Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The Sharrow Thread

The shared use arrow, or "sharrow," was originally developed to encourage cyclists to ride on roadways outside of door zones and to discourage sidewalk and wrong-way cycling, while at the same time increasing driver awareness of bicyclists' legitimate use of roadway positions that require other drivers to slow down or change lanes to pass.

Many vehicular cycling advocates feel that sharrows accomplish the bicyclist-awareness and encouragement/marketing goals often cited to promote bike lane striping, without the operational or social problems often associated with striped bike lanes. This has led to advocacy for use of shared use arrows in place of striped bike lanes on some roads where striped bike lanes would fit, and others where they would not. A number of policy questions arise:

(1) What do vehicular cycling advocates who are concerned about bike lane problems think of sharrows? Are they an agreeable compromise, desirable, or a bad idea? Should they replace bike lane striping on most urban streets?

(2) Should sharrows be used on roads with wide lanes (14' or wider)? Or only narrow lanes?

(2) On wide lanes without adjacent on-street parking, should sharrows be marked right-biased (away from intersection approaches of course), center-lane, or at different positions depending on what most cyclists would be doing at that specific location?

These questions are meant in terms of what we would like to see. How do the answers compare to the implementation policies that DOTs are currently using?

1. No real concerns except lateral placement and the possibility (as with bike lanes) that their absence on roads or lanes could be interpreted as those being inappropriate for bicycles.
2. Sure, any lane width, as long as they don't dictate a specific lateral position
3. The sharrow designs I've seen dictate a fairly specific lateral position. I think the design could be changed to not be as specific, for example just a wide lane spanning bicycle icon, or an icon that shows multiple (left, center, right) positions. At intersections approaches on roads with one same direction lane the left position could have a left turn arrow, the center a thru and the right position a right turn arrow. Just a rough idea.

I suspect sharrows could end up appearing the same way bike route signs do: mostly on roads that are already pleasant for cycling, and not on those less-pleasant roads where motorists most need to be reminded that cyclists have a right to the narrow travel lane.

well, the design intent is for sharrows to be placed in lanes considered too narrow to place bikelanes or where the placement indicates the bikelane should be dropped, also in 'marginally wide' (or is that 'marginally narrow?') lanes and with speeds of less than 35 mph.

i think these defining characteristics are crucial. as cyclists are expected to 'share the lane'.

1)sharrows work well as part of hybrid streetscape design to include vehicularily rideable bikelanes where roadway widths are ample for AASHTO compliant +1 foot buffered bikelanes in urban areas.

2)sharrows should be usable in any width lane as long as they unequivocally indicate a cyclist may use the full lane that is being striped.

2a) they can be effective at directionality and lateral placements. i see them being used to guide bike traffic across multilane, slow speed arterials to position bicyclists out of the right lane (bike or general traffic lane) to position for left turns in a dedicated left turn bike pocket or general turn lane depending on intersection dynamic.



high speed differentials, narrow lanes and sharrows? dubious to ever develop as a considerate accommodation for bicyclists.

1. No real concerns except lateral placement and the possibility (as with bike lanes) that their absence on roads or lanes could be interpreted as those being inappropriate for bicycles.
2. Sure, any lane width, as long as they don't dictate a specific lateral position
3. The sharrow designs I've seen dictate a fairly specific lateral position. I think the design could be changed to not be as specific, for example just a wide lane spanning bicycle icon, or an icon that shows multiple (left, center, right) positions. At intersections approaches on roads with one same direction lane the left position could have a left turn arrow, the center a thru and the right position a right turn arrow. Just a rough idea.

:thumb:

I think you've got something with your observation that the absence of a sharrow or a bike lane could signal that bikes shouldn't be there. + a bike lane says that's the only place a bike should be, doesn't it? What's wrong with just riding in the road? "I doan need no stinkin' bike lane." :)

:D

with modal shares approaching 5 percent or greater in cities with sharrowed streetscapes, bicyclists are pretty much everywhere. motorists will be expecting and seeing bicyclists on most every road in town..... except those high speed arterials that sharrows are NOT suitable for. bikeshare is quashed somewhat there by high speed differentials and lack of preferred class lanes.

all the sharrows in the world won't get high bike mode share on a narrowlaned, 55 mph arterial.

you want motorists to expect to see bicyclists on ALL roads in a community fairly equitably?

sharrows on slow speed collector and significant slower speed bikeroutes without adequate roadwidth for preffered class facilities, and bikelanes on high speed high traffic arterials- the bike share will be EVERYWHERE.

the 'bikes don't belong' argument against bikeways planning is, well, silly.

:D

with modal shares approaching 5 percent or greater in cities with sharrowed streetscapes, bicyclists are pretty much everywhere. motorists will be expecting and seeing bicyclists on most every road in town..... except those high speed arterials that sharrows are NOT suitable for. bikeshare is quashed somewhat there by high speed differentials and lack of preferred class lanes.

all the sharrows in the world won't get high bike mode share on a narrowlaned, 55 mph arterial.

you want motorists to expect to see bicyclists on ALL roads in a community fairly equitably?

sharrows on slow speed collector and significant slower speed bikeroutes without adequate roadwidth for preffered class facilities, and bikelanes on high speed high traffic arterials- the bike share will be EVERYWHERE.

the 'bikes don't belong' argument against bikeways planning is, well, silly.

modal shares? what does that mean? You're afraid to ride on streets with a speed limit of 50? What if you live near one? You gonna put your bike in a car and drive until you find a 30 zone? Then what? call a taxi the next time you can't find a slow road? I ride where I want to ride and I'm not waiting for some city planner to fix things. A sharrow sounds fine to me, on any road where I have the right to ride.

you're funny.


-and obviously inflicted with vehicular bicyclist superiority disorder.


you need to be familiarized with modal share?

here, smart guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share

personally, i have no problems with taking the lane, i was center laneing a state highway in front of semitruck traffic off stevens pass a couple of days ago, and taking the travel lanes on I-5 just a few weeks ago, I'm fine, thank you for your concerns.

discussion is on facilitating vehicular bike modal share and the purported or desired benefits from sharrowed roadscaping versus bikelane designs.

styming steve's desire to prevent preferred class lanes from ever taking away space from motorists in Cary, NC,

in serious consideration of bike traffic, effects from speed differentials and roadway design affecting rider modal share is a significant factor to be considered.

like i said, all the sharrows in the world will not significantly increase bike ridership along high ADT, high speed arterial cooridors. just isn't going to happen, that pipe dream is a VC fantasy. and striping a sharrow at the edge of a 55 mile per hour wide laned road? Hello honksville, right hook, curbhug and cross city!!!

you're funny.


-and obviously inflicted with vehicular bicyclist superiority disorder.





Guilty and proud of it. Thank you. What do I care about wimpy riders having to be coaxed into riding by special roads. Let em stay home and eat cake or quiche. You can ride in the freeway without a bike lane, fine by me. I'm not going to do that, but I don't need the imaginary protection of a line whether it's on a 35 or a 50 speed zone. Sharrows sound good to me because they say bikes are cool on the road, but really, why should I care that other people won't ride because its only a sharrow instead of a line?

I'm riding either way. So are you. I'm proud of you.

are you afraid of freeway speed traffic or what? :D 'not going to ride on the freeway without a bikelane'....

pfft, what's wrong with you? love these glib, cocksure "i'm tough and capable big VC man, screw the other riders, but there's still some roads i won't ride in traffic or without a stripe.... :rolleyes:

wimpasourus!

You have to stoop to name calling. That's all you got? Freeway riding is illegal. You have a separated lane for bikes only on I-5, great. That lane is not the freeway.

Your reference to "glib, cocksure" is obvious projection, not that you have a clue what I'm talking about:D

actually, 'glib' and 'cocksure' accurately describe your attitude. and 'wimp' was first bandied about by you in here describing other cyclists.


In a discussion of sharrows, increasing modal share for bicyclists and inculcating lawful, vehicular road bicycling activities amongst more than cocksure vehikularists is part and parcel to the conversation.

Freeway riding is illegal.

incorrect

Freeway riding is illegal.


incorrect

What is the technical definition of a "freeway"?

Is it "limited access without tolls"? Or simply "without tolls"?

Anyway, clearly there are places where it is perfectly legal to ride on Interstates and other major highways.

Back to SHARROWs?

What is the technical definition of a "freeway"?

Is it "limited access without tolls"? Or simply "without tolls"?

Anyway, clearly there are places where it is perfectly legal to ride on Interstates and other major highways.

Back to SHARROWs?

A freeway is a divided highway without intersections (or driveways) at grade.

'Freeway riding is illegal'


incorrect

"Shared Use Paths Along or Near Freeways

There are no Federal laws or regulations that prohibit shared use paths along or near Interstate highways or other freeways. There are several examples of shared use paths along or within Interstate or other freeway rights-of-way. Nearly all have obvious barriers (walls or fences) or grade separation between the freeway and the shared use path.' http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm

A separated bike path or shared use path along a freeway is not the freeway.

"RCW 46.61.160 Restrictions on use of limited-access highway by bicyclists.

The Department of Transportation may by order, and local authorities may by ordinance or resolution, with respect to any limited access highway under their respective jurisdictions prohibit the use of any such highway by funeral processions, or by parades, pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic, or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle. Bicyclists may use the right shoulder of limited access highways except where prohibited. The Department of Transportation may by order, and local authorities may by ordinance or resolution, with respect to any limited-access highway under their respective jurisdictions prohibit the use of the shoulders of any such highway by bicycles within urban areas or upon other sections of the highway where such use is deemed to be unsafe. The Department of Transportation or the local authority adopting any such prohibitory regulation shall erect and maintain official traffic control devices on the limited access roadway on which such regulations are applicable, and when so erected no person may disobey the restrictions stated on such devices."

[emphasis applied]

OAR 734-020-0045

Prohibition of Non-Motorized Vehicles on Freeways

(1) Non-motorized vehicles are prohibited upon the following segments of freeways within the State of Oregon:

(a) Portland area:

(A) The Columbia River Highway No. 2 (Banfield/I-84) from its intersection with I-5, M.P. 0.00, to 122nd Avenue, M.P. 10.25, east bound, and to Sandy Boulevard, M.P. 15.14, west bound;

(B) The Sunset Highway No. 47 easterly of the Jefferson Street Interchange, M.P. 73.35;

(C) Interstate 5 (Hwy. No. 1) from the Beaverton - Tigard Highway Interchange, M.P. 292.20, to the Delta Park Interchange, M.P. 306.70;

(D) Interstate 205 (Hwy. No. 64) northerly of the Overcrossing of the Oswego Highway No. 3, M.P. 8.82;

(E) Interstate 405 (Hwy. No. 61) in its entirety; and

(F) Lower Columbia Highway No. 2W from its intersection with I-405, M.P. 0.00, to 23rd Street, M.P. 1.99.

(b) Medford area: Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway No. 1) from the Barnet Road Interchange, M.P. 27.58, to the Crater Lake Highway Interchange, M.P. 30.29 (in Medford).

(2) The closure of the above sections to non-motorized vehicles shall become effective following the erection of adequate signing.

what this means is that it's legal to ride on limited access interstate highways everywhere in Oregon except the defined locations in the Portland and Medford metropolitan areas.

yes, we were definitely riding a general travel lane of Interstate 5 coming off of Snoqualamie Pass a few weeks ago.

we were doing about 40MPH, rolling around a corner outside of North Bend, and had to take the lane for about 3/4 of a mile to pass some serious clusterfuzzle on the shoulder. semi trucks were changing lanes to pass doing about 70-75mph past us.

pretty cool, without a superflash and a mirror I doubt we would have tried it so brazenly. I was in sweep, saw the wreck and flares on the shoulder, pulled out to block and was yelling "take it, TAKE IT!" to my friends ahead who were looking back over their shoulders tenatively before committing to the lane after they saw me in the lane.

the point being to what's his name, is that NO, not all riders that seek to inculcate lawful road bicycling behaviors thru the use of infrastructure enhancements and bikeways planning is a 'timid' bicyclist afraid to mix it up with traffic.

I'm simply a realist when considering the general public, the current bicyclists, and the potential to lower barriers to safe and competent bicycling for more people thru infrastructure enhancements that facilitate lawful road bicycling.

I shot some video tonight of some great hybrid roadscaping that combines bikelane and sharrow dependent on road constraints, and a directional sharrow designed to position bikes in a lane to more safely cross railroad tracks.

might be a couple of days before i get it posted, i'll try some still clips as a teaser/

now if we can get back to sharrows.

sharrows are not a serious consideration for bike facilitation in high speed, narrow lane, high ADT traffic cooridors.

that VC pipe dream is a street dystopia fraught with honksville, right hook, curbhug and cross city, and a very low bicyclist modal share to boot!

nice plan, guys... NOT!

Sharrow in left tire track (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=39.336828,-76.624494&panoid=nwcQowcig6bSNAA_t8q-nQ&cbp=12,137.45,,0,2.3&ll=39.336721,-76.624317&spn=0,359.961419&z=15)

Sharrow in center of the lane (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.336422,-76.623888&spn=0,359.961419&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.336358,-76.623788&panoid=Se0XqnnuucAWu5fA1r0MEA&cbp=12,137.45,,0,2.3)

Sharrow in left tire track (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=39.336828,-76.624494&panoid=nwcQowcig6bSNAA_t8q-nQ&cbp=12,137.45,,0,2.3&ll=39.336721,-76.624317&spn=0,359.961419&z=15)

Sharrow in center of the lane (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.336422,-76.623888&spn=0,359.961419&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.336358,-76.623788&panoid=Se0XqnnuucAWu5fA1r0MEA&cbp=12,137.45,,0,2.3)

Thanks for the pictures!

directional sharrow across oblique railroad track crossing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35zFxwxdhk8

directional sharrow across oblique railroad track crossing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35zFxwxdhk8

That's a pretty clever use of the sharrow, in my opinion.

Well, I'm one of those wimps who don't want to get out on my local 45-55 mph arterial and ride my bike. speed differentials are too fast and great, too much risk for me and, I'll bet, a majority of other riders. I'll ride on sidestreets, in bikelanes and on sidewalks. a common-sense approach is what's needed, not just telling riders to "get out there and be a man", but actually providing alternatives that make sense and work, whether that be bike lanes, bike routes, sidestreets, sharrows, or whatever.

I doubt if sharrows themselves do much for cyclists. they're kind of easy to overlook.

I doubt if sharrows themselves do much for cyclists. they're kind of easy to overlook.

Real sharrows are BIG and hard to miss, like 3' x 6', according to the proposed MUTCD standard.

IMO, the more important reason to use sharrows doesn't have much to do with cyclists themselves, it's more about educating motorists that cyclists belong on the road, in the lane.

Real sharrows are BIG and hard to miss, like 3' x 6', according to the proposed MUTCD standard.

IMO, the more important reason to use sharrows doesn't have much to do with cyclists themselves, it's more about educating motorists that cyclists belong on the road, in the lane.

+1 That's it. Sharrows make that statement without implying cyclists must stay in the bike lane or shoulder.

+1 That's it. Sharrows make that statement without implying cyclists must stay in the bike lane or shoulder.

Sounds reasonable to me, though I have yet to see any in my neck of the woods and therefore can't comment on their effectiveness. When bike lanes started popping up around here a few years ago, I started to get more harrassment when riding on roads that lack such lanes. Hopefully the same phenomenon would not occur if sharrows became more prevalent.

i'm suprised danarnold can comment on the effectiveness of them also. i doubt he's ridden across even one in eastern washington.

i've ridden miles of sharrowed roadscape, in three states.

motorists can and will still honk if they think a bicyclist is 'obstructing' even with a shared lane arrow. if widths are sufficient, a bikelane is a preffered facility to facilitate bike travel along significant traffic corridors.

Hey, high roller, you're an LCI ,aren't you?

quit disparagin bikelanes, dude! didn't you get the memo?


bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists.


and new roadscaping designs include quite innovate and thoughtful, site specific infrastructure that combines the best features of wide lane, narrow sharrowed lane, or bikelane depending on traffic patterns on the roadscape.

In a discussion about sharrows, one thing germane to the conversation is this:

sharrows will be installed as part of bikeway planning and will be implemented along roads that are of hybrid bikeway design. these hybrid roadscapes combine best localized implementations of shared lane narrow outside lanes, bikelanes, or unmodified wide or narrow lane.

this is something to keep in prspective in ANY discussion of sharrows: that they will be used in conjunction with other bikeway striping patterns.

i'm suprised danarnold can comment on the effectiveness of them also. i doubt he's ridden across even one in eastern washington.

i've ridden miles of sharrowed roadscape, in three states.

motorists can and will still honk if they think a bicyclist is 'obstructing' even with a shared lane arrow. if widths are sufficient, a bikelane is a preffered facility to facilitate bike travel along significant traffic corridors.

Hey, high roller, you're an LCI ,aren't you?

Originally Posted by LAB policy paper to LCIs about bikelanes
bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists.

quit disparagin bikelanes, dude! didn't you get the memo?




and new roadscaping designs include quite innovate and thoughtful, site specific infrastructure that combines the best features of wide lane, narrow sharrowed lane, or bikelane depending on traffic patterns on the roadscape.

In a discussion about sharrows, one thing germane to the conversation is this:

sharrows will be installed as part of bikeway planning and will be implemented along roads that are of hybrid bikeway design. these hybrid roadscapes combine best localized implementations of shared lane narrow outside lanes, bikelanes, or unmodified wide or narrow lane.

this is something to keep in prspective in ANY discussion of sharrows: that they will be used in conjunction with other bikeway striping patterns.

What Bek inaccurately calls the "LAB policy paper" about bike lanes has been quite effectively disputed. It is rather ingenuous to quote it as if it were "a policy paper" and as if it had not been strongly questioned.

:rolleyes: Actually, john, I believe that's an official dictat from the League of American Bicyclists to its instructors.

(your views are pretty much irrelevant to the LAB regards bikelanes, johhny! :D )


John Forester, how nice to see your commentary!! I thought you had forgotten our discussions in the other threads!!

have YOU ever ridden a sharrowed roadscape on your bicycle? Ever ridden Market Street in San Francisco across the sharrows there?

do you have any commentary germane to the conversation about sharrows that isn't distilled from your fallaciousness regarding bikeways?

sharrowed streetscape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaPFw01YyJY)



that's a 3 minute video of a ride along a hybrid sharrowed streetscape in Seattle, Stone Way Ave N.

this is part of a hybrid roadscape bikeway plan for this transportation cooridor. there are bike lanes on the uphill side of the street, sharrows for the main part of the downhill, a section of unmodified two narrow lane configuration leading to a bikelane road diet that feeds into a RTO and bikes lane (restriction on cars, not bikes).

thoughtful intersection treatments depending on traffic movements and well designed bike specificity at two five way + intersections.

this is southbound and downhill, on the sharrowed side of this road dieted street.

auto traffic thruput was increased on this corridor as a result of the road diet. this traffic corridor sees 10 percent rider modal share during peak rush hours.

Originally Posted by LAB policy paper to LCIs about bikelanes
bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists.




:rolleyes: Actually, john, I believe that's an official dictat from the League of American Bicyclists to its instructors.

(your views are pretty much irrelevant to the LAB regards bikelanes, johhny! :D )


John Forester, how nice to see your commentary!! I thought you had forgotten our discussions in the other threads!!

have YOU ever ridden a sharrowed roadscape on your bicycle? Ever ridden Market Street in San Francisco across the sharrows there?

do you have any commentary germane to the conversation about sharrows that isn't distilled from your fallaciousness regarding bikeways?

The LAB has policy statements, and the quoted item is not an LAB policy statement. It is an official statement to LAB instructors, issued by Clarke. However, it is also inaccurate to call it a diktat, which means a command, for it contains no instruction about providing instruction. It just is, and it has only the credibility that Clarke commands. While Clarke's statements regarding the operation of LAB have reasonable credibility, because he appears to be in charge, his statements regarding bicycle transportation engineering have earned no credibility whatever.

:
do you have any commentary germane to the conversation about sharrows that isn't distilled from your fallaciousness regarding bikeways?

I recognize that some bicyclists feel the need to have their right to use the roadway demonstrated by sharrows. Just so long as it never gets to the point of people arguing that sharrows produce the right to use the roadway, it doesn't bother me.

that statement i quoted is an offical dictat of the League of American Bicyclists.

why even try to argue semantics over the meaning of 'dictat'?

Ever ridden a bicycle on a sharrowed roadscape, john forester, or are you unable to comment from direct experiences?

Armchair bicycling, so to speak


I recognize that some bicyclists feel the need to have their right to use the roadway demonstrated by sharrows. Just so long as it never gets to the point of people arguing that sharrows produce the right to use the roadway, it doesn't bother me.

doesn't bother you?

so your neutral stance would also not care about other vehicular roadway enhancements like RTO and bike lanes, and pocket bike lanes and bikelanes that do not contradict the adopted rules of the road for drivers of vehicles as part of hybrid, sharrowed streetscaping and bikeway design across communities, eh?

does John even ride anymore? Chances are he's never even ridden on any of these new facilities he continues to bad mouth.

perhaps we can keep the discussion centered on sharrows and not cantenkery.

Germane to the discussion is that sharrows are part of bikeways planning that includes bikelaned sections, sharrowed or completely unmodified narrow or wide lanes as shown in my video above.

hybrid roadscape design rather that 'sharrows OR bikelanes'. it's going to be a combination of both. high speed arterial or multilane collector roads that are identified as significant bicycle transportation corridors, for example. Bicycle travel along these corridors will be served best by mostly preffered class bikelanes with sharrows deployed as part of hybrid roadscaping approaching intersections, versus a wide lane with limited intersection treatments.

I recognize that some bicyclists feel the need to have their right to use the roadway demonstrated by sharrows. Just so long as it never gets to the point of people arguing that sharrows produce the right to use the roadway, it doesn't bother me.

I would like to agree with this. But my experience indicates that once such road markings come into widespread use, the public perception, as evidenced by aggressive driving behavior and harrassment, is that my rights are diminished when such markings are absent.

so, your "solution" to better roadway treatment from motorists is no bike specificity.

you guys are SO OUT OF TOUCH as to what happens in communities that raise rider share thru infrastructure-

as riders increase in share, motorists tolerance is raised because, yes, that's right, there's more riders on streets both with and without bike specificity across communities.

complaining about perceived agressions towards traffic tolerant vehikular ideologues isn't a compelling enough argument against sharrows or bikeways planning.

that's folly and one the LAB would consider 'irrelevant' when considering the 21st century american roadscape!


Steve- what did YOU think of the sharrowed streets I showed in the video? see how it's part of a road diet, and contains elements of sharrow, narrow lane, wide lanes and bikelanes with varied intersection treatments?

Steve- what did YOU think of the sharrowed streets I showed in the video? see how it's part of a road diet, and contains elements of sharrow, narrow lane, wide lanes and bikelanes with varied intersection treatments?

I think some of the sharrows were too close to on-street parking, and the position taken by the bicyclist illustrates how the sharrows are too far right for other conditions as well, including descents. I also saw at least one sharrow curbside near an intersection corner where right turns are permitted (3:18). I think this video supports your position that right-biased sharrows are undesirable compared to center-biased sharrows.

However, I liked the sharrow sections better than the door-zone bike lane sections. I saw a couple of bike lanes to the left of RTO lanes, which was good, but the rest of the bike lanes were so close to parked cars that only the leftmost portion of the lane, very close to the left line, is safely usable. I'd rather have no stripe (just a sharrow) if I'm going to ride right on top of the left stripe location.

As for the "road diet" issue of reducing the travel lane count to two travel lanes plus center turn lane, I do think this design is more pleasant for cycling than what I assume was previously a 4-lane cross section without center turn lane.

Now, I need a few minutes to get over my motion sickness. My stomach prefers bar-mounted cameras with a wide angle lens, passed through the video stabilization software I developed, and not helmet cameras.

i'll be working on better video.... I had previously been using solely handheld and have been recently been experimenting with an inexpensive Go2Pro helmet camera.

I want to set up a boom system for it, i am more interested in touring video footage than city riding but hey my interests in bike advocacy extend further and further. I'm interested in becoming an LCI, btw, to counter the marginalizations i see bandied about in this forum by many of you LCIs about the value of the facilitated roadscape.

I've got some more video that better illustrates right biased sharrows that, even in the absence of curbside parking, encourages too far right behavior or at least does little to discourage unsafe lane sharing by bicyclists in marginally wide sharrowed lanes.

that will be next up, just have to process and annotate it.

are these sharrows too far right? video...

are these sharrows too far right? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrYUiIIVZ_U)

are these sharrows too far right? video...

are these sharrows too far right? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrYUiIIVZ_U)

I would say yes, 'cause their position might encourage a motorist to share a too-narrow lane; OTOH there are no parked cars so there is no dooring hazard. IMHO they should be centered in the lane, and/or be accompanied by 'cyclist allowed full lane' signage.

...IMHO they should be centered in the lane, and/or be accompanied by 'cyclist allowed full lane' signage.

The current MUTCD standards say to center the sharrow at least 11 feet from the curb on streets with side parking, and just a few feet from the curb on streets without parking. I don't think sharrows really need to be in the centers of lanes on most streets, but these standards put the sharrow too far right by about one foot. That single foot makes a huge difference. In Denver we've seen sharrows centered 12 feet from the curb that seem very effective and pro-cyclist; on the same streets are badly placed sharrows, centered 10 feet from the curb, which seem much too close to parked cars. The city has promised to repaint them eventually at 12 feet.

The sharrows have been improved greatly but are also still too small, imo. The current standard is one meter by three meters. The ideal sharrow I think would be about 2 meters wide and 5 meters long. It sounds a lot bigger than it really would be on the street. I would be curious to find out how sharrows work on all different kinds of streets, but I doubt we ever will.

The current MUTCD standards say to center the sharrow at least 11 feet from the curb on streets with side parking, and just a few feet from the curb on streets without parking. I don't think sharrows really need to be in the centers of lanes on most streets, but these standards put the sharrow too far right by about one foot. That single foot makes a huge difference. In Denver we've seen sharrows centered 12 feet from the curb that seem very effective and pro-cyclist; on the same streets are badly placed sharrows, centered 10 feet from the curb, which seem much too close to parked cars. The city has promised to repaint them eventually at 12 feet.

The sharrows have been improved greatly but are also still too small, imo. The current standard is one meter by three meters. The ideal sharrow I think would be about 2 meters wide and 5 meters long. It sounds a lot bigger than it really would be on the street. I would be curious to find out how sharrows work on all different kinds of streets, but I doubt we ever will.


+1 . Robert mentions sharrow size as needing to be marginally larger, like a foot larger and a foot further left..

Seattles' sharrows have been developing, the ones seen in the 'sharrows too far right?' video have been supplanted on some streets by nearly center of the lane sharrows that are a bit larger and a foot or so further left.

as sharrow standards develop in the US, I hope a foot or two larger and a foot or two further left gets codified in future MUTCD, current minimum sizes are just too small to be maximally effective.

I would like to agree with this. But my experience indicates that once such road markings come into widespread use, the public perception, as evidenced by aggressive driving behavior and harrassment, is that my rights are diminished when such markings are absent.

Having experienced tons of harassment and aggressive driving behavior with near zero facilities I have a hard time supporting no facilities. While I have experienced some junk near facilities for the most part having facilities has improved the overall tone of drivers as more cyclists hit the streets.

i'm suprised danarnold can comment on the effectiveness of them also. i doubt he's ridden across even one in eastern washington.

Bek, I'm going to introduce you to a new concept: logic. Your post carries the implication that anyone who hasn't had direct experience with a phenomenon, cannot use reason to analyze it. If you were correct, formal logic and all of mathematics would be a waste of time since they involve pure analysis of abstractions.

It takes neither a mathematician nor logician, nor anyone who has ever seen a sharrow in the pigment to be able to reason that a sharrow should be placed more to the center of the road and outside the door zone.

One also needn't have ever seen a sharrow to be able to reason that a sharrow is less directive and restrictive than a three foot painted lane.

'[P]erhaps [now] we can keep the discussion centered on sharrows and not cantenkery,'
_Bekologist.


_ Dan :)

are these sharrows too far right? video...

are these sharrows too far right? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrYUiIIVZ_U)

So far I have found right most sharrows helpful if I choose to be considerate to traffic and ride to the right and of no consequence if I take the lane. The camera misses the car passing a cyclists riding along the curb up ahead, unsafe passing events are the true test if sharrows are too far right.

Originally Posted by High Roller
I would like to agree with this. But my experience indicates that once such road markings come into widespread use, the public perception, as evidenced by aggressive driving behavior and harrassment, is that my rights are diminished when such markings are absent.


Having experienced tons of harassment and aggressive driving behavior with near zero facilities I have a hard time supporting no facilities. While I have experienced some junk near facilities for the most part having facilities has improved the overall tone of drivers as more cyclists hit the streets.

Then we can all agree that one effective solution is to at least have sharrows and 'bicycle' signs on all roads where cycling is appropriate?

Bek, I'm going to introduce you to a new concept: logic. Your post carries the implication that anyone who hasn't had direct experience with a phenomenon, cannot use reason to analyze it. If you were correct, formal logic and all of mathematics would be a waste of time since they involve pure analysis of abstractions.

It takes neither a mathematician nor logician, nor anyone who has ever seen a sharrow in the pigment to be able to reason that a sharrow should be placed more to the center of the road and outside the door zone.

One also needn't have ever seen a sharrow to be able to reason that a sharrow is less directive and restrictive than a three foot painted lane.

'[P]erhaps [now] we can keep the discussion centered on sharrows and not cantenkery,'
_Bekologist.


_ Dan :)

danarnold, I'm going to introduce you to a new concept: validation of logical theories through observation and study. Your post carries the implication that no one has studied center of the lane bike symbol placement this is incorrect as a "bike in a house" (a bike in a arrow outline) has been studied and has been found lacking to be included in the next version of AASHTO. Since I am not on the committee that makes such decisions I cannot relay the logic of that decision but I can offer my observations with sharrows which is that I do not think they would improve conditions for cyclists being placed in the center of the road consistently (though I am thinking that 6" to 1' further left might be a good idea.)

If you were correct, formal logic would be all that is needed to prove that bikes belong on sidewalks and not mixing with faster traffic as that would certainly be found unsafe by some arbitrary logical standard.

It takes neither a mathematician nor logician, to see that it is through observation and not logic alone that determines if something works or not.

'[P]erhaps [now] we can keep the discussion centered on sharrows and not cantenkery,'

Then we can all agree that one effective solution is to at least have sharrows and 'bicycle' signs on all roads where cycling is appropriate?
Personally I see new road treatment as a way of shaking up the status quo on roads. If cyclists are being harassed or endangered then yes something should be done but I have seen the effect of bicycle accommodations carry over to roads with no bicycle accommodations so I don't think ALL roads are in need of treatments.