|
Re: [Fwd: Re: Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD]
|
John Forester
|
Jul 20, 2009 11:27 PDT
|
I see two different discussions that should be introduced.
The first is that which concerns the tests that have been made. Who made
the tests must be stated. What they showed must be stated. Benouar
states that they showed that some object, which he describes as a 16"
reference bicycle, which must be better described as either conforming,
or not, to the Caltrans specification, provides a 100% reliable
indication when directly on top of Benouar's magnetometer and when
directly on top of one wire of any type of loop. That may be correct,
but the proper loop has a much larger area of effective detection.
There's little point in having a detector which requires that a bicycle
be directly over it to respond. That won't work, simply from normal
traffic operational characteristics. Hence, Benouar's claim, while
accurate in what it says, is no more than a self-serving lie that needs
to be sorted out.
The second is Benouar's statement that, "for the safety and convenience
of all" cyclists should be restricted "especially as users of
expressways and large arterials." Benouar spouts the classic militant
motorist complaints that cyclists don't pay road taxes while motorists
do and are required to obey the traffic laws. The tax question has long
been settled, although the legislature is competent to make new
arrangements, while cyclists are required to obey not only the traffic
laws for drivers of vehicles but also additional restrictions regarding
the side of the road and bike lanes. One can argue that Benouar makes
this argument because he wants his system eligible for installation on
roads from which bicycles are prohibited because that system won't meet
the requirements for roads which cyclists are entitled to use, and
therefore Benouar want to expand the number of roads on which his system
would be eligible. Is that a correct argument? One cannot know Benouar's
own motives, but the fact that he makes this statement when the subject
concerns the dubious ability of his system to detect bicycles makes it
necessary to conclude that Benouar is arguing for his financial benefit.
Bob Shanteau wrote:
| |
Dr. Hamed Benouar of Sensys Networks
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/14/BAA617JUR0.DTL&type=printable>
and formerly of Caltrans and CCIT at UC Berkeley
<http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/General/WhatsNew/CCITopens.html>
wants bicyclists to accept restrictions on their rights to use
expressways and large arterials "to improve safety and convenience for
all".
He says this is his last comment on this issue, but he is still
spreading disinformation, such as saying that I agree that the
reference bicycle is detected 100% of the time over his company's
magnetometer based detector, which I did not say. He also puts a lot
of emphasis on Caltrans tests even though Caltrans refuses to test
loop configurations that are not already in their Standard Plans.
Given that I have already expressed my views, is there anything more
that I should do about this disinformation?
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:20:34 -0700
From: Hamed Benouar <beno-@sensysnetworks.com>
To: Bob Shanteau <rmsh-@gmail.com>
CC: Brian Fuller <bri-@sensysnetworks.com>, Hamid Bahadori
<Bahador-@aaa-calif.com>, Devinder Singh
<devinde-@dot.ca.gov>, Johnny Bhullar
<Johnny_-@dot.ca.gov>, Wayne Henley <Wayne_-@dot.ca.gov>,
Dave Gamboa <dave_g-@dot.ca.gov>, Jeff McRae
<Jeff_-@dot.ca.gov>, John Fisher <John.F-@lacity.org>, Robert
Copp <robert-@dot.ca.gov>, Steven Shladover
<ste-@path.berkeley.edu>, James Lombardo <jlomba-@comcast.net>,
Ken McGuire <ken_mc-@dot.ca.gov>, George Palm <gep-@msn.com>,
Kai Leung <Kai_L-@dot.ca.gov>, David Roseman
<David_R-@longbeach.gov>, Theresa Gabriel
<theresa_a-@dot.ca.gov>, Sean Skehan <Sean.S-@lacity.org>,
CBC <cb-@topica.com>, CABOf-@topica.com
Dr Shanteau,
Thank you for Email. I am answering your questions and providing my
last set of comments on this issue to be considered by Caltrans in
finalizing the policy.
To respond to your question, I do realize that AB 1581 and this new
policy would apply to new and modified signals only, but that actually
creates another problem for bicyclists because how would they know
what intersection is supposed to accommodate them for detection and
provide them that extra crossing time? Perhaps a logo would help
there too!
I agree that people on bicycles are legitimate road users. I and my
family enjoy that privilege today. However, just like cars or trucks
have various restrictions placed on them to improve safety and
convenience for all, I think Bicycles when appropriate should also
have some restrictions placed on them, especially as users of
expressways and large arterials. For example, cars and trucks are
required to register and pay a fee, are required to obey all traffic
laws, cannot use sidewalks, drive in a bike lane or go against traffic
in a one way street. Trucks are also restricted from using certain
roads, they have lane assignment on freeways and have different speed
restrictions placed on them.
From your Email, I would like to point out that it appears that we at
least agree on one thing, Caltrans tests showed that when the minimum
16’’reference bicycle is on top of the magnetometer, it is detected
100% of the time and when the bicycle stands on top of the wire of any
type of loop, it is detected 100%. That is one of the main reasons I
recommend that Caltrans include in the policy this option (only an
OPTION) for cities to be able to use ANY technology that would provide
nearly 100% detection when used in conjunction with a logo. It seems
to me that this is the only tested solution by Caltrans that provides
near 100% detection and it should be used as an option.
This proposed option would help cities have a solution as they are
figuring out how all the technologies they have been using (none fully
tested by Caltrans or other agencies for bicycle detection) would work
in detecting bicycles in compliance with the policy and to the
satisfaction of the bicycle community. Use of such an option would
not require issuing any pamphlets or Bicycle advertisement or
education. It is straight forward and eliminates any confusion on
where the bicycle should go to be detected.
Again, I do not intend to comment any more on this and it is not my
intention to continue this dialog by Email, so there is no need for
you to respond. However, I hope that Caltrans takes this
recommendation into consideration.
Regards,
Hamed.
Hamed Benouar, P.E., PhD.
Vice President
Business Development
Sensys Networks Inc.
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 219
Berkeley, CA 94710
Mobile: 510-499-1151
beno-@sensysnetworks.com <mailto:beno-@sensysnetworks.com>
www.sensysnetworks.com <http://www.sensysnetworks.com/>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [CABO] Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:41:59 -0700
From: Bob Shanteau <RMSh-@gmail.com>
Reply-To: RMSh-@gmail.com
To: Hamed Benouar <beno-@sensysnetworks.com>
CC: Brian Fuller <bri-@sensysnetworks.com>, Hamid Bahadori
<Bahador-@aaa-calif.com>, Devinder Singh
<devinde-@dot.ca.gov>, Johnny Bhullar
<Johnny_-@dot.ca.gov>, Wayne Henley <Wayne_-@dot.ca.gov>,
Dave Gamboa <dave_g-@dot.ca.gov>, Jeff McRae
<Jeff_-@dot.ca.gov>, John Fisher <John.F-@lacity.org>, Robert
Copp <robert-@dot.ca.gov>, Steven Shladover
<ste-@path.berkeley.edu>, James Lombardo <jlomba-@comcast.net>,
Ken McGuire <ken_mc-@dot.ca.gov>, George Palm <gep-@msn.com>,
Kai Leung <Kai_L-@dot.ca.gov>, David Roseman
<David_R-@longbeach.gov>, Theresa Gabriel
<theresa_a-@dot.ca.gov>, Sean Skehan <Sean.S-@lacity.org>,
CBC <cb-@topica.com>, cabof-@topica.com
Hamed Benouar wrote:
| | Dr. Shanteau,
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my input to the Committee.
I want to make it clear that the request is not to require a Bicycle
Symbol to be used in every new or retrofitted intersection. The
request is simply to add an option for Cities to be able to use the
Bicycle Symbol in conjunction with detection areas that are less than
the 6 by 6 minimum. Right now, the options allow narrower than 6 ft
detection zones in bicycle lanes and allow use of the bicycle symbol.
My proposal is to add another option that combines the two and allows
cities that may be financially constrained to continue to use the
symbol on type A loops for example and still meet the policy. I am
only proposing a one line addition to the option section as follows:
"Detection areas smaller than the 6 by 6 foot minimum may be used in
conjunction with a Bicycle Symbol"
|
You do realize, do you not, that AB 1581 only requires that new and
modified traffic actuated signals detect motorcycles and bicycles?
If a city has Type A loops and wishes to mark them with Bicycle
Detector Symbols in order to tell bicyclists where to stop, I would
certainly encourage them to do so. But the proposed language revision
to the CA MUTCD does not address existing traffic signals.
| | Regarding your comments about use of Sensys Magnetometers, the policy
is clear, it is technology independent. As long as the technology
used can detect the reference bicycle, it should be acceptable for use.
|
That is correct, as far as it goes.
| | Let me address your comments:
1. The test you performed on the Sensys detection system is not valid
as you did not use the reference bicycle that has been agreed upon by
you and the Committee. Your own document at:
<http://rmshant.googlepages.com/Sensystest3-22-08.pdf> clearly
indicates that you did not use the reference bicycle and did not
properly install the sensys system in the field. Caltrans conducted
tests at the Richmond Field Station using a properly installed Sensys
System at the PATH intersection and the reference Bicycle was
consistently detected by the Sensys detector in a 1 foot wide area
contrary to what your test showed.
|
Kai Leung was kind enough to send me a description of his test on
12/6/08 <http://rmshant.googlepages.com/KaiLeungtest.pdf>. After
reading the description, I still had several questions, which he
answered in this email:
| | -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD]
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:26:51 -0700
From: Kai Leung <kai_l-@dot.ca.gov>
To: Bob Shanteau <rmsh-@gmail.com>
Bob Shanteau wrote:
| | Kai Leung wrote:
| | Reference Sensys testing at RFS, please see attached test report.
|
Is there a reason that you did not send the results to the rest of
the AB 1581 Subcommittee?
| | Sensys was able to detect Reference Bicycle at 1 foot from the
detector only when set at maximum sensitivity.
|
Actually, you only achieved 100% success right over the detector. At
1 foot, the success rate was 92.5%.
|
Test was intended for Caltrans to gain experience in Sensys. The
reference bike used was a BMX 16" boy bike. Test date was stated in
the test report. Cannot recall any other test procedures conducted.
|
Apparently, Mr. Leung took no photographs to document the test. Nor
did he confirm that the "BMX boy bike" had aluminum rims, stainless
steel spokes and non-ferromagnetic frame, as required in the
definition of the Reference Bicycle in the proposed CA MUTCD language:
"an unmodified minimum 16” wheel bicycle with non-ferromagnetic frame,
aluminum rims, stainless steel spokes, and head light." The intent of
that definition was to be a worst case, in that if a Reference Bicycle
was detected, then so would a typical modern bicycle such as the one
in my test. But given that the Sensys Networks detector in my test did
not detect the back wheel of my road bicycle when I placed it directly
on top of the detector, I suspect that the bicycle used in Mr. Leung's
test did not meet the requirements in the proposed definition of the
Reference Bicycle. Unless Mr. Leung can produce sufficient details
about the bicycle he used in his test to explain the discrepancy, I
can only conclude that his test was not of a worst case bicycle.
| | 2. No matter how you look at it, D Loops have several additional cuts
than A loops, for example, and that has the potential for more
pavement damage. Also, more wires, more pavement cuts, more
construction cost and more opportunity for failure and high
maintenance. I think we should all be concerned about the higher
cost. I am not sure if Caltrans has the budget to complement the
additional cost caused by the policy, but I think many of the cities
that are financially broke, will go to Caltrans for funding if they
do not have an option for a more cost effective alternative.
|
The proposed language is technology-neutral and does not require a
Type D loop. Three members of the AB 1581 Subcommittee, Sean Skehan of
the City of Los Angeles, David Roseman of the City of Long Beach and
I, have positive experience with using quadracircle loops to detect
bicycles. A quadracircle loop does not have the multiple pavement cuts
and acute angles of a Type D loop. As far as cost, Mr. Roseman reports
that the additional cost of a quadracircle loop over a Type E loop is
$25 per loop. Surely that is not large enough to burden a city that is
already paying for a new or modified traffic actuated signal.
| | 3. Cities do not have the funds to maintain their loop detectors, so
would it be better to have a technology that detects bicycles 95% of
the time but is up 100% of the time or one that detects Bicycles 100%
of the time but that is up 70% of the time? The new way of dealing
with failed detectors may also present a challenge for the existing
loop detection technology.
What I mean is the new bicycle detection policy defines failure of a
loop as inability to detect a BICYCLE while the current specification
(i.e. the one that has been in place since the 1980s) defines failure
as inability to detect a CAR. The point is that many loops that can
detect cars and bicycles when first installed, will degrade by first
not being able to detect bicycles then, perhaps years later, will not
be able to detect cars. The new bicycle specification does not allow
for such discriminatory degradation - if a loop degrades to the point
that it can not detect bicycles it must place a constant call even if
it can detect cars with no problems. This change in the specification
will nullify all previous approvals of loop cards and require
Caltrans to re qualify all loop cards. It is possible that no loop
cards can meet this bicycle specification.
|
The AB 1581 Subcommittee found that existing loop sensor units will
detect bicycles just fine when connected to appropriately shaped
loops, so that is not an issue.
As far as loops degrading, I made a presentation on October 15, 2007,
to the Caltrans Electrical Systems Branch in which I reported that, as
I learned from 3M's George Palm in 1986, loop degradation was caused
by the use of inferior materials such as asphalt for loop sealant and
that 3M had developed a superior loop sealant
<http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTtNxM_lxs6EVuQEcuZgVs6EVs6E666666-->
that encapsulates, insulates and protects the wires. Theresa Gabriel,
the branch chief, told me that Caltrans could not change its material
specification for loop sealant because it would create a sole source
situation.
| | 4. Finally, I agree with the fact that if a minimum green extension
is only given to the few thousand bicycles that use California
intersections every day, there will be minimum effect on congestion
as Dr. Shladover's research concluded. However, the fact that
detection technology does not exist that can differentiate the
presence of a bicycle when a car is also present, the timing
extension has to be given for all signals just in case a bicycle is
there. To solve this problem with current technology, you could make
them all go to a push button, so the signal knows they are there, but
you said it is not safe. You could also have a very small detection
area in the pavement away from the right turn and near the curb where
it is safer, so that the signal knows a bicycle is there. You would
need to show bicyclists where to go with a symbol and you would want
to use a detection system that would not be triggered by a car in the
lane adjacent to the bicycle lane or the curb.
|
The idea of requiring bicyclists to stop over a Bicycle Detector
Symbol that was not in the through travel lane was considered and
rejected by the AB 1581 Subcommittee as not being responsive to the
legislation. Recall that AB 1581 has this statement: "The Legislature
finds and declares [that] bicyclists and motorcyclists are legitimate
users of roadways in California."
You refer to "the few thousand bicycles that use California
intersections every day." I think there are a lot more than that, but
in any case, perhaps one reason there are not more bicyclists using
California intersections is that they are not being treated as
legitimate users of roadways in California, including not being
detected at traffic actuated signals, which is what the legislation
addresses.
Also, your suggestion to have "a very small detection area in the
pavement away from the right turn and near the curb where it is safer"
is not consistent with CVC 21202(a) nor with existing education
materials and known facts about bicycle safety, all of which point out
the importance of preventing right hook conflicts.
| | I hope the bicycle community is sensitive to the financial situation
the cities and the state is and would allow such a cost effective
option to be available. I do not think it is so bad to have a symbol
for bicycles to use as a reference to make sure they are detected. I
think that would also increase the awareness to motorists so they can
better share the road with their fellow bicyclists.
|
The AB 1581 Subcommittee found that 6'x6' limit line detection zones
that detect motorcycles and bicycles are technically feasible at
minimal cost and thus rejected the idea of using a smaller detection
zone with a Bicycle Detector Symbol. I still concur.
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045
|
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore-@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
|
|
 |
|
