Advocacy & Safety - What is it with drivers and sharrows?

Had another in a list of similar incidents last night. This was the first one that was explicitly goofy enough to really express my bafflement.

I ride all over the place. I ride in the lane.

The city I am in has a few roads that are marked with sharrows. They could be marked more liberally, but still - they have these big bike chevron sharrows in the road.

Sometimes I have incidences where car drivers express ire with me for being in the road. ALWAYS on a sharrowed road.

Last night I was riding home, on a road that is marked actually rather well with sharrows. A truck lagged behind us for a block or so and honked twice, then pulled around. Some guy leaned out the passenger window as they slooowly passed, and called "That's not a bike lane!" I look down, we're practically right on top of a sharrow, at which we point, and there's another one ahead, to which I also point. "These markings disagree!" Truck drove off.

What gives? Do people just not pay attention to, well, any markings?

Motorists barely know that bikes can be just about anywhere on the road, they barely know what a bike lane means, and for sure they have no idea what sharrows are.

Most drivers think roads are made for cars and bikes don't belong and should be out of the way. That is what you are dealing with in most of America.

Pay your $$, get a license.
It's too easy to get a DL here.

I'm curious too why sharrows incite rage. The last two times I was harassed on a road (which is extremely rare) have both been sharrowed roads. One lady yelled to me, "There's no bike lane for a reason!"

One lady yelled to me, "There's no bike lane for a reason!"


QED. Bike lanes and, to a lesser degree sharrows, reinforce the idea that bicycles should stay off the road and be segregated from traffic.

The bottom line is the majority of drivers (and for that matter the average Bicylist...not the A&S crowd) has no idea what the heck a sharrow is.

It is my belief that untill there is a ton of education the average person will not have any idea what these are except for specifica areas with high concentrations of sharrows, bikers and eduction.

In general they are very ambiguous....... what the heck does some chevrons mean.... with an occasional bike outine? Look out for cyclists. Even the name, while cute, is ambiguous. What the heck is a sharrow? Something you have to explain the meaning of the label for is doomed to suffer confusion.

Like them or hate them...... bike lanes are far less ambiguous and more firmly state this bike belongs on the road...... there are of couse other issues.... but at the very most basic communication level.... Bike lane is a firm statement, clearly defined words that say what the object is.

Myself, I am fascinated by why so many people express surprise at
rage exhibited by motorists in the USofA.

Motorist rage here is a well established fact, and is related as much to
crowding and traffic congestion as anything else. Bicyclists are not the
only recipients, so it is foolish of us to personalize these incidents.

The guy on the bicycle is a just convenient outlet, like kicking the dog
or throwing the family cat across the room.:eek:

Unlike the dog and the cat, we have more resources with which to respond,
but have thus far done a pretty piss poor job of doing so. Eliminating
such behaviors is gonna be a long struggle, and people are gonna get
hurt in the process. Such is the nature of change.

Myself, I am fascinated by why so many people express surprise at
rage exhibited by motorists in the USofA.

Motorist rage here is a well established fact, and is related as much to
crowding and traffic congestion as anything else. Bicyclists are not the
only recipients, so it is foolish of us to personalize these incidents.

The guy on the bicycle is a just convenient outlet, like kicking the dog
or throwing the family cat across the room.:eek:

Unlike the dog and the cat, we have more resources with which to respond,
but have thus far done a pretty piss poor job of doing so. Eliminating
such behaviors is gonna be a long struggle, and people are gonna get
hurt in the process. Such is the nature of change.

Road rage DOES occur motorist to motorist, so indeed the problem is NOT specific to cyclists... just yesterday I drove to work and encountered motorists who wholly disregarded my turn signals and attempted to cut me off before I could change lanes... now of course I am driving a wide cage, and I am already ahead, so I just complete my lane change as long signaled. No doubt this may have caused consternation for that motorist... who apparently forgot to share (or recall that those in front of you have ROW).

So indeed rage on the road is not specific to cyclists... however we do get the verbal brunt of it, and since we are not in cages, we cyclists are vulnerable to aggressive motorists. Time and time I have said it, and I will continue to say it... getting a drivers license in the US is too easy and not nearly enough training is given. Rules change, new features are added, such as sharrows, and far too many motorists are poorly trained to begin with. Road use should be part of the public school curriculum... starting with proper bicycle use and the rules of the road, and moving on to the laws and ethics of driving. Until motorists are properly trained, we will continue to have drivers that make up the rules as they go.

Well until I started reading up on it, I wouldn't have known what a sharrow was either, but then I am in the UK.

Over here, chevrons are used to mark the gap that motorists should leave between vehicles. They are not used every where, mainly accident blackspots and mainly motorways.

Our "bike lanes" are either purely cycle lanes or shared with buses, taxis and motorcycles (go figure). That said, those cycle lanes that are A: solely for the use of pedal cycles and B: in the gutter of the road, are clearly marked with the picture of a cycle at start, finish and intersections and with little blue signs. Some even have green tarmac. More to the point, most people know what a cycle lane is over here.

Well until I started reading up on it, I wouldn't have known what a sharrow was either, but then I am in the UK.

Over here, chevrons are used to mark the gap that motorists should leave between vehicles. They are not used every where, mainly accident blackspots and mainly motorways.

Our "bike lanes" are either purely cycle lanes or shared with buses, taxis and motorcycles (go figure). That said, those cycle lanes that are A: solely for the use of pedal cycles and B: in the gutter of the road, are clearly marked with the picture of a cycle at start, finish and intersections and with little blue signs. Some even have green tarmac. More to the point, most people know what a cycle lane is over here.

I am curious, "over there" just how difficult is it to obtain a driver's license?

Road rage DOES occur motorist to motorist, so indeed the problem is NOT specific to cyclists... just yesterday I drove to work and encountered motorists who wholly disregarded my turn signals and attempted to cut me off before I could change lanes... now of course I am driving a wide cage, and I am already ahead, so I just complete my lane change as long signaled. No doubt this may have caused consternation for that motorist... who apparently forgot to share (or recall that those in front of you have ROW).

So indeed rage on the road is not specific to cyclists... however we do get the verbal brunt of it, and since we are not in cages, we cyclists are vulnerable to aggressive motorists. Time and time I have said it, and I will continue to say it... getting a drivers license in the US is too easy and not nearly enough training is given. Rules change, new features are added, such as sharrows, and far too many motorists are poorly trained to begin with. Road use should be part of the public school curriculum... starting with proper bicycle use and the rules of the road, and moving on to the laws and ethics of driving. Until motorists are properly trained, we will continue to have drivers that make up the rules as they go.

Agreed with all this. Road rage IS a generalized problem, but as you say it's most dangerous for those of us not in motor vehicles. The increase in cyclists alone is enough reason by itself to crack down on rage, but it isn't the only valid reason. Getting the small percentage of drivers who are the worst, most aggressive jerks off of the road permanently (or somehow reforming their behavior/rehabilitating them) would benefit everyone greatly, including the vast majority of people in motor vehicles who aren't jerks.

As for sharrows, I believe that very few motorists have even heard of them, much less know what they are for or what they legally signify (nothing). Those that aren't so oblivious that they don't even notice them often don't understand the difference between sharrows and bike lanes (I've checked on this by casually discussing them with a number of non-cyclists). And they often think that the purpose of bike lanes is to constrain the behavior of cyclists rather than the behavior of motorists, so the whole idea of a sharrow is somewhat alien to them. OTOH, I do think that sharrows have more potential to change the behavior of some of the less predictable cyclists. Even if they don't affect motorist behavior much at all, they might increase predictability by encouraging inexperienced cyclists to ride in the correct direction, further out from the curb, etc (assuming that they are not placed hugging the curb).

Lane-centered sharrows have provided an interesting opportunity to engage traffic engineers, politicians, and police in discussion on the subject of roadway cycling here in NC. It is gradually changing their paradigm of bicycling safety and road sharing from one of "bicyclists must be kept out of the way of motorists for safety" to one of "bicyclists are entitled to the travel lanes and motorists must accept them and operate responsibly as a result."

I think it is important for these public servants to be involved early in the dialog so that they can convey an accurate message to the motoring and bicycling population over time. Motorists and bicyclists who are confused about the markings will ask their public servants about them, and we want them to receive the right message.

I've had 2 sharrow related incidents recently on my commute. I was riding right on the sharrows where I was supposed to be, and moving to the right when large enough gaps appeared. However this lady thought I shouldn't be there and passed making all sorts of commotion about me moving over. Half a block later she is completely stopped in traffic with her front wheel right at a sharrow. I kindly stop on the sharrow and tell her that she is wrong and that is where I am supposed to be. She didn't take much issue after that.
Other guy was more of a honk, pass, break check and then "you know what happens when you get hit by a car?" type of guy.

Even speaking with friends, a lot don't know what sharrows mean.

You mean having the words "RED means STOP." in a bold, large, red font with goofy capitalization in your signature didn't make all the drivers instantly love you? Another myth busted.

I'm curious too why sharrows incite rage. The last two times I was harassed on a road (which is extremely rare) have both been sharrowed roads. One lady yelled to me, "There's no bike lane for a reason!"There is a reason. I'm sure she thinks that the reason is that bikes aren't supposed to be on the road. Of course, she's wrong about that.

I haven't encountered actual rage in sharrows. I've had only one person honk at me (on San Diego Ave going into Old Town). I pointed down at the sharrow marker as I passed over it. They stopped honking.

I've had a couple of weird passes in sharrows while I was riding at the posted maximum speed limit (25mph on Adams Ave in North Park). For some reason they couldn't handle being behind a bicycle even at the speed limit and they nearly got into head on collisions passing me.

I think it is important for these public servants to be involved early in the dialog so that they can convey
an accurate message to the motoring and bicycling population over time. Motorists and bicyclists who are
confused about the markings will ask their public servants about them, and we want them to receive the right message.

I, OTOH, would dearly love to get their asses on bicycles.:D

It's not that i'm surprised by rage. It's that i'm puzzled that ALL of the incidents I recall with angry entitlement-crazed cars have involved me being in lanes marked with numerous bicycle sharrow markers (each one is a picture of a bicycle with a chevron in the direction of travel).

The bottom line is the majority of drivers (and for that matter the average Bicylist...not the A&S crowd) has no idea what the heck a sharrow is.


Add me to that list. I saw them for the first time as a driver visiting Alexandria/DC recently, and they confused the hell out of me. No idea what they were trying to convey, or why there were some here but not there, or that they didn't correlate with the bike route signs. Distracting and ultimately pointless.

KeS

I am curious, "over there" just how difficult is it to obtain a driver's license?

Try http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/PracticalTest/index.htm

I'm unfamiliar with US state requirements, but I did see a programme about a Brit buying a house in Florida. He passed the Florida theory/multiple choice test with flying colours without even looking at any books/practice tests beforehand. He also passed the actual driving part of the test on what was a glorified carpark with road markings and signs, but was then failed because, when told he'd passed, he started to drive off and ignored the aforementioned signs (it wasn't on a road, after all) and was failed for doing so. I am open to correction, but would it be possible to practice on a similar layout to the actual test area and then be passed as fit to drive without ever going on the road?

What I found utterly ludicrous was the fact that you could pass the test without being tested in traffic!!!! How, in the name of a non-existent deity can any state confirm that you are capable of driving safely in traffic, without demonstrating it in traffic?

And don't get me started on the crazy idea that 15 year olds can get a licence in California and, presumably, in other states. What legislative idiots came to the conclusion that kids of that age are sufficiently mature to be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon?

By a strange coincidence, doesn't Florida have the worst traffic collision/injury/fatality record of any US state?

I'm curious too why sharrows incite rage. The last two times I was harassed on a road (which is extremely rare) have both been sharrowed roads. One lady yelled to me, "There's no bike lane for a reason!"

Thus reinforcing the notion (at least in her mind) that no bike lane means that bikes are not allowed on the road. :(

QED. Bike lanes and, to a lesser degree sharrows, reinforce the idea that bicycles should stay off the road and be segregated from traffic.

I can see that with bike lanes (segregated or not) but how do sharrows reinforce that idea?

Road rage DOES occur motorist to motorist, so indeed the problem is NOT specific to cyclists... just yesterday I drove to work and encountered motorists who wholly disregarded my turn signals and attempted to cut me off before I could change lanes... now of course I am driving a wide cage, and I am already ahead, so I just complete my lane change as long signaled. No doubt this may have caused consternation for that motorist... who apparently forgot to share (or recall that those in front of you have ROW).

So indeed rage on the road is not specific to cyclists... however we do get the verbal brunt of it, and since we are not in cages, we cyclists are vulnerable to aggressive motorists. Time and time I have said it, and I will continue to say it... getting a drivers license in the US is too easy and not nearly enough training is given. Rules change, new features are added, such as sharrows, and far too many motorists are poorly trained to begin with. Road use should be part of the public school curriculum... starting with proper bicycle use and the rules of the road, and moving on to the laws and ethics of driving. Until motorists are properly trained, we will continue to have drivers that make up the rules as they go.

Not just motorists but cyclists as well. As witnessed by the number of cyclists who think that the law(s) do not or should not apply to them.

There is a reason. I'm sure she thinks that the reason is that bikes aren't supposed to be on the road. Of course, she's wrong about that.

I haven't encountered actual rage in sharrows. I've had only one person honk at me (on San Diego Ave going into Old Town). I pointed down at the sharrow marker as I passed over it. They stopped honking.

I've had a couple of weird passes in sharrows while I was riding at the posted maximum speed limit (25mph on Adams Ave in North Park). For some reason they couldn't handle being behind a bicycle even at the speed limit and they nearly got into head on collisions passing me.

I agree, last week (as I think I've said in another thread) I had the driver of a white pickup behind me rev his engine thinking that he'd intimidate me into moving out of his "way." The irony is that this road has a max speed limit of 15MPH. A speed that ironically as a cyclist I have to "fight" not to exceed. How is that for irony? The cyclist having to worry about speeding.

And he didn't just rev his engine once he revved it twice. I just held my speed and the lane. After he got out of his truck and was walking towards the bait shop he stopped and asked me how fast was I going. I told him that I was going 15MPH. He then made some comment about my riding in the middle of the road. He did compliment me on my lights and reflectors. He also said that he thought that one day I might end up under the "A-Frame" of some car.

I, OTOH, would dearly love to get their asses on bicycles.:D

+1,000

And he didn't just rev his engine once he revved it twice. I just held my speed and the lane. After he got out of his truck and was walking towards the bait shop he stopped and asked me how fast was I going. I told him that I was going 15MPH. He then made some comment about my riding in the middle of the road. He did compliment me on my lights and reflectors. He also said that he thought that one day I might end up under the "A-Frame" of some car."A-Frame" of some car? A tow bar maybe?

I can see that with bike lanes (segregated or not) but how do sharrows reinforce that idea?Assuming that the person is bright enough to figure out that a sharrow marker means "bikes go here" (a big assumption apparently), they may tend to assume that bikes aren't supposed to be in the middle of the lane unless there is a sharrow marker.

The irony there is that sharrow markers are normally just informational; not statutory. They don't grant the right to ride in the middle the lane. They are only meant to inform people that that right exists where they are placed.

Had another in a list of similar incidents last night. This was the first one that was explicitly goofy enough to really express my bafflement.

Loony drivers are baffling.


I ride all over the place. I ride in the lane.

In what way do you "ride all over the place"? Do you mean that, while you are in the lane, you are weaving in the lane? I am not implying anything, I am just curious?


The city I am in has a few roads that are marked with sharrows. They could be marked more liberally, but still - they have these big bike chevron sharrows in the road.

Good, There are very few of them in this region.


Sometimes I have incidences where car drivers express ire with me for being in the road. ALWAYS on a sharrowed road.

Sharrowed road, or not, I ignore them. Because it makes my commute/ride, all that much longer. Especially when time is of the essence.


Last night I was riding home, on a road that is marked actually rather well with sharrows. A truck lagged behind us for a block or so and honked twice, then pulled around. Some guy leaned out the passenger window as they slooowly passed, and called "That's not a bike lane!" I look down, we're practically right on top of a sharrow, at which we point, and there's another one ahead, to which I also point. "These markings disagree!" Truck drove off.

The guy was obviously a ignorant.


What gives? Do people just not pay attention to, well, any markings?

In my opinion, apart from the laws in the state traffic code pertaining to bicycles, I don't think motorists pay much attention to the markings on the road.

"A-Frame" of some car? A tow bar maybe?

Nope, that's what he said, the "A-Frame" of some car. I thought that it was a little odd myself, but that's what he said.

Of course the irony is that if he is/was so concerned for my (or cyclists in general) safety why did he have to rev his engine not just once, but twice while behind me?

Assuming that the person is bright enough to figure out that a sharrow marker means "bikes go here" (a big assumption apparently), they may tend to assume that bikes aren't supposed to be in the middle of the lane unless there is a sharrow marker.

The irony there is that sharrow markers are normally just informational; not statutory. They don't grant the right to ride in the middle the lane. They are only meant to inform people that that right exists where they are placed.

Okay, that makes a degree of sense. Just as with the gal in an earlier post who said something to the effect "there's no bike lane for a reason." Assuming that because there wasn't a bike lane that bikes somehow weren't allowed on that particular road.

I am open to correction, but would it be possible to practice on a similar layout to the actual test area and then be passed as fit to drive without ever going on the road?
It depends on the state. To get a license to drive a car, I had to drive on the road in traffic, and the states in which I've lived (Colorado, Massachusetts, and California) all required that. But you get your motorcycle license without ever being tested in traffic, and you don't need a car license first.

Making it harder to get licensed sounds great, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference in reality. I have read estimates that up to 40% of drivers in California are unlicensed, although I'm not certain how they got those numbers.

It depends on the state. To get a license to drive a car, I had to drive on the road in traffic, and the states in which I've lived (Colorado, Massachusetts, and California) all required that. But you get your motorcycle license without ever being tested in traffic, and you don't need a car license first.

Making it harder to get licensed sounds great, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference in reality. I have read estimates that up to 40% of drivers in California are unlicensed, although I'm not certain how they got those numbers.

I like the idea that has been put forward by others here. That is to bring bicycle education back into the schools. Starting at around kindergarten, and working up from there. As well as making Drivers Education classes stricter then what they currently are. And that Drivers Education also needs to start before they ever get behind the wheel of a car.

If flight and other simulators are good enough to train commercial pilots as well as military personnel why aren't they good enough to train drivers? Or at the very least to start training drivers long before they get behind the wheel and on the streets?

Also aren't today's simulators of considerable better quality then those "old movie screen" type of simulators that a lot of us used in High School?

I'd also like to know who's bright idea it was to allow drivers to mail in their DL renewals. Given that (if I'm not mistaken) the traffic laws change EVERY bloody year shouldn't drivers have to be retested every year so that they can be brought up to date on the new/amended laws?

I like the idea that has been put forward by others here. That is to bring bicycle education back into the schools.
Did you have bicycle education when you were in school? We didn't have it where/when I went to school (Colorado, 1960-1973).


I'd also like to know who's bright idea it was to allow drivers to mail in their DL renewals. Given that (if I'm not mistaken) the traffic laws change EVERY bloody year shouldn't drivers have to be retested every year so that they can be brought up to date on the new/amended laws?
I imagine renewals are done that way because annual retesting would be very expensive. But I've never been required to do a test when I went into the DMV to renew, either. Have you?

Did you have bicycle education when you were in school? We didn't have it where/when I went to school (Colorado, 1960-1973).

Not persay, we did have periodic bicycle rodeo's throughout the school year. And we have heard of people here who did go to school at schools that did have some sort of bicycle education. And we need to not only bring it back to those schools but we need to introduce it to all schools.


I imagine renewals are done that way because annual retesting would be very expensive. But I've never been required to do a test when I went into the DMV to renew, either. Have you?

And just how expensive is it in the cost of lost human lives and property damage is not re-testing people every year? No, but then again (for the umpteenth time) I do NOT drive.

Okay, that makes a degree of sense. Just as with the gal in an earlier post who said something to the effect "there's no bike lane for a reason." Assuming that because there wasn't a bike lane that bikes somehow weren't allowed on that particular road.


Exactly.

Try http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/PracticalTest/index.htm

I'm unfamiliar with US state requirements, but I did see a programme about a Brit buying a house in Florida. He passed the Florida theory/multiple choice test with flying colours without even looking at any books/practice tests beforehand. He also passed the actual driving part of the test on what was a glorified carpark with road markings and signs, but was then failed because, when told he'd passed, he started to drive off and ignored the aforementioned signs (it wasn't on a road, after all) and was failed for doing so. I am open to correction, but would it be possible to practice on a similar layout to the actual test area and then be passed as fit to drive without ever going on the road?

What I found utterly ludicrous was the fact that you could pass the test without being tested in traffic!!!! How, in the name of a non-existent deity can any state confirm that you are capable of driving safely in traffic, without demonstrating it in traffic?

And don't get me started on the crazy idea that 15 year olds can get a licence in California and, presumably, in other states. What legislative idiots came to the conclusion that kids of that age are sufficiently mature to be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon?

By a strange coincidence, doesn't Florida have the worst traffic collision/injury/fatality record of any US state?

That a 15 year old can get a license is bothering you... well don't "worry," it is just a provisional license that requires someone 21 or older in the car... you know, to pass on their bad habits. Of course in some states you can get a license at age 16 without any older person guiding you. Apparently you can learn everything you need to know just by reading a driving handbook.

Never heard of nor seen sharrows before, so I looked them up.

Is it just me or do they seem to be counter-productive? They're not uniformly placed on all roads in cities where they're used, so in my opinion I think it would tend to give drivers the impression that bicycles are only allowed on the road when those chevrons are present, instead of being allowed on all non-limited-access roads.

I'd also like to know who's bright idea it was to allow drivers to mail in their DL renewals. Given that (if I'm not mistaken) the traffic laws change EVERY bloody year shouldn't drivers have to be retested every year so that they can be brought up to date on the new/amended laws?

It costs too much money to do that. There was recently a bill put up here in NY that proposed eliminating all eye exams (currently required every 8 years) for license renewal, because it cost too much money.

Sigh.

Did you have bicycle education when you were in school? We didn't have it where/when I went to school (Colorado, 1960-1973).

It was available when I went to elementary school... it was a simple thing known as a bike rodeo... put on by the local Fire Department (who also issued bike license stickers) and a local bike shop. These were publicized in the school and took place on a Saturday. The bike rodeo was a simple safety class that including riding through various cones and markers and showing awareness of the rules of the road.

Driver's ed was also available in high school. All of this was in the 60's-70's.



I imagine renewals are done that way because annual retesting would be very expensive. But I've never been required to do a test when I went into the DMV to renew, either. Have you?

The expense however is on the driver, so why should the state care? In fact the state should insist on test for renewal to ensure that the most recent laws are promulgated to the public.

Never heard of nor seen sharrows before, so I looked them up.

Is it just me or do they seem to be counter-productive? They're not uniformly placed on all roads in cities where they're used, so in my opinion I think it would tend to give drivers the impression that bicycles are only allowed on the road when those chevrons are present, instead of being allowed on all non-limited-access roads.

I have to say in at least one area here in the LBC they worked well. In Belmont Shores (the Beacon Hill of Long Beach) on second street cyclists would at minimum get honked at constantly, yelled at and sometimes forced off the road. With much fanfare (in the local paper) sharrows and bike blocks were installed, basically announcing that bikes belonged in the right lane and could go ahead of cars at lights. Now there is no more honking and drivers are much more courteous, espescially on 2nd, where most were instituted. While they have been placed around the city over the last year or so, I've noticed a remarkable increase in driver courtesy, possibly because they are looking for us more now or, with the new infrastructure have finally decided we aren't going away.

It costs too much money to do that. There was recently a bill put up here in NY that proposed eliminating all eye exams (currently required every 8 years) for license renewal, because it cost too much money.

Sigh.

Solution is simple: simply implement whatever procedures are actually required to ensure driver competence, and then raise the fees to get a license accordingly. There is a reason it costs more money to get a CDL than a regular license. So cost is only a problem if you refuse to raise user fees to cover the costs of the system. And the only reasons I can see for opposing that are either that you don't actually think the safety components are important, or you view driving as a right rather than a privilege and therefore don't believe government has a right to stop incompetents from driving. Both views are idiotic and short-sighted.

Well until I started reading up on it, I wouldn't have known what a sharrow was either, but then I am in the UK.

Over here, chevrons are used to mark the gap that motorists should leave between vehicles. They are not used every where, mainly accident blackspots and mainly motorways.

Our "bike lanes" are either purely cycle lanes or shared with buses, taxis and motorcycles (go figure). That said, those cycle lanes that are A: solely for the use of pedal cycles and B: in the gutter of the road, are clearly marked with the picture of a cycle at start, finish and intersections and with little blue signs. Some even have green tarmac. More to the point, most people know what a cycle lane is over here.


I am curious, "over there" just how difficult is it to obtain a driver's license?

Not that easy - we have quite a strict test.

It is recommended we have ~47 hours tuition and 20 hours practice with another appropriate driver, or on private property.

Onto the tests

Firstly, before we can take our practical test, we have to complete a theory test.

This page (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/TheoryTest/DG_4022534) lists all the information for both the Multiple Choice and the Hazard Perception - you must pass both. If you fail one you have to take both again.

If you want to try your hand at our test, go here Take an official practice theory driving test (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/Doitonlinemotoring/DG_4017669)

You can take a mock hazard perception test here: Practice online hazard perception test clips, unlimited hazard mock tests (http://www.theory-test.co.uk/asp/hazard_perception_info.asp)

The pass marks for each are as follows:

Multiple Choice

Category Time allowed Pass mark
Car and motorcycle 57 minutes 43 out of 50
Lorry and bus 1 hour and 55 minutes 85 out of 100
Hazard Perception

Category Video clips Developing hazards Pass mark
Car and motorcycle 14 clips 15 44 out of 75
Lorry and bus 19 clips 20 67 out of 100

Then we move onto the practical test

This page (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/PracticalTest/DG_4022540) explains the practical test. But basically it involves a basic eyesight test, some show me tell me questions (normally about the working components or controls of the vehicle) then a drive, which lasts about 40 minutes and includes directed driving and a reversing maneuver, and then an independent drive where the examiner stays quiet and observes not just your driving, but your ability to make the appropriate decision without prompting.

In that 40 minutes, you can make up to 15 minor faults. If you score the same minor fault 3 times however, it becomes a serious fault. If you score 16 or more minor faults or at least 1 serious or dangerous fault, you will fail.


Once you have passed, there is an optional Pass Plus (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/Passplusdrivingcoursefornewdrivers/DG_4022426) course which focuses on road types such as urban, rural, dual carriageway and motorway - and also night driving and bad weather driving.

There are also advanced driving courses available.





Changing subject, we used to have a "Cycling Proficiency" scheme that was run in schools.

There appears to be a replacement for this now called Bike ability (http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/) - but I haven't seen it first hand myself.

Solution is simple: simply implement whatever procedures are actually required to ensure driver competence, and then raise the fees to get a license accordingly. There is a reason it costs more money to get a CDL than a regular license. So cost is only a problem if you refuse to raise user fees to cover the costs of the system. And the only reasons I can see for opposing that are either that you don't actually think the safety components are important, or you view driving as a right rather than a privilege and therefore don't believe government has a right to stop incompetents from driving. Both views are idiotic and short-sighted.

Only problem is that you didn't factor in voters. You tell the voters you're going to increase the costs to get a license, you're going to be voted out.

Only problem is that you didn't factor in voters. You tell the voters you're going to increase the costs to get a license, you're going to be voted out.

Actually in the time it would take to really vote, change the laws and implement this, we will likely have robot cars on the road that don't need to be "trained."

Never heard of nor seen sharrows before, so I looked them up.

Is it just me or do they seem to be counter-productive? They're not uniformly placed on all roads in cities where they're used, so in my opinion I think it would tend to give drivers the impression that bicycles are only allowed on the road when those chevrons are present, instead of being allowed on all non-limited-access roads.

LADOT did a study to determine the effectiveness of sharrows. Here is a link to the results.

http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/ladot-sharrows-report-results-sharrows-are-good/

Only problem is that you didn't factor in voters. You tell the voters you're going to increase the costs to get a license, you're going to be voted out.

I would go out of my way to vote FOR a politician who did that, if the purpose was to fund actual heightened safety requirements. I value my safety a lot more than I value a few more dollars a year.

Did you have bicycle education when you were in school? We didn't have it where/when I went to school (Colorado, 1960-1973).
I vaguely remember watching one of the VC type cycling movies in elementary school in CO in the 1960s. We road our bikes VC even as kids.

My kids took BikeEd in fourth grade in Hawaii. Which includes on road training.
http://www.hbl.org/content/bikeed

It costs too much money to do that. There was recently a bill put up here in NY that proposed eliminating all eye exams (currently required every 8 years) for license renewal, because it cost too much money.

Sigh.

And again I have to ask what is the cost in both lost lives and property damage in having poor drivers on the road?

I have to say in at least one area here in the LBC they worked well. In Belmont Shores (the Beacon Hill of Long Beach) on second street cyclists would at minimum get honked at constantly, yelled at and sometimes forced off the road. With much fanfare (in the local paper) sharrows and bike blocks were installed, basically announcing that bikes belonged in the right lane and could go ahead of cars at lights. Now there is no more honking and drivers are much more courteous, espescially on 2nd, where most were instituted. While they have been placed around the city over the last year or so, I've noticed a remarkable increase in driver courtesy, possibly because they are looking for us more now or, with the new infrastructure have finally decided we aren't going away.

Brian brings up an important point -- the introduction of sharrows in Long Beach were accompanied by a public awareness campaign. Even with that, there was some motorist confusion in the very beginning, but it diffused pretty quickly.

The level of driver courtesy in Long Beach is very high, especially in the beach areas. I'm probably being too optimistic, but it feels like the motorists appreciate how all the cyclists contribute to a vacation / sleepy beach community atmosphere. Why get mad at cyclists when they slow you down enough to sit back, drive with your knee, check your e-mail, and sip a Corona?

"A-Frame" of some car? A tow bar maybe?

A-Frame = the lower control arm of a car's front suspension.

Only problem is that you didn't factor in voters. You tell the voters you're going to increase the costs to get a license, you're going to be voted out.

Does that need to be changed via legislation? I would think something as small as raising the standards would be something that could be changed by the department or some other executive without need of an entire law passage... (I don't know this, I'm just wondering).