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.

How is it vague? Even the Sheriff's Office corrected themselves. The ordinance was even posted here. We're just keep pointing out that the law says the OP was following the law.

You mean they're citing people for riding the full lane with the sharrows?

I don't need or want the government telling me how to ride my bike. I am a far greater expert in the matter than they will ever be.

Thats fine, and you don't have to follow the suggestion, but you said only zealots think that. LADOT is for sure not a zealot when it comes to bike lane positioning.

I stand corrected...zealots and the government.:thumb:

That's what I'm sayin' :thumb: Cant have critical mass everyday :lol:

Yeah, you guys need to stick to the sidewalk fer sher.

That cop is a complete moron! I can't believe there is actually a "debate" going on here.

Once alan s makes one of his wrong claims, no matter how much evidence you provide, he will continue insisting he is right.

He is the first person I know of that has claimed sharrows are ONLY direction indicators. A clear clue he has never looked at the history of sharrows and is just flinging BS here.

At this point paulypro and alan s are being so contrary in the face of obvious facts that I'm going to guess they're enjoying acting the troll. Don't feed the trolls people.