Does anyone know PENNDOT's stance on sharrows?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

10-22-12, 12:46 PM

#26

ItsJustMe

Señior Member

Join Date: Sep 2005

Location: Michigan

Posts: 13,749

Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 446 Post(s)

Likes: 0

Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts

I doubt that most motorists even notice they're there. I bet that those who most need to see them don't notice them at all.

__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.

10-22-12, 01:54 PM

#27

Stubby

Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2011

Location: Madison WI, USA

Posts: 75

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Likes: 0

Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by spivonious

I'd rather see a protected bike lane, even if the "protection" is just a couple feet of dashed markings between the travel lane and the bike lane.

I would think that "Share the Lane" signs would do more for motorist education than sharrows.

Protected bike lanes and sharrows each have their place. It's not either or. Protected bike lanes (bike paths) work best on busy and/or higher speed roads where the conflict between cars and bikes are greater and the majority of bikers would avoid mixing it up with traffic. That is not a good place for a sharrow. Sharrows work best on low speed low traffic streets that can be used as a corridor for bikes with little conflict with motor vehicles.

We have sharrows in Madison where I have lived for the last 35 years and they are greatly appreciated and used by bikers. Some are better then others and all could be improved by making them less car centric. A few of them use bumps and islands as traffic calming but what would work best is to not make them through traffic for motor vehicles but through for bikes. That way they would be used for very local traffic only.

Sharrows are simple another tool to make life better for the majority of bike users.