that...

"All of that"? You would disagree that bicyclists are in danger when riding on busy roads? I guess this entire thread is pointless for you then. Or maybe you just want to disagree.

And I said that speed disparity is one of the reasons. Not the only reason. Still disagree?

After all, if a bicycle could maintain the speed limit like a motorcycle, this thread would not be necessary. No one is writing about how difficult it is to share the road with motorcycles. We could be writing about things like how cars don't see both types of bikes when pulling out of side roads.

I jay walk all the time and I think it's safer for everyone that I do. When I walk from my job at the hospital, past the Haynes-Stone center, to Davis liberary, I cross South Street by jay walking. I wait for traffic to pass, look both ways, and cross when I can. The alternitive that UNC demands is less safe. I ought to go to a cross walk and hope that the driver of the car recognizes my right to the way, and step out into traffic. That's more safe? First, I won't bet my life on the courtesy and skills of some random driver. Second, stopping traffic on a busy street snarles traffic up even more. My shoes have good breaks in them; better then any car.

I'll tell you who should get cited. It's the people who jaywalk at the intersection of Franklin and Columbia. When the drivers turning left get thier chance about one time in three pedestrian will cross the street they are trying to turn on to. Being in the cross walk doesn't mean it's not jay walking.

That all said; I do like the cross walk on Pittsboro street in front of the credit union. When I get off the bus in the AM me and twenty other people cross there while the moterized minority waits thier turn.

Pat,
Riding on the edge of the road has a number of negative outcomes. You should familiarize yourself with the best bicycle operating practices rather than offering conjecture based on "fear from the rear." May I suggest www.humantransport.org or www.bicyclinglife.com? You should also read Effective Cycling by John Forrester.

Ed,
You too should familiarlize yourself with bicycle-motor vehicle collision causality. No, speed disparity is not a danger for bicyclists unless there are other precipitating conditions like not being visible at night. If speed disparity was a significant precipitator of collisions, many hit-from-behind collisions would routinely occur to lawfully riding bicyclists, but this is not the case. Mr. Alston was likely not in compliance with conspicuity law, and was operating on a narrow shoulder which is not intended for vehicular travel.

James,
You are absolutely correct about the abject misinformation about crossing not at crosswalks. However, your GTH scheme is not good. Yielding is rightly based on circumstances, not tonnage as you espouse. (And public transit clearly is not green. It uses roughly the same BTUs per passenger mile as driving alone.) Yielding rules have been well worked out; they simply need to be obeyed.

Wayne

Consider the foolishness of NC General Statute 20-174 (c):
"Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk."

Unless I am misinterpreting this, there are many "adjacent" intersections that are a long distance apart, making crossing the road in between illegal. Did the writer of this statute do so when standing in the small grid area of downtown Raleigh? Many "adjacent" signalized intersections don't even have a marked crosswalk!

Wayne

I ride the bus from Southern Village Park and Ride to Airport Drive every morning. If I am lucky, the NS bus will get to the Health Sciences Library early enough for me to transfer over to the connecting NU bus. If I am not lucky, which is most mornings, I will have to ride the NS and cross MLK without a crosswalk. The closest pedestrian crossing is down at Hillsborough St. If I cross at Estes, there is no shoulder to walk along back to Airport Drive. Every morning and afternoon, I watch people disembark from the NS, the G, and the A and then run or walk across MLK. I have no doubts that whoever predicted harm coming on MLK is right on the money. I just hope I'm not around when it happens. We need crosswalks--bus stops appear to be determined by some kind of distance metric rather than by logical exits to places of work.

George C states:

"Unfortunately, it turns out that even though there is a statue on the NC books against jaywalking, there is no penalty prescribed, and thus it is unenforceable"

actually, while GS 120-174 in Part 10 of the rules of the road prohibits jaywalking but does not set a penalty, there is a catch all section:

" 20‑176. Penalty for misdemeanor or infraction.
(a) Violation of a provision of Part 9, 10, 10A, or 11 of this Article is an infraction unless the violation is specifically declared by law to be a misdemeanor or felony. Violation of the remaining Parts of this Article is a misdemeanor unless the violation is specifically declared by law to be an infraction or a felony."

so police COULD give a ticket for a jaywalking infraction, which is punishable by a fine but no jail sentence possible.

According to today's paper (N&O) Mr. Galinsky was dressed in dark clothing and crossed AGAINST the light.

Gerry,

I'm not a lawyer and you may be correct that the police could give a ticket. But my understanding is that since there is no prescribed penalty for such infractions the police will not enforce it. Maybe someone else can shed more light on this.

Guess I came late to this thread, but I'm an avid cyclist and frequent pedestrian (no car) so I figured I'd might as well chip in.

The general rules I've taken to following on my bike are to 1. Follow the rules of the road to the greatest extent safe and practicable; and 2. NEVER bet my life that any given motorist knows how to or is willing to operate safely around cyclists. Lots of motorists are impatient, and to some, making them wait 5 seconds to pass is a akin to a capital offense.

To Theresa, it also frustrates me to no end when other cyclists don't follow the rules. Every time I see a bike riding on the left side of the road, or running a red light, or neglecting to signal a turn, I cringe, because their action contributes to the supreme hatred most motorists hold for cyclists.

However, statistics show that in most car/bike accidents, the motorist is at fault (something like 60%). And nobody has a right to squish anyone, no more than people have the right to run rude motorists off the road to their deaths. I have NO problem with stricter enforcement of the rules of the road on cyclists. I have a big problem with saying that cyclists deserve to die.

On a different subject, has anyone noticed how horrible the ADA ramps on sidewalks in our area are? The corners at intersections are so rounded (allowing cars an extra 5mph when negotiating the turns) that the ramps always end up out of alignment with the sidewalks and crosswalks, or pointing in strange directions out into oncoming traffic. I speculate that the wide-radius corners are a DOT standard, and are the product of decades of autos-only road design.

I also despise right-turns on red. They are the bane of any pedestrian's existence. It encourages motorists to stop on top of the crosswalk (where they can see oncoming cars) rather than behind it. Many people pull right up to the intersections without looking. It makes walking in the US a universally harrowing experience. The law is a uniquely American (and Canadian) invention, introduced in California during the heady 'cars are king' postwar years.

I wish we could erase right-on-red from the books completely. But we're not going to see wide-scale changes in road design and traffic laws to level the playing field between cars and pedestrians any time soon, so I would at least like to see more "no right on red" signs to protect pedestrians at important intersections. Signs that light up like the one at Franklin / Main / Rosemary are especially effective.

I was hit by a car while on my bike last September. He was pulling out of a parking lot, talking on his cell phone, looking to the right only, even though he was turning left. I came off the bike path and was to his left; I was following all traffic laws and slowed down as I suspected he didn't know I was there. I stopped and, as he started driving into the road and cutting me off, I started yelling. Alas, he did not hear, and hit my bike. If I hadn't stopped, I most certainly would have been terribly hurt. (And yes, unlike most folks I see around town, I was wearing a bike helmet.) And this was in "bike friendly" Carrboro.

What bugs me is the entitlement car drivers seem to feel. I had to stop in the middle of a road because a driver didn't even think to look for a bike. I rarely see drivers yield to bikes. I often see cars turn right and cut bikes off, even when the cyclists are where they are supposed to be, in a bike lane.

Another problematic intersection is North Greensboro and Estes. Driving or biking north, vehicles turning right gain a right turn lane; if you're going straight, you're in the middle lane. If a cyclist is going straight, he or she is then in the middle of the road. Rather than slowing down, most cars will accelerate to pass a cyclist who is going straight even when they want to turn right.

I do hate it when cyclists don't follow traffic laws. You have to cycle defensively because most drivers drive aggressively.

"Honestly, if I'm following all the traffic laws and I have to slam on my brakes to avoid a pedestrian who is breaking the law, why shouldn't I be allowed to legally turn them into road kill.”

You are not blunt or honest. No more so than anyone else. That is the battle cry of cruel people - I'm blunt, I'm honest. Anyone with any common sense will be very wary of you or anyone else who claims to always speak with honesty while being flip. Nothing is as black and white as you think.

There is a difference between sugarcoating and speaking clearly and compassionately. You claim to be liberal but have no idea how conservative you sound. I'm not talking Republican conservative, which is a much more complicated, nuanced, and far reaching conservative than you seem to undertand...but morally conservative.

Obnoxious should not be confused with honest.

If you ever did hit a person, legally, as an accident, I doubt very much you would call them road kill the next day. Just imagine if you were the kind of person that would...so why be that kind of person now?

A friends father was killed on a North Carolina road. Just look his children in the face and call him road kill. Just imagine if you were the kind of person that would.

I'ts not all black and white. Some people have Parkinson's, some people have bad eyesight, some people have bad hearing, some people have all sorts of things that slow them and misguide them and turn them into 'road kill'. The same goes for animals - plus they also have the added misfortune of not knowing the laws that give you such legal authority.

Compassion is what is needed. Not assumptions about great health and a blatent disregard for others that you seem to assume all people who wander into roads have.

You have good ideas about cell phones and driving, etc. Please apply the commen sense you do have to the obvious. Such moral authority is dangerous and hurtful. And morally conservative.

You are not as liberal as you think. Which is a shame because we need as many liberals as we can get.

Joan,

Bike lanes violate several principals of traffic science. Segregation by vehicle type (bicycle) is one. It being a substandard width lane is another. Placing the lane to the right of standard lanes is another. Solid rather than broken lines is another. In contrast, all other traffic is segregated by destination (straight, right, left) in wide lanes at the better part of the road (center) and can change lanes with impunity. They don't have to justify leaving the bike lane. They don't get harassed for not being where they are "supposed" to be, as you put it. They don't have to contend with constant debris in spite of frequent sweeping. They don't have to contend with 1' wide bike lanes like on Fidelity St or formerly on E Popular. (The bike lane signs have been removed from there due to my efforts at shaming Carrboro for being criminally negligent.)

Remove the bike lane stripe but keep the same space and many problems disappear. Bike lanes are useful only on freeway design roads.

It's the bicyclist's lane. I don't mean the bike lane. I mean the full standard lane, and not just a sliver of it. That's the law.
Bicyclists can use as much or as little of it as they choose.
Bicycle drivers need to understand that, and quit shooting themselves in the foot by demanding bicyclist containment areas.

And let's be realistic about this "bicycle friendly" crud. Bike lanes were invented in Davis, CA which ALREADY had huge numbers of bicyclists using wide roads as a means to deal with the bicycle "problem" as seen by motoring residents. Like on Cameron Ave, bicyclist space was reduced to a narrow portion of the road.

Wayne
Remove Bike Bantustans Now!

Hillary,

Did you actually read any of the other posts? You don't know me, as most that read this blog don't and probably never will. Have you ever heard of the idea of attack the thought not the person...I don't think so. You can consider me harsh, cruel, evil or whatever you like...I wasn't put in this world to be concerned with what others think...as experience has shown me most need to look in a mirror when judging others. There are many opinions of many people that I don't agree with or even like, but that doesn't give me any right to judge them or deny them the right to think or feel the way they do. It is the differences that make life worth living...if everyone thought or acted the same way this would be one boring place, and there would be no need for this type of discourse.

As I've said before the statement was put out there to shock people out of there sentimentality and force them to consider all sides of the situation, which was not being done (i.e. most of the posts just blamed the drivers). Drivers who are aware of pedestrians/bicyclists and follow traffic laws can only do so much if pedestrians/bicyclists aren't aware of their actions (i.e. "According to today's paper (N&O) Mr. Galinsky was dressed in dark clothing and crossed AGAINST the light."). In this instance I would say that both the driver and pedestrian are equally responsible (would I say it to his family...probably not...would I be thinking it...hell yes!). 15-501 doesn't have street lights which makes it hard to see anything...add to that someone wearing dark clothes and not crossing with the light and you have the makings of an accident. Even if the driver had been going under the speed limit most likely they wouldn't have seen him until it was too late.

I do not consider myself either liberal or conservative as I like to make my own mind up about things and chosing a label means you can't really do that. There are some areas I'm very conservative about...like tightening up immigration laws, there are some areas I'm very liberal about...like keeping abortion safe and legal, and there are some areas I am very much in the middle of the road...like gun control laws (I'm a responsible gun owner who believes in responsible gun ownership, but doesn't think anyone need an automatic or semi-automatic for any reason).

So think what you want of me, but next time you pass judgement on someone make sure you are looking in a mirror.

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I've never been able to go biblical on someone...be afraid, be very afraid. Oh, and no I don't consider myself to be a christian either.

Wayne says:
"Like on Cameron Ave, bicyclist space was reduced to a narrow portion of the road."

I'll take full credit for the Cameron Avenue bike lanes, at least as they were a few years ago. In the late 1970s, there was all-day PARKING on both sides of Cameron, from Pittsboro Street all the way to Graham Street. It filled up with commuter parking early in the morning and stayed that way all day, the cyclists were in with cars in the travel lane. My idea -- reserve the inbound to campus as a bike-lane in the morning, then allow parking the rest of the day (thus at busy travel times, bikes had EXTRA space, and late comers to campus had some free parking available around 10 am or so when parking was allowed.) I think outbound the pattern was reversed, but memory fails me. I got the town council to approve this, shortly before I resigned in 1979. I think all this is no longer the case.

Cameron is wide enough that even with parking on both sides of the street there was plenty of room for motorists to pass bicyclists. The "friction" of on-street parking as well as bicyclists in the lane (where they are supposed to be as drivers of vehicles) attenuated motorist speed.

Now, bicycle drivers are "given" 5 ft of pavement up against the curb heading toward campus. This has constant debris, and places bicyclists to the right of turning vehicles. Leaving campus, the bike lane snakes ridiculously, bringing bicyclists close to the side of the road at several driveways and intersections where turning and merging vehicles are a far bigger threat than the boogey man from behind that bike lanes try to protect bicyclists from.

Motorists get the choice middle part of the road in generously wide and clear lanes bufferd from side friction by the bicycle resevations.

Wayne

I actually like Cameron Ave much better now. I just rode on it twice today. I always felt like I was going to get sandwiched before.

Gerry, I think your idea was good in theory, but the parking times seemed to be set for cars, not cyclists. First of all, people bike to and from campus all times of the day. And you could park there at 9:45. So often, by 9:30, all the parking spots were parked up, or people would sit in their cars idling the engines until 9:45. Folks on a bike could be biking at 9:50 and still get to campus in time for a 10am class, and plenty of folks don't need to get there any earlier. But by then the bike lanes were gone.

I like the dedicated bike lanes, snaking or no. I prefer not to worry about people opening their car doors without checking for bikes.

The debris is a problem. The folks on Cameron, and particularly near the intersection of Cameron Glen, are using the bike lanes as their leaf collection areas, and so cyclists are forced into the car lanes anyway.

Joan,

Sandwiched in 22' wide lanes? That is wider than BOTH lanes of Estes Drive Extension, and as wide as both lanes of South Columbia St.

Bicycle educators have long espoused in virtually every publication that has ever been written that bicyclists not ride close enough to parked cars for open doors to even be an issue. I've ridden on Cameron for 19 years, and on Franklin St., and I've never worried about people opening their cars doors without checking for me because if they did it wouldn't matter anyway; I'm far away from a possible collision.

"Car Lanes" only exist because a caste system has been artifically created with the placement of substandard bike lanes.

Wayne
Bicyclist Empowerment Now

Wayne, my experience was that on Cameron, with cars parked on both sides and traffic and bikes going in both directions, it could feel snug. I like the new set up much better. It's a personal preference, I guess, but those wide dedicated bike lanes feel like a big improvement to me.

I'm not sure why you are arguing with another bicyclist here. I rode on Cameron for years as an undergrad and now I ride there years later as a grad student. Plus I'm a recreational road cyclist with most of my cycling experience on the very narrow and dog-filled roads of western NC. I wear my helmet; my bike has lights; I follow the vast majority of traffic laws. I usually ride the bus when I don't ride my bike. I'm a good guy (gal) here.

My understanding is that the Netherlands has a great system: dedicated bike lanes with cement barriers between bikes and cars, and traffic lights specifically for the bikes. Sounds great.

Joan,

I'm not arguing with you, except to the extent that we have opposite views of bicycling. You are a segregationist; I'm an integrationist. You want a dedicated separate transportation system for bicycles. I believe bike lanes kick bicyclists off the good part of the road for the purpose of allowing motorists faster/easier passing, provide no operational benefits to bicycle drivers, and produce demonstrable disbenefits.

With cars parked on both sides and assuming doors open a generous maximum of 10' from the curb face, there was still 12.5' of space left. That is a lot of space. It's only tight if you believe that bicycle drivers are not entitled to use the full width, and you ride in fear from the rear. Removing parking "created" much more space, but striping bike lanes effectively reduced bicyclists' use of that space. And the bicyclists' space is far worse than the space dedicated for motorists.

This is analagous to dedicating seats in the back of the bus for a certain class of person.

The lanes in front of the Ackland are 9'. Do you feel they are tight?

Wayne
It's the bicyclist's lane. Not a little sliver, and not the bike lane. The whole standard lane.

Wayne, this is silly. You've drawn a conclusion without nearly enough information. I've commented specifically only on Cameron and on a system apparently in play in the Netherlands. I also regularly tell a biking companion to be more aggressive and ride with the traffic when we don't have good bike lanes. (And, I don't ever ride in front of the Ackland so I can't comment on that.)

I do think dedicated bike paths (not bike lanes) are much better for kids and pedestrians and some bikes.

Joan,

There is no such thing as a good bike lane (except 6' wide bike lanes on freeway design roads, which do not exist around here). EVERY bike lane is merely a wide lane partitioned to "give" bicyclists a small portion of it, often a substandard width portion even by bike lane standards. Thus, bicyclists' operating space is reduced to what the government thinks we should use. If every bike lane stripe disappeared, the same space would exist, and bicycle drivers could use as much or as little of it as they choose, but it would be the bicyclist's lane.

EVERY bike lane is merely a shoulder with a pretty name. Shoulders are defined as that portion of the road not intended for vehicular traffic.

EVERY bike lane has more debris than the adjacent lane. Without the bike lane stripe, the debris would be propelled closer to the curb and out of bicyclists way.

EVERY bike lane trains motorists that bicyclists need some special accomodation and that they should ride to the right of the line, no matter the circumstances. Here's a test for you. Ride on Estes Drive extension where the new shoulders are, except ride in the travel lane. Tell me how motorists like that. Or try MLK Blve southbound approaching Estes Drive.

EVERY bike lane functionally allows motorists to pass faster and easier, so is really a benefit to motorists not bicyclists. Yes, I know bike lanes make some bicyclists feel better psychologically, but that is not an operational benefit.

You don't know nearly enough about the Netherlands to be making comment on it, but that didn't stop you. Did you know that bicyclists are banned from roads? (not just freeways)

I'm happy for people to ride on bike paths. But if you think bike paths are safe you are mistaken. They inevitably intersect with roads, and considerable collisions have occured at such intersections because they are often terribly designed, and the bicyclists are incompetent. Further, they are often chaotic because of pedestrians and incompetent bicyclists.

Wayne
www.humantransport.org

Wayne, your comments to me are getting way too aggressive and this is my last comment on this issue. I have been clear from the start that I am speaking from my own experience. You should be thinking of me as a good audience for your opinion, but instead you are being, well, pretty nasty in tone and words (I raised the issue of the Netherlands, which I have researched a little bit, to see what others thought. I certainly did not present myself as an expert).

You seem to know a lot, and I am a potential ally, but your words lose much of their educational impact when you lecture and yell. I'm sorry you haven't been able to have a reasonable conversation about this.

John,

It happens. Town owned front loaders and leaf tractors are slower than bicycles. I've got a sequence of pictures of a queue of cars behind one with my wife on bike behind the queue, all being slowed for a considerable distance.

But lets get real here. Any bicyclist imposed delay on motorists pales in comparison to motorist delay on motorists. Most often, motorists easily pass bicyclists in town, then get to stop at a signal while the bicyclist sometimes catches up. Further, bicyclists shouldn't be put on reservations so motorists can pass; they can do so just as easily if the bike lane stripe didn't exist.

Wayne

Joan,

I'm sorry if you feel I'm aggressive toward you. I'm aggressively opposed to bike lanes, and have provided justifications why. I think you feel threatened because it is likely you've never encountered some of the arguments that I've presented, and that has challenged your thinking. Capitalizing EVERY is not yelling; it's emphasizing. And I'm not trying to lecture, just inform.

People immediately jump on the bandwagon of making it "bicycle friendly." Tragically, Mr. Alston was killed because of ill advised riding behavior. I'm deeply sorry about that, especially since I've poured countless time into trying to teach the local bicycling population even the most rudimentary elements of safe bicycling. Among many other efforts, I've written a booklet and tri-fold brochures that have been given away at street fares. But people think that putting stripes on the road makes it safer for bicyclists, and that simply isn't true.

Regards,
Wayne

WRAL reported that...

Bus Driver Will Not Be Charged In Deadly Chapel Hill Accident

POSTED: 7:29 am EST February 1, 2006
UPDATED: 7:41 am EST February 1, 2006

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- Chapel Hill police will not file charges in a deadly charter bus accident.

Investigators say Harry Alston died when a bus carrying the Boston College basketball team hit him last week on Highway 54.

Police say the road has no lights. Plus, Alston's bike did not have a light or reflector.

No one else was injured in the accident.

As I've said...two sides to every story...dark road...no light or reflector...there is only so much drivers can do if others are not aware of their own actions.

What a tragedy, for both Harry Alston and the bus driver. I hope Alston's family does not read this thread.

As if we haven't had enough tragic car-pedestrian news to last us for awhile there's a report in this morning's N&O that a woman and her daughter were seriously injured at the Harris Teeter on South Estes. Apparently they were there selling Girl Scout cookies and they were hit by a car backing out of a parking space. There weren't a lot of details in the story but the mother suffered two broken legs and the daughter a broken leg and collarbone. There was no information as to who was at fault.

Before we start to lay the blame on either party, let's take a big deep breath and admit that we're losing control of our citizens' safety here in Chapel Hill (and everywhere else I'm afraid). As motorists we've become too complacent with our driving skills. Furthermore, being surrounded by air bags and window curtains and with many cars having stability control and anti-lock braking we simply turn on the key and steer. Add to our ubiquitous cell-phones our state-of-the-art music systems and navigation equipment, and sometimes video equipment, and we don't drive anymore, we "cruise".

As pedestrians and cyclists, we've come to expect, often more so in CH, that our rights will be respected and we take for granted that we'll be seen or that a turning vehicle will stop before making that right turn on red. Of course, that can be a tragic assumption.

Perhaps we can have a public safety month where citizens' groups vow to get the message out to both motorists and pedestrian/cyclists that we ALL have to be cognizant of each other and that we ALL have to take responsibility not only for our own safety and our families' safety but the safety of each and every other citizen we might encounter.

According to the article, the people who were struck were ON THE SIDEWALK. I find it difficult to understand how the victims could have been at fault.

If you've ever shopped at the U Mall Teeters, you know where the GS cookie booth is usually set up. The driver must have hopped the curb.

melanie

"If you've ever shopped at the U Mall Teeters, you know where the GS cookie booth is usually set up. The driver must have hopped the curb." (Melanie S.)

Correct, Melanie. The driver hopped the curb and apparently made contact with the building. According to someone who came on the scene for the next cookie shift, there was a box of cookies smashed into the wall.

This appears to be a case of someone who should have given up her car keys a while back.

There was no way that even vigilant pedestrians/shoppers could have avoided the erratic and completely unpredictable driving.

If the car did jump the curb then there would indeed be no way for the victims to have avoided being hit. Without knowing anything about the driver I can't say whether they should have given up their keys awhile back. But it is a fact that we are increasing our retiree population in CH and the surrounding area, that people are living longer, and that people are continuing to drive at older ages. And even though there may have been no way that this accident could have been avoided by the victims, there are still numerous instances where increased vigilance (on the parts of both drivers and pedestrian/cyclists) may save someone from serious injury or worse. I still advocate a program to increase safety awareness in our community.

A detail in Beth Velliquette's story in today's CHH provides a crucial detail:

About 1:20 p.m., a car backed up from a handicapped parking space and continued backing onto the sidewalk in front of the Harris Teeter grocery store at University Mall where Girl Scouts were selling cookies, said Lt. Leo Vereen of the Chapel Hill Police Department.

From what I saw shortly after the accident, the vehicle must have jumped the curb at a high rate of speed. The rear end was off the ground.

Georce C,

You are absolutely right: we need a public safety month. Complacency is a killer, whether you're a surgeon, an airline pilot, or a motorist.

My daughter and I made a field trip recently into the community to review traffic, bike, and pedestrian safety. Whenever we drive anywhere now, I take the opportunity to point positive and negative driving, biking, and pedestrian practices. I have invited her to call it to my attention when I do something that is unsafe or discourteous. It's become something of a object lesson for both of us.

Okay folks, enough grousing. Who among us is willing to initiate and choreograph a public safety month?

Resolutions to pass in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough town councils

Coordination with key staff members assigned by town managers

Publicity and public awareness campaign (radio, press, volunteer committee dedicated to this one objective)

That's what it'll take.

June 2006 is National Safety Month sponsored by the National Safety Council. That gives us about 3 months to get all the various government bodies, advisory boards, civic groups, etc. on board. Does anyone know if there is a local chapter of the National Safety Council that might help to coordinate such an effort? Or perhaps the highway safety group at UNC might provide some contacts or guidance.

About the Harris Teeter accident. I was there. I walked past the cookie sellers (already had 6 boxes). They were way back away from any traffic. Further back than the Starbucks tables. I was in the store when the accident happened. I didn't hear a thing. That was amazing in itself as there were several emergency vehicles on the spot as I walked out. The car was wedged between the pillars. It had smashed into one and had a big dent in it. I mean big. The car was a long ways from the handicapped parking place and yes well over the curb. It must have been going very fast in reverse. The cookie sellers had done everything that could be done to be safe considering.

WTVD has more details than the earlier newspaper reports

About safety for walkers and bikers. This is the very issue that Maeda Galinsky is trying to raise and what she brought to Council. If you go to the intersections on Fordham that were fatal, you'll see how pedestrian and bike hostile they are. These are managed by the State DOT and not by the Town. The Town has asked for changes to several intersections and has heard that not enough people are walking there to deserve the changes. There is a chicken and egg problem obviously. Hostile intersections discourage and endanger walkers so we need not improve them for walkers and bikers.

You might contact Maeda and/or Council Member Sally Greene who is also been speaking out on this very problem.

Semi-full disclosure: I often share rides and walks with Dr. Greene and some times a bit more ;->

Paul Jones,

Maeda and Sally's campaign to improve the safety of our intersections and pedestrian/cyclist facilities is deserving of the attention and support of everyone in this area. We have suffered with dangerous roads because of the DOT's pedestrian-unfriendly policies for all too long.

I was suggesting, as I think David Marshall and Catherine Devine were, a campaign to increase public awareness of our safety habits, or lack thereof. Even where we have decent pedestrian facilities safety is often compromised by motorists or pedestrian/cyclists who either ignore or forget the rules (or even laws) governing the safe use of those facilities. What I'm suggesting is a campaign to remind people that when we get in the car and turn the key, even before we've backed out of the garage, we need to remind ourselves that we're handling a potential weapon, one that can be every bit as deadly as a 44-magnum revolver. What I'm suggesting is a campaign to remind people who are walking along, engaged in a lively conversation with some friends, or a jogger moving with smooth strides while listening to their I-Pod, that it is important that they stop before they take that step off the curb. Because even a single step at the wrong time might be one too many.

Perhaps such a campaign to raise the public's awareness about their safety habits might be incorporated into Maeda's and Sally's campaign to get safer facilities. The goals are certainly well-aligned.

A public awareness campaign is a great idea, as is working with DOT. But I also think that we should do a better job of planning our public transportation routes to make it easier for people to use the buses to run errands and do activities other than go to campus. The new high school being built on Smith Level Road is my best example. Has anyone considered how the children who live in Dogwood Acres or Heritage Hills or along Damascus Church Road are going to get to that school? They will be too close to ride the bus, but there are no sidewalks, the traffic along Smith Level is too fast and impatient for bicyling, and any short cuts through the woods have been cut off by new developments. And the number of parking spaces was kept to a minimum to encourage the use of alternative transportation. Between the 3 neighborhoods I mentioned, I'll bet there are at least 100 high school kids who will have no alternatives but to drive or be driven.

There aslo needs to be better coordination between buses and pedestrian crossings, even in town. Has anyone ever driven along Franklin Street after a bus has dropped off riders across from Elizabeth Street? It's a big stop with the condos and the CAP lot there. But there is no pedestrian crossing and I think it's the town that maintains Franklin Street.