In the sense of promoting more people coming downtown, it probably was a net good – one-way streets confuse people who are not near them every day and who are in for a special event (theatre on Hennepin, a Twins game, whatev).

They’ve published an evaluation of the conversion. Because this study was performed by the same agency responsible for the conversion, there is a bit of a question of impartiality, but data is at the base of most conclusions:

• Bicycle traffic is up, based on user-count metrics.

• Allegedly, there have been no bike crashes on Hennepin since conversion, whereas prior it was known as one of the worst ‘bikeways’ in the city because it violated every principle of bicycle lane planning ever created. (I’m a bit dubious that it went from apocalypse to idyllic – I’m wondering about reporting, personally.)
• The city claims people have figured out the odd parking/bike lane configuration.

When you dive into the stats, it turns out that bicycle traffic on Hennepin Avenue alone is down by about half. The increase is based on a combination of Hennepin, 1st, and Nicollet. Apparently, some people really liked the bike-lanes down the center configuration on Hennepin – a configuration that almost undoubtedly was a part of the crash statistics, and may have led to more serious crashes due to the physics of bicycle-vs-car based on lane placement and speed.

I think the parking zone/bike lane setup remains the most confusing element of the conversion. Flipping them around does put the bike lane in the door zone, but that’s a more common configuration, and motorists and cyclists typically know where they’re supposed to be in such a setup. The city have stated that they intend to paint all of the shared lanes for vehicles/bicycles green, particularly on Hennepin. Buffer zones are to be added between the bike lanes and parking zones on 1st Avenue to reduce dooring risk and facilitate use of the parking areas by handicapped vans with ramps.

Never one to let a trend completely pass me by unless it’s a really heinous one (I’ve never owned a pair of Crocs, for instance), I think this is all very well and nice. They are all chock full of helpful advice for motorists and cyclists, such as the 3-foot passing rule, wearing helmets, avoidance of distracted driving, etc. etc.

But you know what? I have not seen a single article mention something I think is fundamental: Cars need to signal their turns. Use your turn signals, motorists.

A number of the articles mention the danger of the right-hook – where a cyclist on the curb lane ends up to the right of a vehicle who is right turning, with somewhat predictably painful results. There are several good ways to avoid the right hook, but one of the top ways – beyond cyclists wising up to the idea that hugging the curb isn’t always strictly necessary under law, and is often injurious – is for vehicles who are right turning to always signal their intent.

Because this doesn’t always happen, I tend to be mildly annoying in lanes that can work as either right-turn or through lanes, pulling to the left into the right-hand wheel well where vehicles might go, even if there’s not a car at the intersection when I arrive there. A vehicle arriving might pull alongside, and depending on positioning, it an be difficult to see a signal if it’s even used.

Turn signals are really bueno for the benefit of other cars and pedestrians on the road, too.

So, in summary: Sure, read all those happy articles about road sharing. Then try using your turn signals. Cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists will praise you for it.

Photo Credit: US Census Bureau PIO

• Drivers are 8 times as likely to get in an accident while texting than those, you know, paying attention
• Driver distraction was reported to have been involved in 16 percent of all fatal crashes in 2008
• An estimated 22 percent of injury crashes were reported to have involved distracted driving

(Source: USDOT data)

Now, Oprah’s on the scene. Monday’s Oprah show put a spotlight on distracted driving and its dangers. The Department of Transportation blog offers links to the transcript of the show, as well as a link to the safety pledge Oprah is asking people to sign.

Distracted driving is a huge issue in Minnesota and nationally. The DOT has been focusing on it as an issue, and the Minnesota Trucking Association is now running an educational campaign to their members.

Minnesota already has a no-texting-while-driving law; many other states do as well. Like the drinking age, this is an issue that needs to be legislated on a state-by-state basis, but the federal checkbook may provide pressures to pass legislation. Now with Oprah on the scene, expect to see more press on these efforts to legislate what should be common sense.

• A curve and downhill leads up to the tunnel.
• Prior accidents have occurred in or near the tunnel, although they have not necessarily been well-tracked by Three Rivers Park District.
• Kids like to play in the tunnel.
• The lane has a dashed line, not a solid, which suggests to people that using either lane is ok.

The issues with the sight lines leading to the tunnel is almost undoubtedly an engineering issue. But issues like kids playing in the tunnel on a bike path, and the discussion of making the lane line solid not dashed so people know to stay in the lane? Those aren’t engineering issues. I would argue those to be inherent issues of bicycle paths. People should KNOW to stay in their lane and use caution if needing to go around someone in their lane – this is just common sense. And of course kids like to play in tunnels. Tunnels are FUN. I suspect all the signage in the world isn’t going to change that tendency – or cause parents to police their kids much better.

I’ve said it 3.2 billion times: People want to act as those bicycle trails conform to different traffic rules than roads – and they do, in the sense that there are likely to be MORE hazards, rather than fewer. Lane placement and visibility remain key, as does bicycle control.

Knowing what I do of legal issues, I smell an upcoming lawsuit for facility deficiency leading to wrongful death, due to the engineering issues. But the bulk of issues identified in the Star-Tribune article aren’t engineering issues – they’re just reality.

MPR focuses on the helmets, but this really isn’t about helmets. Even the most strident and yelping helmet advocate will admit (if forced) that helmets are not magical. They help, certainly, in the event of impact, but they’re still plastic and styrofoam.

A more important factor in this accident, I think, is that one rider came out of their lane while turning, creating the head-on situation. Head-on crashes – whether cars or bikes or anything else – have greater consequences than rear-end collisions, because both objects have momentum towards each other. This is elementary physics.

I don’t know this tunnel well, and don’t know if there’s really design flaw or if it was user error. Following rules of lane usage – on roads and on trails – is really critical for the safety of all users of a throughway.

My sympathy goes out to the family of the victim, as well as to the other rider involved.

If you look at the configuration of the bike lane and the traffic lane at this intersection, and, in fact, all the way along Park Avenue, this tragic occurrence is not surprising. The lane configuration will regularly put a bicyclist riding straight through in the path of turning vehicles, contrary to the rules of strategic lane placement for vehicular cycling:

View Larger Map

Incidents like this are challenging, because the bike lane itself ends up being a part cause of the accident. A cyclist stopped at the light may be invisible to a vehicle stopped next to it, depending on lane width, placement, and even the height of the vehicle (like a truck). My advice to cyclists using such a lane with such engineering is to never stop AT the stop line. Be sure to be stopped in such a position that you have a clear view of the rear view mirror of the car in the adjoining lane – so the vehicle is ahead of you. Watch for turn signals. Making noise is also a good plan – sing, clap, whatever. You may look like a goof, but better a live goof than crushed by a truck.

Word on Twitter says there will be a Ride of Silence for the anonymous cyclist tonight, May 20, from Lyndale/34th, but I lack a time for this rumored event. I’m watching the MplsBikeLove forums for more detail.

Minnesota law discusses the need for lights in darkness in 169.22:

Subd. 6. Bicycle equipment. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector of a type approved by the Department of Public Safety which is visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. No person may operate a bicycle at any time when there is not sufficient light to render persons and vehicles on the highway clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet ahead unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with reflective surfaces that shall be visible during the hours of darkness from 600 feet when viewed in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. The reflective surfaces shall include reflective materials on each side of each pedal to indicate their presence from the front or the rear and with a minimum of 20 square inches of reflective material on each side of the bicycle or its operator. Any bicycle equipped with side reflectors as required by regulations for new bicycles prescribed by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission shall be considered to meet the requirements for side reflectorization contained in this subdivision. A bicycle may be equipped with a rear lamp that emits a red flashing signal.

A common question I hear is if a helmet lamp is suitable under this statute. While I am not a lawyer or a law officer, I know quite a few of each. The answer I’ve gotten from them is “uh, sort of.”

The statute says “No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front,” italics mine. Obviously, a headlamp would be attached to the operator. The challenge is that the light is intended to be seen 500 feet to the front. The light is really intended to function similarly to that of a headlamp on a motorcycle or headlights on a car: visible face forward.

When a helmet lamp is attached to a head, however, it may not always face forward. It may face to the side or another direction as you peer around. This is somewhat contrary to the point/language in the statute.

My sources say that a helmet lamp probably qualifies under statute, but that you’re probably better off with a light attached to the bike. This can be in addition to a headlamp. By having a light that is fixed to a forward-facing position, you may be able to avoid a lot of shenanigans in the event of an accident, particularly when dealing with an insurance company trying to prove something to be your fault for not complying with law.

Accident reconstruction agrees with me, per the Star-Tribune. The driver now has been charged with misdemeanors – failing to yield the right of way and disobeying a stop sign.

Now, misdemeanors are still pretty weak given the end result. Probably won’t even louse up the driver’s insurance record, save for whatever front fender work he needed post-crash. However, it’s at least an attempt at enforcement.

I really don’t have anything in for Edina. The articles covering their attempts to try to be bicycle-friendly just make it so easy.

Apparently, a bike lane is more detrimental to property values than a lot of on-street parking in front of a home:

“I just don’t know how anyone can justify having a bike trail in my front yard as an asset to my home,” she said.

Of course, as we might expect, there’s so much more to quibble about:

The street is so busy that residents sometimes have trouble backing out of their driveways.

In that case, on-street parking is likely to block the view when backing out more than a bike lane. Also, if the lane is supposed to be great encouragement to cyclists, the traffic flow of the street is likely to discourage that right back down.

The goal of most of the proposed improvements to W. 70th is to calm traffic and have it move at a more appropriate pace. Surely that helps beautify a street and improve living conditions?

As I’ve said in the past, I think the idea that bike lanes automagically create bicycle-friendliness is wrong. All you have to do is read some of the quotes of the Edina people in the articles to prove my point.

They found that as children under 15 years of age were required to wear helmets, the youth mortality rate from bicycle accidents decreased significantly.

I would throw in as an important adjunct that parents who strap the helmet on their kid and then don’t wear one themselves provide poor role model behavior to their kids. Adults are prone to all sorts of accidents that may have little to do with skill and more about happenstance (or even just ‘riding with kids, who are less predictable’). Concussions are no fun, and even non-serious head knocks can be awfully bloody. Watching the adult role model bleed profusely from a head wound is unlikely to be a great formative experience for a child. Or so I’d guess. I’d suggest avoiding field study of this, anyway, per my mother’s classic rule: Blood belongs inside the body.