As one of the “geniuses” that worked on the reconfiguration of the bike lanes on Queen Kaahumanu between Makala and Henry streets I feel I must reply to the accusation by Mr. Gruber (Feb. 28 WHT, p. A4) that we
As one of the “geniuses” that worked on the reconfiguration of the bike lanes on Queen Kaahumanu between Makala and Henry streets I feel I must reply to the accusation by Mr. Gruber (Feb. 28 WHT, p. A4) that we have created a death trap.
He is entitled to his own opinions but he is not, as William. F. Buckley once told a debate opponent, entitled to his own facts.
Fact 1) Unless cyclists use the full 12-foot right hand “traffic” lane (as cars and motorcycles do) there will always be a situation where motor vehicles will be crossing a cyclist’s through lane (the bike lane) as they enter/exit the highway from/to the right. This would be true even if the light standards were moved.
Fact 2) The original setup had the bike lane always just to the right of the right hand through lane the entire distance from Makala to Henry, with a merge (entry) and a right turn (exit) lane to the right of the bike lane. With relatively long right turn lanes, those in the bike lane needed to contend with cars and large trucks passing them on both sides (through lane and right turn lane) at speeds approaching 40 mph, often with less than 4 feet of clearance. In this situation the cyclist had virtually no “plan B,” no reasonable “escape route” if he/she even had the opportunity to see a car on a collision course. The entire focus of a (motor vehicle) driver is typically on finding a clear space where they can enter (or exit) the thru lane and not on the possibility of a cyclist being in the bike lane they are crossing to reach their objective (OK, this sentence was an opinion). Evidenced by the very serious injury of at least one cyclist using the bike lane while this configuration was in effect, it was this layout that had claim to being a potential “death trap.”
Fact 3) The elimination (via crosshatch striping) of the merging sections (the current configuration) tends to eliminate the problematic issue of MVs crossing the bike lane from both left to right (exiting) and right to left (merging) in the same section of roadway. However, motorists (perhaps more impatient, having had their merge lane “taken away”) still have difficulty making a safe entrance to the traffic flow. They need to check both the bike lane and the through traffic lane at the same time in order to enter traffic. Since the motorists’ chief interest/focus is finding a clear spot to enter the highway they will be concentrating on MVs and thus often miss seeing cyclists; thereby endangering them. In addition, the fact that MVs, moving close to 40 mph, may cross the bike lane at any point of their choosing continues to be a recipe for disaster. It is not unusual for a driver to be following a coach or large truck too closely as he/she prepares to move to the RT lane. In this situation a cyclist in the bike lane is blocked from the sight of the driver; thus a potential victim of a rear-end collision. I was very close to serious injury or death in this exactly this manner about two years ago. Luckily, the driver made a last second swerve, missing me by less than 10 feet. I had absolutely no control of the situation. It was the last time I’ve used the bike lanes between Makala and Henry.
Fact 4) The configuration now being enacted is essentially the same situation that cyclists on Highway 19 successfully negotiate hundreds of times a week at virtually all controlled intersections north of Kona. The cyclist is to the right (on the shoulder), but makes a left shift across the right turn lane just before an intersection. He/she then makes a right shift across the merge lane just past the intersection to, again, use the shoulder. Since these crossing zones are quite close to the intersection, car speeds are generally slower (about 20–25 mph). In the section of the highway between Makala and Henry the bike lane simply takes the place of the shoulder. There will be signage at these “bike crossing” zones reminding motorists to yield to the crossing cyclists.
With this system the distance where the cyclist shares space (and potential conflicts) with cars is greatly reduced. More importantly, cyclists will now have much more control over their interactions with cars. Most experienced cyclists won’t make a “fraction of a second” observation/decision regarding a lane position change. They observe other traffic to their rear (a rear view mirror is most helpful), or to their right at merge lanes, for 3 to 5 seconds as they approach a potential conflict area. Then, if necessary, they adjust their speed to avoid conflict with turning or merging cars. With the previous and present bike lane configurations, cyclists (committed to being the creamy center of an automobile sandwich) have no control of when and where a MV, while entering/exiting the through traffic lane, will be crossing their path in the bike lane.
Mr. Gruber is correct in saying that it’s the responsibility of turning (or merging) motorists to yield to through traffic (including cyclists). But in the real world, motor vehicle operators often seem to have not gotten the memo regarding this situation. In my opinion, it’s better for bicycle operators to maximize control of their own risks rather than leave it to motor vehicle operators who may be less than attentive to the presence of those on bikes.
Eugene Schmitz is a resident of Kailua-Kona
My Turn opinions are those of the writer and not West Hawaii Today
