Protected Bike Lane on Quincy btwn 9th and Wilson

[scoot]

@baiskeli 191141 wrote:

At least that’s the intent that I perceive.

I agree this is the intent. But the white sign color indicates that the information is regulatory, per MUTCD.

[lordofthemark]

It IS regulatory. What may be confusing people is the use of pictures as short hands for the law.

Does anyone think that the presence of a bike symbol, but no scooter symbol, with the pointer to the bike lane means scooters are banned from those lanes? Clearly they are not.

The symbols mean – the lane on the right is a “bike lane”. It is open to all vehicles eligible to use bike lanes under Virginia Law and local codes – which means human powered bikes, ebikes, scooters – but NOT cars, motorcycles, etc.. The lane on the left is a general travel lane – it is open to all vehicles eligible to use general travel lanes under Va law and local codes – cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, bikes, ebikes, escooters, etc.

It not practical or necessary to have a symbol for each type of vehicle. A “bikes may use full lane sign” sign can be added if there is an actual problem with harassment.

[zsionakides]

@scoot 191135 wrote:

I think (hope?) we all agree that Arlington cannot legally prohibit bicyclists from taking the lane on Quincy. However, that is precisely the message communicated by this sign. If you interpret this sign as an indication that motorists are forbidden to use the bike lane, then by symmetry the sign also indicates that bicyclists are forbidden to use the general lane.

Many cyclists will not want to use the separated facility. Signage like this could encourage harassment from aggressive or uninformed drivers, possibly including police. If such a sign is needed to keep motorists out of the bike lane, then the left side should be depicted for cars and bikes, with the right side for bikes only. Also it would be helpful to paint sharrows in the general travel lane to emphasize that message.

I think the law is unclear in VA if you would be allowed to use the regular travel lane for traveling. Bikes are supposed to stay to the right under VA law, unless impractical. To me, that means by law you probably have to use the bike lane, unless there was some issue that makes it impractical – e.g. turning left at some location along Quincy, the bike lane was blocked or flooded, etc.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 191147 wrote:

It IS regulatory. What may be confusing people is the use of pictures as short hands for the law.

That’s why they’re supposed to use standard signs rather than making shit up as they go along.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 191147 wrote:

Does anyone think that the presence of a bike symbol, but no scooter symbol, with the pointer to the bike lane means scooters are banned from those lanes? Clearly they are not.

The symbols mean – the lane on the right is a “bike lane”. It is open to all vehicles eligible to use bike lanes under Virginia Law and local codes – which means human powered bikes, ebikes, scooters – but NOT cars, motorcycles, etc.. The lane on the left is a general travel lane – it is open to all vehicles eligible to use general travel lanes under Va law and local codes – cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, bikes, ebikes, escooters, etc.

So, fun fact, the Arlington County Ordinances relevant to bike lanes are 14.2-65 & 65.1. I’ll leave it to you all to read it and form an opinion as to whether scooters are allowed in bike lanes.

At the BAC meeting tonight, we’ll be talking about where ebikes and escooters should ride and whether there are sections of Arlington Code that should be amended…

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 191194 wrote:

So, fun fact, the Arlington County Ordinances relevant to bike lanes are 14.2-65 & 65.1. I’ll leave it to you all to read it and form an opinion as to whether scooters are allowed in bike lanes.

At the BAC meeting tonight, we’ll be talking about where ebikes and escooters should ride and whether there are sections of Arlington Code that should be amended…

14.2-65.1 seems like it could be problematic. Unless it is continually updated (it’s now 4 years old), someone driving a car on a bike lane that is not on the list might make the claim that they were not operating illegally.

[scoot]

@Steve O 191195 wrote:

14.2-65.1 seems like it could be problematic. Unless it is continually updated (it’s now 4 years old), someone driving a car on a bike lane that is not on the list might make the claim that they were not operating illegally.

That list also contains some errors/omissions regarding bike lanes that definitely existed in 2014.

[scoot]

@zsionakides 191149 wrote:

I think the law is unclear in VA if you would be allowed to use the regular travel lane for traveling. Bikes are supposed to stay to the right under VA law, unless impractical. To me, that means by law you probably have to use the bike lane, unless there was some issue that makes it impractical – e.g. turning left at some location along Quincy, the bike lane was blocked or flooded, etc.

“Safely practicable” is the language used in § 46.2-905. A non-exhaustive list of exceptions is provided, indicating many examples of situations that permit riding further left than is necessary merely to be safely practicable. Depending on design and scene conditions, PBL facilities are often safely practicable only for low-speed cycling (~10MPH).

Would state law forbid a cyclist from riding 20MPH (i.e. less than the normal speed of traffic) in the general travel lane due to the presence of a PBL that is only safe at half that speed? Has a court ever weighed in on this?

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 191212 wrote:

“Safely practicable” is the language used in § 46.2-905. A non-exhaustive list of exceptions is provided, indicating many examples of situations that permit riding further left than is necessary merely to be safely practicable. Depending on design and scene conditions, PBL facilities are often safely practicable only for low-speed cycling (~10MPH).

Would state law forbid a cyclist from riding 20MPH (i.e. less than the normal speed of traffic) in the general travel lane due to the presence of a PBL that is only safe at half that speed? Has a court ever weighed in on this?

1. Until quite recently there were no PBLs in Virginia
2. I doubt any police force in any city or county in Virginia WITH a PBL would cite a cyclist for riding in the general travel lane near a PBL – probably even a slow cyclist. So it would only come to court in a civil case, I guess. If a driver hit a cyclist taking the lane adjacent to a PBL and their attorney chose to invoke 46.2
3. I don’t know if we have even had any collisions in that kind of location in those kinds of circumstances.

edit – the first protected bike lanes in Arlington were Hayes and Eads Streets in 2014. Those were certainly the first in NoVa. The first in Richmond was in 2018, so I guess there were none before 2014. And the total “lane mile – years” of PBLs in Virginia is pretty small.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 191213 wrote:

2. I doubt any police force in any city or county in Virginia WITH a PBL would cite a cyclist for riding in the general travel lane near a PBL – probably even a slow cyclist. So it would only come to court in a civil case, I guess. If a driver hit a cyclist taking the lane adjacent to a PBL and their attorney chose to invoke 46.2
.

This, plus VA’s contributory negligence laws are what concern me. If you ride in the regular lane and get ran over by a reckless driver, does the single fact you weren’t in the PBL limit your ability to collect damages.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 191221 wrote:

This, plus VA’s contributory negligence laws are what concern me. If you ride in the regular lane and get ran over by a reckless driver, does the single fact you weren’t in the PBL limit your ability to collect damages.

Given that there are some circumstances where you would need to take the lane (PBL blocked, turning left), this seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if some judge/jury in VA found contrib just for riding a bike at all, so there’s that. But that’s no reason not to put up a sign like Arlington did on Quincy.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

The car side of the sign should be white and the bike side of the sign should be yellow.

Still, last week, with an earthmover and 4 construction workers taking up the bike lane and me in the main lane I had the joy of a Ford 150 driver yelling at me to, “Get in the bike lane or I will f—ing run you over next time.” Good times, good times.

[sjclaeys]

@Brendan von Buckingham 191506 wrote:

The car side of the sign should be white and the bike side of the sign should be yellow.

Still, last week, with an earthmover and 4 construction workers taking up the bike lane and me in the main lane I had the joy of a Ford 150 driver yelling at me to, “Get in the bike lane or I will f—ing run you over next time.” Good times, good times.

Would have been great if you replied “and you’ll end up in f—ing jail!” but unfortunately we know that is not necessarily true.

[huskerdont]

@Brendan von Buckingham 191506 wrote:

the joy of a Ford 150 driver yelling at me to, “Get in the bike lane or I will f—ing run you over next time.” Good times, good times.

A failure of humanity, not necessarily a failure of infrastructure.

[mstone]

@huskerdont 191508 wrote:

A failure of humanity, not necessarily a failure of infrastructure.

perfectly reasonable to be both

[Author]

Posts