The Center for Transportation Research at UT Austin recently published a report on bicycle boxes. The study was prepared for the City of Austin Bicycle Division. Bike Portland recently posted about this report and another by Portland State University. Both reports conclude that bicycle boxes are effective in improving cyclist safety. I haven’t read the PSU report but I recently finished the CTR Austin study. I’m not sure I buy the conclusions.
Questionable Assumptions
In their executive summary, the CTR authors cite the following as definitions of “safety.”
- bicyclist used the bicycle lane to approach the intersection
- bicyclist used the bicycle box after installation
- motorists did not encroach on the stop line or bicycle box
- bicyclist departed the intersection before the motorist
- bicyclist did not make an illegal movement, such as running a red light
I’ll give you illegal movement and encroachment by motorists. But the others are subject to debate and if they are not completely valid, then the reason for designing and installing bicycle boxes is suspect.
The concept, as I understand it, is to prevent conflicts between cyclists going straight at an intersection and motorists trying to turn right. The idea is that the box allows a cyclist to position themselves in front of a car waiting at the stop light. This allows the cyclist to depart the intersection first and prevents a right hook manuever. Additionally, the proponents seem to focus on a need to get the cyclist across the intersection and back into the “safety” of a bike lane on the other side.
A couple of problems with this idea. It’s fine if the cyclist is the first to the intersection. But if a car is first to the intersection and waiting on a light, allowing the cyclist to move to the front is violating a basic traffic principle of right of way. In addition, if there is insufficient space in the front part of the box, you are encouraging (requiring) other cyclists to remain in the bike lane to the right side. This places them in conflict with right turning cars, unless the cars wait for all cyclists to clear the box before proceeding.
The bicycle box is unnecessary. If the cyclist moves out of the bike lane as they approach the intersection and queue up with traffic waiting at the light they do two things. One, they communicate that they are intending to travel straight. They avoid conflicts with right turning cars. A motorist trying to turn right from behind the cyclist has to wait for the cyclist and is physically prevented from doing a “right hook.” If the cyclist is the first in the intersection, then an extreme left hand position in the lane allows motorist to execute a right on red if that is allowed. If the lane is too narrow, then motorists must wait just as they would for another car in front of them.
Shoal Creek and Anderson Lane
I also have specific issues with the study authors on their conclusions about this intersection. They seemed very concerned about allowing bicycles to cross the intersection first. There is no marked bike lane on Shoal Creek south of Anderson Lane until you get past Foster Lane. Again, they begin from the position that a bike lane is safer than proper lane positioning. But they take this position about this particular intersection in isolation. First problem is that even if there was a bike lane on the other side, a cyclist in that lane would have conflicts with the traffic trying to get into the parking lots to the right.
Second, most cyclists on this section of road have a destination in mind and that is continuing down Shoal Creek. As you approach Foster, the right lane becomes right turn only.
Shoal Creek at Anderson Lane
A safer way to negotiate this intersection is to take the lane before Anderson, continue through and maintain control of the lane. This prevents right hooks at the intersection and in the various parking lots and business entrances south of Anderson Lane. This also allows the cyclist to begin maneuvering into the left lane as they approach Foster — this is the right most lane that serves their destination further south on Shoal Creek.
Shoal Creek at Foster
Change State Law?
First problem with bicycle boxes is that they are not recognized by traffic laws. Bicycles do not have default right of way at an intersection. Their right of way is currently based on sequence in that intersection.
Second, how are we going to train people to use these? Not just talking about cyclists. Motorists will also have obligations. How is the driving public going to be educated on this new facility if it gains official sanction. Witness the sad implementation of Austin’s 3 foot passing ordinance. Many users of the road are still oblivious to the rule. In addition, many are confused about what it really means, including many cyclists.
Without very aggressive education and enforcement the bicycle box will only serve to confuse both motorists and cyclists alike. They are unnecessary facilities that will in fact lead to more conflict, not less.
Possibly you’ve answered this before and I just haven’t seen it, and apologies if so.
But about Austin’s bike boxes: if a car is already stopped at the bike box intersection and a rider rolls up behind, is the rider allowed to move up the side in the green bike lane, then up in front of the already-in-position car?
If not, the bike box is sending the wrong message. (The layout and design and coloration of the marking completely encourages a rider to do so.) If so, and I think we’re in agreement here, it’s a weird and confusing overturning of how you’re supposed to do it absent a bike box. And thus, no bueno for me.
My understanding is that a cyclist is allowed to roll up and take position in front of a car already at the stop line.
My problems with these are almost the opposite – a bike box helps the most when there is no bike lane on the ‘other’ side; yet they ADDED downstream bike lanes on Speedway before adding the bike boxes.
The queueing area (in front of the cars) is also way too short – not enough room for even one bike sometimes. I rarely saw any bikes line up in it.
And, by the way, line-jumping IS one of the supposed goals of bike boxes.
Meh. Probably I’m in the minority here, but this doesn’t seem like it would add to the right kind of atmosphere, which for whatever reason I think is half the overall battle.
People will never NOT be annoyed by line-jumping, in any context. Except maybe Death Row.
In my opinion, bike boxes may complicate matters further. I know the intentions are good, but the more I ride, the more I feel like bike lanes are more of a hindrance than taking a lane. In many parts of Louisville, the bike lanes are well inside the door zone, so I tend to ride to the left side (nearest moving traffic) when I’m in a bike lane anyway (after a couple “door prize” close calls).
I think you said it best here: “If the cyclist moves out of the bike lane as they approach the intersection and queue up with traffic waiting at the light they do two things. One, they communicate that they are intending to travel straight. They avoid conflicts with right turning cars.”
When I approach a red light where I plan to proceed straight through the intersection on the green light, I always take the lane, even if I’m first in line at the light, to let cars behind me know I plan to go straight. So far I’ve not had any confusion. More confusion has resulted (on my part AND on the driver’s part) when I’ve been in a bike lane and proceed straight on a green light. Too many cars just don’t pay attention and turn in front of me. At least if I take the lane (even when I’m a few cars back in line), it seems to help eliminate confusion as to my intentions.
Good post. Keep up the great work!
Last week my wife, riding eastwards through 21st St, reached Guadalupe and stopped at the red light. A gigantic SUV driven by a woman arrived immediately after her and started honking at once.
Since my wife was going straight and the light was fully red, she just waited; the driver then moved to the left only lane and turned right in front of her with a loud and scary engine roar.
I imagine that for people like that, there is no vehicular riding, bike box, bike lane or cycle track that will be acceptable. For too many of that sort of people bicycles are not only a nuissance, but an indictment on their life choices; and that is a hard pill to swallow.
I’m guessing, of course.
Wow. I’ve never experienced that. Amazing, they wouldn’t pull that behavior if a car was sitting in front of them. But a bicycle is “in the way.”
I have had some frustrated beeps. If there is room I move to the left to let them by. If the lane is too narrow, they just get to wait.
I have had someone honk at me from behind, and then yell at me (“you are out of line”) when I was in the lane waiting at a red light and they wanted to turn right. To go dispel some stereotypes, the driver was a woman, and the vehicle was a car and not and SUV.
These drivers are in the minority, but as you noted it seems to be the existence, not the behavior, of the bicyclists that infuriates them. On one or two occasions motorists have been so infuriated that I did not get the f@#$ out of the road after they pulled up behind me they pulled over to the right (I try to wait at lights in the left side of the lane if motorists are allowed to turn right on red) and blasted through STRAIGHT on red.
The more I read about these bike boxes, the more questions I have, especially from studies like this.
(1) If there is a problem with right hook collisions, how can it be safer for bicyclists to enter the intersection from the bike lane, instead of using the full lane? This study explicitly says moving bicyclists out of the lane to keep them from blocking motorists increases safety.
(2) If the bike lane and bike box is intended to restrict bicyclists to the bike land (see 1), I can see where the bike box and no turn on red would be better than waiting to the right of cars at a red light.
What if the light is green? If the bicyclists are forced into the bike lane, does this mean they need to wait for a red light at every intersection so they can leave the bike lane, and they have to wait at every intersection, rather than being allowed to continue if they enter on green (as they would without the bike lanes)?
(3) One of the few explanations that might have made sense is that bike boxes made it easier for inexperienced bicyclists to move over to the left turn lane for left turns if they wait in the bike box through a red light. (I still don’t see how it helps cyclists to keep them from using the left turn lane and making a left turn if they enter on green).
The photos in this study and in Portland only show bike boxes for the right lane; on the Portland websites they indicate the bike lane should not extend to the left lane.
Are they trying to say they only want to have the bike box make easy traffic (go straight using through lane easier) while making difficult maneuvers (merging to left lane to turn left) much harder, or removing explicit laws that allow this?
(4) Signal detectors
The costs just talk about thermoplastic and installation, but if they want to keep bicyclists in the bike lane and motorists out, do they need 2 signal detectors, one for bikes and one for cars? If they don’t install a detector in the bike box, are they saying bicyclists can’t go at all if there are no cars behind them to change the light? Strange is the politest word I can think of to describe this.
I cycle though speedway and 38th every day and get to use and observe the speedway bike boxes every day. Here is what I have noticed.
1) The boxes are too short for a cyclist to move over from the bike lane into the center of the box if there is already a car waiting behind the box. This is a fundamental design mistake with these particular boxes.
2) Very few cyclists actually move to the left of the bike lane, even if there is no issue with a car waiting. This observation is based on seeing lots of cyclists navigate this intersection.
3) It is not uncommon for cars to infringe on the box. An occasional vehicle turns right on red, in spite of the “no right on red” sign.
4) UT shuttle buses encroach on the bike lane leading up to the box all the time, making it difficult for cyclists to go by them on the right. It seems like shuttle bus drivers almost always give the left lane line greater berth than the right. This annoys me to no end.
great comments and consistent with the study observations about the bicycle boxes on Speedway. Thanks.
Some of the problems with American-style bike boxes is that they’re an incomplete version of the concept. Here’s a detailed explanation:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/stopline.htm
Much of the confusion described above is a direct result of our half-baked implementations.
Maybe. But I can achieve the same level of “safety” by utilizing lane positioning. I don’t need fancy paint.
And I’ll say this once again. Even the boxes described in your link still violate right of way. By allowing the bicycle to move to the front of the line, you are stepping on the rights of other users of the road. It’s not required and a bad idea.
Right, I’m not saying they’re needed, just that they’re badly done. And doing them “right” would involve extra signal phases and other changes that would not be acceptable here.
So we end up with yet another case of symbolism trumping function.
What’s worse is the current implementation doesn’t really address the original safety issue (right hooks) and possibly contributes to the original problem.
Pingback: About the Austin, Texas bike box study | John S. Allen's Bicycle Blog