Dick,

first of all I am sorry to hear what happened. I hope you have a quick
and speedy recovery.

I know of one other person who had a similar accident.

First of, let me address the point you raise about marking the bike
lane on the right:
I am actually having a hard time picturing how you would get there
without crossing the right-turning traffic? Would you mark the bike
lane before or after the intersection? Would it cross the pedestrian
crossing?
Additionally, I don't think it would fix this particular problem: When
people check for traffic they wouldn't see you on a bike lane on the
right, either. They may cut the inside corner (e.g. ride in the bike
lane) and still hit you. That is why we teach to make use of the full
lane when doing right turns on those long right turn only lanes
(Marcos had posted here a while back how he got hit westbound turning
right from Pleasant Grove onto Foothills). The key is to be visible -
whereas most people try to stay as far to the right as possible (that
is, they want to be invisible to motorists, which makes it harder for
them to see cyclists).

Technically, a motorist is not allowed to cross the bike lane where a
solid line is. They are supposed to stay in their lane until the line
becomes dotted. However, I have heard before that somehow car drivers
seem to get confused with dotted lines here (which is why often bike
lanes disappear rather than being dotted).

I do the same intersection everyday, though instead of going straight
I make a left from Foothills onto Pleasant Grove. I usually check if
the drivers see me. If they don't I stay in the car lane, even if
there is traffic behind me. On other similar intersections where I do
go in fact straight, I usually keep an eye on two things:
1.) Is there traffic behind me? If so, merging cars are less likely to
immediatly merge (they either stop in the merge lane, a move which I
regard as highly dangerous for following cars, especially when people
stop right after the bend or they continue in the merge lane and merge
later). So in that case it is a fairly safe bet they don't merge
immediately.
If there is no traffic, I have to be more vigilant with the quick
mergers, and may ride out into the traffic lane.
2.) And while I do all of 1.) I also look at the merging traffic and
check if they see me and also how their potential path is. If I notice
people are not looking I also sometimes say "Heads up", which usually
gets their attention, even with the windows closed.

I don't think the bike lane can be blamed for a motorist who was doing
an illegal move combined with being inattentive. I think it would help
if motorists would follow common sense and make use of the merge lane
as it was intended. When they drive up the merge lane first, they have
much more time to assess the situation.


bjorn



--- In bikingroseville@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Frantzreb" <frantz@...>
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 17, a little after noon, I was riding east on
> Pleasant Grove. I had just crossed Foothills (heading toward
> Washington St.) and was riding in the bike lane maybe 10 or 20 yards
> past the intersection, when I was struck from behind by a car. I was
> thrown in the air and broke the car's windshield, dented the hood and
> landed in the street in front of the car. I quickly realized that I
> didn't seem to have sustained any major injuries, so I got up, moved
> to the side of the road and sat down on the grass. Paramedics showed
> up quickly, took me to Sutter Roseville where I was x-rayed, observed
> for about an hour, and then released because I was OK except for a
> few scrapes and bruises. I'm still recovering from stiffness and
> soreness, but bottom line is that I was very lucky.
>
> As I've thought about this experience, I've come to question the
> marking of bicycle lanes, and I'd like to know what the group thinks
> about this issue. At the point where it intersects Foothills,
> Pleasant Grove has 3 lanes going east, plus a bike lane and a merge
> lane. As we all know, the bike lane runs between the #1 traffic lane
> and the merge lane. The lady who hit me had made a right from
> Foothills onto Pleasant Grove, and was thinking about merging into
> traffic and looking over her left shoulder when she hit me (I was
> squarely in the bike lane).
>
> Although she was elderly, and although her movements and reactions
> may have been slower than the average person's, it seems to me that
> this was an inherently dangerous situation: the bike lane is right
> in the middle of two lanes that drivers are going to move between,
> and they have to look behind them to be sure it's safe to do so. To
> me, this implies that they'll spend at least some time looking away
> from where the bicyclist is supposed to be. Wouldn't it be much
> better if the bike lane were against the curb, so that the bicyclist
> would be out of the way of this merging activity?
>
> I know that a bicyclist who catches a green light and is racing
> through an intersection may prefer the straight path, and it all
> looks so aesthetic as it is, but after my experience, it just doesn't
> seem right any more. I was in the right, I was exactly where I was
> supposed to be, but I'm still hurting right now. If I had done as I
> sometimes do, and moved into the merge lane, out of the way of the
> cars, I suppose I would have been in the wrong, if I had been hit --
> though I now believe I would have reduced my chances of being hit by
> making that switch to the merge lane.
>
> At a minimum, I feel that all who ride the roads (especially kids and
> other inexperienced cyclists) should be aware of this danger. I took
> Bjorn's road safety class last November, and I'm just about sure this
> issue wasn't addressed. But I'm thinking that it would be a good
> thing if bike lane markings were changed. What do you folks think?
>
> Dick Frantzreb
>