|
Something You "Take The Lane" Folks Might Enjoy
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 |
My town has those save for the green highlight. We also have, and I have seen in other towns as well, signage that states cyclists have the right to the whole lane. In situations like this, I keep to the right, but will signal when I'm preparing to turn left and will move into the lane if it is clear.
|
The version I have seen in NYC is placed closer to the parked cars on the right.
|
Regarding lateral placement of shared lane markings, this is what the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has to say on the subject:
Guidance: 04 If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. 05 If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb. (Disclosure: I served as chair of the NCUTCD Bicycle Technical Committee from 2002-2017, and am currently under contract to NCUTCD for organizational management services.) |
We have a few here (also not with the green). I ride where the sharrows are placed. In the pictured case I certainly would to avoid the door zone. Those are short blocks so cars shouldn't really be going faster than bikes anyway.
The sharrows are in the city. My recreational riding is on rural roads near my house. A couple of those in the adjoining county have "bicycles may use full lane" signs that have been there for 25 years or more. A couple of prominent local politicians used to ride those roads with their bike club. Age and infirmity has sidelined them but the old signs remain. |
These sharrows (sans the green paint) are very common on the Kansas side of the KC metro. Motorists still have no clue what they mean.
|
Not sure why some people keep repeating the nonsense about "motorists having no clue what they mean". Motorists know perfectly well what they mean.
What I do notice though is that not all cyclists fully realize what they mean. And these marking have significant consequences for cyclists, especially in states where traffic laws require cars to enter bike lanes before making a right turn (e.g. California). These marking signify the fact that cars and bicycles share one and only one lane, i.e. (key point!) there's no dedicated bike lane on that street, neither explicitly marked nor implied. Bicyclists have no right to assume that they are travelling in their own lane, and therefore have no right to assume that they have right-of-way over cars making their right turns from a regular lane. In simple words, on a street with sharrows cars and bicycles are expected to travel in a single file. If a bicyclist tries to squeeze themselves into the gap between a car and curb and subsequently gets right-hooked, it is going to be bicyclist's fault. On a street without sharrows, in case of a right-hook incident it is the motorist who will be found at fault. |
Originally Posted by jon c.
(Post 22903586)
Those are short blocks so cars shouldn't really be going faster than bikes anyway.
. |
Some streets in Cheyenne have them. I avoid if possible.
|
Posting this YouTube link here because "taking the lane" is the topic. Coincidentally, my urban cycling capabilities were called out as a hoax on a different thread in A&S (@Leisesturm). Not that I NEED to prove anything to anyone here, it's just FUN to do so. And it's quite flattering to be accused of riding an E-Bike :lol:. I pass E-Bikes on the regular and let out a devilish laugh every time.
THIS is how I take the lane on a 35 mph narrow boulevard where getting passed is life threatening, without pi$$!ng off every motorist behind me. Enjoy! (My GPS with speed is bottom left corner. Sadly the resolution YouTube used has the display impossible to read) |
Here , in my area , they have the signs posted(…may take entire lane) and the bike insignia painted in the lane . On my weekly ride, there are two places where I have the option to take the lane and I do it to keep from getting squeezed out. It is only for a few blocks in both locations , and then the designated bike lane reappears.
|
Originally Posted by AndreyT
(Post 22903644)
Not sure why some people keep repeating the nonsense about "motorists having no clue what they mean". Motorists know perfectly well what they mean.
What I do notice though is that not all cyclists fully realize what they mean. And these marking have significant consequences for cyclists, especially in states where traffic laws require cars to enter bike lanes before making a right turn (e.g. California). These marking signify the fact that cars and bicycles share one and only one lane, i.e. (key point!) there's no dedicated bike lane on that street, neither explicitly marked nor implied. Bicyclists have no right to assume that they are travelling in their own lane, and therefore have no right to assume that they have right-of-way over cars making their right turns from a regular lane. In simple words, on a street with sharrows cars and bicycles are expected to travel in a single file. If a bicyclist tries to squeeze themselves into the gap between a car and curb and subsequently gets right-hooked, it is going to be bicyclist's fault. On a street without sharrows, in case of a right-hook incident it is the motorist who will be found at fault. |
Originally Posted by AndreyT
(Post 22903644)
...In simple words, on a street with sharrows cars and bicycles are expected to travel in a single file. If a bicyclist tries to squeeze themselves into the gap between a car and curb and subsequently gets right-hooked, it is going to be bicyclist's fault.
On a street without sharrows, in case of a right-hook incident it is the motorist who will be found at fault. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable. i realize that california also has comp negligence, but the law about passing bikes with 3 feet clear also doesn't say "unless they're riding off to the side of a road with a sharrow..." so the fault would be primarily on the driver. |
Sharrows aren't there for cyclists, who generally either, know the rules or have already decided how and where they'll ride. Sharrows are more about reminding motorists of cyclist rights to the road.
I'm a bit surprised by this example, because it seems that the roadway is wide enough for safe shared-lane passing. On that street, I'd keep left, riding out from the parked cars, and ready and willing to move over if/when necessary to make passing possible. |
The need for these somewhat puzzles me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5451...8192?entry=ttu The wide 'shoulders' are technically parking spaces, but no one ever parks there. I certainly believe in taking the lane when appropriate, but it never occurred to me to do it here. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22906282)
Sharrows aren't there for cyclists, who generally either, know the rules or have already decided how and where they'll ride. Sharrows are more about reminding motorists of cyclist rights to the road.
|
Originally Posted by daihard
(Post 22906294)
Sharrows can give people on bike a false sene of safety, though. I know quite a few people, including my own wife, who were led to believe they are legally allowed to ride on roads marked with sharrows and not on roads without, which, at least in WA, is untrue.
|
Originally Posted by daihard
(Post 22906294)
Sharrows can give people on bike a false sene of safety, though. I know quite a few people, including my own wife, who were led to believe they are legally allowed to ride on roads marked with sharrows and not on roads without, which, at least in WA, is untrue.
However, you offered a poor example in your wife. In this case, she was suffering from a false sense on insecurity, not knowing that just about any road is legal (though not necessarily a smart choice). That is a second reason I'm not a fan. Separate lanes and sparrows can imply that these are the only places legal for bikes. Not so much of a problem for cyclists who tend to sort it out fast enough, but a big problem when it reinforces their ideas that bikes don't belong on shared roads, unless specifically marked. I'd greatly prefer graphic signage indicating safe passing and no bike passing zones. |
Originally Posted by daihard
(Post 22906294)
Sharrows can give people on bike a false sene of safety, though. I know quite a few people, including my own wife, who were led to believe they are legally allowed to ride on roads marked with sharrows and not on roads without, which, at least in WA, is untrue.
This being said, I know that devices such as markings and signs can be misunderstood, even by people in positions of authority. For example, in 1998 the city of Phoenix installed non-standard white on green "share the road" signs depicting a motor vehicle and bicycle side by side. Over a decade later, I was stopped by a police officer who said I was riding illegally in the lane because an official sign (not even on that road) showed I was required to ride at the far right at all times. Fortunately, after a brief discussion of ARS 28-815.A.4 (far right exceptions) and 28-735 (passing offset) he saw the law was different, and even waved when he'd see me in the lane in future encounters. And the city stopped installing the problematic signs two decades ago, but alas several are still in place. |
Originally Posted by daihard
(Post 22906294)
I know quite a few people, including my own wife, who were led to believe they are legally allowed to ride on roads marked with sharrows and not on roads without, which, at least in WA, is untrue.
|
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
(Post 22906302)
It also misinforms motorists that cyclists are only allowed on roads with sharrows or designate, marked bike lanes.
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22906308)
Agree about the false sense of security, which is among the reasons I'm not a fan of segregated roadways.
However, you offered a poor example in your wife. In this case, she was suffering from a false sense on insecurity, not knowing that just about any road is legal (though not necessarily a smart choice). |
Originally Posted by RCMoeur
(Post 22906323)
A serious question: where might this come from? I don't know of any reputable source of information that supports this viewpoint. Knowing why people might think this could be useful...
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 I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 22906336)
"Led to believe" this falsehood by whom?
|
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 22906353)
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.
|
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
(Post 22906302)
It also misinforms motorists that cyclists are only allowed on roads with sharrows or designate, marked bike lanes.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.