Sacrificing future Bikes Lanes for Anti-Dooring Campaign from the City

How many miles of future Bike Lanes would be acceptable to sacrifice for a proper Anti-Dooring campaign from the City of Chicago?

The funds will have to come from somewhere. Why not money that was already ear marked for bike infrastructure?

How much does each Bicycle Lane cost to build? How much would a Anti-Dooring Campaign cost? Stickers are cheap. Web pages can be cheaply added to existing pages on the City site. How much does it cost to add signs to existing street poles? Would Alderman's offices take part for maximum saturation of the message?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on October 11, 2012 at 4:44am

Duppie, this side warning system is really encouraging to me. At the very least, it means the dooring problem is on car designers' minds and they are beginning to think of ways to prevent it. In the meantime, other things that might help:

The WBEZ dooring map shows that the greatest concentration of doorings in Chicago seem to be on Milwaukee, Lincoln & Clark. Change parallel car parking to angled parking on at least those three streets. If the streets, which were designed for horses and buggies, are too narrow for angled parking on both sides of the street, just put the parking on one side, and a two-way bike lane along the curb on the other side. One-sided angled parking could be oriented northeast for half a block and southeast for the other half, in order to facilitate parking from either direction, with a bike corral situated in the middle of the block. Angled car parking allows much greater density than parallel parking, so the change should result in a similar number of parking spaces as before, even one-sided, which should keep LAZ from going ballistic on the city.

A cyclist is unlikely to be doored here:

Duppie said:

I think that in the long term technology will provide a solution.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on October 11, 2012 at 4:48am

I have been saying that I believe protected bike lanes are not the answer from the start; before they even built the first one. I feel the foster the attitude that biking in the street is an inherently unsafe activity that requires special lanes and I disagree with that and believe that it keeps people off of bikes. I think that they foster the notion, in the minds of both drivers and cyclists, that bikes only belong in designated areas; as we get more protected and buffered lanes how long is it going to be before people start telling us we do not belong on the streets without them? They often make for more complex and cumbersome intersections which I believe are more dangerous; many drivers have trouble paying attention to what is happening and figuring out the right of way at a regular stop sign and we want to add more complexity to it.

A door opening in a protected lane or a pedestrian walking out into it can all hurt a person just as easily as if they happen on any old street. The protected lane may prevent some of those things happening but they can still hurt you just as badly; the lanes give a false sense of security in my opinion, people are not watching as closely for hazards.

Duppie said:

Yes, you did. You said "bike lanes are not the answer" after meeting one (1) guy who got doored in a PBL. Again, anecdotal evidence is a common but nevertheless bad argument to make statements. We need data driven facts, not anecdotal evidence to make this kind of decision.

Here is another example of this common mistake: In your response you state that people can get hurt in PBLs just as easily as on a regular street. Is there any statistic that you can link to that supports your comment? Or is this just more anecdotal evidence?

notoriousDUG said:

I am not saying anything about protected bike lanes beyond the fact that you CAN be doored in them. People treated bike lanes like they are some kind of magic bullet of safety when they are not; you can get hurt in one just as easily as on a regular street.

Duppie said:

Ah yes! Anecdotal evidence used to prove a point. "I know a guy that got doored in a PBL, therefore PBLs are unsafe"

I see this type of reasoning all the time in my work. Doesn't make it right though. The right thing to do would be to come up a a number representing doorings/mile ridden that can be sorted on bike lane type

notoriousDUG said:

I just ordered a replacement for for a customer who was doored by a car passenger while ina protected bike lane...

Bike lanes are not the answer; we cannot put lanes on all the roads in Chicago therefore a education campaign does more good than bike lanes. Remember many of the people living in Chicago did not learn to drive here and are not used to living in a world where they have to check traffic before opening their door after parking. People who have lived and driven in a city for a long time do it as second nature but those from the suburbs have to acquire the habit.

Allen Wrench said:

Oh, come on! Of all the counterproductive foolish things to try to do! It's wonderful to stick stickers on parking meters saying please don't hit me with your door, but if you have a protected bike lane that's designed well the opportunity shouldn't arise! Chicago needs a bit more work on designing good bike lanes, but as someone who's lived in many other countries that have good ones, I can only support building more. Instead of stickers think CONCRETE. Barriers, planters, divided lanes. Make 2-way streets one way for cars and have bikes on the other side. Give bikes preferential green traffic signals. THAT's how you avoid dooring.

Hope your sticker saves your butt - I'll be pushing for more cement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spencewine on October 11, 2012 at 5:05am

Funny, data collected on protected bike lanes suggest everything you have said here is false.

http://www.activetrans.org/bikeways/difference

Some more data:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.02...

notoriousDUG said:

I have been saying that I believe protected bike lanes are not the answer from the start; before they even built the first one. I feel the foster the attitude that biking in the street is an inherently unsafe activity that requires special lanes and I disagree with that and believe that it keeps people off of bikes. I think that they foster the notion, in the minds of both drivers and cyclists, that bikes only belong in designated areas; as we get more protected and buffered lanes how long is it going to be before people start telling us we do not belong on the streets without them? They often make for more complex and cumbersome intersections which I believe are more dangerous; many drivers have trouble paying attention to what is happening and figuring out the right of way at a regular stop sign and we want to add more complexity to it.

A door opening in a protected lane or a pedestrian walking out into it can all hurt a person just as easily as if they happen on any old street. The protected lane may prevent some of those things happening but they can still hurt you just as badly; the lanes give a false sense of security in my opinion, people are not watching as closely for hazards.

Duppie said:

Yes, you did. You said "bike lanes are not the answer" after meeting one (1) guy who got doored in a PBL. Again, anecdotal evidence is a common but nevertheless bad argument to make statements. We need data driven facts, not anecdotal evidence to make this kind of decision.

Here is another example of this common mistake: In your response you state that people can get hurt in PBLs just as easily as on a regular street. Is there any statistic that you can link to that supports your comment? Or is this just more anecdotal evidence?

notoriousDUG said:

I am not saying anything about protected bike lanes beyond the fact that you CAN be doored in them. People treated bike lanes like they are some kind of magic bullet of safety when they are not; you can get hurt in one just as easily as on a regular street.

Duppie said:

Ah yes! Anecdotal evidence used to prove a point. "I know a guy that got doored in a PBL, therefore PBLs are unsafe"

I see this type of reasoning all the time in my work. Doesn't make it right though. The right thing to do would be to come up a a number representing doorings/mile ridden that can be sorted on bike lane type

notoriousDUG said:

I just ordered a replacement for for a customer who was doored by a car passenger while ina protected bike lane...

Bike lanes are not the answer; we cannot put lanes on all the roads in Chicago therefore a education campaign does more good than bike lanes. Remember many of the people living in Chicago did not learn to drive here and are not used to living in a world where they have to check traffic before opening their door after parking. People who have lived and driven in a city for a long time do it as second nature but those from the suburbs have to acquire the habit.

Allen Wrench said:

Oh, come on! Of all the counterproductive foolish things to try to do! It's wonderful to stick stickers on parking meters saying please don't hit me with your door, but if you have a protected bike lane that's designed well the opportunity shouldn't arise! Chicago needs a bit more work on designing good bike lanes, but as someone who's lived in many other countries that have good ones, I can only support building more. Instead of stickers think CONCRETE. Barriers, planters, divided lanes. Make 2-way streets one way for cars and have bikes on the other side. Give bikes preferential green traffic signals. THAT's how you avoid dooring.

Hope your sticker saves your butt - I'll be pushing for more cement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on October 11, 2012 at 5:16am

You know, if that same attitude applied to planes, modern planes would not have systems to warn pilots that the plane was about to stall, hit the ground or other planes. Every other transportation system out there has systems in place to warn you if you're about to hit other things. It's great that cars are finally starting to get collision detection systems.

Unless you've discovered a way to magically make people perfect and all knowing, these types of incidents will continue to occur whether it's due to momentary lapses of attention, things being in your blind spot, negligence, etc. Technology can make it less likely and if it's inexpensive enough to be standard equipment, then that's a great advance.

notoriousDUG said:

So we should just allow people to be stupid and irresponsible and compensate through technology?

Duppie said:

I think that in the long term technology will provide a solution.

I had to drive to one of our plants in Michigan earlier this week and had gotten a 2013 Ford Edge loaded with safety features, one of them being a signal to indicate that somebody is to your left or right. On the highway it does so by showing a little orange light in the mirror. In fact it was so subtle that you could miss it if you did not look directly at the mirror

But when I was in my car standing parked on Clark, a young woman on a bike passed my car well within the dooring zone. She was followed in close distance (estimated to be less than 30 feet) by a #22 bus. If I had opened my door, we would likely have had another dead cyclist to mourn.

Interestingly enough the light did not just light up, but it started blinking in a vertigo inducing pattern accompanied by a loud beeping signal. There is no way I could miss this signal, even if I wasn’t looking in the mirror. Clearly the sensors can tell the difference between a car in the lane next to me, and an object really close.

From this current functionality it is only a small step to even more active safety features, like temporary disabling the door: A driver cannot open the door when the alarm is going off.

As far as I am concerned cars that help the driver avoid conflicts may be the best option to increase safety on the road, especially when governments (DMV) are unwilling to adapt to changing safety issues

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on October 11, 2012 at 6:22am

There's really no need to beat Dug's points (which are good ones - crashes happen everywhere) while we press for continually better infrastucture. I'll say it again: better infrastructure AND better education for all users of the shared space is the only answer. We need a multi-pronged approach, and I'm actually glad to see you guys duking it out here, because that means that within our own active cycling community, we have strong proponents of at least two measures needed to bring on massive societal change. But more work needs to be done on many fronts, and why not say: You work on your thing and I'll work on mine and I'll help you and you can help me, too? After all, our goal is shared, right?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by spencewine on October 11, 2012 at 6:33am

I don't think Dug really has any points, although, he certainly has a lot of misinformation.

Sarah D. said:

There's really no need to beat Dug's points (which are good ones - crashes happen everywhere) while we press for continually better infrastucture. I'll say it again: better infrastructure AND better education for all users of the shared space is the only answer. We need a multi-pronged approach, and I'm actually glad to see you guys duking it out here, because that means that within our own active cycling community, we have strong proponents of at least two measures needed to bring on massive societal change. But more work needs to be done on many fronts, and why not say: You work on your thing and I'll work on mine and I'll help you and you can help me, too? After all, our goal is shared, right?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 11, 2012 at 6:41am

Regardless of whether Ford was considering doorings in creating this techology, if it helps prevent some of the stupid people from hitting us (as well as non-stupid people who are simply having a moment of distraction), that's a plus for us.

If the issue of doorings is attacked on multiple fronts (education, infrastructure, technology, etc.), At a grassroots level, as long as our effects complement each other and don't undo the good done by others, that's fine with me.

Cameron Puetz said:

Reading Ford's statements about the technology, doorings were not on their engineer's minds. Instead a technology designed to address one problem has had applications to several others. There are examples of auto designers thinking about pedestrian safety, but these are largely in response to European and Japanese regulations and are not common on vehicles that aren't also sold overseas.

Thunder Snow said:

Duppie, this side warning system is really encouraging to me. At the very least, it means the dooring problem is on car designers' minds and they are beginning to think of ways to prevent it. In the meantime, other things that might help:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on October 11, 2012 at 7:53am

The conversation about doorings has come up multiple times this past week with non-bike people. That's a good thing. No question that this is not a statistical sample and I am not going to extrapolate any conclusions other than the topic is alive; people seem to get that it can happen to any of us on either the door or bike end of the equation; more awareness is needed; bad things can happen to well meaning people. All good things. Solution? No. Start? Perhaps.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on October 11, 2012 at 8:01am

It is good that doorings have become a hot topic with the general public at the moment. That it is even being talked about is a good thing to get the public's awareness on the subject up. I think a lot of folks think that it is the responsibility of bicyclists to watch out for them and their car doors -rather than the other way around. Anything that changes this has to be a step in the right direction.

And the awareness of the problem of dooring can only help with understanding of why we are not hugging the parked cars and "getting out of their way." Again, I think a lot of folks think we should be moving over for them and don't even realize how dangerous the door zone is to us. They just see a slower-moving road user IN THEIR WAY. Many get pissed and impatient and decide to buzz rather than wait for a safe place to pass because it is our fault for being "jerks" and not moving over for them. If more of them realize just how dangerous it is for us to be in the door zone perhaps they will realize why we are not in it.

A dooring PSA/campaign would be a good focus for the city spin machine. Maybe after the elections are over and all the money that is driving up ad time costs is gone there might be an effort to make some PSA's to air on TV and radio to get the word out about dooring and why bikes avoid the door zone and why they should be checking extra-carefully before opening up a door onto the road.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 11, 2012 at 8:11am

I wrote a blog piece about the issue in a non-bike forum and got some positive responses from non-cyclists. We need to continue doing outreach to increase awareness. Grassroots efforts can make a difference - the "tell 2 friends" approach can help.

David Barish said:

The conversation about doorings has come up multiple times this past week with non-bike people. That's a good thing. No question that this is not a statistical sample and I am not going to extrapolate any conclusions other than the topic is alive; people seem to get that it can happen to any of us on either the door or bike end of the equation; more awareness is needed; bad things can happen to well meaning people. All good things. Solution? No. Start? Perhaps.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on October 11, 2012 at 10:09am

No.

I am speaking to the fact that so many people seem to think that the protected lanes are some kind of magic bullet to make cycling safe. They are not, you still have to deal with cross traffic, possible dooring, pedestrians walking into you and all form of other hazard.

h' said:

What people? Who are you talking about here? Are you arguing that cyclist injuries and deaths per rider/mile ridden have increased since the proliferation of bike lanes? If you are, I seriously doubt that whatever data is available backs you up.

notoriousDUG said:

I am not saying anything about protected bike lanes beyond the fact that you CAN be doored in them. People treated bike lanes like they are some kind of magic bullet of safety when they are not; you can get hurt in one just as easily as on a regular street.