Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, as I think I have stated in other threads a few years ago I had an encounter with a FHP officer who was under the mistaken impression that the state of Florida no longer recognized the bicycle as a legitimate vehicle. And that on roads without bike lanes that we had to operate on the sidewalk. So I guess in his misinformed opinion that if there is a road without both a bike lane and a sidewalk that we're not allowed to use said road. Which of course we know is wrong. In order for us not to be allowed on a particular road is if it is clearly signed.

FBinNY 

A minor quibble.

Like many, Clifford has confused average and median. The median speed being 42mph would imply that half are faster and half slower, but the average implies no such thing.

Consider a simple example -- 10 bicyclists ride past a speed detector and the average is 10mph. 9 of them pass at 9mph, and one at 19mph. So, when you do the math (9x9 + 19 = 100/10) you find the average is indeed 10mph, but only 1 or 10% is above average.

While we can't know, we can fairly assume a similar distribution in the auto speeds with those below average speed being only slightly below, and the those above being above by more, so there are fewer in that category.

MMACH 5

How do you NOT use them? Do you only ride on streets without sharrows?

FBinNY 

Probably not. he just closes his eyes.

mr_bill

I have a major quibble with your minor quibble.

Mean (short for arithmetic mean) and Average (synonym for Mean) is:



Median is the the middle value of a sorted data set (for odd number of samples) or the arithmetic mean of the two middle values of a sorted data set (for an even number of samples).

-mr. bill

mr_bill

One of the two sharrow study sites on MLK in Chapel Hill.

And the other sharrow study site on MLK in Chapel Hill.

Sadly, note the ghost bike.

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

I stand corrected, I meant median, not mean in the post. However that has nothing to do with my statement that the assumptions about average were wrong, which was my point. Substitute median for mean (since corrected) and the post is correct.

mr_bill

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Location[/TD]
[TD]n[/TD]
[TD]Mean[/TD]
[TD]Standard Deviation[/TD]
[TD]Median[/TD]
[TD]Min[/TD]
[TD]Max[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MLK at Hillsborough Before[/TD]
[TD]101[/TD]
[TD]41.63[/TD]
[TD]3.939[/TD]
[TD]41.00[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MLK at Hillsborough After[/TD]
[TD]105[/TD]
[TD]42.29[/TD]
[TD]4.028[/TD]
[TD]43.00[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

What does this tell us? That there were not enough samples to make any statistically meaningful comparison between before and after.

However, it does tell us that about only about 2 or 3 out of 100 drivers obey the 35 mph speed limit on this stroad. The 85% speed (making some assumptions) is 47 mph, which rounds UP to 50 mph.

Bottom line - that stroad needs a road diet - badly, since the 35 mph speed limit is based on on the safety needs of the many intersections, driveways, schools, pedestrian *crosswalks*, and *gasp* bicycles.


Now, is there anything to be learned from the *OTHER* three case studies posted here?

-mr. bill

CliffordK

I'm not sure.

A typical intersection can have 4 crosswalks. Yet, there are many that will only have 2 marked crosswalks with traffic control lights. One would have to assume the two missing crosswalks were intended not to be there.

Certainly there are quite a few small residential city streets without crosswalks, and some without stop or yield signs, in which case the crossing would be expected.

Digital_Cowboy

Of course there will always be exceptions to every rule. And actually I live right next to a street such as you describe. It's a "T" not a "+" intersection. There is a crosswalk and light on the north and east sides but not on the south side of the top of the "T."

And as you've said the presumption would be that one is to cross in the clearly marked and controlled crosswalks. BUT at EVERY intersection between that intersection and the next one both to the north and the south each avenue crossing 4th St. has an implied crosswalk because there are:

a) no crosswalk markings painted on the road
b) no signs present stating that crossing there is not allowed

CliffordK

Thanks for the correction of median vs mean. With the note that the "after" maximum speed did actually drop Althogh the median speed is actually higher, so more than half are travelling at greater than 42.29 mph. Apparently they are rounding the speeds to the nearest integer.

Looking at the google images and the map, that is just the kind of street that I HATE riding on. I will ride anywhere, including 55 MPH+ freeways, but it isn't fun. And, as the OP's article suggested, the sharrows aren't the way to increase ride share, but perhaps only give a warm and fuzzy feeling to those riders who already have developed a concrete stomach for riding in traffic.

What are the Sharrows? It appears as if the city just cheaped out. There was plenty of real estate to widen the street and put in street side bike paths.

It might, in fact, even be cheaper to put in an off-street bike path/MUP. As another thread pointed out, street crossings for MUPS can be dangerous and must be carefully designed. And, this is a major problem for bike commuters with the residential/arterial design that is so common in cities today. But, I'd probably design a MUP that would meander a bit, then re-join the crosswalk near each major intersection. I'm not sure about spacing a few feet back from the intersection vs right at it, but it does need appropriate light control (which the California incident lacked).

Is it possible to time street lights on a MUP, say at 15 MPH, while also timing the lights to work for traffic? Perhaps it would require streets to be at regular intervals. And, of course, a hill throws it off with bikes going faster downhill than uphill.

Fortunately Eugene where I'm at is a city that is investing in bike infrastructure, and growing around it, although there is more to do. I think several streets I used to ride on, now have streetside bike paths.

But, I might compare that MLK blvd to Beaverton Hillsdale HWY in Portland that I've ridden a bit. Half of it has a street side bike path. Half doesn't, and no good alternatives to the road. The part without a bike path is not fun. I'll have to try towing a trailer on the street soon. No cars parked alongside. So, my lane position is as far right as possible, and "taking the lane" wouldn't make me feel any safer, sharrows or not.

And, as noted above the 35 MPH is merely a suggestion, at least in Chapel Hill. I strongly dislike the idea of "taking the lane" with cars travelling 50 MPH, or even when MOST of the cars travelling greater than 40 MPH.

Wanderer

Nobody around here knows what they are, has seen them, or what they mean! And they are painted on the streets, along with signage that nobody understands.

hooCycles

I am in this camp.

AngeloDolce

In theory, there is no reason this doesn't apply to bike lanes, or any bicycle specific markings/facilities, or even marked crosswalks. There is a small but noticeable number of motorists that have aggressively told me I'm not allowed to use streets without bike lanes, or that I'm required to use the sidewalk. I wouldn't oppose sharrows for this reason (although I still oppose bike lanes to the right of RTOL).

Of course, Philadlephia has many signs at traffic lights that say "Wait for Green" so this area may be unusual. For the record, I've never heard of a motorist avoiding a ticket by pointing out that the traffic light had no "Wait for Green" sign.

CliffordK

I've found most cars around here are generally overly courteous when it comes to right turn on red light in front of a bike. I'm not hopping across the street anyway. The only vehicles I'd really worry about would be those dragging a big trailer. So, I'd rather get the cars that want to cross my path out of the way.

I did bump into this light earlier.



Not for bikes, but rather for pedestrians. I think it was at a T-intersection of a secondary road near a park or school. When the crosswalk was activated across the main road, then the secondary road received a RED light plus the Do-Not-Turn sign. Once the crosswalk timed out, the crossing street was given a green to turn.

Looigi

I haven't read all the post, but I've been a long time anti sharrow advocate. They mean nothing as the laws and acceptable behavior for sharing road are no different between where they are and they aren't, but it sends a message to drivers who don't know, that they only need to tolerate and share the road respectfully with bicycles where there are sharrows.

In my town, there's a four block length of Main Street that has sharrows. What's different in how cyclists and motorists should behave between these four blocks and all the rest of Main Street, the connecting streets and intersecting streets?

They probably don't increase safety where they are, and might even decrease safety where they aren't.

alathIN

This kind of thing is possible; often in the context of an overall increasing trend with one under-performing subset.

Just one possible scenario: Overall, cycling is increasing in a given community. A few of the roads are problematic or not bike-friendly, so the city goes out and paints ineffectual symbols on the roads. The overall trend of increasing bike use continues, but cyclists continue to avoid the problem areas that were ineffectually addressed. Result is that the whole town increased ridership, but the problem areas didn't increase as much, thus creating the misleading statistical impression that the road paint was actually detrimental to bike use.

alathIN

Whenever there's an article about bike infrastructure, I am astounded at the hostility toward cyclists in the comments threads. What is wrong with these people?

One theory: I've noticed sometimes people will have a hostile reaction if one of their friends quits drinking, or becomes a vegetarian, or some such. Perhaps they feel defensive, like they have to justify their continuing drinking or flesh-eating. Maybe obese, angry, ozone-depleting, lazy, good-for-nothing motorists have the same guilt-driven reaction to cyclists.

kickstart

Rather ironic..............

Considering how you just portrayed "motorists", or in other words, people. Your friends, family, co workers, neighbors, business associates......Imagine how your statement would appear to them.

dynodonn 

I happen to like sharrows, as long as they are implemented to AASHTO standards, and not to some local DOT interpretation of what they feel they should be.
When a local roadway was subject of a repaving project, I happen to find out first hand in what motorists attitudes were like with and without sharrow markings.

Before the sharrow markings were removed, motorist attitudes were more of patience, and courtesy, but motorist attitudes were much more hostile and that of impatience during the month after the repaving project was completed and the sharrow markings reinstated. During the month without the sharrow markings, more motorists were tailgating, making closer and full throttle passing maneuvers.

alathIN

Ok, we obviously need a sarcasm alert, so that when you attempt to exaggerate something to the point of absurdity, and it falls flat as humor, at least people recognize you did not mean it to be understood literally. It's getting harder and harder to use deliberate exaggeration on the Internet, because no matter how extreme or outrageous you express something, there is probably somebody out there who what to say the same thing and really mean it.

PatrickGSR94

I don't put much faith in the cycletrap advocates over at Streetsblog.

Sharrows by themselves are confusing, because too many people (motorists and cyclists alike) don't understand them. Ones that are PROPERLY PLACED (many are not) are useful for guiding cyclists away from the door zone of parked cars. That means that the sharrow must be centered in the effective lane created between the lane line and the extension of an average open car door.

However, sharrows really should always be used with BMUFL signage, preferably with the "Change Lanes To Pass" sign below it. That makes it crystal clear to ALL road users that yes, cyclists can and should use the road, and yes they are allowed full use of the lane, and motorists should change lanes to pass.



In an ideal world I would like to see designs that cater to ALL road users regardless of age or experience level. Sure it's not really appropriate for a small child to be cycling in the street, and many people don't want to cycle in the street. They would rather have a side path to use. That's fine for catering to those people. But a more experienced, faster cyclist should never be expected or required to use such facilities if the general travel lane serves him better. In my opinion, a side path/cycletrack, or possibly even a bike lane, should be combined with sharrows in the right-hand lane and BMUFL signage.

Those crappy yellow Share The Road signs with a bicycle symbol need to die. They are far too ambiguous and make it seem like the onus is on cyclists to share the road, which many motorists understand is "GTFO of my way".

Digital_Cowboy

As I've said before, I'm pretty sure that that is the view that the FHP officer who stopped me a couple of years ago took. No bike lane, no sidewalk cyclists aren't allowed on that particular road.

I had a conversation via the comments section when a local station did a story on cycling in The Bay Area about the routing of bike lanes along RTOL and they saw nothing wrong with them going along the right side of the RTOL instead of on the safer left side. Saying something to the effect of "Why would anyone want to be between a through lane and a turn lane?"

Its truly is sad how ignorant some people are.

Digital_Cowboy

Uh, Clifford don't you mean motorists? A car is an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything (at the moment) IF there isn't a driver behind the wheel.

I do like that illuminated no turn sign that comes on when the crosswalk light is activated.

Digital_Cowboy

I've wondered about that as well. Why all the hostility towards cyclists. And sadly as many of us here have learned it's NOT just motorists but the law enforcement community. And the irony there is that they're the ones who are suppose to know the laws that they're enforcing.

DD,

I agree, as I too like sharrows. It'd be nice IF all roads had them as well as the BMUFL and Change Lanes To Pass signs. To reinforce just what it is that they mean.

Uh, any idea as to why people changed so much for a one month period? It should be obvious that during repaving that ALL lane markings are going to go "bye-bye." And that just because the road was being repaved doesn't mean that anything changed.