There have been quite a few articles/editorials related to cycling in the paper lately. Here is one about bike lanes from Sat:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/tempe/articles/1029cr-bikepath28Z10.html

I really wish it mentioned the many reasons one can and should leave a bike lane when one does exist. It seems to imply that when a bike lane is present one can not 'share the road'

Al

Freewheeling confusion
Cyclists, motorists puzzled by bike-path designations

Ty Young
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 29, 2005 12:00 AM

When it comes to bicycling Ahwatukee streets, looks can be deceiving. And the signage on the roads isn't helping the matter, depending on whom you ask.

Cyclists and motorists are still baffled at the difference between signs reading "Bike Lane" and "Bike Route."

A lane is a designated, 5-foot avenue bordered by two white stripes.

A route warns motorists and pedestrians that cyclists often use the road.

But because the bike route signs are usually found near streets with large shoulder areas bordered by a single white stripe, cars and cyclists often find themselves battling over the law, said Ahwatukee cyclist Ed Beighe.

"I think it's confusing to motorists because they think it's a bike lane," he said. "If you look at a map, there are really no bike lanes in Ahwatukee."

According to Phoenix city law, when there is no bike lane, regardless of the width of the shoulder area beyond the single white-striped lane border, bicyclists are allowed to share the road with cars. In certain areas, including a 200-foot stretch along Ray Road west of 41st Street, the roads were built too narrow. Because of this, the bike lane ends and the bike route signs begin.

"We just don't have adequate room to put in a bike lane along many of the streets," said Briiana Leon, the Phoenix bicycle coordinator.

A number of the streets in Ahwatukee were built too narrow, often a few feet tighter than the usual 35-foot width, Leon said. When traffic planners striped the lanes, there was a large portion of space for a shoulder, but not enough space for a designated bike lane.

The same is found on Chandler Boulevard and Ray Road, where the bike lanes end at the Interstate 10 overpass into Ahwatukee. With the high volume of cars and cyclists sharing the far right lane, confusion will continue, Leon said.

"When there is no bike lane, they are allowed to be in the traffic lane," she said. "(Cyclists) really like the bike lanes. They don't like to battle with the cars."

Beighe, said shouting drivers have targeted him and others.

With sidebar:
Bike lane vs. bike route

Bicycle lane: Designated by two white stripes bordering an area of 5 feet. Bicycles may ride two abreast while in the lane.

Bicycle route: A street that is often used by cyclists, but has no designated lane specifically for riders. Bicyclists may use the shoulder of the road between the curb and the outside white stripe, but are also permitted to enter the outermost traffic lane. Bicyclists may ride two abreast, even when in traffic.

Bicycle route: A street that is often used by cyclists, but has no designated lane specifically for riders. Bicyclists may use the shoulder of the road between the curb and the outside white stripe, but are also permitted to enter the outermost traffic lane. Bicyclists may ride two abreast, even when in traffic. --- I don't like that last sentence. Two abreast impedes motor traffic.

According to Phoenix city law, when there is no bike lane, regardless of the width of the shoulder area beyond the single white-striped lane border, bicyclists are allowed to share the road with cars.
Cyclists can use the road--as long as there's no bike lane. Nice.

--- I don't like that last sentence. Two abreast impedes motor traffic.
Two abreast does not impede motor traffic unless the specfics of the situation make it.
Keep in mind the large majority of bike lanes where traffic is going over 35mph are on multilane roads. Also note that good cyclist keep aware of traffic to their rear and can prevent impeding traffic.

Al

Gets right to the heart of the matter I mentioned some time ago... First that motorists don't know the rules with regard to cyclists and often make up their own versions.

Second that Bike Route signs (when motorists even see them) should be accompanied by a sign that states: "Cyclists may use entire lane," or something to that effect.

Noisebeam... also you are right... this is only half an article... the rules governing the use of bike lanes should have been posted also.

I saw an article in the most recent Parade magazine about truckers on the roads... their biggest complaint: Agressive motorists. Go figure.

--- I don't like that last sentence. Two abreast impedes motor traffic.

Well, unlike 99% of reporters, he's making an effort to describe what the law actually says, not what he thinks it should be, and that's what the law says.


Cyclists can use the road--as long as there's no bike lane. Nice.

That's actually among the most restrictive bike laws in the country. Cyclists can use the road in every state, and in 44 states and DC they can use the road even if a bike lane is present.

What I don't like about this article: If you were of the belief that cyclists cannot use the road unless it is a signed bike route, this article would not disabuse you of that belief. If you were of the belief that cyclists should use the shoulder if one is present, it would not disabuse you of that either. It does not mention that the Phoenix bike lane law is an anomaly, and that in the vast majority of places in the US bike lane use is at the choice of the cyclist.

Gets right to the heart of the matter I mentioned some time ago... First that motorists don't know the rules with regard to cyclists and often make up their own versions.

Second that Bike Route signs (when motorists even see them) should be accompanied by a sign that states: "Cyclists may use entire lane," or something to that effect.

Noisebeam... also you are right... this is only half an article... the rules governing the use of bike lanes should have been posted also.

I saw an article in the most recent Parade magazine about truckers on the roads... their biggest complaint: Agressive motorists. Go figure.

The cyclists may use entire lane on a bike route sign could backfire. Motorists would asume this is the case for bike routes but not regular roads. Most motorists are misinformed or uninformed alreay about our rights to the roads.

That's actually among the most restrictive bike laws in the country. Cyclists can use the road in every state, and in 44 states and DC they can use the road even if a bike lane is present.

What I don't like about this article: If you were of the belief that cyclists cannot use the road unless it is a signed bike route, this article would not disabuse you of that belief. If you were of the belief that cyclists should use the shoulder if one is present, it would not disabuse you of that either. It does not mention that the Phoenix bike lane law is an anomaly, and that in the vast majority of places in the US bike lane use is at the choice of the cyclist.
But as far as I am aware this is not the Phx law. I will double check again but I am quite sure that local law here is that one must ride as far to the right as practicable - similar wording to other localities - there is nothing that says you can't ride in main lane if a bike lane is present. I will post again and/or edit this post after some re-reading.

edit: Arizona laws related to bikes: http://www.azbikeped.org/images/Arizona%20Revised%20Statutes%20Bicycle%20Laws.pdf

Al

I shared this article since while I think the intent was right (which I belive was to communicate to public that when bike lanes are not present cyclist will be and are allowed to be in full lane) But I think it backfired due to the way it was written, specficially what was left out, leaving reader to think cyclists shouldn't be in lane when bike lanes are present and should not ride where bike route signs are not.
The cyclist (Ed) who was consulted for the article is active in advocacy (see his web page: http://azbikelaw.org/ ). I do not know if his inputs were mis-interpreted, or if he gave some info, but accidentally missed the need to give all relevant bike lane vs. not information.

Al

These reporters should really should visit the Arizona Bicycle advocacy web page before they go spouting off "facts". Just a bit of homework would help a lot. I mean, even if they looked at the Arizona Bike law itself would be something. I don't believe bike lanes are even mentioned in the Arizona law as I last saw it.

The cyclists may use entire lane on a bike route sign could backfire. Motorists would asume this is the case for bike routes but not regular roads. Most motorists are misinformed or uninformed alreay about our rights to the roads.

I see your point... but as long as they (road engineers) are going to designate an area as a bike route, they should go the next step and inform motorists that cyclists can and may use the entire lane... certainly motorists don't know that now.

Of course the real solution is to just make motorists aware that "bikes can go, and belong anywhere cars go," except on the interstate.

A route warns motorists and pedestrians that cyclists often use the road.

But because the bike route signs are usually found near streets with large shoulder areas bordered by a single white stripe, cars and cyclists often find themselves battling over the law, said Ahwatukee cyclist Ed Beighe.

"I think it's confusing to motorists because they think it's a bike lane," he said. "If you look at a map, there are really no bike lanes in Ahwatukee."

According to Phoenix city law, when there is no bike lane, regardless of the width of the shoulder area beyond the single white-striped lane border, bicyclists are allowed to share the road with cars. [/COLOR]


It looks like the wording isn't correct to get the proper intent of the law across. They have inserted this into the law to show that cyclists have to get off the shoulder and ride fully into the lane for various reasons. Either that, or drivers need a comprehension test in order to get their license. Of course, I still think civil engineers should be required to QA road construction on a stiff aluminum frame road bike, with 700X20 tires pumped to 165psi.)

Of course the real solution is to just make motorists aware that "bikes can go, and belong anywhere cars go," except on the interstate.

Yeah, on the interstate we're REQUIRED to use the shoulder.

Yeah, on the interstate we're REQUIRED to use the shoulder.

At least they leave a nice wide one there...

These reporters should really should visit the Arizona Bicycle advocacy web page before they go spouting off "facts". Just a bit of homework would help a lot. I mean, even if they looked at the Arizona Bike law itself would be something. I don't believe bike lanes are even mentioned in the Arizona law as I last saw it.
What is odd is that the reporter seemed to write the article with input from Ed Beighe who is a local bicycle advocate (who I don't know). Ed seems (as they are linked on his web pages) to be aware of the laws, but also links the article on the web pages he maintains with 'corrections' by him that correct factual errors in regard to physical realities, but not the misguided reporting on the laws themselves. Strange.
http://azbikelaw.org/

Al

But as far as I am aware this is not the Phx law. I will double check again but I am quite sure that local law here is that one must ride as far to the right as practicable - similar wording to other localities - there is nothing that says you can't ride in main lane if a bike lane is present.


You're probably right. What got me was this line: "According to Phoenix city law, when there is no bike lane, regardless of the width of the shoulder area beyond the single white-striped lane border, bicyclists are allowed to share the road with cars." It doesn't say that you have to use the bike lane if it's present, but it's easy to conclude that is the case from the way the sentence is written.

You're probably right. What got me was this line: "According to Phoenix city law, when there is no bike lane, regardless of the width of the shoulder area beyond the single white-striped lane border, bicyclists are allowed to share the road with cars." It doesn't say that you have to use the bike lane if it's present, but it's easy to conclude that is the case from the way the sentence is written.
Exactly, that is ones of the problems I have the way its written. It is what it implies, not what it says. that is the issue Motorist here (and of course elsewhere in the country) don't understand laws regaring bicycle use on the road and this article just muddies it up.

Al

. . . That's actually among the most restrictive bike laws in the country. Cyclists can use the road in every state, and in 44 states and DC they can use the road even if a bike lane is present. . . .
What's the source for this stat? I'm not doubting you, but I'd be interested in seeing the state-by-state break down.

What's the source for this stat? I'm not doubting you, but I'd be interested in seeing the state-by-state break down.

I got it at http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm, where they say AL, CA, HI, MD, OR, PA have bike lane laws.

NYS has a mandatory bike lane law.

I got it at http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm, where they say AL, CA, HI, MD, OR, PA have bike lane laws.
Thanks. That's an interesting site.


NYS has a mandatory bike lane law.
New York is on the list on the web site.