Bike Box in Action
Posted by: ScottJul 25 2006, 11:02 am
David Evans and Asociates led a group of 35 urban planners and professionals on a tour of Portland’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities last Friday. I helped provide information about bicycle boulevards and innovative ideas.
On the ride we explored Bike Boxes. A European bicycle idea, a bike box is a designated space for cyclists, allowing us to cue ahead of the motor vehicles at traffic signals. A bike lane on the side makes passing vehicles in order to enter box easier.
Overall the boxes increase bicycle and pedestrian safety. On the downside, we notice that auto drivers often encroach on the box if cyclists are not yet in it.
The above bike box is located at 39th and SE Clinton Ave; the red one below, in the Netherlands.
The BTA is interested in placing more bike boxes in the Portland metro area. We believe that they could be a great treatment for Downtown Portland, especially because the majority of pedestrian crashes are at intersections… bike boxes allow walkers to be more visible and enter crosswalks before impatient drivers. We will investigate bike boxes more thoroughly when the City updates the downtown transportation plan.
What do you think?
(Portland photo courtesy of Todd Boulanger)
There's a very natural opportunity for a bike box at northbound Barbur Blvd at Hamilton. There are two signals spaced very closely because of the incoming traffic from Hamilton (up the hill). If bikes were allowed to pass the first signal legally, they could 'box up' at the 2nd.
In order to prevent cars from encroaching I've seen these in Europe painted blue similar to what is often done in bike lanes where motorists need to be aware of cyclists (e.g. on the lanes around the Broadway bridge).
Clinton is a low traffic street, so the bike box seems overkill there. I can only recall sharing that intersection with a car once or twice.
On a busy street, such as in downtown, it would be wonderful to have a space to pull ahead of all the car exhaust pipes. I often do so illegally rather than breathe the noxious fumes that even so-called emissions controlled cars emit.
I'll let PDOT know about about Barbur and I will also note the blue paint in the development of our Boulevard Toolbox.
Brent, it's not illegal to pass autos on the right. In 2005 we passed a law that allows bicyclists to pass cars on the right when not in a bike lane. Just don't block walkers in the crosswalk.
Eugene's got only one bike box that I know of. It's there mainly because the bike lane crosses to the other side of the street on the opposite side of a busy intersection. Makes it easier to get over there and works well.
Didn't know that the pass-on-the-right law actually went into effect. I had heard statements to the contrary but I'm excited about it. Scott, would you mind providing me/us with more specific information on the name and language of this law? I'd really appreciate it.
Scott,
I'll email you a picture (somewhat fuzzy b/c taken with a disposable camera) of a bike box and approach bike lane painted blue that I took while visiting Victoria BC recently. This bike box was on the edge of downtown. Plus, cars/trucks/scooters were all allowed to go straight. From the research/laws that I've read about bike boxes, normally this treatment works better if a bike lane exists on the approach and at high crash intersections especially when cars are turning right. Don't we have something like 220 miles of bike lanes? So I think PDOT should use its plethora of crash data information to measure highly prone crash intersections that also have bike lanes? On the other hand, research has also shown that the bike box treatment may not be compatible with a high volume of right-turning traffic.
As an auto driver, I am in favor of bike boxes on the N/S edges of downtown Portland (i.e., 4th and Burnside going north) and near elementary and middle schools particularly if schools are built in the center of a residential neighborhood. Remember that the goal is to increase safety for all users of the road.
Here's the pass-on-the-right law and background info.
Tom,
I agree and we hope to start asking for bike boxes as safety counter measures in high crash / potential crash areas, and we will continue to talk more about them as our Boulevard campagain continues. Thanks for your insights.
Do you have good photos from your B.C. trip? BTA staff is going there in August to view bicycle treatments. What else did you like?
We should tax bikers to make these improvements. It should not be taken out of ODOT or PDOT budget. It is money to improve roads for motor vehicles.
Put Money where your mouth is. You freeloaders!
With Fridays death of a 19 year old bicyclist. I definitely believe that we do need to put in bike boxes for the population that uses bicycles as their transportation.
Bike boxes have worked tremendously well in alot of european communities, where bicycling for transportation is huge.
Possibly if we had them, maybe a 19year old on Friday, 12, Oct, 2007, would not have not lost her life (because a concrete driver "couldn't" see her).
I want to put this out in BOLD… WE MUST HAVE BIKE BOXES IN THE MOST HEAVILY TRANSIT AREAS FOR BICYCLISTS.
regarding the comments by: tom
(We should tax bikers to make these improvements. It should not be taken out of ODOT or PDOT budget. It is money to improve roads for motor vehicles. Put Money where your mouth is. You freeloaders!
IF we the cyclists need to pay towards our safety on the roads, then EVERY driver who has hit and injured a cyclist, needs to be charged and convicted and PAY the penalty of a vehicular assault, and if they kill someone, vehicular homicide. and a minimum of 15 years, maximum of 40 years in prisonn, and a 250k fine due to the surviving victim or relative.
A bicycle which weighs what, about 25 pounds with the weight of the cyclist is less than 300 pounds. A vehicle is what 4k-40k or moe pounds.
Not do have bike boxes is putting all cyclists in harms way, and possible death.
ODOT and PDOT are DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. It does NOT specify VEHICLE transportation.. but transportation. That means BICYCLE, VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
I've been a cycling on and off my entire life – all of which has been in Portland. The problem is NOT that "bike boxes" don't exist. It's the cyclists think they own the road and don't need to pay attention themselves. Many cyclists I encounter in Portland make me ashamed to be both a cyclist and a Portland native. Is it all of them? Of course not, but it's enough that it's a problem.
This is about cyclist education, not colored boxes on the street. Even when I was a /child/ I knew that it was simply common sense to let the first car in the line go when the light changed *before* you tried to force yourself into the intersection. You never know if they intend to turn and aren't using signals, or if they're just oblivious to your presence.
Even if you're another /car/ you don't know if they're aware of your presence. I've been rear-ended while driving by people who couldn't even pay attention long enough to see that I'd been stopped in front of them before they even got to the intersection.
Putting stopped bikes in front of the cars waiting at an intersection seems more like a recipe for a multi-fatality disaster than it does a plan to solve anything.
Sadly, I agree somewhat with Jay. Lots of men out there on cycles, wearing their "team" colors, in their minds wishing they were Lance, and being, well, just "guys" out there – agressive and combative at a moment's notice.
We'll just have to keep muddling through the current landscape until oil truly becomes too costly, and then the sheer mass of bikes and walkers will put the aggressive folks into the background.
If we're lucky.
If bicyclists want to ride on roads they should have a bicycle license like any other vehicle. They should be required to have lights and turn signals like any other vehicle operated on the road.The law requires mirrors on vehicles, so mirrors should be required. Dont expect the people who drive vehicles to pay for any changes for the welfare of bicyclists. The law requires slow moving signs on vehicles going under 25 mph I think, so how fast do most bikes go? Some of the rudest people on the road I have ever saw were riding bikes. Im surprised there are not more accidents.
The first thing both sides of the bike vs. cars arguments need to do is get rid of the "us vs. them" mentality and realize we must all share the roads.
IMHO, the most damaging thing to the cause to make roads safer for bicyclists are bicyclists themselves. It is saddening to see bicyclists weave their way through traffic, ride opposite the direction of travel, utilize crosswalks at a higher than legal speed, etc. Like it or not, non-human powered vehicles are the majority and bikers must integrate safely into that environment by following the laws that already exist. This is not a concession, it is the expectation.
Psssssssssst… This isn't Europe. As an occasional bike rider and regular auto driver, I am getting tired of having the minority cram another "European" idea down my throat.
I understand that people use bikes for every day use. I don't have a problem with most of them because they use their heads. I have a problem with the fools that feel they need to shove their bodies in front of my vehicle so they can make their point. There are numerous places where bike lanes are present and bicyclists refuse to use them. What is the purpose if they don't use what they already have been allocated??? Why should drivers respect cyclists if the cyclists don't respect drivers?
I agree that there are faults on both sides of the fence in this debate. I've seen cars cut off bicyclists when it was very clear that the bike was there, and I've seen bicyclists who are aggressive and believe they can cut off a car and it will stop immediately.
As a parent I have searched for bicycle rules and guidelines to teach my children and it is hard to find them. People, like myself, who aren't bicyclists may not know all the rules and especially all the ways that bicyclists can protect themselves while on the road.
I do think that it would help if more bicyclists had lights on the front and back of their bikes and used them whenever they were on the road. I've been in fog and not seen a bicyclist until my car was beside them…thankfully they were in bike lanes but had they had lights it would have made my heart not beat so fast upon finding them beside me.
I agree with Jay's comments especially on the boxes being a potential for more fatalities. Driver's rearend cars every day from not paying attention…I would hate to hear about a bunch of bicyclists getting killed in this way.
There will always be problems between all of us sharing the roads. They have sidewalks for pedestrians….maybe they should have a fence or something between cars and bikes to alert unattentive drivers and bicyclists both…and to keep those who obey the rules of the road safe.
Good luck to all bicyclists in this debate. I hope that there is a way found to keep you all safe and if that is found then maybe more will ride bikes too.
I've been exclusively a bike commuter in Portland since 1992. I see bicyclists taking crazy chances and acting unpredictably, but I and most of my fellow commuters do not behave that way. The danger comes not from bicyclists but from inattentive (mostly) or aggressive (occasionally) motorists. I think bike boxes are a great idea, and I also would like to see segregation of on-street bike lanes, on the Amsterdam model. The answer is definitely not to allow motorists into the bike lane to make a right turn – that would just exacerbate a problem that already exists.
The numbers of bike commuters are increasing – we are putting in 22 new bike parking spaces in the parking garage near my downtown work building. Many, many more motorists would bike to work if they felt just a bit safer.
The real problem that causes bicycle accidents is the arrogance of bicycle riders. Motor vehicles pay exclusively for the creation and maintenance of roads, not bicycle riders, not bus riders, not government vehicles. Somewhere along the way the bicycle riders believe they have a right to the motor vehicle roadway, just not true. You are basically a fast pedestrian that belongs on the sidewalk. It's only that bicycle riders don't want to look out for anyone else that they want off the sidewalk. Even motorcycle riders have a problem with being seen, and they make noise which helps their visibility. Still there are motorcycle accident. So bicycle riders don't be surprised when you get run over.
The best defense for bicycle rider is to understand you don't belong on the road. Bicyclists you are encroaching where you don't belong and so you need to look out for everyone. If you don't like the situation get a car.
I rode bicycles as a child and I understood it was my job to look out for everybody. During that time in history there was no such thing as a bicycle lane, still I survived. As a result I'm still alive and never have had a bicycle versus motor vehicle accident. Then I grew up and I got a car myself. Now I don't ride a bicycle but if I did I would still be looking out for every motor vehicle.
It's the arrogance of today's bicycle rider that kills them. Know your place in road pecking order. Always let the big guy go first because he might just go anyway and you'll be flattened. Drivers know that's true even if they're in a little car, dump truck goes first little car's second. It's just the way it is get over it.
Bike boxes look like a good idea. The question I have is whether the time of the green light for that direction of travel has been increased to support the bike box, allowing both a reasonable group of bikes and a reasonable group of cars through the intersection in a given light cycle.
Wow, Allen. Please tell me you're sterile… hate to think you might have offspring to whom you most likely would pass along your uninformed, narrow views. I wasn't going to respond to your ludicrous post, but have some time to school you, so thought I'd fan the flames, since I am bored… rest assured, I know better than to think I can change your (dangerously simple) mind.
Lesson 1: You said: "Somewhere along the way the bicycle riders believe they have a right to the motor vehicle roadway, just not true." In fact, bicycle riders DO have a right to the roads, which is granted to us by Oregon law.
Lesson 2: You said: "You are basically a fast pedestrian that belongs on the sidewalk." Actually, by the same Oregon laws, bicycles are considered vehicles, and as such, share the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of other types of vehicles. The fact that some riders act like idiots does not change this, anymore than does the fact that some drivers act like idiots.
Lesson 3: You said: "It’s the arrogance of today’s bicycle rider that kills them." In some cases, I am certain this is true. In others, it is certainly not. The fact that you say this is kind of frightening, though. Hopefully you don't drive much; you sound as though you feel entitled to hit a cyclist if you have the chance. While I am sure you WILL have the chance if you seek it, I doubt you'll also have the chance to choose your victim. With any luck, it will be a friend, co-worker, or someone else close to you or the people you care about. Maybe even someone who, up to that point, you had not perceived as arrogant. In more advanced beings than yourself, this would likely produce a phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance; your results may vary.
Lesson 4: You said: "Know your place in road pecking order." As mentioned above, the LAW says bicyclists have equal standing as other vehicles with respect to road rights (certain freeways excepted). The fact that many motorists refuse to acknowledge this, or are unable to comprehend this, is disheartening. Your Philistine "might makes right" view is analagous to condoning someone physically more imposing than yourself cutting in front of you in a line in which you were waiting–for no other reason than the fact that they could trounce you if a physical altercation were to occur.
Study your lessons, there will be a test on this material later–from the tone of your post, most likely in court.
Lesson 5: (bonus lesson) I drive a car about 7K miles / year, bike about 6K-8K miles / year, and do my best to obey the rules of the road regardless of the vehicle I am using, so please don't accuse me of not knowing what it is like to drive a car in the presence of crazy bikers. I DO know what it is like, nnd I don't like it any better than anyone else, but since there isn't anything I can do about it, I back off, relax, and drive in such a way as to LESSEN the chance of an accident, rather than increase this chance. Most bikers aren't crazy, arrogant and aggressive (yes, the proportion of these bikers may be higher downtown than it is elsewhere, but so is the proportion of impatient, distracted drivers), and those who are, are going to get hurt sooner or later unless they change their ways.
Yes, I realize I had typos on "and" (nnd) and "analogous" (analagous).
My apologies.
Carsa, the last place most bikers (myself included) want to put their body is in front of a car. When I put my body in front of a car, it always for 1 of 3 reasons:
1) We are both stopped at a light, and I want to make sure that a) the driver of the car sees me and b) the driver of the car does not try to make a right turn over/into me as the light turns green. Once I have safely ridden through the intersection, I enter back into the bike lane, or to the right side of the lane, except as noted in 3) below.
2) There is debris, a parked car, a road construction sign, a storm grate, or some other obstacle in the bike lane, and I need to vacate the lane to avoid hitting it. (The law states that this is a cyclist's right, whether or not a bike lane is present.)
3) There is no bike lane, and there is also not enough room for a bike and a car to travel safely side-by-side. (Note: what I think is "safe", and what the driver thinks is "safe" may be two different things–this I understand, but I make no apologies for the judgment I exercise here, and the law grants the cyclist the latitude of such judgment.) In this case I "take the lane" (also a right granted by Oregon law) to keep the driver who is following me from attempting to "squeeze" between me and oncoming traffic. If the driver wishes to pass, this forces them to do so only when it is safe for them to leave the lane and pass me as they would any other vehicle. If I am moving below the speed of traffic, then they will be able to pass me as soon as a minimal gap in opposing traffic appears, and if I am moving at the speed of traffic, they have no real need to pass, and must wait until the road widens a bit.
These actions are undertaken (at least by me) never to prove a point, but always for the sake of safety, visibility and predictability. I do what I need to do, to prevent an accident–in an accident, the cyclist ALWAYS loses. The law grants bicyclists the right to do all of the things I have described above. That being said, I would not hesistate to break the law to avoid an accident–I would rather pay a ticket than be hit.
Alan,
when you say…
"You are basically a fast pedestrian that belongs on the sidewalk. It’s only that bicycle riders don’t want to look out for anyone else that they want off the sidewalk"
you expose your ignorance yet again. You must not be aware that even an out of shape biker on a flat road can muster speeds of 18-22 mph, often being near the speed limit. And in areas like downtown Portland the bikers are often going as fast the cars are, therefore are motorists also nothing more than "fast pedestrians"? Show me a "fast pedestrian" who can attain speeds of 20-25 mph. Additionally, when going downhill 30-45 mph is attainable even by amature bicyclists with very little effort. So, next time you are on a sidewalk, would you like to be creamed by a 15-20 lb bicycle and the attached 160 lb rider? Even a mind as elementary as yours must grasp the simple physics that suggest such a collision of this velocity and mass would create a world of hurt for you.
Additionally, you say
"I rode bicycles as a child and I understood it was my job to look out for everybody. During that time in history there was no such thing as a bicycle lane, still I survived. As a result I’m still alive and never have had a bicycle versus motor vehicle accident. "
So I am supposing here that as a "child" you had such amazing monster quads that you were able to ride up every hill in OR and possessed such stellar balacnce that you were comfortable returning on said routes with 48 mph descents? No, I think not. Chances are you were like most young children and road flat routes, around your house, on a BMX bike, then maybe graduated to an 8 or 9 speed or mountain bike for tooling around before you decided bikes weren't cool around 13 and never road one again.
Moreover, how could bikers not be aware of cars? Its tons (literally) of metal, glass, and plastic barreling along on the road, often with no concern for other vehicles, let alone bikers or pedestrians (hence the high rate of motor accidents). How often do you hear of biker-biker accidents while commuting on the road? I'm sure you have never had an altercation (perhaps another mighty motorist giving you the finger?) in a motor vehicle, or an accident, and don't engage in such risky behavior as talking on your phone, eating, drinking, or riffling around you vehicle while driving, right? All I can hope is that when you swerve next time to remind a biker that they are on "your road" (which, again illustrating your ignorance, any adult who pays taxes, regardless of whether they bike or not, pays for the roads) that they get your liscense plate number and report you to the police for attempted homicide, reckless operation, and perhaps a road rage citation. Clearly cyclists need to heed all rules of the road (stop signs, right of way, etc) and I would guess on average more cyclists heed the rules than motorists do. I would think the real issue here, which is in everyone's best interest (and I feel sorry for you if you disagree) is promoting less pollution, a healthier lifestyle, and increasing safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists alike, not asserting dominance over others who make choices for transportation or recreation that are not the same as your own. And yes, I'm aware this is full of typos too.
I think it is wonderful that bicyclists are out there getting exercise and reducing fuel emissions but I, too, am tired the game the play on the road. I often witness bicyclists riding in the middle of a curvy roads and who are not seen until the last second. Every time I pass a bike in the opposite lane doing just this I pray that the car coming up behind them will see them! I have even experienced bicyclists coming towards me in my lane, up a hill and on a blind corner! I nearly hit the person. Thank God for good breaks. This last spring I was involved in an accident where two bicyclists were erradically weaving in out and out of the lane I was driving in, with them going maybe 10 mph on a 35 mph road/shoulder – apparently they were trying to avoid mud puddles. In my attempt to avoid them by watching them extremely closely I then rear-ended the car in front of me that suddenly stopped. I had to make a choice – go onto the shoulder to avoid hitting the car in front of me (which would have been a valid option if the bicyclists weren't riding there), go into on-coming traffic to avoid the car in front of me or hit the car in front of me. I chose the latter. Of course, the bicyclists rode off, not stopping to see if everyone (it ended up being a 3-car accident) was ok. Apparently they must have felt some sort of responsibility but didn't want to get dragged into hassle of it all. What are the bicyclists rights and responsibilities as far as riding on the shoulder, weaving in out of the lane and riding erradically. Don't they have some responsibilities to ride predictably and defensively? Why is the blame and burden always on the driver of the car with no repurcussions to the bicyclists?
I am still in physical therapy to repair the damage to my back from the accident.
I am just tired of the "driver beware" attitude. I, personally, would never bet my 65 lb child or my 110 lb self against a 3700 lb car!
If bicyclists want to pay to improve the streets for their use and safety, I say go for it! But for me to have to pay for them risking their lives I say no way!!
I am not a bicycle rider. My daughter rides, and it scares me when she goes out. As a driver, I try to be very cautious of bicycle riders, but things happen. Once I was driving on Clay street, I saw a man on a bicycle to my right (obviously not an avid bicyclist-wearing street clothes, no helmet, no lights or reflectors, etc) who was obviously not paying attention to the road. I slowed to 20 mph and watched him carefully as I approached. I still had my eye on him as I passed him and then he suddenly turned left into my car. He hit my back passenger door (put a big scratch in the paint). I stopped immediately and he was unhurt, but that is an example of how no matter how careful a driver is, things still happen. It is very difficult to see bicyclists on the right. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought it was unlawful for a motorist to pass another on the right. My impression is that passing on the right is dangerous because of the blind spots and difficulty for the motorist on the left to see. So much more difficult to see a small bicyclist on the right. As a driver trying to turn right, especially on a green light, making sure that there is no fast-approaching bicycle on the right is almost impossible. Impossible to judge how fast the bicycle is going, let alone see it with other obstacles blocking view such as parked cars, mail boxes, outdoor diners, sign posts, etc. I would be very interested in knowing what this "ok to pass on right" thing is about. My oldest daughter has just started driving and I am scared for her over the possibility of, as a new driver, missing seeing a bicyclist who is too-fast-approaching on the right. When I was a kid growing up in California, we had to have a license to ride a bicycle. There needs to be more education for kids riding bicycles. Kids (especially those who do not drive) are not aware of what is feasible visability for drivers (particularly large, commercial vehicles) and need to be educated on how to ride around them. We are trying to teach our bicycle-riding daughter these things. Who knows how much is actually getting through. We are trying to teach our new-driver daughter how to be aware, but it's still scary. I would hate for her, or myself or anyone I know or care about, to have to deal with the emotions of hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist with their car. Portland is a great city, we love it here. Part of what makes it so great are the people here willing to do what's right for the environment and cut down on oil consumption, the health-conscious people getting out and doing things (like running or bicycling) to combat obesity and heart disease. I often wonder about them riding in the big city with all the dangers and exhaust fumes. I am not a rider myself, but I say more power to them, however, I am so afraid of accidentally hitting one because of their aggressive, in-attention to the road. As a side note, I second the question someone posted wondering if as bicycle boxes were utilized, would they extend the length of a signal to allow for decent traffic flow?
I agree with the reservations about the effectiveness of bike boxes. The media noise I'm getting suggests they could be some magic fix-all. Hardly.
There's the question of added time for traffic to move through;
There's the very real question of how many bikers would actually place themselves in front of cars, especially if the cars are also going straight through (note that the intersection for the box at Clinton and 39th does not allow cars to go straight through and is not a heavy traffic spot). Perhaps it would be just as effective to simply have a stop line for cars set back such that bikers would still be in front, but on the side;
There's the question of the number and locations of boxes. In a best case scenario, would there have been one at either of the intersections where the last 2 biker deaths occured? And it would not have been relevant in the most recent death since the biker was not waiting at the intersection.
As a driver, I know the challenges of being aware of bikers under all kinds of circumstances (hey, I, and arguably the majority of other drivers, routinely fail to catch the fact that a pedestrian is trying to cross at a crosswalk). There are millions of reasons why this is challenging, and incredibly more so for the drivers who aren't steeped in these affairs, who live in the burbs or are new to town or are otherwise not familiar with it all.
The best hope is increasing awareness on both sides, emphasis on the biker.
Hi!
Please give me some rocking types of bike notes which i'll write it on my bike back…i'm crazy for the cool notes…if u have some marvellous please give it to me so tht other's stop to see my bike
I see a lot of both sides in these comments, and as a pedestrian who does not own a car nor a bike, it seems that the best solution would be segregation of bikes and cars. Bikes to the right, bike lanes seperated with small, permanent flimsy plastic poles with perpendicular reflective tape stripes. I don't think bicycles should be in the street with cars. not because they aren't equal as 'drivers/riders/operators', but because it's really no joke, a car would demolish a bike, let alone the person riding said bike. I think it would be a lot like riding a bicycle over an ant hill, pardon the analogy.
i have a feeling bicyclists know about these cars all around them, and some bicyclists even wear helmets, but honestly, what's a helmet going to do for you if all of your ribs, your legs, and arms are broken? not a lot a bicyclist can do.
i would think that blinking reflective LED's should be mandatory and relatively inexpensive.
there are never going to be neutral drivers, wether they drive cars or bicycles, so i honestly think the best solution is to keep them apart for their travels, while letting everyone WALK in the same places.