Advocacy & Safety - Bike Route Signs

This is just something I noticed where I live, and it seems silly on the face of it, but I wanted to get an opinion from those that might know better.

The municipality that I live in has taken to putting up signs like this on certain city streets.

http://www.trafficsign.us/100/guide/d11-1.gif

Now, there are no specific bike paths or anything else of this nature. Just simply city streets with no changes that now have these signs posted all along them. I asked someone in the know and they said that they were "granted the money by the state as a focus to increase awareness of bicycles in community".

I'm thinking that given this situation, wouldn't it be more proper for them to be posting signs similar to this one in conspicuous places (entry to town, arterial streets), as opposed to spamming (good word, really for it, given the number that they've put out) bike route signs on specific streets?

http://www.trafficsign.us/100/warn/w11-1share.gif

Am I off in my thinking on this one? Is there a specific reason that they would do this, or is it just nonsense as I'm thinking? Are there any particular benefits (to me) of having the specific streets marked with these as opposed to the "watch for bikes" sign? Anything else that might be relevant to know regarding this issue?

I'd prefer the latter sign instead of the former.

Marking certain *random* roads as bike routes when there is not necesarially any actual traffic redirection or calming seems possibly dangerous or misleading to the riders; also if certain streets are marked while other's arent some drivers might interpret that to mean bikes who are not on the 'route' are 'where they dont belong' and might be more aggressive.

Whereas the 'share the road' sign in itself is a traffic calming message so it can work anyplace. And instead of being a message directed at riders to 'stay in this area' its a message to drivers remind them not to be asses.

Both signs are useful.

In some locales Bike Routes are selected by riders with experience on the good/bad/better/worse streets to ride.

Both signs mean "cyclist you are on your own... TAKE THE LANE."

I like the second sign better too. The first sign may be the result of bike traffic surveys and is more of an "informational" type sign as opposed to the second one which is more of a PSA or regulatory one. If there's a whole lot of them, the first sign may be best cause people get p.o.'d about excessive regulatory signs. There really should be a mix of types.

The only benefit I can see is that it might remind a few drivers to expect to see cyclists. Kind of like a "deer crossing" sign or a "deaf children" sign. I hope they aren't interpreted by the motoring public like "truck route" signs, which would lead people to think bikes don't belong anywhere else. I can see it now, cagers yelling "Get on the bike route" out the window.

I still like the "cyclists entitled to full lane" signs. If I was rich, I'd put those up myself because they actually tell people something most of them don't know already. "Share the road" has become just a cliche'. It might as well say "Share the lane".

i suspect the OP's city is doing significantly more than emphasizing class 3 bikeway routes across his community. Likely the signs are part of a bike master plan.

IF, however, his community has gotten its bike plan watered down and neutered by bike facility obstructionists (in South Carolina for instance) the signs might be one of the few changes he's going to see.

bike facilities design that calls a street a bike route plays into the obstructionists desire for continued autocentric design of streetscapes.

this insidious neutering of bike accommodation networks is problematic.

Toronto has marked bike routes, and basically they are simply routes recommended by the City Hall cycling committee as safe, convenient and relatively flat for getting around town, based on input from commuter cyclists. They include the striped bike lanes, and some park paths, but also streets that simply seem to work well based on rider feedback. I worked out my own preferred routes based on trial and error, and they often coincide with the marked routes, but there are a few places I deviate onto other roads.

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/map-info.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/index.htm

Basically, the green signs are as the OP noted. They basically mark out what hopefully cyclists feel are better roads to ride on. The yellow sign, OTOH, is supposed to be used ONLY when there is something unusual where people can expect bicycles showing up unexpectedly. It's not to be used, say at regular intervals, to mark a preferred bike route according to the MUTCD. I know a common usage of the yellow sign is at the end of a BL, where bikes merge into the same lane as cars.

Come to think of it, what guidelines (if any) exist with regard to the green signs? Are they the same or similar as those for proposed sharrows?

Come to think of it, what guidelines (if any) exist with regard to the green signs? Are they the same or similar as those for proposed sharrows?

If your head implodes don't blame me:
MUTCD Bike signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/part9b.htm)
Maryland Bicycle Guidance signage (http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/bicyclists/oots/pdf/Chapter%205%20-%20Bicycle%20Guide%20Sign.pdf)

My understanding/experience of these is that the green signs are random/useless (indicating routes to schools?) and the yellow signs indicate a road popular with cyclists.

Those signs are all over the place in Denver marking bike routes. Some of the bike routes are good, however many of the ones running through residential streets are terrible.

On the bike routes that share busy roads, we get the "Share The Road" signs as well.

I'm rather disappointed with many of the bike routes in Denver. I follow them if it just so happens to work well in my commute. Many of the times, I don't. For example, one of the routes crosses a very busy road with just a stop sign. I found it easier to drive up one block to where the stop light is.

Locally I've only seen the bike route sign directing you to a MUP. I've seen the ped/bike share sign on the MUP, and it really should be changed to the ped/bike/car sign with the amount of park/rec vehicles on it in the summer doing maintenance.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:4ADo71fCtUrrZM:http://blog.theavclub.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/share_the_road.jpg

What Genec said... Which sign gets posted often depends on the speed limit on that stretch of road. We recently adopted a street plan that calls for sharrows on stretches where the speed limit is 35 mph or less; and the yellow diamond "Share the Road" where the limit is more than 35 mph. The small green signs are used to help mark/designate named or numbered bike corridors.

For example, one of the routes crosses a very busy road with just a stop sign. I found it easier to drive up one block to where the stop light is.Report that to the cycling committee.

The Federal Highway Administration publishes a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)which provide guidance to highway agencies on signage among other things. As the Human Car pointed out, there is information in the manual on these bicycle signs and specifically where, when and how they are to be used.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The Bike Route sign (D11-1) is in section 9B.19
The Bike Facility Warning Sign (W11-1) is in section 9B.17
and the Share the Road sign (W16-1) is in section 9B.18.

I would recommend you get involved in your local area (as I have) and check if there is a cycling committee or (in our case) a non-motorized board. If there isn't, push for one.

I think that anything that helps with increased awareness, is a good thing. Maybe some of them will actually notice that there are bicycles on the road.

Those "bike route" signs popped up in Markham two years ago.

Some of them follow roads I use on my commute.

Some of them show up on roads that meander aimlessly.

I think that they mean very little.

In my area we have a few variations of signs/bike lanes:

-In some areas there is the combination of both signs in the original post, plus some of those areas actually have a bike lane marked on the pavement.

-In other areas we just have either the bike lane sign or the bike lane marked on the road with no signs.

-The worst is the sign that I like to call, "bicycle on a stick", because that's what it looks like. There is no explanation of what the sign means and in the case of the attached photos, there is no further signage. The road that the bike lane is actually on is not just around the corner as the sign would indicate and there are no obvious signs of a bike lane on the road that actually is supposed to have a bike lane.

I used to ride on part of a "bike route" road (top sign). Eventually I figured out that it's one of the most dangerous roads in my commute due to the amount of speeders, there's even a ghost bike on part of it at the moment. Some of the few times i've been honked at were on the 'bike route' road. So I started taking a more heavily trafficked road but with slower cars. Those green signs are useless from my experience.

Green (navigational) bike route signs can be useful if they are part of a comprehensive wayfinding system to help cyclists follow pleasant continuous routes for cycling. Route numbers on each sign and maps of the bike routes must be provided for the system to be usable to reach cyclists' chosen destinations. Without the route numbers, the cyclist cannot be expected to infer which route the sign indicates (just as automobile drivers would be poorly served by signs that merely say "Highway"); without maps, cyclists cannot know where the route goes.

Yellow signs are warning signs. Warning signs are placed where there are unexpected, frequent, or serious hazards. Some states use bicycle warning signs specifically on roads that are perceived to have conflicts between bicycle and motor traffic.

Motorists should expect bicycle traffic on any non-freeway road, but for the purpose of providing them extra warning, the yellow bicycle signs are warranted. Green bike route signs should only be used to assist cyclists with following a well-established, mapped route, and not as a warning to motorists. In many or most cases, bike routes are selected based on having reduced conflicts with motor traffic and thus have less overlap with routes that may warrant warning signs, unless the bike route's bicycle traffic volume is so high or the cyclist behavior so unpredictable as to warrant extra warning to motorists.

In my area we have a few variations of signs/bike lanes:

-In some areas there is the combination of both signs in the original post, plus some of those areas actually have a bike lane marked on the pavement.

-In other areas we just have either the bike lane sign or the bike lane marked on the road with no signs.

-The worst is the sign that I like to call, "bicycle on a stick", because that's what it looks like. There is no explanation of what the sign means and in the case of the attached photos, there is no further signage. The road that the bike lane is actually on is not just around the corner as the sign would indicate and there are no obvious signs of a bike lane on the road that actually is supposed to have a bike lane.

Looks like it's saying that there is a bike rack next right.

I don't like adding the "Share the road" verbiage . To drivers that means you should move over to the edge, so we can both be in the lane at the same time. I'd prefer no verbiage, or a sign saying ' Cars yield to cyclist'.

I have actually talked to drivers who think that the 2nd sign is for BICYCLISTS, telling them to get the hell out of the way of cars.

I've seen such signs all over, and I'm confused as to what purpose they serve. At least, with painted lanes, people can point to the ground to indicate where they have privilege to be. With these signs, people still conduct themselves exactly as they would otherwise.

I like the first sign. It directly communicates the fact that the cyclist belongs there, and the motorist should get used to it.

I like the first sign. It directly communicates the fact that the cyclist belongs there, and the motorist should get used to it.

But since these signs are used for only certain roads, usually low-traffic ones, this logic might imply that cyclists belong only on certain roads, and that high-traffic roads without bicycle signage are improper places for cycling.

Some cyclists like myself believe that rather than signing all roads as bike routes, it is preferable to use other strategies for informing motorists that cyclist belong on all roads, for instance driver manuals and tests. Limited signage of bike routes seems most appropriate under a "scenic route" paradigm to highlight especially enjoyable corridors. Meanwhile, I'm also a firm believer in improving adn implementing cyclist-friendly engineering standards for major roads that are unlikely to be signed as preferred bike routes.

Unfortunately today we have a catch-22 with many transportation departments, who will often refuse to designate the most useful through roads as bike routes because they carry lots of traffic and are unpleasant for novice cyclists, but then refuse to provide cyclist-friendly features like wider usable pavement for passing or bicycle-sensitive traffic signals on the main routes because they are not designated bike routes. For this reason I have crusaded to get our local city and county transportation planners to designate all arterials as cycling facilities but to employ signed bike routes only for those routes that cyclists say they prefer, since the main demand for the route maps is to learn about the most pleasant routes.

In the city I live in, I've noticed that both types of signs are used. For instance, the latter type of sign depicting a bicycle and "SHARE THE ROAD"beneath it is placed on more heavily traveled streets. This is to inform those in motorized vehicles that bicyclists have the same rights to use these roads and that both the motorist and bicyclist should share the roadway despite the heavier traffic. Despite this, the cyclist is left to travel the route at his/her own risk.

The green BIKE ROUTE sign is placed on streets that may be less heavily traveled by motorists and favored more by bicyclists for various reasons. This type of sign more or less tells motorists this and that bicyclists may be riding on the road ahead.

By using this mixture of signs, the cyclist cannot legaly be forced to ride on one type of street or another. It allows the cyclist to use both as it is impossible to get to every destination that is posted in one way or another. The drawbacks that remain are the cagers who don't "see" the signs, can't read them, or refuse to have any respect for bicyclists nonetheless.

By using this mixture of signs, the cyclist cannot legaly be forced to ride on one type of street or another.

Fortunately, the signs are advisory. Even just one type of sign couldn't be used to legally enforce bicycle paths.

I follow the "Bike Route" signs only when the route is convenient and it is never intentional. Just so happens to sometimes be the past path from A -> B.

The only part of those signs that isn't advisory, rather is the law, is "Share The Road". Applies to both cyclists and motorists.

Around here the 'share the road' signs have a graphic of a car and bike side by side. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I'm a lane sharer regardless.

Around here the 'share the road' signs have a graphic of a car and bike side by side.
Same here for some of them (not all though). And the car is passing the cyclist by what appears to be around a 3 foot gap when brought to scale. If only all cars paid attention to that.

In post #28, I was referring to the signs I noticed on streets NOT bicycle paths. I also did say tht share the road applies to both cyclists and motorists.

In post #28, I was referring to the signs I noticed on streets NOT bicycle paths.

And in post #29, so was I. I was in no way trying to argue with you, just trying to clarify something that didn't seem too clear in your post.

Off-Road bicycle paths are completely different here and vary by municipality.

But since these signs are used for only certain roads, usually low-traffic ones, this logic might imply that cyclists belong only on certain roads, and that high-traffic roads without bicycle signage are improper places for cycling.
.

throw a few well designed bike lanes on the high traffic, high speed arterial roads to solve your problematic, weak implications. a crusade to designate arterials as bike routes, you say? high speed differential arterial roads with adequate pavement width merit bike specific lanes, steve.


bike routes are just part of a well accommodated region. regions that plan for bikes include bikelanes, bike routes, off street bike paths, sharrowed streetscapes, unmodifed streets, end of trip facilities and motorist/bicyclist education.

all those tools should be in use in a city interested in facilitating bike travel; steve is a great example of a cyclist that inadverdantely encourages low bike ridership with his neutered, autocentric roadscape vision.