road widths: sharrows vs. bike lanes

[vvill]

@lordofthemark 124478 wrote:

Sharrows in addition to reinforcing that bikes are both legal, and likely to be present, also WHEN PROPERLY LOCATED IN THE ROAD (not all are) inform drivers where to expect cyclists, and inform newbie cyclists where to ride. In some cases they can guide newbies away from hugging the right and toward taking the lane. And inform drivers that cyclists not only belong in the lane, but in the center. I had a long discussion recently with a friend who was somewhat surprised that cyclists are now taught it is safer to (in circumstances I specified) ride in the center where they cannot be passed in lane, rather than hug the right. “I was not taught that growing up!” AFAIK there is minimal driver education associated with license renewal. Even if new drivers had enough to learn about bikes, older drivers will know the biking paradigm from when they learned to bike as children. Driver education, even were it in the hands of municipalities (and in Virginia the priorities in Richmond often do not match those in Arlington and Alexandria) cannot solve the problem alone.

Of course sharrows do not belong on 35+MPH roads,as a general rule, IMO. If there are enough cyclists there to warrant them, better accommodation is needed – and all cyclists confident enough to use those road (though not all drivers) already know where in the road cyclists belong.

Often the best place to ride on a particular road varies by traffic condition/time of day. And sharrows imply that bicyclists should otherwise hug the right (or ride on the sidewalk…). And many drivers will happily pass a cyclist taking the lane regardless of sharrows as long as it’s not obviously unsafe (actually I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this if the driver is diligent and competent – admittedly, two big “if”s around here).

By 35+mph roads, I mean roads posted 25mph 35+ is the effective/actual speed of vehicles…

Driver education AND better legislation. Of course people who just do not like bicycles on roads are always going to oppose any efforts, but with better legal protection, they are more likely to actually drive responsibly.

[Anonymous]

@vvill 124471 wrote:

My favourite piece of stepped signage was the “bikes may use full lane” on Lorcom Lane just before Spout Run, followed about 20 yards later by a Bicycles Prohibited sign (meaning on Spout Run, but posted on Lorcom Lane still). Not sure if it’s still like that.

My favorite bike-related sign is on my way to work.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6660488,-77.01684,3a,75y,198.42h,71.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scAeCDgyWpxHe-dZiORN3Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Assuming I have done the link right, you can see a green bicycle sign on the right of southbound MD210, helpfully pointing out that turning left onto MD228 will put you on the Bike Route to Waldorf. Now, MD210 and MD228 both have shoulders, so it is absolutely possible, if not fun, for people on bikes to use them. Outside of rush hours, MD228 might even be somewhat pleasant (210-no). I have yet to figure out, though, how the southbound cyclist who encounters this sign and would like follow the mentioned bike route is supposed to navigate the intersection to get ONTO 228. (while the 3 left-turn lanes do have a traffic light, the two through-southbound lanes do not stop. traffic is typically heavy and moving at speeds around 70mph, and there is typically a lot of at-speed lane transitions as people move into their desired lane for getting through the intersection)

[lordofthemark]

@vvill 124481 wrote:

Often the best place to ride on a particular road varies by traffic condition/time of day. And sharrows imply that bicyclists should otherwise hug the right (or ride on the sidewalk…). And many drivers will happily pass a cyclist taking the lane regardless of sharrows as long as it’s not obviously unsafe (actually I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this if the driver is diligent and competent – admittedly, two big “if”s around here).

By 35+mph roads, I mean roads posted 25mph 35+ is the effective/actual speed of vehicles…

Driver education AND better legislation. Of course people who just do not like bicycles on roads are always going to oppose any efforts, but with better legal protection, they are more likely to actually drive responsibly.

I wonder how many drivers read them that way. That is the accusation made against any and every infra and signage fix “share the road signs imply that on other roads I don’t have to” “sharrows imply that on other roads cyclists should hug the right” “bike lanes, painted or protected imply no one should rake the lane”. I have not seen quantitative evidence for it though.

As for enforcement, everything I know about traffic enforcement says it is never going to be close to completely effective – aside from the fact that one of our biggest problems is simply ignorant or distracted drivers.

I support improving education and enforcement, but I am very skeptical that they will get us the environment that will encourage mass cycling.

Also, AFAICT, the most effective education of drivers comes when those drivers bike themselves. Enforcement changes when police, judges and juries bike. Laws change when legislators bike.

[scoot]

@jrenaut 124457 wrote:

I don’t think sharrows are EVER the right design choice. They have no legal distinction – they’re simply a reminder that cyclists have a right to be in the road, too.

Ah, now I see what you mean. This topic is now dovetailing with a similar discussion in another thread recently. So, using that philosophy, you’d prefer that Sherman Ave just not have any bicycle markings at all (since it’s too narrow for a bike lane)?

They’re insulting, like the beg buttons at crosswalks. They’re a reminder that drivers don’t know or follow the law.

Insulting? If only drivers’ collective intelligence were high enough that it could be taken as an insult.

In the recent past, even this sign seemed necessary to someone:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9663[/ATTACH]

[jrenaut]

@scoot 124490 wrote:

Insulting? If only drivers’ collective intelligence were high enough that it could be taken as an insult.

Sharrows are a big blob of paint that say, “Sorry, we didn’t bother to make this road safe for cyclists, so we put a picture on it to remind people of the laws they should know but don’t”. So yes, I stand by “insulting”. The sign you posted is also insulting.

[scoot]

Sorry, I apologize for the insult.

[vvill]

@lordofthemark 124487 wrote:

I wonder how many drivers read them that way. That is the accusation made against any and every infra and signage fix “share the road signs imply that on other roads I don’t have to” “sharrows imply that on other roads cyclists should hug the right” “bike lanes, painted or protected imply no one should rake the lane”. I have not seen quantitative evidence for it though.

True, I have not looked for (or am aware) of any quantitative evidence. I’m just basing it on how most road signage works. If there’s no red light or stop sign, you can keep driving. If there’s no yield to merge, you don’t need to yield to merge.

I feel like saying “traffic enforcement is never going to be close to completely effective”, is about as defeatist as saying it’ll never really be safe to ride on the road. The US has a lot more relaxed attitudes towards DUIs, speeding, traffic violations, etc. than I was used to. Surely it can improve on those scores, and thus make things for all road users?

Agreed that if everyone biked, education and enforcement would likely be better. But also – if all drivers were more competent, considerate, aware and educated, it wouldn’t matter as much. Maybe just considerate even.

@Amalitza 124483 wrote:

My favorite bike-related sign is on my way to work.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6660488,-77.01684,3a,75y,198.42h,71.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scAeCDgyWpxHe-dZiORN3Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Assuming I have done the link right, you can see a green bicycle sign on the right of southbound MD210, helpfully pointing out that turning left onto MD228 will put you on the Bike Route to Waldorf. Now, MD210 and MD228 both have shoulders, so it is absolutely possible, if not fun, for people on bikes to use them. Outside of rush hours, MD228 might even be somewhat pleasant (210-no).

Yep I see it – I’ve been to Waldorf quite a few times by car… can’t imagine biking there! Seems typical of slapped-on bike infrastructure everywhere though, like the bike lanes that appear and disappear all over the place.

[vvill]

@jrenaut 124493 wrote:

Sharrows are a big blob of paint that say, “Sorry, we didn’t bother to make this road safe for cyclists, so we put a picture on it to remind people of the laws they should know but don’t”.

I’d say more “this road is fine for bicycles and cars and other vehicles, just don’t be assholes”.

[lordofthemark]

@vvill 124495 wrote:

True, I have not looked for (or am aware) of any quantitative evidence. I’m just basing it on how most road signage works. If there’s no red light or stop sign, you can keep driving. If there’s no yield to merge, you don’t need to yield to merge.

I feel like saying “traffic enforcement is never going to be close to completely effective”, is about as defeatist as saying it’ll never really be safe to ride on the road. The US has a lot more relaxed attitudes towards DUIs, speeding, traffic violations, etc. than I was used to. Surely it can improve on those scores, and thus make things for all road users?

Agreed that if everyone biked, education and enforcement would likely be better. But also – if all drivers were more competent, considerate, aware and educated, it wouldn’t matter as much. Maybe just considerate even.

Yep I see it – I’ve been to Waldorf quite a few times by car… can’t imagine biking there! Seems typical of slapped-on bike infrastructure everywhere though, like the bike lanes that appear and disappear all over the place.

I do not know that it will never be safe to ride on the road. I think the strategy of relying on infra to directly improve safety, and to get more critical mass, is much more likely to make biking safer, more comfortable, and more common, sooner, than the Forrester strategy of relying on education and enforcement to make VC style biking safer. I do not oppose efforts on laws – I supported the 3ft rule in Va, and hope we can get due care passed this next session. I support the educ and enforcement initiatives being undertaken.

But when there is a piece of infra on road A, that is likely to make biking a tad safer and more more comfortable on Road A, I am very skeptical of arguments to not do it because it will mislead drivers about road B, and it wouldn’t be necessary with some hypothetical level of education and enforcement.

To me the path forward is this – we get a lot more infra (and the quality of infra is improving – more PBLs instead of just paint, and the proposed PBL on C Street NE is much better (and more Dutch) than the existing PBLs in the area) so we get more riders. Riders vote, so we in turn get both better laws, better education and enforcment – and also more of the drivers on those stroads are cyclists, so will drive better (at least with more awareness of why cyclists do what they do)

The other hope is that driverless cars radically change auto bike interactions on roads. Intriguing, but I am not holding my breath.

[lordofthemark]

@vvill 124495 wrote:

True, I have not looked for (or am aware) of any quantitative evidence. I’m just basing it on how most road signage works. If there’s no red light or stop sign, you can keep driving. If there’s no yield to merge, you don’t need to yield to merge.

If there is no sign saying traffic signal ahead, there may still be a traffic signal. If there is no sign saying watch for deaf children, there may still be deaf children. If there is no sign pointing out a crosswalk, there may still be a crosswalk.

Informational signs work differently than regulatory signs. A sharrows is informational, not regulatory.

[dasgeh]

Clearly, I’m a fan of protected bike infrastructure.

But short of that, I’m not sure what the best answer is. I do think bike lanes encourage drivers to focus more on staying in their own lane, rather than giving bikes adequate space. But they may encourage more people to ride. So where there are bike lanes, I don’t think it’s worth taking them out. Where there are not bike lanes… I’m just not sure they should be put in. (Buffered or protected bike lanes are a totally different matter).

As far as signs and road markings, I get the frustration, but I liken it to other advisory signs. Think of the deer crossing signs — they are there to alert drivers that it’s more probably deer will cross there. It doesn’t mean deer won’t cross anywhere else, it’s just to get drivers to be on the lookout for deer.

In the core of DC, drivers should (and probably do) expect bikes on every street, so it doesn’t make sense to put up signs or sharrows on any street. But in Fairfax where drivers don’t see a lot of bikes, it makes sense to me to put up signs/markings to alert drivers who haven’t been seeing lots of bikes that they should be on the look out. In a place like Arlington, where there are lots of bikes around, I support signs and markings on the main arterials, that carry lots of drivers who aren’t from Arlington or that may not “feel” like neighborhood streets. I’m thinking 50, Lee, Mason, Glebe. I don’t like “Bicyclists may use full lane” but I’d love to see “Bicyclists SHOULD use full lane” in certain spots. That would also help with enforcement, as certain police officers still don’t understand the law about taking the lane…

Speaking of, I think there should be huge signs for drivers entering Arlington (e.g. at the Intersection at Doom, on Lee Hwy near EFC) stating something like “Arlington welcomes you and welcomes bikes. Please drive safely” – some nice sign to remind drivers that there are a lot of bikes here.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 124501 wrote:

Where there are not bike lanes… I’m just not sure they should be put in.

Mostly I agree, but let me quibble. The above applies to door zone bike lanes only. Where a painted, non buffered bike lane, is not in a door zone, it is possible to safely ride in the center of or on the right side of the lane. Even a driver hugging the left edge of the bike lane (and not all do – I watched for that this morning on Eye Street) will still be giving cyclists three feet. A fortiori for climbing lanes – most newbies, aside from the usual paranoia about tailing traffic, are particularly slow on hills.

This is not trivial, as there are painted bike lanes of this nature going in in Alexandria right now, and more to come.

However for places like Wilson Blvd, say, where the bike lane is not only in a door zone, but an active door zone at that, no new bike lane unless it is buffered or protected probably makes sense.

[vvill]

@lordofthemark 124499 wrote:

To me the path forward is this – we get a lot more infra (and the quality of infra is improving – more PBLs instead of just paint, and the proposed PBL on C Street NE is much better (and more Dutch) than the existing PBLs in the area) so we get more riders. Riders vote, so we in turn get both better laws, better education and enforcment – and also more of the drivers on those stroads are cyclists, so will drive better (at least with more awareness of why cyclists do what they do)

The other hope is that driverless cars radically change auto bike interactions on roads. Intriguing, but I am not holding my breath.

Sounds good to me, and yeah it’s something I sort of alluded to when I mentioned that realization I made 3-6 months ago. I hope it works because the infra by itself doesn’t do much to change driver attitudes/enforcement. Maybe pedestrians, and road users in general will benefit too if road casualties go down.

I can’t wait for driverless cars myself.

Ok, but how does a common road user know what kind of sign a sharrow is? Anyway, I can’t say much more on what sharrows mean to most people and whether it’s representative or not – it’s just my interpretation.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 124501 wrote:

In a place like Arlington, where there are lots of bikes around, I support signs and markings on the main arterials, that carry lots of drivers who aren’t from Arlington or that may not “feel” like neighborhood streets. I’m thinking 50, Lee, Mason, Glebe.

Hmm. One place sharrows are often used is for primary biking routes, or links between bike lanes, in on roads that are the main vehicle roads through a residential area, but are not actually big fast stroads. Places like Abingdon Rd in Fairlington, or Kenwood nearby in Alexandria. I feel like those do help, that auto drivers are more respectful to me riding, esp when I am not going that fast, than otherwise. Maybe its all in my head. The side streets are slower anyway (and sometimes are very narrow, or have traffic calming) so are good even if drivers do not expect cyclists.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 124502 wrote:

Mostly I agree, but let me quibble. The above applies to door zone bike lanes only. Where a painted, non buffered bike lane, is not in a door zone, it is possible to safely ride in the center of or on the right side of the lane. Even a driver hugging the left edge of the bike lane (and not all do – I watched for that this morning on Eye Street) will still be giving cyclists three feet. A fortiori for climbing lanes – most newbies, aside from the usual paranoia about tailing traffic, are particularly slow on hills.

This is not trivial, as there are painted bike lanes of this nature going in in Alexandria right now, and more to come.

However for places like Wilson Blvd, say, where the bike lane is not only in a door zone, but an active door zone at that, no new bike lane unless it is buffered or protected probably makes sense.

I took the new bike lanes on the western end of Wilson today. There’s no parking there. I was on my road bike, and riding in the middle of the lane (which is the furthest right that’s not gutter), my shoulder was about a foot from the edge of the lane. The travel lane is really wide there, so cars weren’t to the right but if they had been, they would have passed too close.

Many kid-carrying trailers are 3’+ wide. My kid carrying bike is 3′ wide. The edge of that would have likely been on the edge of the bike lane. That would really not be fun to ride there.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’ve out it.

[Author]

Posts