Bicycle Board Members,
Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and
Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the
preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta
for discussing graphics with me.
Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today.
Her response:
thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort.
Hope all is well.
Kim
Frank
/Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500
From: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net>
To: Kimberly Jo <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com>
References:
<9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov>
<4AE740C8.8050400(a)verizon.net>
<9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov>
<bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b(a)mail.gmail.com>
<4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5(a)WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov>
Kim,
What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll
be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our
input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following
are some of my thoughts.
The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the
April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too
winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have
had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do
not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads.
In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We
should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY
OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR
SIDE PATH IS PRESENT.
The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A,
particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway.
We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your
convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5
with the changes proposed in the plan.)
Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is
not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea.
Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on
the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway.
*PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA*
Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of
maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an
escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the
roadway is unsafe.
*EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA*
Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because
driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway.
Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a
high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at
least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such
a good idea:
1. *Debris *- Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass,
dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very
significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I
recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes
are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean.
2. *Dangerous descents* - The cross grade of shoulders is usually
designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide
sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when
traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly
up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous
particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision
to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles
driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills.
3. *Crashes at crossings* - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where
motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe
at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting
a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"?
*"Right hooks"* - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway
into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic,
not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right
rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right
hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor
vehicles and bicyclists.
*"Left hooks"* - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway
or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before
making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is
obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing
the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap
appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the
cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most
common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles.
*"Drive out" collisions* - The most common cause of crashes between
motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or
drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur
is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out
from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle
makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad
enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to
be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is
even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on
the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when
the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often
shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does
not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling
bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings.
4. *Dangerous merges* - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from
the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection
or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in
the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of
the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not
recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe
merging from the shoulder.
*STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA*
Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons:
1. *Discourages cyclists from taking safest path* - Striping the
shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly
inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be
less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance
or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not
provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather
than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked.
2. *Confuses motorists* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be
expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the
bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists
already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the
roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the
safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel
lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected
to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway
from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or
from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify:
" Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the
roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and
bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for
use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading "BICYCLE LANE
ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC", the plan does not recognize the turn movements
that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for
making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel
lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane
could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane.
3. *Increases hostility towards road cyclists* - Striping shoulders as
bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general
public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a
right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease
the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because
motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care
for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the
roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous
perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include
laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training
will cover cyclists' right to the road.
*FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES
CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD*
The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use
marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states:
"Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles
adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not
use the roadway".
*If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being
forced* - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike
lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the
roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths
indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than
cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and
bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals
that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than
cyclist safety.
My understanding is that all states put language such as that in
17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their
state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did
not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly
auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of
Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder
Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these
discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming
the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the
current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks
to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.)
This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to
other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate
bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities
presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion,
reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as
improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately
half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people
could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our
transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by
the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration
with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan
could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly
state.
Frank Gmeindl
LCI #1703
/Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
*§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in
draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* *
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
_except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an
intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the
right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions
including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or
substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the
right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard
width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to
travel safely side by side within the lane. _
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two
abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive
use of bicycles. _Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not
impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride
within a single lane. _
(c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided _paved path
has been constructed and designated for bicycles _adjacent to a roadway,
bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
_(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons
from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway._
On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote:
>
> *Kim -- *
>
> * *
>
> *Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft
> plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has
> never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level
> managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State
> Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I've told
> you that it is: simply a draft "starting point". We've already done
> one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before
> submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything
> we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously
> without management "buy-in" we can't promise anything. To release
> this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the
> WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management
> is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft
> recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to
> sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally)
> as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the
> interest of fairness to the citizens, we don't want to "piecemeal"
> drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to
> view it at the same time.*
>
> * *
>
> *As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan
> that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a
> public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle
> community and all the interested citizens, but we're not at that point
> right now and receiving comments on a "rough" draft document that may
> change significantly won't be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of
> the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So
> please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the
> larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I'll contact you
> when we are ready for public comment.*
>
> * *
>
> *Bill*
>
> *William C. Robinson***
>
> *State Trail Coordinator*
>
> *Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program *
>
> *WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator*
>
> *Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board*
>
> * *
>
> *West Virginia Department of Transportation*
>
> *Division of Highways*
>
> *Program Planning and Administration Division*
>
> *1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East*
>
> *Building 5, Room 863*
>
> *Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430*
>
> *(304)558-9615 Fax -- (304)558-3783*
>
> *bill.c.robinson(a)wv.gov <mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov>*
>
>
>
> *_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and
> lonely. He has labored hard,*
>
> *often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside
> from quick success in*
>
> *order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His
> working life is*
>
> *marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F.
> Kennedy, 1962 *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM
> *To:* Robinson, Bill C
> *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
>
>
>
> What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list.
> Thanks!
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov
> <mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov>>
> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM
> Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
> To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>>
> Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>>
>
> Frank / Kim
>
>
>
> Thanks for your responses last week.
>
>
>
> I've attached a draft copy of the WVDOH's Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I
> don't think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft
> copy, some of the titles are missing).
>
>
>
> In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes
> that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future.
> Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its
> operations and issues. What I'm told that has been the direction
> given from our management.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless I've been "befriended" some of the employees in Planning
> and they've given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could
> circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem
> with that. So that's what I'm doing.
>
>
>
> If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to
> submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the
> Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process
> is like or consists of. Again, it's not my section. But the sooner
> you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate
> individuals.
>
>
>
> Frank... concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder
> riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a
> section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be
> construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the
> shoulders or a street or highway/.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider
> reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back
> to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a
> draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that
> deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you
> wish, and I'll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel.
>
>
>
>
>
> /Ron Stanevich, PE/
>
> /Specifications Engineer/
>
> /West Virginia Division Of Highways/
>
> /Contract Administration/
>
> /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/
>
> /Bldg 5, RM 722/
>
> /304.558.9556/
>
> *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net
> <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM
> *To:* Stanevich, Ron L
> *Cc:* Kimberly Jo
> *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and
> informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:)
>
> The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their
> bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address
> bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted.
> However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on
> the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder,
> injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same
> rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway.
>
> WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition
> of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that
> portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for
> vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is,
> according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway.
>
> Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only
> gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is
> bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person
> riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights
> and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of
> a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this
> article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by
> their nature can have no application."
>
> I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code
> falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me
> otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis,
> WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill
> Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator
>
> "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no
> requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV
> Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to
> have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought
> into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed."
>
> Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail.
>
> The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing
> 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway
> shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
> practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the
> right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response.
>
> I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out.
>
> Frank Gmeindl
> League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703
> Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board
>
> On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote:
>
> Mr. Gmeindle
>
> I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The
> instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the
> Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue.
>
> I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that
> bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders.
>
> I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and
> Kim Broughton passed me along to you.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Stanevich
> WVDOH
>
> Message sent from my Blackberry!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kimberly Broughton
> Creative Crosswalks, LLC
> kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>
> 304.483.1685
>
