|
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 22906363)
I don't think there are a large percentage of motorists who are that ignorant.
So, for those drivers who already get along with cyclists, it's no harm, no foul, but to those who are the likely problems, it "supports" their assumptions. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22906382)
I won't argue the percentage, but it's certainly a sizeable one for a very simple reasons. First, assumed converse is a very common error. Second, here it's also a convenient assumption because it reinforces what they already want to believe. Logic doesn't matter, people tend to selectively use whatever conveniently reinforces what they already (or prefer to) believe.
So, for those drivers who already get along with cyclists, it's no harm, no foul, but to those who are the likely problems, it "supports" their assumptions. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22906353)
There's a very common logic fallacy sometimes called an assumed converse.
So, if people regularly see signage indicating that bikes are legal [here], it's too easy to jump to the conclusion that no sign means no bikes. This is an extremely old concept in thinking and logic and a reason that the framers felt the need to add the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", to the constitution. It's also why we see phrases like "including....., but not limited to" in contracts. |
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 22906363)
I don't think there are a large percentage of motorists who are that ignorant.
What is the literacy rate in New Orleans? Megan Holt doubts many people are surprised to learn that New Orleans' adult literacy rate is lower than the national average—the New Orleans Community Data Center estimates the city has a 26 percent low-literacy rate among 18- to 64-year olds, compared to 23 percent nationally. Google Search Some locations are dumber than others. |
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
(Post 22906754)
Depends on where you live.
What is the literacy rate in New Orleans? Megan Holt doubts many people are surprised to learn that New Orleans' adult literacy rate is lower than the national average—the New Orleans Community Data Center estimates the city has a 26 percent low-literacy rate among 18- to 64-year olds, compared to 23 percent nationally. Google Search Some locations are dumber than others. In the late 70s I lived in NO for a few years. My first summer there I drove a ice cream truck selling ice cream and cold drinks to longshoremen working the uptown docks. Crunch bars were "church bars". The Deluxe bar was a "Dixie bar." And the Neapolitan sandwich became a "Napoleon sandwich." I soon realized that a fair number of my customers were functionally illiterate but recognized the letters and used words that were common in the area that used roughly the same letters. At the time, the Dixie beer sign loomed large over the downtown area. And one of the docks was the Napoleon St. wharf. So these were the words they new that looked approximately like the words on the side of the truck. These guys weren't necessarily dumb, but they were certainly uneducated. But I don't know that this would suggest they couldn't understand the concept of sharrows. At least to the extent that they suggest to a driver that bicycles might well be using that street. |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 22906737)
I understand that this fallacy exists, but is there any evidence that it affects significant numbers of people's understandings of the significance of sharrows? I ride in some places where they are common, and I've never seen any evidence of this belief by drivers or riders regarding the notion that other roads were somehow closed to bicycles/
The fact is that, an all these years, as the markings proliferated, I've NEVER (not once) seen any effort by the various jurisdictions to explain the markings to the public. I guess we're supposed to be psychic. Back to your question, no I don't know of any studies or evidence, except for the mentioned wife who didn't know, does she count?. So, in lieu of direct evidence let's simply connect the dots and extrapolate. We know about confirmation bias, and I assume you understand assumed converse, so let's overlay that with an estimate of the percentage of drivers who still believe that bikes don't belong on the road, or at least wish that that were true, and drive accordingly, and draw conclusions. As I said in my post, I doubt that this is an issue with drivers who are generally bike friendly, and won't change their thinking. OTOH - it "confirms" the beliefs of bike unfriendly drivers who will assumed that sharrowed roads are the exception where bikes are allowed, otherwise why would we need them. BTW- Over in The UK they just completed a study of driver road sign knowledge, and found that a staggering percentage of drivers didn't know what most graphic signs meant, including critical ones like "do not enter". |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907255)
I'm surprised by the question, so let's turn it around for a moment. Is there any evidence that drivers know what sharrows mean? Even as a cyclist who's been active for 50+ years, very involved in advocacy for decades before I stopped, and should be tuned in, even I'm not sure what they mean. Yes, it's about shared road use, but do they mean a specific lane, or part of the road? Are we to ONLY ride in the marked area? What about in advance of a left? How do they change shared road use? Are they placed on roads deemed preferred for cyclists? Or, are they placed on roads with history of problems?
The fact is that, an all these years, as the markings proliferated, I've NEVER (not once) seen any effort by the various jurisdictions to explain the markings to the public. I guess we're supposed to be psychic. Back to your question, no I don't know of any studies or evidence, except for the mentioned wife who didn't know, does she count?. So, in lieu of direct evidence let's simply connect the dots and extrapolate. We know about confirmation bias, and I assume you understand assumed converse, so let's overlay that with an estimate of the percentage of drivers who still believe that bikes don't belong on the road, or at least wish that that were true, and drive accordingly, and draw conclusions. As I said in my post, I doubt that this is an issue with drivers who are generally bike friendly, and won't change their thinking. OTOH - it "confirms" the beliefs of bike unfriendly drivers who will assumed that sharrowed roads are the exception where bikes are allowed, otherwise why would we need them. BTW- Over in The UK they just completed a study of driver road sign knowledge, and found that a staggering percentage of drivers didn't know what most graphic signs meant, including critical ones like "do not enter". I can see arguing they're largely ineffective because too vague, but you guys are the ones claiming actual bad effects (rather specific ones), so I think that requires some burden of proof beyond "connect the dots and extrapolate". If they're actually discouraging use of other roads or causing confusiion among riders as to where to position, those are things which should be verifiable empirically. |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 22907280)
.....I can see arguing they're largely ineffective because too vague, but you guys are the ones claiming actual bad effects (rather specific ones), so I think that requires some burden of proof beyond "connect the dots and extrapolate". .....
Maybe the FDA could adopt this logic and say all drugs are OK, until/unless they're proven dangerous or ineffective. Let's not debate this, it's purely rhetorical. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907255)
How do they change shared road use? Are they placed on roads deemed preferred for cyclists? Or, are they placed on roads with history of problems?
But perhaps most important, bicyclist accommodations are required here when a new road is built or an existing road is significantly upgraded, Sharrows are used on these roads (which is most of the places where they are seen) because they have to do something and sharrows are by far the cheapest option. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907255)
I'm surprised by the question, so let's turn it around for a moment. Is there any evidence that drivers know what sharrows mean? Even as a cyclist who's been active for 50+ years, very involved in advocacy for decades before I stopped, and should be tuned in, even I'm not sure what they mean. Yes, it's about shared road use, but do they mean a specific lane, or part of the road? Are we to ONLY ride in the marked area? What about in advance of a left? How do they change shared road use? Are they placed on roads deemed preferred for cyclists? Or, are they placed on roads with history of problems?
|
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 22907486)
...and sharrows are by far the cheapest option.
A colleague of mine (John Ciccarelli) and I wrote an extensive discussion on how best to utilize shared lane markings for the second edition of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. However, this is covered by copyright and cannot be republished in full here. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907413)
… Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask those who like them to show they make sense, and the benefits exceed potential drawbacks?
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 22907486)
I'm not certain why they're placed where they are. In the city they seem to be placed to remove riders from the door zone or on streets where they want traffic to move slowly (around the university).
|
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907413)
I'm not invested enough either way to bother debating, but like how you cleverly turn logic on it's head here. You start by acknowledging possible ineffectiveness, but then flip the burden of proof onto those who don't like them. Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask those who like them to show they make sense, and the benefits exceed potential drawbacks?
Maybe the FDA could adopt this logic and say all drugs are OK, until/unless they're proven dangerous or ineffective. Let's not debate this, it's purely rhetorical. Don't accuse me of bad logic, then tell me not to answer. "They do no good" and "they do harm" are very different claims requiring different burdens of proof. Seriously, don't bring drug testing into this. I've actually studied it a bit and I really don't want to write a zillion words about all the things wrong with that analogy. Let "double-blind study" suffice, please. |
love it, looks like 4' on either side :thumb:
|
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 22907544)
Don't accuse me of bad logic, then tell me not to answer. "They do no good" and "they do harm" are very different claims requiring different burdens of proof.
..... So, sorry, I simply won't get drawn into an argument about this. That said, on this issue and many others, I'm more interested in encouraging people to broaden their outlook and think for themselves, and possibly introducing new or different ways of looking at things. I mentioned confirmation bias earlier, and it's real and has infected just about everything, not only here, but throughout the political spectrum. So, I feel a need to sometimes play devil's advocate, and combat some of the preaching to the choir here on BF. After all, this is a forum, not a church. |
One of the important roles of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) and its members is to ask hard questions about proposed devices and treatments. Is the sign, marking, signal, channelizer, or other device effective in its intended role? It it well understood by road users? Does it send unintended messages? Is it only effective or useful under limited conditions? Does it reduce one type of crash while raising the risks of other crashes? Those are just a few questions that might be raised - and members are encouraged to raise them. And these members are typically experienced practitioners, subject matter experts, or others who have learned what questions to ask. Although NCUTCD doesn't "own" the MUTCD (it's published by USDOT), the committee does try to provide good advice to USDOT / FHWA on nearly all of its content.
Activists and advocates frequently decry or dismiss NCUTCD's process and pace, saying it's "obsolete" or "inefficient". And sometimes devices are included or fast-tracked in the national manual "at the direction of the Secretary". But I think this deliberative and thorough process is important, as the end result is a US national standard that can exist for many decades, so it's advisable to give it a lot of scrutiny at the draft level instead of trying to amend it later. See https://ncutcd.org/aboutus/ for more info on NCUTCD. Repeating my disclosure: I served as the chair of the NCUTCD Bicycle Technical Committee from 2002-2017, and am currently under contract to run the day to day operations of the organization. |
I'm going to quote myself in the next few replies from another thread. They are a commentary of what a difference bike infrastructure, bike paths, bike lanes, sharrows, etc made/make in my life.
Background - I was diagnosed with Stage 3 Prostate Cancer, which is why I was commuting to BIDMC everyday for radiation treatments in 2021. I relapsed within a year of treatments, and now have Stage 4 Prostate Cancer. ONE of the side effects of treatments is brain fog. I was strongly advised not to drive or bike on roads. With a lot of rehab, I can drive short distances alone, and can ride short distances on *SOME* roads. I was formerly "strong and fearless" (I hate that term). I used to ride in the deep end all over Metro Boston. I am unable now. That is what life is like for a person with a disability. Specifically on the sharrows: I frequently rode on Oxford street before the sharrows, and continue to ride on it after the sharrows. They've made no difference in MY behavior (I always took the lane there), but I immediately noticed far more people on bikes riding in the center of the lane. They've also quieted the "drivers of motor vehicles" too. Another huge help later was another traffic control device, the speed limit was reduced to 25 mph. And there are speed tables at many intersections. The sharrows through Harvard Square have made a HUGE difference in the behavior of "drivers of motor vehicles." (This is MA HOLE ground zero.) The sharrows in Brookline are good, but fading. Biggest help is the one ways keep "drivers of motor vehicles" from cutting through, while the contra-bike lanes permit a passage for people on bikes. The sharrows seem to complement the contra-bike lanes. Finally, some of the first studies on sharrows took place on Mass Ave in Cambridge. Professor Peter Furth of Northeastern invented the "sharrows on steroids." -mr. bill
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22256200)
So, still riding to and from BIDMC, already 1/3 way through treatment, though the BU Bridge is getting steeper with each passing week.
I come here to praise The Minuteman Bikeway, Alewife Linear Park, Somerville Community Path, and the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bikepath, plus the various simple changes made to streets that make connecting these possible for me. Thank you Arlington, Cambridge, Somerville, Boston, and Brookline. The Minuteman Bikeway is where the journey starts, and I'm thrilled that a worker in a cherry picker recently fixed the RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) at the Mill Street crossing, though honestly most drivers still are oblivious: https://i.imgur.com/Y8uvgWM.jpg I'm travelling mid-day, so I miss the sometimes chaos at this too small two stage bike queue box, but even with my lost marbles, I manage this block fine: https://i.imgur.com/zW8hKMa.jpg The new-ish signal at Lake helps a lot. I just wait, wait, and wait for the bike green, bobble head making sure all cross traffic has actually the ____ stopped, and then happily continue onward: https://i.imgur.com/OENg0a0.jpg Now onto the beginning of Alewife Linear Park, this cantilever over Yates Pond is such a huge improvement over the "take the lane" (and it still is a sucky road surface) back in the day. One note, it's amazing how often drivers will preemptively stop for me. They see me from a long way back and just usually yield, even without the beg button, at least during off peak hours: https://i.imgur.com/vizSVRX.jpg Heading around Russel Field. P.S. Love that they removed the stop signs at the Harvey Street dead end: https://i.imgur.com/gxAZsW7.jpg The crossing at Cameron Ave, the boundary between Cambridge and Somerville, and the boundary between Alewife Linear Park and Somerville Community Path: https://i.imgur.com/fGzk7Zm.jpg And now, this surprised me. I expected to walk through Davis. But mid-day, with the on-street dining reducing this to a single lane, the drivers are calmed. It's so bad here it's really really good: https://i.imgur.com/FBXosXQ.jpg And ironically, once I turn off Holland onto Grove it gets hard with absolute nuts often racing to the stop sign, but it's a short street: https://i.imgur.com/Gw3yykI.jpg To be continued.... -mr. bill |
Part two:
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22305290)
So, I've been remiss on posting the rest of my journey.
Continued: Amazing how often Blue Bikes docks are either filled or empty. Here at Cedar St. very empty: https://i.imgur.com/OINazQm.jpg However, that first block of Cedar St. was way uncomfortable, so after this ride I switched to Hancock to Spencer, even though that was a standing start climb up Cedar. Lesson learned: https://i.imgur.com/yPmSgmu.jpg When you can't road, the sanctuary of even plastic bollards is HUGE. Greatly reduced the need for constant "situational awareness" (which was my Achilles Heel): https://i.imgur.com/d0vfpWj.jpg The last leg of deep end was the one block of Mossland to Somerville Ave. In this case, I'm being shepherded by a street cleaner: https://i.imgur.com/2thAsi9.jpg Oxford Street, "sharrows on steroids" and this segment downhill. Total sanctuary: https://i.imgur.com/UTSo4jS.jpg After a one block jog on Kirkland Street, the cut through in Harvard Square made this trek possible. One block of two-way Quincy Street was easy enough, then the two-way bike lane on One-way Quincy was wonderful: https://i.imgur.com/IWxEsIS.jpg Although it ran into the always red bike signal to continue on Quincy. Part of me cursed how they couldn't time this better. BUT, once green, no motor traffic behind me at all. Wonderful: https://i.imgur.com/pc4fach.jpg Leading to an easy crossing of Harvard St: https://i.imgur.com/3PLxYSt.jpg And an easy crossing of one way Mass Ave: https://i.imgur.com/I8dlJ0Z.jpg ...continued... -mr. bill |
Part three. (BTW, Kermit Green is wonderful, except while it is being applied. Boy that stuff smells.)
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22305301)
And then the wonderful Bow and DeWolfe St to get to Paul D. White Bike Path (John Weeks Bridge ahead):
https://i.imgur.com/YOIsAKy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/RVAFo0L.jpg https://i.imgur.com/dP4vBYn.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Tr0exTz.jpg https://i.imgur.com/XrEBDLs.jpg Now, I wish I could say I can't believe how bad the Paul D. White Bike Path is on the Cambridge Side, but I've been watching this slowly die for years. I am eternally grateful that they didn't fix it now. But note the brand new surface to the left. Grrr: https://i.imgur.com/mD6MmYo.jpg In the rest of the enlightened world a bike lane over a bridge is not put on the crush side of a barrier, but still, this makes it easy to cross the BU Bridge. However, the BU Bridge got steeper and steeper during my radiation therapy: https://i.imgur.com/1G9hRq8.jpg Didn't love this crossing, though I did ride it to BIDMC but walked it coming home: https://i.imgur.com/HySkT6p.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gcLV8zT.jpg ...continued... -mr. bill |
Part four. (Oh, in the before times, this is not even close to how I would get there from here.)
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22305307)
On the other side of Com Ave entering Brookline, and their amazing sequence of one way general traffic but two way bike traffic at Essex and Ivy:
https://i.imgur.com/9D2WPN9.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ZbJHG86.jpg https://i.imgur.com/GnDeruR.jpg Carlton crossing Beacon: https://i.imgur.com/gWalVBj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Op3fvOg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pXdY8st.jpg Which turns into Colchester then Chapel (Longwood stop on the left): https://i.imgur.com/WJMMqAD.jpg Crossing Longwood stop on foot: https://i.imgur.com/PQsjRfv.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HOjQCMq.jpg ...continued... -mr. bill |
Part five. (Stairs are why light bikes are nice.)
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22305316)
Through the park and about to enter Boston:
https://i.imgur.com/2GTIfME.jpg The Short Street Steps: https://i.imgur.com/HUzm3fB.jpg Crossing Riverway: https://i.imgur.com/vP7GkwB.jpg Thankfully Winsor School was quiet while I salmoned Short Street: https://i.imgur.com/OykdvUS.jpg The very nice alley at Winsor School: https://i.imgur.com/hBSrg68.jpg The longest wait ever to cross Brookline: https://i.imgur.com/L6CjZ6W.jpg Finally on the BIDMC campus: https://i.imgur.com/qluUv11.jpg Walking to parking: https://i.imgur.com/Cl1LQ2U.jpg https://i.imgur.com/LYKkKTX.jpg -mr. bill |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22907570)
As I said, I'm not invested either way. I originally posted about assumed converse in response to Daihard's reference to his wife.
So, sorry, I simply won't get drawn into an argument about this. That said, on this issue and many others, I'm more interested in encouraging people to broaden their outlook and think for themselves, and possibly introducing new or different ways of looking at things. I mentioned confirmation bias earlier, and it's real and has infected just about everything, not only here, but throughout the political spectrum. So, I feel a need to sometimes play devil's advocate, and combat some of the preaching to the choir here on BF. After all, this is a forum, not a church. 1. Statement that you are not arguing the point. 2. Argument about the point, usually coupled with statement about why the person who was discussing the point is from some other planet and/or illogical 3. Statement that you're not actually arguing, but "just sayin'" and telling the other person not to react. I'm so-so at best on sharrows, I suspect they're just slightly better than nothing, and can be implemented well in some places and horribly in others, but I'll be damned if I can spot anyone here being a pro-sharrow "choir" I do think that people who make strong factual claims to support their preferences should expect people to challenge them to prove those claims, whether those claims are pro or con sharrows.. BTW, I think it's possible that people will view something as proof of confirmation bias just because they expect to find confirmation bias. How's that for meta? . |
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22908083)
Specifically on the sharrows:
I frequently rode on Oxford street before the sharrows, and continue to ride on it after the sharrows. They've made no difference in MY behavior (I always took the lane there), but I immediately noticed far more people on bikes riding in the center of the lane. They've also quieted the "drivers of motor vehicles" too. Another huge help later was another traffic control device, the speed limit was reduced to 25 mph. And there are speed tables at many intersections. The sharrows through Harvard Square have made a HUGE difference in the behavior of "drivers of motor vehicles." (This is MA HOLE ground zero.) The sharrows in Brookline are good, but fading. Biggest help is the one ways keep "drivers of motor vehicles" from cutting through, while the contra-bike lanes permit a passage for people on bikes. The sharrows seem to complement the contra-bike lanes. Finally, some of the first studies on sharrows took place on Mass Ave in Cambridge. Professor Peter Furth of Northeastern invented the "sharrows on steroids." -mr. bill I've driven, ridden and walked/public transit in most of the areas in your photos, and driving is, by far, the most difficult alternative there. Rode on the Minuteman Sunday, and had kind thoughts for you. Had a great lunch at the Classic Cafe in Arlington Heights. Excelsior, sir! |
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
(Post 22903469)
Breaking in my new (4-days old) Surly Lowside in my urban landscape (NOLA) i came across this sharrow indicating that bikes should take the lane. Never seen any exactly like this before. Royal Street just East of the French Quarter.
Enjoy https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2107ef0e76.jpg Maybe we should pivot this thread back to the photo in the OP. To me, this looks like very sensible signage, indicating that the bikes should not be expected to ride in the door zone(s) nor expected to facilitate a car's pass of them. In my area, I would find it unusual that such a narrow one-way street would have parking on both sides.. |
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 22908083)
Finally, some of the first studies on sharrows took place on Mass Ave in Cambridge. Professor Peter Furth of Northeastern invented the "sharrows on steroids."
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.