From: giuliano carlini
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; City Council
Cc: Peter Brown
Subject: Why we need class 4 protected bike lanes as part of Alameda de las Pulgas Project Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 5:36:51 PM
Attachments: OpenPGP_0x42C724ECB3F93272.asc
OpenPGP_signature.dat
If possible, please add to tonight's regular meeting's written comments. If not, then for next meeting's.
Well, that took long ;->
Soon after writing update on the close pass, went out for a short ride. Down Chula Vista, north on Alameda, then up the hill. I was riding in the class 2, just a line of paint on the ground bike lane. Driver picking up their child from Carlmont, and was making a right turn, encroached into the bike lane. See the video. They didn't look, just merged into the bike lane. I shouted to keep from being struck.
Note that in this case the driver may have had the right of way to turn right before I could proceed. Or perhaps I would have had it as I was traveling faster than the car traffic and may have arrived at the stop first. Right of way for the turn was not the issue. The issue was that they absolutely did not have the right to merge into the bike lane as I was traveling in it.
Indeed, they did not need to. Easy-peasy to make the right without ever merging into the bike lane. As they ended up doing.
But, the real problem here was less the inattentive driving, but fundamentally the lack of a protected bike lane. Sure, the driver was inattentive. They should have looked before merging and did not. But, folks make mistakes. Human nature. The real problem is that the design of the roadway makes this error more common. A protected bike lane would have prevented the merge into the bike lane. Drivers are forced to stay out of the bike lane, and then turn across it.
Cyclists approaching the stop stay in the bike lane, and are safe. If a driver is in front of them and is making their turn, they car has the right of way, and the cyclist must wait for them to complete their turn. If the cyclist and the car arrive at the stop sign at the same time, the cyclist has the right of way and the car must yield. A much safer interaction. A much safer design.
Aside, and somewhat irrelevant to this note: while the merge may have been unintentional, note the aggressive/aggrieved honk. Typical of some folks. No apology for endangering me.
No embarrassment. A honk expressing his displeasure at ... my existence? My yelling to keep them from striking me? Their unhappiness that I called out their inattentive and dangerous merge. Who knows. On rare occasions folks are apologetic. Big props to them, we all screw up.
Given the current ADLP design this problem will be even worse at roundabouts. Current design either forces cyclists onto sidewalk, where pedestrian cyclist interactions will be problematic and dangerous, or forces cyclists and drivers to merge, just before roundabouts.
At this point drivers are looking left for traffic in the round about. They'll be even less likely to notice cyclists. The fix is near trivial, use best practice round about design as defined by Caltrans District 4, where sidewalk, bike lane, and traffic lanes all go around the the roundabout. Could/should raise bike lane to make it protected, and then make intersection at sidewalk and bike lane grade. This forces cars to slow down as they surmount the raised grade, functioning as a speed hump. Lastly, this makes it much easier for fire trucks to navigate the roundabout. Take or leave the above solution. I'm no traffic engineer. But ...
What ever the solution, as linked video shows, protected bike lanes are essential for safety.
Thanks,
giuliano
From: giuliano carlini
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; City Council
Subject: Re: 1) Written comments for tomorrow"s meeting minutes 2) comments Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 3:40:47 PM
Attachments: OpenPGP_0x42C724ECB3F93272.asc
OpenPGP_signature.dat
Spoke with company today. Seems the close pass was accidental, not intentional, and the manager relayed that driver was deeply apologetic. This underscores how protected bike lanes are most useful. Intentionally dangerous passes are rare. Unintentional frequent. Protected bike lanes mitigate both. Almost no one will intentionally drive over bollards to attack a cyclist.
And while a driver may misjudge and then unintentionally pass a cyclist too close, the bollards more often break through the inattention. If not as they approach, for sure when they hit that first one ;-> Hopefully that's before they hit the cyclist.
Thanks for all y'all do,
giuliano
On 5/23/23 00:43, giuliano carlini wrote:
I've been yakking enough at y'all in person. I'll give y'all a break tomorrow ;-> But I do have a couple of things to say, so I'll do them in writing.
The below are for the minutes or how ever written comments for the record are made.
1. San Mateo County Sheriff provide an online form for notifying them of "3 foot passing violations ", and other cyclist violations. See this (https://www.smcsheriff.com/index.php/online-crime-reporting) which directs you to coplogic (https://secure.coplogic.com/dors/en/filing/submitreport? dynparam=1684825491052), which looks like a service that can be used by any city law enforcement agency. This form is great when issues happen in unincorporated county areas, and cities like San Carlos patrolled by Sheriffs. But useless when issues occur in Belmont or other areas not patrolled by them. It would be so much appreciated if Council could direct Belmont PD to look at using a reporting similar like that used by Sheriff.
2. Please see this video for why Belmont (and other cities) need to add protected bike lanes. Happened on El Camino at southern Harbor intersection. Notice how close the truck passes me, even though I've moved out from the left curb to claim the lane. 10.5 feet from center of my bike to the lane line marking the lane to the left. That means about 9 feet from edge of my shoulder to lane line. Maybe a bit more. Truck passes with it's left wheels on lane line. Meaning right edge of truck is inches from me. A foot at most.
3. As of January this year, California law requires motorists to fully change lanes, as was possible in this case, when passing a cyclist. Almost no one I've talked to, cyclists included, seem to know this. How can Belmont help notify folks? Sure would be nice for folks to pass me safely more often. Sure would be nice to see some more enforcement, perhaps with just warnings, to educate folks. Almost no one passes by fully changing lanes. See
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml? lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21760. "The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking or passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction and in the same lane of travel shall, if another lane of traffic proceeding in the same direction is available, make a lane change into another available lane with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law, before overtaking or passing the bicycle."
Not asking for the below to be added to "official" meeting notes, just FYI for the council ...
Notice how the trucks left tires never cross the lane line, even though the adjoining lane is empty. Notice how driver hesitates before passing, so they clearly understood this was a dangerous pass. It was callous, irresponsible, and reckless. Notice the markings on the road that I and the truck driver pass by.
Compare them to the Google map screen shot. In particular, the 10.5 foot distance between lane line and metal cover my bike passes over. Keep in mind that my left shoulder is about 1 to 1.5 foot closer to the truck than the center of my bike, and that the mirror of the truck extends beyond right side of the truck. That was one frighteningly close pass. I don't use the term "reckless" above loosely. It was reckless driving. CA Vehicle Code 23103 "A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving ... persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment".
While I'm pretty hard to rattle with all the close passes I get, this one rattled me.
I've lodged a complaint with the company and they seem to be treating it seriously, so I didn't stop by Belmont PD to see if I could file a reckless driving complaint. I'm not even sure that's possible. I wish I would have found out some time in the past with the dozens (not an exaggeration) of prior such passes I've experienced. While passes this close happen only a few times a year, that's a few times too many. I have a high tolerance for being rattled ;-> And while passes this close by trucks are only a few times a year, passes within two feet happen at least a few times every 100 miles. Which can mean a few times a week. While this doesn't stop me, two feet is still way too close, and enough to scare most folks from cycling. Class 3 cycle lane would have done nothing to deter this driver, or even those that pass "only" two feet away. Ditto, class 2, they are just a line painted on the ground. The only thing that stops these folks is a physical barrier, whether by raising the bike lane grade or by installing vertical posts.
See you tomorrow night,
giuliano