Bicyclist narrowly avoids opening door -- Centre St, Jamaica Plain, Mass.

This bicyclist had to swerve as the oblivious motorist flung open her door on Centre Street in the heart of the business district where parking turnover is high and traffic is slow.

This Thursday the City of Boston will present its proposal for bike markings on South Street and Centre St from Forest Hills to Jackson Square in Jamaica Plain. The proposal will be:

* door-zone bike lanes (DZBLs) from The Monument to Lakeview St, except for a two-block section where the width dips below 44 feet, where shared lane markings (SLMs) are proposed;

* DZBLs on the uphill side only, and on the downhill side a narrow lane with an SLM in the middle, from Hyde Square to Jackson Square and from Sedgwick Street to Jamaica Street.

* SLMs elsewhere.

The parking lane be striped at 7 feet from the curb throughout the corridor. Some additional marking to indicate the door zone may be discussed.

Most people agree that riding in the door zone is not a good idea (except when deliberately going very slowly). But some DZBL proponents argue that a) DZBLs actually move people away from parked cars, and b) you won’t get people to ride outside of the door zone.

To use their own words:

a) “First, [the additional distance between bicyclists and parked cars found in the Hampshire St. Study is] 2.4 inches further away, not 2, and that’s merely the median (average) distance   It’s clearly in the author’s conclusion that a narrowing of the spread of distances was the significant finding. Namely, that far fewer people were riding very close to the doors. And when we talk about doors and the door zone, keep in mind that when you’re on the street and a door opens, inches definitely count.”  (Pete Stidman)

b) “The problem that you are trying to solve is how to get bicyclists to ride completely outside the door zone. Without removing parking or somehow changing the dimensions of the roadway, I don’t think any type of facility and/or education will be effective in doing so.” (Charlie Denison)

I have some responses to both points:

a) The Hampshire Street study in Cambridge found that bicyclists moved away from the curb after marking a solid line at 12 feet from the curb — but they moved by an average of less than 3 inches. A San Francisco study found that shared lane markings moved bicyclists away from the door zone by an average of 8 inches. The lead author of the Hampshire Street Study has agreed with my assessment that a wheel track 11 feet from the curb, not 10 feet, is the proper cut-off for being outside the door zone 85% of the time with a 6″ margin to spare. Only 11% of bicyclists in the study were riding this far away. I am currently doing some re-analysis of the study data. One reason that few were out of the door zone is that they did the survey at rush hour, mostly approaching intersections. Traffic on Hampshire Street regularly queues up for several blocks approaching red signals in the peak period. So some of the bicyclists in the door zone may have been slowly passing cars on the right instead of being stuck in traffic for several light cycles.

b) Boston has added Shared Lane Markings in the middle of the lane in several places, and proposes to do so in the Centre-South corridor–where there is only one travel lane in each direction. These markings are supposed to direct bicyclists to ride in the middle of the lane. If it is possible to encourage people to ride in the middle of the lane, surely it is possible to encourage them to ride outside the door zone where they will impede traffic much less (at those times where traffic is moving faster than bicycle speed). A bicyclist who rides with his or her wheel at 11 feet from the curb is safely out of the door zone and in most places in the corridor is leaving 10 or more feet for a 6-foot wide passenger car to pass without changing lanes. (In fact, most drivers will crowd or cross the center line in order to provide the bicyclist with plenty of extra room when passing.)

I propose a solid white line at 10 feet from the curb with a shared lane marking completely to its left. This will provide clear guidance that bicyclists are expected to stay out of the door zone. Another San Francisco study showed that using a 9 foot parking lane instead of a 7-foot one moves the average spacing of parked cars about 4 inches further from the curb. I don’t think this a significant concern. If it is, then a solid white line could be marked at 7 feet from the curb with a series of diagonal lines (gore stripes) between the lines at 10 and 7 feet — to indicate the buffer zone to be avoided. This design would be used consistently throughout the corridor, instead of the confusing alternation between DZBL and SLM that is proposed.

To my knowledge, no city has yet tried a SLM to the left of a line indicating the door zone (as distinct from a BL with the symbol to the right of the line, or an SLM with no line).  There is an opportunity to find out how effective this configuration is in pulling people away from doors. In any case we know that SLMs, even without a line, can be more effect than DZBLs in pulling bicyclists away from the door zone.

Please come to the meeting to support shared lane markings instead of door zone bike lanes. Defend the right of bicyclists to use as much of the road as needed for safety and travel. Don’t lure bicyclists into the danger zone. The details:

Thursday, April 29^th

Agassiz School cafeteria
20 Child Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
6 pm to 8 pm

“Bike accommodations” will be the first and major topic of the meeting.

DeMarco does not quote it, but the legal definition of motorized bicycle in Massachusetts is “a pedal bicycle which has a helper motor, or a non-pedal bicycle which has a motor, with a cylinder capacity not exceeding fifty cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and which is capable of a maximum speed of no more than thirty miles per hour.” So a moped (pedal bicycle with a motor) is a motorized bicycle, but so is a small motorcycle with no pedals. Curiously, the Registry of Moter Vehicles has decided that a pedal bicycle with an electric motor is not a moped, even though this statutory definition would certainly seem to include such vehicles, since the statute says that any pedal bicycle with a helper motor is a moped.  Even more curiously, some legislators (on advice of misinformed police, perhaps) were convinced that mini motorcycles are neither mopeds nor motorcycles, and so came up with a third category, motorized scooter, which is “any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion” but is not “a motorcycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized wheelchair.” Got it? The rules they created for motorized scooters are even more discriminatory than those for bicycles (motorized or not).

But back to DeMarco’s article. He correctly points out that “it’s illegal for moped drivers to go faster than 25 miles per hour, no matter what the posted speed limit is.” This seems to me to be unfair and discriminatory. Bicyclists often go faster than 25 mph.

When DeMarco uses police officers as an authority, he often puts forth assertions which don’t match the law.  DeMarco writes, “Maffei, of the Cambridge Police, said that moped riders often zip to the front of the line at a red light by riding between two lanes of cars. But riding between cars is illegal – motorcyclists and bicyclists aren’t supposed to do it, either – and carries a $25 fine.”  But that’s not what the law says.

Chapter 89 Section 4A is about as clear as it gets for Mass. traffic laws: “Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety. The operators of motorcycles shall not ride abreast of more than one other motorcycle, shall ride single file when passing, and shall not pass any other motor vehicle within the same lane, except another motorcycle.”

So drivers of motorcycles (but not bicycles or motorized bicycles) cannot pass another motor vehicle within the same lane (except another motorcycle), and all drivers must drive within one lane, and yield when changing lanes. This means that an operator of a narrow vehicle that is not a motorcycle can overtake another vehicle within the same lane, provided that he or she obeys the rules for overtaking (chiefly, maintaining a safe distance). If you think the statute means that a bicyclist or moped rider cannot pass a line of stopped cars within the same lane under any circumstances, then it must also mean that a motorist cannot pass a bicyclist without completely changing lanes under any circumstances. Motorists would not tolerate such an interpretation.

What about parking mopeds? “Tinlin, Boston’s transportation commissioner, also said his staff can’t issue parking tickets to mopeds parked on sidewalks. However, Boston has rules against chaining bicycles to posts and parking meters. If a moped owner chains her vehicle, parking officials might cut the chain and tow the vehicle.” Ah! Those mysterous rules again! I will give $100 to anyone who can find me a published copy (published before today, that is). The previous version I heard is that it is illegal to affix a bike to any “city asset.” This would presumably include bike racks (unless they are a liability). But I have search in vain in the municipal code. Mr. Mayor, you want to promote bicycling. Could you publish fair rules about bicycle parking on city sidewalks, rather than have your officials repeatedly assert a secret policy to remove locked bicycles without notice?

I am curious if police officers treat mopeds as motorcycles rather than bicycles in terms of traffic enforcement. That is, will they cite moped riders from time to time, or ignore them completely? Is there a way of citing a moped in the Uniform Citation book?