Korina

They're trying to make something positive out of horror.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/08/...ational-change

rsbob 

Very sad indeed. Let’s hope they speed up the timeline for a dedicated cycling path. Rumble strips are a good start though.

One only has to travel in Europe to see miles and miles of dedicated cycling/pedestrian paths away from vehicles. But in many countries there, fitness is a cultural norm and so they go the extra mile to provide a safe way to exercise. With the increasing interest in getting away from fossil fuels and more clean transport, let’s hope our transportation planners take up the cause for safer bikeways.

tomato coupe

Construction is scheduled to start this fall, so there's probably no way to speed up the timeline.

JoeyBike

That's gotta be the safest "looking" highway I could ever imagine riding on, assuming he was riding the shoulder. In my experience, the 12-18 inches beyond the white line is the only part that stays clean due to wind from passing motor vehicles. On a road bike, that's where I would likely be. On a touring bike I used heavy tires allowing me to ride away from that fog line as far as I could - so I could relax and enjoy the scenery a bit AND have a better chance of living through the day. Not much room for error close to the line but who wants a dozen punctures on fast tires?

A very sad story no matter the cyclist fame or not. Highways are inherently dangerous for all users because they are populated by imperfect beings operating heavy equipment at high speeds.

We make our choices and take our chances.

tomato coupe

I ride or drive that stretch of highway every day and, yes, it is actually pretty safe.

Jaywalk3r

I've gotta strongly disagree. The only time rumble strips aren't terrible for bicyclists is when they are incorporated into the white line itself, and extend no farther. Extending rumble strips into, or installing them on, the shoulder itself typically makes bicycling on the shoulder impracticable (except on very wide shoulders, as might be found on interstate highways), forcing bicyclists out into the lane on busy highways. A clean, smooth shoulder is far safer for cyclists than is making a shoulder unridable with rumble strips.

tomato coupe

The rumble strips installed on the highway where Magnus White was killed do not create any problems for cyclists, and they may have saved his life if they had been installed a few months earlier.

rsbob 

Fair point. Rumble strips in Washington state are usually installed on highways with wide shoulders so they are not an issue. My bad for a generalization.

RCMoeur 

Ground-in rumble strips such as the ones installed across much of the US are very unpleasant to ride in, and patterns using deeper grooves (greater than 3/8" depth) can cause cyclist instability which can lead to a severe-injury falling-type crash. But they seem to be much more effective in reducing run-off-road motor vehicle crashes than previous designs. Many states use periodic gaps in rumble strip patterns to allow bicyclists to cross the rumble area as needed to avoid debris or to exit a shoulder area, but a cyclist riding near a rumble pattern might still have the front wheel wander into the grooves if not careful.

Rumble strips can be effective in reducing motor vehicle incursions across the rumble pattern, but they're not foolproof. Earlier this summer I witnessed a distracted/impaired/reckless driver repeatedly cross a rumble pattern as they veered from halfway into the left lane to almost off the right pavement edge (yes, we notified state police much earlier). The rumble vibration and noise seemed to be having no effect on that driver's behavior given their level of distraction or impairment.

Disclosure: I am the author of a study published in 2000 analyzing rumble strip effects on bicyclists and gap lengths to accommodate bicyclist movements (Transportation Research Record 1705, pp. 93-98).

RCMoeur 

Some states have policies or guidelines that discourage installing rumble strips where they might negatively impact bicyclist travel, especially on narrower shoulders or where there is limited recovery area beyond the rumble pattern.

Other states don't have these policies, and install rumble strips on almost all shoulders. One example is Mississippi, which often builds a 4 ft right shoulder and then places a nearly-2-foot-wide rumble pattern in the middle.

tomato coupe

I rode the highway where Magnus was killed the other day with my wife, and we had to cross the rumble strip at some point. Later she remarked that she didn't ride through the one of gaps, she just rode over the rumble strip itself, and it was no big deal.
Reducing motor vehicle incursions is a worthwhile goal. Not being foolproof does not mean rumble strips aren't worthwhile.

jon c. 

They tried the deep cut grooves on one major road I ride but replaced them with raised bumps after about 6 months. My guess was cars going over the deep grooves made enough noise to annoy nearby residents. I didn't have any problem with them as a rider although I could potentially see them being an issue if you hit them at just the wrong angle when you weren't paying attention.

Korina

Humboldt County got rumble strips on our highways after a popular bike advocate was killed by a driver who was distracted enough to cross two lanes and a 10' shoulder to hit the only thing in the area (and yes, he was lit up like a Xmas tree). When the grieving, outraged community asked why we didn't have them, Caltrans basically shrugged their shoulders and said, "You never asked." So now we have rumble strips. I've ridden my bike across them a few times while going around broken down vehicles; it was distinctly unpleasant, but it didn't feel dangerous.

RCMoeur 

Caltrans moved to a shallower 5/16" groove more than a decade ago due to cyclist concerns. Current California guidelines are at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media...11421-a11y.pdf. Arizona uses a 3/8" deep groove. ADOT guidelines are at https://azdot.gov/sites/default/file...80-2018-01.pdf (Disclosure: I authored an earlier edition of this TGP.) However, many states use a 1/2" or deeper groove.

The best way that I can describe it is that riding with higher-pressure tires in a rumble pattern with a 5/16" deep groove every foot is an annoyance, a 3/8" deep pattern is very unpleasant, and a 1/2" or deeper pattern can cause instability to the point of loss of control, especially if suddenly entering the pattern at higher speeds. So a rider who has successfully ridden out a shallower rumble might be surprised if riding elsewhere with deeper patterns.

Adventure Cycling Association identified rumble strips as a big issue with many potential long-distance cycling routes, and has a webpage on the topic at https://www.adventurecycling.org/abo...rumble-strips/

Korina

Interesting, thanks. I had no idea it was that different in other states. A 5/16" deep groove every foot? Sounds awful. Ours are continuous. I'm glad every day for my big squishy tires.

spclark 

Yesterday I was riding a 'new' route (to me at least) that put me on a two lane country hiway with double yellow lines dividing the vehicle lanes. Right side had a white stripe then maybe a 10-12" shoulder that was sometimes covered with gravel, sometimes overgrown with weeds.

This portion of the route is hilly, hence the double yellow.

While I was hugging the white for that stretch, several vehicle chose to pass me while driving fully over the double yellow despite the fact of being unable to see whether traffic was coming at them in that lane.

Gave me the heebiejeebies until I got past that stretch.

So I'be been contemplating mounting a GoPro on my helmet to document such egregious behavior.
After all it's a public thoroughfare so there's no right to privacy. And motor vehicles are subject to the rules of operation just like motorcycles and bicycles.

When I drive, and I encounter bicyclists (or any slow moving traffic on the shoulder) in similar circumstances, I slow down to pass at maybe 25 mph with my hazard lights flashing 'cause I'm a "slow moving vehicle' under those circumstances. But I stay IN MY LANE unless it's clear to pass using part of the oncoming traffic lane to provide more clearance.

What say the rest of you?

john m flores 

Such a sad story. Hopefully it will spur safer roads.

While neither is ideal, I actually prefer riding on twisty roads with little/no shoulder vs straight roads with a good shoulder because a straight road practically invites distracted driving ("let me send this quick text"). At least a twisty road commands a driver's attention.

RCMoeur 

Roads that "look dangerous" can often have a lower overall crash rate than roads that "look safe".

base2 

That is because "dangerous" looking roads command driver engagement. The drivers sense of safety is infringed, thus they change their behavior, erring on the side of self preservation.

Wide, flat, consequence free roads do not encourage driver engagement. Thus any consequences that do occur tend to be associated with higher speeds and loss of control. A false sense of safety leads to dumb actions.

Whites' Road doesn't look safe to me. But I do see how a lot of cars could pass with no injury to driver or occupants with only the occasional catastrophic event. I guess only the occasional death is safe, right?

Would we be talking about road safety if White were a deer? How about a moose or a bull? No. No we wouldn't. Instead it would be crash severity, (meaning: vehicle speed) and separating the car from encroachment. Encroachment works both ways. Maybe we should design roads to minimize both instead.

Slowing the cars to minimize collision severity and keeping them where they need to be would be great first steps towards road safety. Separating them from encroaching on other road users by means of physical structure could do wonders. Especially if said structure does double duty of informing and encouraging safer vehicle operating decisions.

I-Like-To-Bike

What is your definition of "crash rate"? Does severity of injuries suffered in the "crashes" figure anywhere in your calculation of a road's "crash rate"?

Leisesturm

On the east coast where I am from, riding on any kind of limited access highway is strictly forbidden. There are usually plenty of alternative routes. On the west coast, I've lived in areas where some riding on limited access highway and even some Interstate routes is permitted. This is usually because few alternative routes are available. The few, to several, times I have been out of my car on the shoulder of any kind of 'highway' have informed an opinion that riding a bicycle on the shoulder would only be done, well, never actually. I can't imagine the scenario that would find me on a bicycle on the shoulder of a highway.

The rumble strips on highway shoulders are designed to keep cars from dropping onto the usually softer shoulder transition before the ditch. It is coincidental that they can sometimes be ridden comfortably on a bicycle. It is coincidental that they might warn a driver in time to save the life of a cyclist on the shoulder! I cannot at all recommend shoulder riding as a best practice. Seriously, I would move, to an area that has more and safer routes for me to ride if I was that committed a cyclist. In fact, I did just that. I don't regret the expense, inconvenience, disruption, etc. at all.

The highway environment is extremely dangerous for anyone not inside a vehicle. Road workers, Law Enforcement Officers, First responders of all kinds have been seriously injured or killed even when well back from the main roadway. Cars at speed are lethal. If highway riding is something you do, I would urge you to stop. Past success is no guarantee of continued satisfaction. I seriously doubt that a rumble strip is sufficient protection for a cyclist operating on the shoulder. Drivers LIE when they hit cyclists. Drivers LIES over decades has led civil engineers and cyclists alike to believe that all drivers need is better warning, better visual enhancement, better ... nothing. Drivers see what they want to see. End of story. When a driver hits someone, nine times out of ten they saw them! They didn't mean to hit, hurt or kill them but they misjudged the situation, critically. As drivers are wont to do.

What to do then? Like I said, don't be around them. Certainly not in environments where they don't expect to encounter cyclists like freeways, highways and Interstates. 35 to 50 mph arterials still have traffic lights, and behave enough like 'streets' that I would ride them. Albeit NOT in a traffic lane. If there was not bike lane I would find another route. Faster roads than those with no traffic control devices. Off limits.

base2 

Rate is a noun. In this context it means a quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity.

Generally what is understood by people who look at data sets is that the tally that makes it into the dataset is from "reportable" incidents. Incidents that did not get reported do not make traffic reports because they were never reported. Ergo, they never happened in any verifiable meaningful quantifiable realm of existence.

"Injury" is based on public record of whether or not medical care was dispatched or was rendered in scene. There is rarely follow up with doctors interviews and testimonials for subjective interpretation. Every answeramong the living is/would be: "It was so scary. I almost died!" Testimonials are meaningless. Follow-up is rarely if ever done by independent unbiased sources. Insurance companies have their own proprietary datasets. The data contained there in are trade secret & never to be known by mortal men.

Are you thinking that there is a great deal of meaningful collisions or injury accidents that are not reported? Or that such events represent a meaningful proportion of the total crash totals statistics? What would be the significance of including non-events to event totals? Please explain.

Doing your homework for you: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Above link found on this page: https://cdan.dot.gov/


Your tax dollars at work. Have at it, Hoss.

RCMoeur 

Bicyclists have had have access to shoulders on most rural freeways in Arizona for over 40 years. ADOT performed assessments of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes on freeway shoulders, and the most remarkable finding was just how few crashes there were - averaging about one per year statewide. There are no cyclist counts on these freeway shoulders, so a rate can't be calculated, but it's still a very low number. Looking into the reports, many of the crashes involved impaired drivers and/or impaired cyclists, or occurred on freeway segments closed to cyclists. (Disclosure: I performed more than one of these studies while employed by ADOT.)

High-speed traffic can be noisy and intimidating, but freeways can eliminate nearly all turning and crossing movements except at ramps. Many freeway ramps in rural areas have very low exit and entering volumes. Others have higher volumes, but generally have long exit and entrance tapers where a rider can choose a gap location to merge across the ramp.

I-Like-To-Bike

Are you assuming that all "high speed" roads in rural areas are limited access freeways with wide paved shoulders and that all other rural roads are limited to low speed traffic?

I-Like-To-Bike

A data set that considers all injuries suffered as equal in value and ignores injury severity when arriving at a so-called "crash rate" is a useless metric for making a credible evaluation of the injury risk of bicycling on a specific road (or type of road.) And even more useless for making credible comparisons of risk from bicycling on different roads or types of roads.

"Medical care rendered" or not is hardly a very discriminating filter for measuring injury severity and includes a range of "crash" related injuries from skinned knees and sprained fingers to catastrophic crippling injuries.