Are bike racks installed and used incorrectly?

I had a paradigm shifting experience recently when I saw a bike locked to a standard "circle on a post" parking area that has me wondering if the majority of these 2 bike racks aren't oriented and used incorrectly.

Almost invariably, I would have said invariably before last week, what you see is a bike locked to one or the other sides of the rack parallel to the metal hoops that extend to make the circle. I've often found that if someone is already using the other side of the rack, there is no choice but to move their bike a bit in order to get clearance to thread the lock through rack and to take care not to accidentally create a knot of interconnecting locks.

My eureka was in seeing a a bike locked perpendicular to the extension, thereby placing the bike a little way from the post, and leaving a wide unobstructed half circle extending in the opposite direction for another person to use, without needing to in any way be concerned about the existing occupant. This seems a much more intelligent and correct way to use the rack for a number of reasons and I'm embarrassed to say that I never even thought of that, even when parking at an unoccupied rack. Another advantage is that the extended hoop gives something to lean the bike against, in the case that it doesn't have a kickstand, and that doing that lean isn't going to impede another person using the rack, or require them to touch someone else's bike and/or lock in order to park.

I suspect that part of the reason is that the racks are installed in corners and adjacent to streets with the circle jutting out in parallel to the street or wall. This doesn't leave enough space for a bike to be locked perpendicular to the rack. Add to this a conscientious cyclist who prefers to park their bikes out of the way and don't want them extending perpendicular to the curb or wall into a pedestrian walkway.



While I'm on the topic of racks, have some lovely photos of a bike rack that is too close to a wall, though of a different type, and what has got to be the worst bike rack design out there, as you can see from the bikes parked already at the on on the right. Positions are too close together, not designed for getting anything other than a cable lock (hope you have a long one) through it with whichever wheel you trust to it. I try to park outside the rack on the ends and lock the frame to it when I can, otherwise, rear well goes in to get the frame closer to the rack.


Images from Flickr/SteveVance

After doing a quick search, lots of people talk about the correct things to lock up and and how on the bike to a (semi-)permanent object, no one says how to actually position the bike with respect to a rack.

Oh, and to make this even a little bit relevant to locals, does anyone trust the new racks (parallel to the curbs!) installed around Kennedy Plaza that appear to be bolted to the bricks adjacent to the parking lane and sidewalk ramps on Exchange Terrace?

Bad Signage...

By way of the Greater City:Providence blog, I was pointed towards an article about sign design in Rhode Island, more specifically, the lack of good signs. What piqued my interest was the inclusion of a photo of the new India Point Bridge on Jef's post, lifted from the RI Monthly article talking about the same topic.

I've always thought that the lettering on the new India Point Bridge was underwhelming in its presentation. The colors and letters make me think that the thing was build in the 1950s and its a miracle the letters are still there. Pretty bad for something that was completed and opened just last year. Following in Jef's tradition, below is the original on the left and a suggested improvement as suggested by Tyler Smith

Tyler doesn't point it out, but given the width of that label on the bridge, what driver has time to read it...Though I think his version may be a little too small, dropping the word bridge is certainly welcome. Reminds me of the very well labeled building on Thayer street. [which I can't get to my picture of because I don't have a flickr pro account...grr]


At any rate, some interesting ideas about sign design and Rhode Island's state identity can be read over at RI Monthly, and be sure to check out Jef's thoughts too over at GC:PVD.

Thoughts on RI's proposed 3-foot law

Image by dullhunk via Flickr

It's amazing how much clear thinking you can do while riding a bicycle. While out for a ride this morning, I started mulling over the current debate in bicycle advocacy circles of so-called "3-foot laws."

In general, I think that such rules are a good idea and apparently cyclist and legislatures agree, as such rules have been enacted in many states to date.

While bicycles are treated as vehicles, and have the same rights and responsibilities, they aren't the same as their larger cousins. Bicycles are smaller and inherently don't protect their operators in the same way that an motor vehicle does. Factors such as lack of shocks, narrow tires at high pressure, some modicum of balance required for operation cause bicycles to be operated slightly differently than autos. Obstacles that larger vehicles can navigate with little risk to the vehicle occupants become more threatening to bicycle riders.

As a cyclist, situations arise where I need more than a few inches of space, which is all some drivers and cyclist consider necessary for my safety. Consider the cases of accidentally riding in the door zone and needing to react to an opening door. If there is a vehicle immediately to your left and no room to change path around the door, a pothole or broken glass in the path of the cyclist requiring a deviation in path to safely navigate. Even with enough control and warning to stop, the alternative is that the cyclist may be forced to interact with the hazard and go down on the road. Never mind the discomfort of having a 1 ton or heavier vehicle pass at such a close distance.

Why a law; because if its a law, its much more likely to come up during drivers education and makes for a potential question on drivers exams. It serves to reinforce that bicycles have a right to use the road.

A concern voiced by some cyclists in opposition to such laws is that by drawing attention to cyclists as a special class of vehicles brings the danger of more onerous laws restricting their use. Yes, there is a danger of backlash at singling bicycle riders out in a statute that could lead to unwanted consequences. There probably isn't any more danger than already exists because of motorists observing bicycles operated counter to existing laws, particularly stop sign and traffic signal stops, which seem to gather the most attention from motorists, though certainly "salmoning" also causes great agitation.

One way I see to mitigate this is to clarify the existing passing statute with respect to ALL vehicles, not just bicycles. My thought is to reword RI Laws 31-15-4, 31-15-6, 31-15-11 to a wording that means something like the following:

On a multi lane road, the overtaking vehicle must change lanes to pass. On single lane roads, a safe passing distance of at least 3 feet should be maintained while overtaking until safely past the overtaken vehicle. If a safe distance cannot be obtained, the overtaking vehicle must slow and wait until conditions permit safely overtaking the slower vehicle.

Wording such as this would also benefit carriages, scooters and farm vehicles. It would also serve to clarify the poor choice of wording in the H5074 of "slowing to 10 to 20 miles per hour below the posted speed limit". Nobly intended under the assumption that a bicycle is likely to be traveling less than 25 miles per hour, but too wishy-washy to be meaningful.

An issue I have with the proposed law is the inclusion of a new term, instead of using the term defined previously in the section on overtaking vehicles. The existing law uses the phrase "shall pass to the left at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle." The text of H5074 reads "leaving a reasonable and prudent distance between the vehicle and the bicycle. A three foot (3′) passing distance between the motor vehicle and passing bicycle shall be deemed to be reasonable and prudent." Why can't the proposed law reuse and define "safe distance" instead of creating "reasonable and prudent" and then defining it? There is also the problem that defining reasonable and prudent in H5074 could cause unwanted effects to the use of the phrase reasonable and prudent in 31-15-12 on following distances.

Do I think such a law is enforceable? No, not really. Again, I think that it serves as an educational tool. The danger with rewording it the way I've suggested is of course that drivers who never ride bikes are still not going to think of bikes as vehicles and will continue their auto-centric methods of operation.

While it is the responsibility of all vehicle operators to be in control of their vehicle at all times, situations do occur where minimizing the risk and damage done is the best that can be achieved. By defining for all vehicle operators what is considered to be a safe margin, perhaps the number of auto on cyclist injuries and fatalities can be reduced.

Here is the text of the proposed law, H5074:

31-15-18. Keeping a three foot passing distance when passing a bicycle. —
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle, when approaching a bicyclist, shall insure the safety and protection of the bicyclist by leaving a reasonable and prudent distance between the vehicle and the bicycle. A three foot (3′) passing distance between the motor vehicle and passing bicycle shall be deemed to be reasonable and prudent. When impossible to achieve the three foot (3′) passing distance, then the vehicle shall reduce its speed to ten (10) to twenty (20) miles per hour below the posted speed limit.

Stimulus, Transportation and Cycling

A whole bunch of cycling/alternative transport links. Of biggest note are a bunch of amendments and a couple of proposed amendments to the current stimulus bill in the Senate that would limit and/or redirect some of the funding in it exclusively to the use of highway use.

First, via one of my friends reading lists, Bike Pittsburgh is putting out the word about amendments proposed to redirect some alternative transportation funding exclusively to the use of highway projects. There is a link on the Bike Pittsburgh post that allows you to send comments to your Senators about these amendments.

Second, Mark Dietrich at Providence Bicycle Coalition is warning of some proposed amendments to the stimulus that would specifically bar spending stimulus money on cycling projects. Feel singled out? While it hasn't been presented, this one is worth contacting your Senators over as well. Links from Mark's post go the the League of American Bicyclists to lookup and contact your elected representative's.

And lastly, there is a lively debate scheduled for next month to discuss the "3-foot rule" that has been proposed and will be heard by the Judiciary Committee next month. Some interesting points have been made so far. Personally, I think the law has flaws and needs to be amended before it is passed, but I think that better defining a safe distance to maintain between vehicles when passing is a reasonable idea. To read some other opinions that have been voiced so far, see the PBC post, and information about the upcoming discussion on March 5th. I certainly think it isn't an enforceable law and I think its largest application is in educating cyclist and drivers that cyclist are entitled to use most roads. If you can point to a law to back up a statement in a drivers manual, it is hopefully more effective than simply making a statement of what is judged to be prudent.

Interesting Bike Road Use Marking Idea...

I just saw an interesting idea that was new to me. So called "Sharrows" painted on the road to indicate bike use is prevalent in areas where a dedicated bike lane isn't marked. This seems a great idea here in Providence. We have several heavily traveled artery streets indicated as bike routes such as the prime inbound route of Angell Street through the East Side. Perhaps this would be more visible than the pole signs to remind drivers that cyclists are not only present but expected/entitled to be on the road. (Anecdotally, of the 3 shouting matches I've had with drivers in Providence, two occurred on Sundays around lunchtime on South Angell and Angell Streets. The third was on Wickenden at the intersection of Benefit).

See #5 in the TreeHugger post offering a round up of five cycling improvements available to cities to improve their bicycling facilities for a picture and description. I like the bike corrals idea, but I don't think we have enough cyclists going the same places around here to warrant it, except maybe near RISD on South Main.

Then again, we don't have lane markings half the time here in Providence, it is probably too much to hope for paint for something as esoteric as safety...8)