Right, the sharrow does not give anyone any rights. The bicyclist already has the same rights, the sharrow is just indicating to cars that the bicycle has those rights.

Those arrows in the road are to indicate that bke riders are supposed to ride in the direction of traffic, not against the flow.

More familiar than you, kid.

I think I see exactly what you are, and no matter what kind of lip service you pay to your working class roots of three generations ago, it isn't very pretty.

It's not that we disagree, you're just flat out wrong. Even the same sheriff's office tweeted that sharrows mean cyclists are allowed to use the full lane.

Actually, the LA Sheriff disagrees with you on this. The sharrow means the entire lane can be used. Sharing doesn't imply I get 95% and you get 5%. It means we both take turns using 100%, or we both use 50%.

Good day sir. Feel free to be personally offended and angry if it makes you feel better :)

http://wildfiretoday.com/2010/05/12/...-are-doubtful/

It helps to explain why people who don't know anything about another area's police department's culture, history or historic hiring processes might still have opinions they mistakenly believe to be valid, including siting websites that don't support their argument.

With the two lanes for traffic there, I don't think it was too bad to do what you were doing.

Locally, NJ law obligates you to stay as far right as possible, only moving left due to hazards and to avoid a parked vehicle, you have to yield to other vehicles first before pulling left into the lane. So I'm used to proceeding that way.

With a single traffic lane, even if the law allows "taking the lane", weighing the high probability of an Escalade pilot road raging, I wouldn't. Locally, people will simply hit you and keep going. I think my odds are better giving them some room to pass without fueling up road rage by impeding the flow of traffic.

Two people in one year in my office were just plain hit and run as if they were a branch in the road. The drivers didn't even so much as slow down. In one of the cases the driver did stop, but only to curse the guy out before taking off again.

The police don't follow through even if you have a plate number...there's no will to charge people with without witness complaints. Though maybe a Go-Pro cam would be useful.

I got stopped by LA Sheriffs, ostensibly, for riding on the sidewalk. He slammed on his brakes and jumped out of the car like he was apprehending a bank robber. He got a better look at my expensive bike and decided I wasn't homeless and backpedaled out of the situation. As he left he said, "transients usually ride bicycles".

According to the LA Dept. of Trans. it is not illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in Agoura Hills. He didn't know the law. I complained to the volunteer patrol and I never saw that sucker again.

Sharrows or no, that officer was completely wrong telling you to ride in the door zone.

VC 21656 clearly states what the laws are.....in this case,2 lane highway,means 2 lanes in each direction...3 lanes means 3 lanes in each direction.....there are no 3 lane highways,2 in 1 direction and 1 in the other.... Unless your in the mountains and it's a passing lane.....that doesn't count.

In L.A. there are surface streets that have 4 lanes in each direction,not counting right and left turn lanes.

If that was a true bike lane,as in,bicycles do what you want in the lane,the white line on the left would be solid....ride down Venice Blvd from the beach to downtown....THAT'S a real bike lane.

Arrows or no arrows,VC 21656 still applies.

So,depending on how many cars were behind you at the time the cop saw you,will determine if the cop was correct or not.

The arrows tell cars that there will be bicycles in the lane,sort of like the triangles you see on tractors or a horse drawn wagon.....beware of slow traffic,in this case,bicycles.

Been riding my little bicycle all around L.A. for 50 years,I've had every kind of conversation you can have with the cops,good and bad.....a few times.I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I've been stopped for impeding traffic,seems like a couple times in every city....mostly on trash day.

I've had cops stop me,many times,for impeding traffic,again mostly on trash day....and they were the only one behind me....I ask them if their blinker and steering wheel is broken...:)

It's mostly on trash day because that's when I take the lane the most,so some car doesn't ram me into them.There isn't room for me,them and a trashcan.

Unless there are additional city/county codes for road markings. This is the same in every state. Which is why the state speed limit can be 70mph, but city streets are 30, 40, and 25.

Laws get more specific to the locales, as you move down the hierarchy of governments.

I've never been stopped by the cops for impeding traffic, because I don't impede traffic. So simple.

+1

relieved I'm not the only one that believes in some common courtesy

It's your life. If you want to risk your well-being to be courteous to a bunch of entitled road users who won't think twice about jeopardizing your safety in order to save ten seconds go ahead.

In Oregon I not only have a legal right to a full sharrowed lane but a full legal right to the entire lane if I am moving at "the normal speed of traffic". On 95% of my commute you will find me in the vehicle lane on the left side.

I have absolutely no problem with "holding motorists back" when I am exercising my legal right of way at normal traffic speeds.


I always ride like I am at the top of the food chain.

Completely irrelevant. Google "shared roadway marking MUTCD".

:thumb:

Cop was wrong. Bike lane means you have a right to "take the lane".

Well in Portland, it's an exception as there has been exceptional progress towards cycle-centric infrastructure. Motorists actually seem to be aware and thoughtful towards cycles which is the only place in the US I've ever seen such a phenomenon. I think in Portland you as a cyclist may be near the top of the roadway food chain, but for the rest of us I think we still are bottom feeders. ..and I'm ok with it & do not expect to see massive change.

I've read and re-read the notes about sharrows & have not changed my opinion that they're only a heads-up guideline and not really a yield to bikes indicator for motorists. Apparently I'm in a vast minority with my interpretation of this rule. I still feel that when possible one should be to the right and out of the way, but that you're also allowed to temporarily take the lane as road conditions necessitate, returning to the out of the way position when safe to do so. That's how I interpret the rule, that the stay to the right applies in all situations but that the sharrow signals to motorists that a cycle may come into the lane temporarily.

I think it's irritating when I'm overtaking another cyclist who's way out on the left part of the lane, over the sharrow, or even to the left of it. To overtake this rider one must either go out even farther left, a potentially unsafe pass on the right, or roll up behind and ask them to move over & see if they actually do. Often I'll just roll by quietly on the right since they've left me like 10 feet of space there.

Maybe just a wee bit dogmatic, no?

Yeah maybe I am little jaded by the countless times I have ridden along saying to myself, "I don't need to take the lane here nobody would.... Holy **** that guy almost took me out!"

I don't care about sharrows, but there is no hierarchy of vehicles with respect to right of way.

The overtaking vehicle must always pass at a safe distance, and the overtaken vehicle gives way to the right. This is regardless of whether either vehicle is a bike or motor vehicle.

All FRAP laws basically state that the bike should stay as close as is practicable to the right side, whenever it is safe to do so, so you're spot on about that. The question arises, when is it unsafe to stay right? Vehicular Cycling advocates will typically take the full lane whenever the lane is too narrow for two vehicles, OR when there are periodic obstructions in the lane, reasoning that weaving around obstructions is more dangerous than is the more frequent interaction with faster traffic. They have a pretty good point with that, although personally when I'm slower than other traffic I'll stay to the right side even when "taking the lane" for appearances sake. Out just far enough that they still have to at least partially change lanes to get around me that is.

This I agree with 100%. Sharrow or no sharrow, I think its quite alright to command your space on the roadway & can be done harmoniously without needlessly blocking the entire lane indefinitely nor being unpredictable. Yes overtaking traffic will have to do a partial lane change to come 'round during these temporary situations, but at least you're giving off the impression you're sharing the road, vs what could be perceived as 'hogging' the road.

I can understand a regular patrol deputy not being familiar with sharrows but there's no excuse for a deputy assigned to traffic.

We have the same problem with the new SDSO sergeant in Leucadia. They've cited at least one person for riding on the sharrows.

I lived in your town for 10+ years and if anything my riding style was more aggressive back then.

Its funny how you equate driving a little more slowly with "blocking".

paulypro, alan s : you two are SOOO wrong, it's just unfortunate that the LEGION on people here on this thread who have corrected you had no impact. I won't waste a pile of keystrokes to reiterate their good points. I will only say this: in matters of law and rights in society, YOUR OPINIONS AND FEELINGS DO NOT MATTER. WHAT YOU "THINK" IS MEANINGLESS. READ, LEARN, EDUCATE YOURSELF, *KNOW* THE STUFF. Knowledge trumps opinion EVERY TIME.

A few times when I was slower than traffic I decided to go against my better judgment and go back to the right after passing a parked car. All it took was one time of having another parked car in front of me and a stream of traffic to the left of me before I realized I was stuck in a tight spot. In that situation you either A) stop altogether and wait for no traffic, or B) take your life in your hands and do the stupid thing of trying to squeeze between a parked car and flowing traffic. There really shouldn't be debate on the topic, it's just better to take the lane when there's a possibility of parked cars. I think it's worth noting also that you have to consider being hit by an opening car door, you need to be AT LEAST as far away from the car as the door extends at its furthest point.

Thanks for the pep talk. I 'know' that the rules surrounding the sharrows are vague & easily abused. Can't say I stand corrected as I've not changed my view on the matter & have not been convinced by others' opinions which are also just that, even if in an overwhelming majority here. In fact reading up on the official guidelines has only reaffirmed how I've interpreted the rules.

Silly little bike arrows on the roads.... What percentage of non-cycling motorists do we think are educated about the intent of sharrows? I'll estimate off the cuff that this figure is well below 20% nationally and probably around a more pathetic 7% really. Do we want to put our life in the hands of their understanding that this symbol means you own the road?

As I've said, knock yourselves out but I'm not going to be surprised if you end up getting harassed for sharrow abuse :lol:

I personally got harassed a lot more before I road primary position the road in the video. You put your life in those peoples hands anywhere on the road. I've ridden the same route for over 2 years now. It is not about the sharrows anyway, which we've mentioned a few times I believe. Its about being, visible and predictable. I was riding the same position before the sharrows were put in. The only reason there is focus on it, is that an officer of the law didn't know that they mean the same thing as "Bicycle May Use Full Lane" and that I could use the full lane in that situation.

The whole point is to allow the cyclist to take command of a lane like any vehicle when needed rather than being crowded off into the curb. Obviously common sense would have the cyclist be courteous and allow cars to pass by riding to the right, as much as practical and safe, but in this case, the cyclist was doing nothing wrong. The cop is the typical bully. And LEs wonder why they get no community support or votes for raises.

LC

I respect your opinions, but disagree. No one but a few zealots think that arrows showing which direction bikes are supposed ride really mean bikes should ride over them. Maybe a different symbol would communicate your desired goal, whatever that is.

From the wiki on shared lane markings.

• Alert motorists of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way

They are literally used to show motorists where to expect cyclist to be riding. And to show cyclists where to ride to avoid door hazards. That is why they are required to be painted X number of feet out in the lane and past parking. If they were just to show the direction of travel, then there would be no reason to have them required to be out a certain number of feet from parked cars and the curb. But I guess I'm a zealot.

http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2...rows-are-good/
Also from LADOT:

• Sharrows be implemented no less than 12 feet from the curb. Beyond this minimum distance, however, Sharrows should also be aligned in a way that creates a straight line of travel for bicyclists. This helps ensure a bicyclist doesn’t weave as street widths change, making them safer and ensuring drivers will be able to react to bicyclists more predictably.

Seems like LADOT wants you to use them as lane position guidance.