Bike Box?
by Judd WileyJune 28th, 2008, 2:03 am
Yesterday, Streetsblog posted a wonderfully toolish video titled “Portland (Green) Bike Box!” Edited by a Clarence Eckerson, Jr., the video features a self-satisfied horde of middle-aged bicyclists chanting …
Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box!
… while Mr. Eckerson hops around like some kind of bizarro boxer. If you haven’t seen the video already, click on this link immediately. You will not be disappointed.
Problem is that Mr. Eckerson, in typical Streetsblog fashion, doesn’t explain how bike boxes accomplish anything more than inducing bicyclists to chant …
Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box! Bike box! Bike Box!
… and since the video assumes that you, the viewer, already know what the hell a bike box is and why it’s important, some basic questions arise.
For example, Mr. Eckerson announces, “As you can see, bike boxes help people get right through the intersections,” while pointing to a bicyclist who pedals right through the intersection without ever entering the bike box.
This is quite confusing to the non-Streetsblogger. Is the little green strip in the middle of the intersection that the bike is crossing also a bike box? By that logic, the entire bike lane is a bike box.
Bewildered, I searched Google and found a slick, expensive-looking, taxpayer-funded marketing document produced by Portland’s Office of Transportation, titled “Get Behind It: The Bike Box.” It explains what a bike box is, what it’s meant to accomplish, and why we should care.
The “bike box,” as it exists in Portland, is a small green square located in the right hand automobile lane just before a stop light. When the light turns yellow or red, bikes are allowed to move into the bike box. Cars must stop at the white line behind the bike box when the light is yellow or red. They’re not allowed to turn right on red when a bike is present.
The main goal is to prevent collisions between motorists turning right and cyclists going straight. It’s all about visibility and awareness. At a red light, cyclists are more visible to motorists by being in front of them. At a green light, the green bike lane through the intersection reminds motorists and cyclists to watch for each other.
So the purpose of the bike box is to prevent “right hook collisions” at red lights.
This means that a bike box in the right hand automobile lane is only relevant when both a car and bike stop at a yellow or red light - the only time a bike is allowed to move into the bike box. The idea is that the driver sees the bike in front of him and this reduces the risk of him running over the bicyclist if he makes a right turn.
The question therefore is: What percentage of right-turn accidents occur directly after the light turns green, i.e. when the bike goes straight and the driver hooks right?
Logic instructs us that the percentage is probably very small.
A bike is much smaller than a car, and when it stops at a light it is generally flush with the front end of the car next to it. This means that, from the driver’s perspective, the bike is positioned at about 2 o’clock. Unless his vehicle is so big that he has no visibility to the right, a driver can’t help but notice the bike. Moving 3 feet into the bike box doesn’t make much difference.
Also, how fast can a car accelerate while making a right turn? When the light turns green and the bike goes straight through the intersection, the driver would have to literally burn rubber while making the right turn in order to gain enough force to harm the bicyclist. Remember: Force = Mass times Acceleration. How often do drivers peel out while turning right? I’ve been driving in cities for 10 years, and I’ve never seen a car do this.
Compare this to the other right hand turn scenario, which is legitimately dangerous: A car and a bike approach the intersection at substantial speeds, the light remains green, the bike goes straight through the intersection at 20 mph, the car hooks right, the car slams into the bike. In this scenario, which logic tells us causes the greatest number of collisions, the bike box is completely irrelevant.
So if the bike box doesn’t address the core problem of right hand turns, what’s the purpose of it?
In January 2008, the New York Times reported that Portland planned to spend $150,000 on these bike boxes. Judging by the slick production quality of Portland’s “Get Behind It” marketing document, the city is tearing through that money. Other costs would include strategic planning, resource allocation, implementation, advertising, metrics collection, and administrative overhead.
Does Portland have any evidence that these new bike boxes are worth the $150,000 investment? Or is this really about acting on impulse and hoping for the best?
The Streetsblog Truth Squad
- Part 1: Car Haters: Streetsblog
- Part 2: Pete at Streetsblog: “Few Ideas” at Commuter Outrage
- Part 3: Who Is Mark Gorton?
- Part 4: StreetsBlog: StreetCritiques
- Part 5: Pick Your Poison - Gas, Guns, or Elitism
- Part 6: Streetsblog’s Comment Moderation Policy: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
- Part 7: A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words
- Part 8: Bike Box?
Posted in Bicycle Lanes, Bicycles, Spending, Traffic Accidents, Uncategorized Rage |
>>>>
A bike is much smaller than a car, and when it stops at a light it is generally flush with the front end of the car next to it. This means that, from the driver’s perspective, the bike is positioned at about 2 o’clock. Unless his vehicle is so big that he has no visibility to the right, a driver can’t help but notice the bike.
>>>>
As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Many of your fellow motorists are brain-dead zombies, mumbling into cellphones, or playing with their GPS buttons.
I’ve had idiots look right at me, and then attempt a righthook. Of course I anticipated this jackholishness, and gave ‘em a ear-splitting report from my airzound.
So if some idiot looks right at you and doesn’t see you, what difference does it make if you’re 3 feet to the left or 3 feet to the right? He still doesn’t see you.
Let me also add that allowing bikes into the bike box during a yellow light is asinine.
Many drivers gun their engines at yellow lights, hoping to zip by in the last few seconds before the red light camera goes off. If a bike enters the bike box in front of an accelerating car, the bicyclist will die.
For their own safety, bicyclists should enter the bike box only when the light is red and the car behind the white line has come to a complete stop.
Judd -
I have another question about this Bike Box - so you’re not allowed to turn right on red when a bike is present - what about the scenario where no bike is present so you creep up to turn right on red, but find that an oncoming car prevents your turn? While you wait, a bicyclist shows up and another car pulls in behind you. How has the bike box helped this situation?
If Portland wants to help, why don’t they outlaw right on red turns? Why don’t they have bicyclist only signals?
As someone who bicycles to work occasionally, I’m not sure I would use a bike box - I like to stay out of the way of traffic, not move over in front of it. The idea that this increases visibility doesn’t really work for me. Yes, a motorist may be able to see you a little bit better right as the light turns green, but that’s not really the problem - the problem is inattentive motorists who aren’t looking at what they’re doing before they move their cars.
If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t check before making the turn, I’m willing to bet you don’t pay attention to what’s in front of you either. People run red lights all the time, and I will be interested to see if these things actually make it more dangerous for bicyclists.
If I was in Portland, I would never stop in this thing. I’d be worried that I would slow down at a yellow and start to move over only to have some jerk trying to make the light rear end me doing 30mph.
Did you guys know that on 1 way streets in NYC the bike lane is on the left hand side of the road, and the bike box allows the bicyclists to essentially move into the far right hand automobile lane at a stop light.
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/how-to-use-a-bike-box/
My question is: What idiot designed the NYC bike lanes and put them on the left hand side of the road?
Also: Why can’t bicyclists in NYC dismount at red lights and walk their bikes across the street in the crosswalk like the rest of the pedestrians? In NYC the bike box is essentially a glorified crosswalk.
The whole bike box concept is stupid, and a waste of time and money.
I find it so great that some (I said some) of the people here don’t have a clue when it comes to transportation…
OUTRAGED - The reason why some NYC bike lanes are on the left hand side is very obvious to most NYers - if you put them on the right side of the road then you are in a far more dangerous position to be doored when a driver opens their door and exits the vehicle…on the left hand side, sure you could still be doored, but the percentage of vehicles with passenger side doors also opening is far less. That’s why they are on the left hand side. Very simple to anyone with a brain.
AND as for helping people get thru intersections - when I was in Portland I did notice even at non-red light interactions, at least the green paint seemed to make drivers think about their turns, or maybe go a little slower.
However, I am not a big fan of these bike boxes either, I didn’t use them while pedaling around a few months ago, but I think there is no harm done here. The video is fun and seems to have all the key elements in it (so much for JUDD’s claims it explains nothing) - I find it funny also that you guys have latched on to Streetsblog to try to get publicity for your own blog since it seems no one reads it unless you attack Streetsblog. Good luck!
Mr. Generic Bike,
You’re right, the green paint across the intersection is probably a good idea. If it makes drivers a little more aware that a bike might be going straight while they’re turning right, that’s great. Nobody wants to see bicyclists bleeding out on the pavement.
However, you say that the bike box does “no harm.” Perhaps. But if the bike box doesn’t bring about any positive benefit to bicyclists (i.e. it doesn’t reduce “right hook collisions” when both a bike and a car approach an intersection with a green light, the bike goes straight, and the car plows into the bike), then all it does is expose bicyclists who enter the bike box during the yellow light to greater danger from a car that tries to “make the light” before it turns red.
From my experience driving in cities, many city bicyclists view themselves as some kind of weird oppressed minority, and therefore like to exercise whatever “bicycle rights” the government gives them in a flagrant it’s-my-right-to-do-so manner, even if it brings greater danger to them. Pedaling smack dab in the middle of the left hand automobile lane and then making a left turn at an intersection right into oncoming traffic is a perfect example. I see this all the time. Sure, it’s a bicyclist’s right to do so, but he’s risking his life.
My prediction is that in cities that allow bicyclists to merge into the bike box before the car has come to a complete stop, we’re going to see an uptick in “yellow light accidents” over the next few years.
I also predict that we’ll see no corresponding decrease in “right hook accidents,” especially in places like NYC where the bike lanes aren’t marked green.
As for your comment about “latching on to Streetsblog,” we’ve written 8 posts out of 193 dealing directly with Streetsblog. That’s 4.1% of total posts. What are you talking about?
Mr. Generic Bike,
Here’s why bike lanes on the left-hand side of the road are idiotic. If you need to make a right turn, you have to cross 2 or 3 lanes of moving traffic. I see this all the time when I’m either walking or driving in NYC, and every time I thank God that there isn’t an accident.
As for the dooring issue, that’s the risk cyclists take when they decide to ride their bikes just inches away from fast moving, 3000-lb cars, buses, and trucks. You have to be a complete idiot to ride in the bike lane, on either the right or left hand side of the road.
You risk winding up like Dana Laird, who met her end underneath the rear tire of a MBTA bus in Boston.
http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02379848.htm
actually, i know of one street that has the painted bike lane. and that’s on prince street going west from broadway. i noticed it a couple of months ago.
Good post, let’s just keep bashing Streetsblog over and over in a sad attempt for attention
i just saw one of these things in soho. awkwaaaard.
also, i’ve noticed that bikers in new york city pretty much NEVER stop at the lights or even pay attention to things like road direction, pedestrians, and the entire regulatory system that is placed on controlling the disparate ways that people use the streets. maybe the bike box is a big gigantic F-U to the arrogance that bikers bring to the streets. the light is red. stop like everyone else instead of blazing through the intersection.
TDC,
What color did that paint the bike lane on Prince St going west from Broadway?
judd, its a nice shade of environmental green
12 | gDubs | June 29th, 2008, 6:40 pm
also, i’ve noticed that bikers in new york city pretty much NEVER stop at the lights or even pay attention to things like road direction, pedestrians, and the entire regulatory system that is placed on controlling the disparate ways that people use the streets.
———————————————–
And I’VE noticed that motorists, nearly everywhere, NEVER stop at the whiteline at stopsigns, are constantly going 10 or more miles/hr over the speed limit, often don’t signal, with many gabbing away on their cellphones instead of paying attention to the road.
So who’s the greater menace, eh, GDubs?
BTW, if your pseud is tribute to our current POTUS, I can understand why you might not be able to think clearly.
i dont see how making a legitimate point about biker’s disregard for others on the streets makes me not able to think clearly.
i walk and take the subway to get everywhere i need to in the city. so i see things like this - and everything that you mention about cars naturally - on a daily basis.
the greater menace is not one means of transportation, but the person behind the wheel or on the bike who has trouble multitasking and can’t follow the rules of the road. its a case by case basis. so long as the city’s streets are going to be shared everyone needs to be a lot more vigilant and in the moment.
the pseudonym has nothing to do with the president.
its named after a local bridge that i’m fond of.
Paul C,
Full disclosure: I was issued a warning yesterday for blowing through a stop sign at the Metro station. I didn’t see the sign, but that’s no excuse. Drivers can all afford to be a little more careful, as can bicyclists. My wife was hit by a reckless bicyclist in Los Angeles a few years ago who was riding on the sidewalk.
I also agree with you about people who talk on their cell phones while driving. It’s not very smart, both with the phone to your ear and hands free. Whether or not it should be illegal is something I’m still wrestling with, as my knee jerk reaction is always less government regulation.
That said, I think you’re wrong about driving 10 mph over the speed limit. I think the speed limit, in many places, is absurdly low. 55 mph on the highway? That would be too dangerous, since the natural flow of traffic is usually around 65 mph.
I once got a $300+ ticket for going 40 mph in a 15 mph zone. I was entering the Grand Canyon late at night and was the only car on the road. The Arizona park ranger scolded me that I was lucky he wasn’t charging me with a felony because I had more than doubled the speed limit. Give me a break.
Judd:
That said, I think you’re wrong about driving 10 mph over the speed limit. I think the speed limit, in many places, is absurdly low. 55 mph on the highway? That would be too dangerous, since the natural flow of traffic is usually around 65 mph.
———————————————————-
Hey Judd.
I won’t argue that many parts of the interstate highway system are designed with upwards of 70mph being reasonable from a safety standpoint.
But that’s not what I’m raling about.
A large percentage of motorists, on surface streets, speed from one stop light to another… all the f’n time. And as far as stopping behind the line… they NEVER DO!
I see it every day, multiple times a day.
I actually follow the rules of the road… bending a few - such as treating certain stoplights like stop signs, because my aluminum bicycle won’t trip the signal. And sometimes I take a right on red while doing a trackstand, instead of actually putting my foot to the ground - but none of those things put others in danger like an idiot motorist piloting his 4000lb bullet 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit on surface streets.
Ohh and Gdubs… sorry for the snarkiness.
It’s f’n hot as hell here (Penticton, BC) and I gotta sunburn while taking the doggy for a hike .
Ohh and I can’t stand our current dumbass of a POTUS.
So I ASSumed.
Paul C,
You and I are in complete agreement here.
Speeding from stop light to stop light in residential or pedestrian areas, failing to stop behind the white line, making a U-turn when the sign says No U-Turn, gunning the engine at a yellow light - all of that is dangerous and unacceptable.
I think I’m finally starting to understand the animating spirit behind this blog. Commuter Outrage: Two guys who desperately want Streetsblog readers and editors to visit their site.
Keep up the good work fellas. By the time you get to Part 20 of your Streetsblog series I’m sure the they’ll be widening I-95, rolling out the nuclear-powered cars and the TSA will have stopped stealing over-sized shaving cream cans out of carry-on bags and we will all be able to say that Commuter Outrage changed the world for the better.
And man… you really broke the story wide open on this Bike Box scandal. I will ignore the findings from Copenhagen, the most advanced urban cycling city in the world, suggesting that ASL’s are helping to make cyclists and pedestrians safer and more visible at intersections. Instead, I will rely on Judd Wiley for this sort of information from now on because, you know, he’d never even heard of a Bike Box until three days ago so his Google “research” on the issue is absolutely invaluable.
Thank you, Commuter Outrage! I can’t imagine how you find time to provide this invaluable service while simultaneously working as hack junior attorneys at your D.C. corporate firms.
Donald S,
If Judd and Lewis have devoted just 4.1% of their posts (see comment #7) to critiquing Streetsblog, how is that “the animating spirit behind this blog”?
I should also add that, in case you didn’t know, the lame Streetsblog editor deletes comments he disagrees with, including comments by Judd, Lewis, myself, and many others. From what I can tell, the authors of this blog were outraged by this behavior, and decided to ridicule and deride the stupidity of Streetsblog in this uncensored forum where their opinions will remain up for all to see.
Finally, the posts on Commuter Outrage, while often written in a mocking and sarcastic tone, are much more informative and instructive and than anything on Streetsblog. The average Streetsblog post for a long time was 1 short paragraph long, and usually linked to some other story without providing any interesting analysis. Recently, the posts have been longer - 3 or 4 paragraphs long.
Still, that’s really sad for a website with 12 people listed under its masthead. Mark Gorton should fire his current editor, and put someone in charge who will produce more in-depth content.
I’ll also add that Commuter Outrage is goddamn FUNNY!!!!!!!
I’m starting to understand the animating spirit behind StreetsBlog: Don’t question anything we propose, no matter how nonsensical or frivolous. Accept everything we say at face value. Don’t discuss different ideas, or ask if we’re really advocating the solution that benefits everyone. Drink your kool-aid. Bike box! Bike box! Bike box!
I don’t really care about bike boxes, or Streetsblog’s endorsement of them. As a bicyclist, I would never use one because as Paul C and gDubs point out, there are plenty of idiot motorists who would probably run you down in their rush to make it through the yellow light.
If you’re concerned that we cover Streetsblog occasionally, perhaps you shouldn’t bill yourself as some center for the bicycle movement and any corresponding news. We cover all kinds of things, and luckily for us, when it comes to bicycle news, you guys have lots of articles.
Unfortunately, you don’t often offer balanced coverage, so we present the other side of the argument, just like we do with the other 96% of the posts we write.
But keep up the fight for “Livable Streets,” whatever those are. Soon, you’ll drive up the costs of everything in the city through regressive fines, tolls and taxes on automobiles. Then you’ll cripple the transportation system in New York and drive business and tourism dollars away. Eventually you’ll cause your own demise. Pretty smart philosophy.
paul c, no worries man. maybe you should look into getting yourself an AC unit. i bought a nice energy efficient one during nyc’s most recent absurd heat wave, and not only has it chilled my room, but its done wonders for my day-to-day temperment as well
streetbloggers, whats the fuss? all blogs are dipping into the same information pool contained in the extended interwebs. and it is possible to be both a reader of one blog and a reader of another blog with a different philosophy. lewis is right, since you guys are pro-bike and since thats a method of transportation it leaves you open to criticism from those with a viewpoint other than your own. and you gotta hand it to judd and lewis for attacking you head on. at the very least it makes for solid entertainment.
Get behind the bike box!
I, too, was skeptical about bike boxes being all that helpful for reasons mentioned above, but now that I’ve had a chance to use them over the last few months I say pass the green kool-aide.
My experience: they make a positive difference in motorist behavior at intersections even while rolling. Right hooks are one of the top dangers to cyclists so any improvement is a good thing.
I am glad the city of Portland is trying make improvements that increase the safety for all users of the public right of way.
These jokers are glad, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PmGBX7TjVY
“Also, how fast can a car accelerate while making a right turn? When the light turns green and the bike goes straight through the intersection, the driver would have to literally burn rubber while making the right turn in order to gain enough force to harm the bicyclist. Remember: Force = Mass times Acceleration. How often do drivers peel out while turning right? I’ve been driving in cities for 10 years, and I’ve never seen a car do this.”
Good timing: this is exactly how Allison Swanson died. I guess that answers your question…