Persuading cities to mark loop detectors

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It's getting quite frustrating actually. I recently sent this response
to the city (which is very similar to one that I sent to the county).
I'd appreciate any feedback or pointers on how to convince them to work
with me... again, I've already sent links to the DOT website & the DMV
website.

--- quoted e-mail ---
Thank you for the reply.

The city of Chico, CA (where I moved here from about a year ago) had
markings at the most sensitive location of almost all of the signal
detector loops within the city limits. These were not specialized
bicycle detectors, but rather they marked the location of the edge of
the loop where they would detect a bicycle. If the detector loop is
visible (in other words, it was installed after the pavement was laid
and the cuts are visible) I can always trigger the loop successfully by
knowing where to place my bicycle. When I contacted the city of Folsom
about a detector loop that was paved over they went out and marked its
location the very same day, and I have had 100% success using the
standard detector. Also, notice that this publication from the CA DOT:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/Bike_Bklt_3-03_view.pdf

...mentions that the city of Cupertino has used the standard symbol to
mark their signal detectors. It makes no mention of these being
special bicycle detectors, rather from the context it is quite clear
that they are writing about standard vehicle detectors.

Unfortunately your comment that the city plans to paint bicycle lanes
is not a sufficient concession for cyclists. Bicycle lanes present
numerous problems for cyclists, the biggest being that they encourage
dangerous lane positioning and dangerous interaction at intersections.
That issue aside, the bicycle lane would not address my concern about
the signal detectors.

I noticed that special buttons have been placed at the edge of the
sidewalk at the intersection of Kilgore and Trade Center. This seems
to me to be a very expensive yet ineffective attempt to address the
problem. These buttons encourage cyclists traveling straight to stop
at the button. This position is dangerous because right turning
vehicles will try to squeeze the cyclist and turn right in front of
them. Instead the cyclists is supposed to be positioned much like a
motor vehicle allowing right turning motorists to pass to the right of
them. A standardized marking (which many cities HAVE adopted) on the
standard detector encourages a much safer lane position. Moreover,
the button does NOT address the concern of left turning cyclists. How
exactly are we supposed to make left turns? According to the DMV's
website:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm

Bicyclists:

* must ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against it.
* must ride in a straight line as near to the right curb or edge of
the roadway as practical- not on the sidewalk.
* (MADE BOLD AND RED) must make left and right turns in the same
way that drivers do, using the same turn lanes.
* may legally move left to turn left, to pass a parked or moving
vehicle, another bicycle, an animal, or to make a turn, avoid debris,
or other hazards.
* may choose to ride near the left curb or edge of a one-way
street.
* (MADE BOLD AND RED) may use a left turn lane. (MADE BOLD AND
GREEN) If the bicyclist is traveling straight ahead, he or she should
use a through traffic lane rather than ride next to the curb and block
traffic making right turns.
* are lawfully permitted to ride on certain sections of freeways,
when signs are posted. Be careful when approaching or passing a
bicyclist on a freeway.

Notice that both of my statements are backed up by this quote!

I hope that you will take the time to research the concerns of
cyclists, look into how cyclists are supposed to interact with other
traffic (the DMV's driver's handbook has good information on this), and
consider how the lack of proper markings makes doing so nearly
impossible.

Thank you,
-Rex

Hi Rex,

I have never tried to get such a thing done, but the long mail to
bureaucrats at city hall or whereever might be counter-productive. They
just think you are some crank. Maybe try going to the guys who would
actually make the marking and see if they will just do it, or can get
it done "bottom-up" rather than "top-down". Sometimes buracracies work
better the other way! Or you could mark them yourself with a little
experimentation.

Joseph

"Rex Kerr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights.

They could talk to the City of Bellevue. Each of our signals is marked with
an X. See: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/transportation_walking.htm, and
scroll to "To Activate a Traffic Signal When on a Bike" Kevin's a cool
guy -- his phone number and email are over on the right panel on the
webpage. I bet he'd be willing to help. Email him and see what he says.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It's getting quite frustrating actually.

I sympathize. My bike club is having worse problems with a local park
district. They have been absolutely immovable on much more serious
cyclists' problems.

But, in brainstorming mode for the moment, some possibilties might be:

Get help from local bike clubs so it's not a one man campaign. As is,
they can internally dismiss you as "one kook."

Write to the county commissioners or trustees - again, hopefully as a
representative of a bike club, perhaps backed by multiple letters.

Consider letters to the editor.

Finally, since all you're asking for is some paint and a stencil,
there's the possibility of doing it guerilla style. Clubs routinely
mark roads with small direction arrows for century rides. Could a
local club mark the loop detectors? Sounds like it could be a fun
project.

- Frank Krygowski

"Rex Kerr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It's getting quite frustrating actually. I recently sent this response
to the city (which is very similar to one that I sent to the county).
I'd appreciate any feedback or pointers on how to convince them to work
with me... again, I've already sent links to the DOT website & the DMV
website.

--- quoted e-mail ---
Thank you for the reply.

The city of Chico, CA (where I moved here from about a year ago) had
markings at the most sensitive location of almost all of the signal
detector loops within the city limits. These were not specialized
bicycle detectors, but rather they marked the location of the edge of
the loop where they would detect a bicycle. If the detector loop is
visible (in other words, it was installed after the pavement was laid
and the cuts are visible) I can always trigger the loop successfully by
knowing where to place my bicycle. When I contacted the city of Folsom
about a detector loop that was paved over they went out and marked its
location the very same day, and I have had 100% success using the
standard detector. Also, notice that this publication from the CA DOT:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/Bike_Bklt_3-03_view.pdf

...mentions that the city of Cupertino has used the standard symbol to
mark their signal detectors. It makes no mention of these being
special bicycle detectors, rather from the context it is quite clear
that they are writing about standard vehicle detectors.

Unfortunately your comment that the city plans to paint bicycle lanes
is not a sufficient concession for cyclists. Bicycle lanes present
numerous problems for cyclists, the biggest being that they encourage
dangerous lane positioning and dangerous interaction at intersections.
That issue aside, the bicycle lane would not address my concern about
the signal detectors.

I noticed that special buttons have been placed at the edge of the
sidewalk at the intersection of Kilgore and Trade Center. This seems
to me to be a very expensive yet ineffective attempt to address the
problem. These buttons encourage cyclists traveling straight to stop
at the button. This position is dangerous because right turning
vehicles will try to squeeze the cyclist and turn right in front of
them. Instead the cyclists is supposed to be positioned much like a
motor vehicle allowing right turning motorists to pass to the right of
them. A standardized marking (which many cities HAVE adopted) on the
standard detector encourages a much safer lane position. Moreover,
the button does NOT address the concern of left turning cyclists. How
exactly are we supposed to make left turns? According to the DMV's
website:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm

Bicyclists:

* must ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against it.
* must ride in a straight line as near to the right curb or edge of
the roadway as practical- not on the sidewalk.
* (MADE BOLD AND RED) must make left and right turns in the same
way that drivers do, using the same turn lanes.
* may legally move left to turn left, to pass a parked or moving
vehicle, another bicycle, an animal, or to make a turn, avoid debris,
or other hazards.
* may choose to ride near the left curb or edge of a one-way
street.
* (MADE BOLD AND RED) may use a left turn lane. (MADE BOLD AND
GREEN) If the bicyclist is traveling straight ahead, he or she should
use a through traffic lane rather than ride next to the curb and block
traffic making right turns.
* are lawfully permitted to ride on certain sections of freeways,
when signs are posted. Be careful when approaching or passing a
bicyclist on a freeway.

Notice that both of my statements are backed up by this quote!

I hope that you will take the time to research the concerns of
cyclists, look into how cyclists are supposed to interact with other
traffic (the DMV's driver's handbook has good information on this), and
consider how the lack of proper markings makes doing so nearly
impossible.

Thank you,
-Rex

Far too often City planners seem to think that putting up a "share the road"
sign or painting a few bicycle logos on the pavement is creating a bike
lane. Our (anycity, USA {or Canada}) City planners would do well to visit
the Netherlands and see what Real bike lanes and paths look like. We've got
to keep bikes and motor vehicles separated. How about giving intersection
control priority to pedestrians and cyclists as an added incentive to
cyclists and disincentive to drivers. Let THEM fume in their two-ton stink
boxes I say!

Grolsch

The people you have been dealing with don't understand the law. They also
don't under stand the legal liability they will face by ignoring you, when
eventually, and inevitably, someone is injured or killed because of their
ignorant stubbornness,

I would make a friendly visit to the city attorney's office and present the
same information included in your original post.

Quoted message said:

We've got to keep bikes and motor vehicles separated.

Actually, from everything I've read, this suggestion is actually much
worse. All I'm asking for is markings making it possible for me to
share the same facilities. If anything, I much prefer when cities
just pave the road wide enough and do NOT mark a specific bicycle lane
-- I have far fewer negative interactions with vehicles on these roads
than those that paint separate facilities.

I saw a system of special lights and intersections similar to what you
proposed in your message while in London. They looked quite frightful
to me! I like our system better, if properly implemented.

Quoted message said:

They could talk to the City of Bellevue. Each of our signals is marked with
an X. See: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/transportation_walking.htm, and
scroll to "To Activate a Traffic Signal When on a Bike" Kevin's a cool
guy -- his phone number and email are over on the right panel on the
webpage. I bet he'd be willing to help. Email him and see what he says.

My last e-mail (the one that I posted) seems to have gotten some
attention. Your link came in handy, thanks!

BTW, I've ridden in Bellevue. I don't remember the markings then
(about 6 years ago), but it's a nice area. I rode from there over to
Seattle and back -- of course it was raining. :-) I remember getting
lost and finally catching up to a lady who was riding on the trail. As
I was trying to explain where I wanted to be (unsuccessfully) we came
out near Microsoft's campus and then I knew how to get back to
Bellevue. :-)

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the
city of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I
encounter frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors
so that I can trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting
responses that say something like:

Quoted message said:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for
special bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

In contrast, in Palo Alto, where Alma St. merges with El Camino Real,
there is a pedestrian and bicycle crossing (cars cannot cross this
intersection from Alma St.) with a full traffic light and pedestrian
signal. The sages provided a pedestrian button AND a separate bicycle
loop detector.

A 3x5" sign about 10ft back from the pedestrian button points at the
road and says "Bicycles Stop Here". Bicyclists don't see the sign or
don't trust the detector, so they get up on the sidewalk and press the
pedestrian button (if no pedestrian is there).

What they don't know is that the detector turns the traffic light
green and leaves the pedestrian signal unaffected. The phase for
bicycle is half as long as the pedestrian phase so that when
bicyclists use the pedestrian button, a six lane road is left Waiting
for Godot" at an empty intersection of Sand Hill Rd. and El Camino
Real.

All they need is a bicycle button, not a loop, at the post where the
little sign is located.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

What they don't know is that the detector turns the traffic light
green and leaves the pedestrian signal unaffected. The phase for
bicycle is half as long as the pedestrian phase so that when
bicyclists use the pedestrian button, a six lane road is left Waiting
for Godot" at an empty intersection of Sand Hill Rd. and El Camino
Real.

I'm not certain that I fully understand what you were trying to convey,
but you did bring up a very good point that I should use in the future.
By not supplying a standardized marking on the loop detector they are
encouraging bicycles to use the pedestrian signal, which unnecessarily
delays traffic. I see that happen daily.

Then again, it sounds like you might be saying that cyclists won't use
the loop detector even if it is marked.

Quoted message said:

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the
city of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I
encounter frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors
so that I can trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting
responses that say something like:

Quoted message said:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for
special bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

In contrast, in Palo Alto, where Alma St. merges with El Camino Real,
there is a pedestrian and bicycle crossing (cars cannot cross this
intersection from Alma St.) with a full traffic light and pedestrian
signal. The sages provided a pedestrian button AND a separate bicycle
loop detector.

A 3x5" sign about 10ft back from the pedestrian button points at the
road and says "Bicycles Stop Here". Bicyclists don't see the sign or
don't trust the detector, so they get up on the sidewalk and press the
pedestrian button (if no pedestrian is there).

What they don't know is that the detector turns the traffic light
green and leaves the pedestrian signal unaffected. The phase for
bicycle is half as long as the pedestrian phase so that when
bicyclists use the pedestrian button, a six lane road is left Waiting
for Godot" at an empty intersection of Sand Hill Rd. and El Camino
Real.

All they need is a bicycle button, not a loop, at the post where the
little sign is located.

Jobst Brandt

For some reason this reminds me of a traffic light set-up I saw several
places in Italy on a recent trip: A light in the middle of a small town
that is connected to radar. A large sign informs drivers that speeders
will be presented with a red light. I tested it, and it works. Not only
the speeder has to wait, everyone does. Talk about waiting for Godot!

Sometimes offering convenience isn't the best solution. I agree that a
simple button might be a much better solution, though I have never been
there, and I don't belive I have ever ridden a bike on a road with such
a system.

Joseph

[email hidden] wrote in news:1163103208.509866.304830
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

For some reason this reminds me of a traffic light set-up I saw several
places in Italy on a recent trip: A light in the middle of a small town
that is connected to radar. A large sign informs drivers that speeders
will be presented with a red light.

No offence intended here, but I don't understand why they would have such a
system in Italy of all places. When I drove there (about 15 years ago) it
seemed that red lights were only "suggestions" anyway so why would a
speeder care at all? <grin>

Cheers,
David

"Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rex Kerr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights.

They could talk to the City of Bellevue. Each of our signals is marked
with an X. See: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/transportation_walking.htm,
and scroll to "To Activate a Traffic Signal When on a Bike" Kevin's a cool
guy -- his phone number and email are over on the right panel on the
webpage. I bet he'd be willing to help. Email him and see what he says.

I totally agree. I have contacted the city with small bicycling issues and
they have been extremely responsive. Having the "X" at intersections is
great.

Claire Petersky said:

"Rex Kerr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights.

They could talk to the City of Bellevue. Each of our signals is marked with
an X. See: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/transportation_walking.htm

Hmm. I see the PDF of the bike map reminds cyclists of only _one_ law.
And it's not "ride the same direction as traffic," nor "use lights at
night," nor "obey traffic signals" nor...

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It seems to me that in some if not most jurisdictions, if
a loop detector doesn't trigger a fresh light cycle, the
vehicle operator can consider it defective and revert to
4-way stop rules, ignoring the light. As I understand it,
doing so requires waiting a certain duration first.

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

That's a good point. The intersection for which I wrote to Sac County
has caused that because usually the second vehicle is too timid to get
close enough to me to trigger the second loop detector and I have
waited yet another cycle in frustration until I finally wave them
forward (which just gets a baffled look).

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Keats said:

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

That's a good point. The intersection for which I wrote to Sac County
has caused that because usually the second vehicle is too timid to get
close enough to me to trigger the second loop detector and I have
waited yet another cycle in frustration until I finally wave them
forward (which just gets a baffled look).

I've occasionally had to do that, but I find that motorists around here (NW
Chicago 'burbs) understand the "move up" signal pretty well. Fortunately, I've
gotten to the point that I can trigger the loop detectors reliably by lining up
along the edge, over the pavement cut (they're pretty much all visible around
here). It's the newfangled radar-ish detectors on top of light masts that leave
me befuddled now.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email hidden]
(_)/ (_)

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It seems to me that in some if not most jurisdictions, if
a loop detector doesn't trigger a fresh light cycle, the
vehicle operator can consider it defective and revert to
4-way stop rules, ignoring the light. As I understand it,
doing so requires waiting a certain duration first.

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

cheers,
Tom

Hah,
I have an old days story about San Jose, Ca. They used to, 'may still'
have metal plate pressure detectors at some of the lights. It was bad
enough that on a motorcycle I had to stop with the front tire on the
plate and on a bicycle sometimes I had to get off and jump on the plate.
That was a hassle.
Bill Baka

Bill said:

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rex Kerr said:

I've been going back and forth with both Sacramento county and the city
of Rancho Cordova about two different intersections that I encounter
frequently requesting that they mark the signal detectors so that I can
trigger the lights. Unfortunately I keep getting responses that say
something like:

"That's a motor vehicle lane, not a bike lane."
-- or --
"The markings in the MUTCD (which I sent them links to) are for special
bicycle detectors, thus we won't be using them."

It seems to me that in some if not most jurisdictions, if
a loop detector doesn't trigger a fresh light cycle, the
vehicle operator can consider it defective and revert to
4-way stop rules, ignoring the light. As I understand it,
doing so requires waiting a certain duration first.

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

cheers,
Tom

Hah,
I have an old days story about San Jose, Ca. They used to, 'may still'
have metal plate pressure detectors at some of the lights. It was bad
enough that on a motorcycle I had to stop with the front tire on the
plate and on a bicycle sometimes I had to get off and jump on the plate.
That was a hassle.
Bill Baka

Or you could have just gained a lot of weight.

Joseph

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tom Keats said:

Perhaps a point can be made in your correspondence, that
an unmarked detector might be considered essentially
defective (or deficient,) and may cause undue delays to
traffic waiting behind the vehicle (bicycle) trying in
vain to trigger it?

That's a good point. The intersection for which I wrote to Sac County
has caused that because usually the second vehicle is too timid to get
close enough to me to trigger the second loop detector and I have
waited yet another cycle in frustration until I finally wave them
forward (which just gets a baffled look).

I've occasionally had to do that, but I find that motorists around here
(NW
Chicago 'burbs) understand the "move up" signal pretty well.

Some motorists must believe that one's bicycle is about to explode, and
therefore they must maintain a 12 foot distance. Or at least, that's what
some motorists' behavior would lead one to assume. Some lady downright
REFUSED to get any closer to me at an intersection. Her "politeness" to me
meant that the intersection behind her gridlocked. It's so aggrevating when
motorists refuse to move closer to you despite you nearly pleading with them
to do so.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky