View Single Post
Old 04-27-07, 04:11 PM
  #14  
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car
I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tu...olid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1...tm#section9B05

And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.
In CA, the solid stripes are supposed to end at least 100 feet before any intersection, 200 feet on faster roads. They may continue passed that point, but only as dashed stripes.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...UTCD-Part9.pdf

In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.
Helmet Head is offline