Ditto, neither can I, amazing is not it!

LC

awesome and true.

I'll just leave this here.

LASD_News LA County Sheriff 23 Jul
Sharrows are Shared Lane Markings indicating bicyclist may use full lane

Disagree as much as you like. Nothing wrong with that. However, in LA County, the law states Sharrows mean bicycles are free to occupy center-lane on that stretch, without needing to move over for faster traffic.

The LA County Sheriff's office posted the above legal opinion. And, the legal opinion of the LA County Sheriff's office usurps your personal opinion.

I live in the country so i don't have that problem but i can see where the Auto Drivers could get a bit aggrevated but there is a passing lane....If the parking spots were empty it would be one thing to ride the right edge but full of cars???? No wAY....The chance of somebody opening a car door in your path hurts like hell....I get aggravated as a car driver when i get behing a moped or a group of Cyclists on a country road that take most of the lane but know that i am that cyclist sometimes and i give them room and pass when safe....The laws are the laws and even as a LEO if you don't enforce them correctly like this LEO did the he was not doing his job properley... The damn bike lane symbols in the middle of the street was a pretty good hint that you can ride there....Not sure about the impeding traffic thing... i didn't read the whole law thingy also....Good for you to stand your ground and keeping your cool.

I had a State trooper come up to me today while riding in asking me to merge onto the sidewalk because he didn't want me to get hit. I think there were three cars in sight, including him, none actually near me. He went away pretty quick, though. This is good, because State troopers at least in St. Mary's will always find something.

All this makes me question why people who drive get so pissy about hold ups. I don't when I drive. You are sitting in a magic go box that transports you at speeds up and beyond a mile per minute for absolutely no real effort. You should be all smiles, all the time.

M.

So, if someone has a different opinion than you, and expresses it, they are a troll? This is a forum where people express their opinions in a respectful manner, without name calling, which you are apparently incapable of.

Without really knowing the area and just judging from the video, I thought the OP was riding too centered as well. I'm not commenting on legality, and I think the sheriff was out of line as well, but I would have been further towards the sidewalk given what I saw. I don't think it was an especially big deal, there was another lane to pass and traffic wasn't heavy, but I rarely ride in the center of a lane unless there is a definite need. I didn't see one here. I wouldn't call the OPs riding position rude or out of line, but it's not what I would have done given what I saw on video.

I don't know the area, I don't know the customs or culture...or even the speed limit along that road...so my opinion's value is not especially high.

My sentiments, as well.

I would add that throwing down a bunch of paint on the road that doesn't really say what it's meant to say, is counterproductive, in my opinion. I'm also not speaking as to the legal issues that may or may not be involved, but the safety aspect. Setting up a connect the dots scheme that bikes are supposed to follow, if that is indeed the intent, is a bit ridiculous.

We have one road in town (10th street) and for about 8 blocks, it has a marking like this...a left hand lane with a bicycle painted on it. It's the only road I can think of with a bike painted on the LEFT side and I find it very confusing. Normally I would ride on the right side of the right lane on that road, and here I'm still a little confused about what this is supposed to indicate and where I'm supposed to be...cars do use that lane. Later the two lanes narrow to one lane and there are a few spots with a bike painted on it...it's not a bike lane and I'm not clear on what it indicates. Share the road? They always have to share the road.

Making matters worse, where it's two lanes, there are parts where it becomes a turn lane and some of the markings change. I think it's very poorly thought out and it must be confusing to drivers as well as to cyclists. I know I've had a few problems on that road and I don't think the markings helped the situation; now I just avoid 10th all together.

Not incapable of, just didn't do in this instance. Which is an important distinction, because I very rarely do that. I'm very passionate about this as I feel, as I'm sure do you, that we take our lives into our hands when we commute. So when I see someone advocating something that is so contrary to the established rules of safety, studied by experts (have you read Forester's Vehicular Cycling?), it makes me fear for the safety of those reading the post who haven't studied the issue in depth.

Having an opinion on where to travel on an unoccupied lane is fine, and I may disagree but can respect that. I was specifically referring to the inability to believe that a sharrow indicates where a bike should travel, despite the agencies who are putting them on the street publicly indicating that is the case. You may not agree with their decision, but that is just proven fact that that's what a sharrow indicates and no longer in the realm of opinion. You can make a case that that isn't publicized enough for people to know, but it's clear that's the intent.

I would say that I usually travel to the right if there is enough room to share the lane, or even if the road is so narrow that I still "take the lane" by traveling on the right. When there is just enough room that cars try to squeeze in, or if there are parked cars ahead then I feel it is safest to take the lane. Provided I'm traveling near their speed, or it's a short distance. Otherwise I look for an alternate route. I think it should be re-iterated that this is the overwhelming advice of bike safety experts.

You could say the same for all the white and yellow lines all over the roads, what are they for? The only difference here is that sharrows are a relatively new concept, and many people don't understand them yet. This will change if they stick around long enough.

I agree! These markings don't give you any rights you didn't already have as cyclists, people.

I would guess, if you conducted a poll, that 99.9% of the people looking at that symbol would say it indicates the direction bikes are supposed to travel in that lane. In BF-speak, no salmoning allowed.

But that doesn't make sense at all.
Bicycles are supposed to ride in the direction of traffic - period - all roads, all the time. That makes the marking useless.


Locally, with few exceptions, the roads that have sharrows are roads where one or more of the exceptions to FRAP exist along the entire stretch. A road with substandard width is an exception to FRAP and a condition where cyclist are expected to take the lane.

Cyclists are also supposed to stay out of the door zone, thus making the other purpose of sharrow markings useless.

As far as the OP's situation, I would have moved to the right once there were no parked cars. I think that's what the cop was trying to explain. Sharrows don't give you the right to ride down the center of the lane; you still have to ride FRAP.

Actually, it seems like sharrows do give you the right to travel where the sharrows are. Personally I like sharrows for the very reason that they seem to indicate to a driver that a cyclist could be taking the lane. Compare it to bike lanes, which are solid white lines with the same bike symbol inside, minus the chevron. Bike lanes means motorists forget me and I need to stay in the lines. Which is fine until one of us needs to turn or there is an obstacle in the lane. Sharrows, on the other hand don't have the same line limitations, and I would guess that most people would interpret it as meaning that a bike could be anywhere in this lane, so be on the lookout, not merely the direction of travel of bikes. You put a bike symbol on the street and that indicates to motorists an extra level of expectation of bikes being there, and that they have the right to be there (which most motorists don't know or agree with, unfortunately).

At least in L.A.,most of the cops don't know the traffic laws for bicycles,traffic cops or not.They know so little about traffic laws for bicycles,I carry a copy of it for them to read when they hassle me.

When they want to see my ID,I also show them a copy of the bicycle laws for California.

If you saw me riding down the street and didn't know anything about bicycles,I'm guessing you would think I'm the homeless type.Long hair down to my waist,giant beard,greasy hair,dirty clothes( I do machine work for a living),rides a bike.....sounds homeless,even to me....

The way I look,the cops probably think I'm a homeless drunk and riding a stolen bike down the middle of the street and don't know it......

I agree.

Shared lane marking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A shared-lane marking or sharrow[SUP][1][/SUP] is a street marking installed at locations in Australia, Canada, and the United States. This marking is placed in the center of a travel lane to indicate that a bicyclist may use the full lane.
According to the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, shared-lane markings are used to:

• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle;
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane;
• Alert motorists of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way;
• Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists; and Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.

The problem I have with that is you are never sure how long there won't be parked cars. Presumably the sharrows are there because it's legal for cars to be parked on the side of the road. You can only see so far up the road, not to mention that one of the cars passing you could go ahead and park. Maybe your experience is different but I've found if cars are allowed to park on the side of the road eventually you'll come up on one. I doubt the lane had enough room for a parked car, a bike, and a stream of moving cars, all in the right lane. If it is not legal for cars to be parked AND there is enough room to safely share the lane then I agree, move to the right. But it's not clear that either of those criteria where met here.

A sub-standard width lane & door zone? Center or left of the lane is FRAP, sharrow or not.

Right, sharrows exist to say "bike here when cars are parked on the side", and to alert cars that bikes may be that far out.

In the OP's video, there's a large stretch where there are no parked cars. The courteous thing to do is to move over. If the lane can support two lines of cars (one parked, one moving) then it can also support a bike and a car.

I'm the rider in the video. The stretch that is wide enough to share, when there was actually traffic only lasted for about 10sec.(1min5sec to 1min15sec) Would have been shorter but the Deputy started talking to me so I slowed down. During those 10 sec I started gaining on the vehicle in the left lane and no other vehicles were occupying the lane to my left. I was going with the speed of traffic. It silly to pull to the right for 10 secs when I'm going close to the normal speed of traffic and there is traffic stopped ahead at a red light. which I caught up to almost immediately. That is just inviting people to almost pass you, but then have no room to enter the lane again, where I needed to be to prepare for my left turn.

Earlier in the video that is no traffic around in my lane or the left lane. It takes many seconds for a car to even pull into the left lane after I've already stopped at the light.

No, I was wrong. The citation was prior to the sharrows.

You are lucky that was not LAPD otherwise your encounter would have ended up with you being beaten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPq1OaHNZao

sharrow or not, op had the right to take the lane when there is no space for cars to pass for safety reasons the law has recognized to be valid.
paulypro, I just hope you realize most cyclists are not out here to exert their "power"; they are not trying to be like "we take the lane because we can, because the law says we can, to hell with everyone else". We just want to ride bikes on the street safely, going from point A to point B. I fully agree with getting out of the way for other, faster vehicles and send them on their way when safe.

The sad fact is many motorists don't extend the same courtesy. They are the more powerful party on the road, because in any accident cyclists can get seriously injured while the car only get a dent. They do not realize the danger passing too close can cause to cyclist. Forcing cyclist to hug the curb also have well known hazards like door-zone and road debris. You may be okay with all this, I am not and nor do I think it is right. If they can do more harm, then they need to take on more responsibility to be careful. Because they do not, we cyclists must take extra measures to ensure our safety.

The police is suppose to be out there protecting the more vulnerable group of citizens. In this case he is doing the opposite, and for the wrong reason, no less.