Sharrows helpful for experienced bikers?
 

would like to hear from folks who bike regularly on roads (the 3%?) and have experience with sharrows. I'll throw in my 2 cents as a starter:

- most drivers and bicyclists don't know what the symbols mean (some kind of bike lane?)
- 'Bikes May Use Full Lane' signage is helpful in conveying the meaning of sharrows
- BMUFL is a big improvement over the misunderstood 'Share The Road' signage from 20 years ago
- but not all towns include BMUFL signage with their sharrows
- when properly placed (not always done), help steer bikers away from door zone
- also encourage bikers to 'take the lane' on narrow roads to avoid being squeezed by passing vehicles
- seeing a bike symbol in the right-center of the lane helps some drivers understand that they need to provide space for the bicyclists
- there is evidence motorists provide more space when passing bikers on roads w/ sharrows
- sharrows are useful on short segs when bridging 2 segments of bike lanes
- sharrows are useful for bikers already biking on narrow roads/lanes
- but are less useful for inexperienced or less fit bikers who are uncomfortable biking in traffic
- some bike-friendly evaluation algorithms give 0 points for sharrow roads b/c they are seen as NOT helping the 'average' bicyclist
- but in general, IMHO, sharrows are better than nothing for those of us (3%) who are comfortable riding in traffic but believe some motorists (and bicyclists) will 'share the road' in a safer manner when seeing sharrows & BMUFL signs

Additional Background
A couple local bike committee members announced sharrows are worthless b/c a Chicago bike study showed that conditions (ridership, less injuries) improved for all 3 study cases: no changes; addition of bike lanes; addition of sharrows; But there was more improvement for 'no changes' compared to 'added sharrows'. As another critic pointed out [yaybikes.com/blog/sharrows-have-their-place], the study was quite limited in the data (census block) that it used, and thus flawed.

So again, the basic question is:
if you are already biking narrow roads with traffic, are sharrows (and the optional BMUFL signs) worthless, of some value, or have a negative impact for you?

I'll summarize the results if I get enough replies.
And please, if you want to switch the thread to another topic, start a new one.

The only problem I have with sharrows and b.m.u.f.l is that around here they make up only about 10 percent of roads and that probably gives the drivers the impression that bicycles are not allowed on the other 90 percent.

They installed sharrows on some of the residential roads where I live. IMO they aren't needed and I don't see any difference in driver behavior. Mostly they used the "elastomeric" coating for them which I don't like riding over, so I tend to move to the side of them when approaching.

scott s.
.

Sharrows in practice are useless. In Columbus, they added sharrows primarily to secondary residential feeders, and to arterials not suited to a road diet with dedicated bike lanes. That means our sharrows exist on streets where traffic isn't a challenge, or on busy thoroughfares, occasionally with more than one lane.

The bike lanes aren't much better, since they put you in the door zone, or set you up for hooks. I've had more than one bus block the bicycle lane, as well as try to pull out as I'm going around.

I don't like to complain without a solution though. Bike lanes provide a way to get past traffic snarls, as long as you're mindful of possible turns, taking the lane on residential streets until I'm comfortable with a pass (parked cars make it one lane, basically) helps with squeezes.

Maybe lower posted limits on streets with sharrows, and since enforcement stings? They're mostly connectors for the bicycle highway system, and are usually selected because they're quieter detours around spots the city or state couldn't get right of way for a trail.

Bedford MA?

Welcome.

Anyhow, agree that the Chicago study is multiply flawed. Census block ACS data is beyond noisy. Further, primary means of transport to work is NOT a good stand in for who bikes in Chicago. And assuming people who LIVE next to sharrows are a good stand in for who bikes over sharrows.

The original studies on sharrows (which included Cambridge MA) are far superior even if they are showing their age.

Sharrows are worthless, of some value, or negative? It depends.

Sharrows on Cragie dam were near worthless. Sharrows on Oxford Street in Cambridge are amazing. Sharrows in Arlington Heights on Mass Ave are quite good. Sharrows on Essex St and Lincoln and "Surface Rd" in Boston are laughable, but not worthless.

To go negative they have to be placed on the wrong road -- too much traffic, too high a speed, AND/OR in the wrong place -- too close to the curb, especially too close to parking.

(BMUFL signs, worthless. Sharrows with BMUFL signs, not.)


So, finally, I'll notice that they are not just for the "3%." I've seen middle school kids riding alone over sharrows for short segments. Example, mostly ride on the Minuteman, but some distance on Mass Ave with sharrows. I've also seen parents with children riding over sharrows.

Warms my heart to see school kids in Lexington riding to school. Breaks my heart that they ride on the sidewalk because Marrett Rd is 40 mph.

Sharrows WILL NOT AND CAN NOT turn a high stress road into a less than high stress road. (Yeah, Marrett, 4/225, 62, etc. Sorry.)

-mr. bill

I prefer bike lanes but if sharrows are all I have, I take the full lane.

Nothing scientific to add, just personal observation agreeing with your impressions of the various routes you listed. I think the biggest difference I've noted is there seems to be a far less aggressive attitude on the part of drivers where there are sharrows, while the BMUFL signs by themselves might as well not be there.

That being said, sharrows on a busy 40 mph road (or higher) are likely absurd.

Wholehearted agreement. Likely bureaucratic quota fulfillment.
"We need another 5 miles of bike infrastructure to meet the qualifications for this grant. To satisfy the letter of the grant language, we can designate streets in high need areas as 'shared infrastructure.'"

"Lets find some streets then!"

And a sharrow is placed on a 5 lane stroad with a "35 mph 'limit'".

In Toronto, I believe sharrows are on narrow busy streets that can't accomodate bike lanes. For a cyclist, it wouldn't make much difference. I think the sharrow markings are for drivers to understand cyclists are going to be there.

Near my home in the suburbs, I usually take a major 60 km/h street with a diamond lane. Most of the time the cars will follow along patiently or change lanes. Today I got honked by a transport trailer. He then changed lanes and made a close pass. When I caught up with him, I just reminded him it was a diamond lane but he didn't care and swore at me anyways.

I don't believe sharrows are sensible on busy streets.

However, there are some benefits to put them on low traffic, mostly through streets.

Sharrows, signs, whatever, help cyclists find those streets that are good to ride on. And, perhaps get enough cyclists on a road, and some drivers would start only using that road for "local traffic".

I thought Alder Street in Eugene between 24th and 30th had them, but I'm not seeing them on the latest Google Maps. Nonetheless, it is good marking for a mostly through sleepy residential street.

Portland likes them. One of the better ones is Ankeny Street in East Portland. Pretty long. One block away from the busy Burnside.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5221...7i13312!8i6656

It looks like they also dropped in a few planters in key locations.

I find the speed bumps are annoying, and they've ground off a few of them.

Cars do seem to respect the bikes on that street, and it is a good street to ride on.

I really don't care about road placement, and don't believe cyclists should be taught to aim for the arrows, but rather to "share the road", adjusting road position as is appropriate.

A point I should have included in the original posting:
- assume the discussion is only about sharrows placed properly and appropriately. Eg, not on roads > 35 mph as per the guidelines. (I would say in general not > 30 mph).

I think we can agree that bad implementations of sharrows (wrong location; wrong roads; too close to parked cars) don't help and may do more harm than good. I would like to discuss the merits of good implementations.
Thanks for the feedback so far. Hoping for more.

I disagree a bit here. I don't see much point for them on low traffic streets. To me, the best usage (but not the only one) is in multi-laned streets, and they're primarily there to cue drivers in the right lane that they should expect the slower bikes to be there, so keep off the horn and gas pedal. I'm going to take the safest position possible on my bike regardless of sharrows or bike lane markings. The bike lane/sharrow markings around bus stops, for example, often call for the rider to shift around in a manner that is just bound to confuse any following driver, especially when there is no bus. Much better to pick a lane and stick with it.

Marrett Road posted at 40 mph (or higher) *IS* absurd. But it's an alternate state road, paralleling a limited access state road. So even though every other similar road in Lexington is 25 mph, the speed posted is set by 1/6 MA Holes.

You've got it absolutely upside down.

Luckily, bill S.2214 would finally fix that, so the speed limit on Marrett will become 25 mph if it becomes law. It passed unanimously in the Senate and is now in the infamous House Ways and Means Committee. Luckily, the former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee who consistently single handedly killed such bills in the past was defeated by Nika Elugardo.

So, IF Marrett Road finally gets posted at the correct speed, THEN sharrows belong there.

(And IF Marrett Road finally gets posted at the correct speed, it will become a lower traffic road since Waze won't send people down the "short cut" to avoid Route 2/I-95 intersection.)

-mr. bill

Anyhow, I'll strongly disagree.

Turn around on SE Ankeny Street. It's a bike boulevard. The diversions serve many purposes, including anti-Wazing the street so it remains low traffic. Permitting bikes through the diversions makes it a WONDERFUL low stress bike route.

(I prefer how Vancouver handles a similar street at the Haro Street bike boulevard, with bike stencils at intersections but not mid-block and HARO BIKE signs mid-block.)

To give you an idea where you used to ride where they would be REALLY useful think Constance, Laurel, and Camp in NOLA, which parallel Magazine. Turning those into bike boulevards would be impressive. (Of course, REPAVING them would be even more impressive.)

(Irony. Enountered a salmon on Constance Street who went two blocks the wrong way. In a Volvo SUV.)

But to clearly understand where sharrows do not belong. Take a street. Are there ANY traffic control devices on that street? (Lines down the middle of the street? Yield signs? Stop signs? Stop lights?) No. Then clearly traffic control devices clearly aren't needed for that street - so sharrows are also clearly not needed on that street.

-mr. bill

I have a feeling that most people probably see sharrows and think that's where army corporals ride their bikes.

Yes, quite right.

The statement you quoted is a generalization ("likely absurd"), not specifically referring to Marrett Rd. I didn't get anything "upside down". I hope the bill succeeds in reducing the speed limit on that road because, as you note, the sharrows would be absurd without that reduction.

I especially appreciate sharrows when I'm exploring a trail or MUP somewhere new and they guide me on which roads I need to ride to get back to it when there is a segment that has to be completed by road.

Most miles of roads do not have centerline markings. While a *few* drivers seem to have the impression that such roads are one way (their way), MOST drivers get the keep right (or left) thing with or without centerline markings.

-mr. bill

Why the heck do they need sharrows there? Would anyone think that bikes were supposed to be blocked by those calming obstructions? That wouldn't even occur to me because the bike-sized gap that is not sidewalk adjacent makes it rather obvious that it's not intended to stop bikes.

Technically, btw, at that spot, it's not a "sharrow" as the gap lane is not actually being shared. Cars can't go. The question really concerns whether it makes sense to put these symbols in lanes actually shared by bikes and cars, not if the arrow on the road with a picture of a bike is a good symbol to use for places that are exclusively for bike use.

Agreed, the notion that signs and markings on busy roads would give people the impression that bikes aren't allowed on the other ones is really far-fetched. If anything, the side streets are exactly where drivers expect to encounter bicyclists.

I think some of those planters are new, and came after the sharrows.

You're right, in a sense, the sharrows are redundant, but part of marking that street as a bike friendly street (for both cars and bikes to see).

Incidentally, that street also has 2 bike co-ops, and the back door to Universal Cycles.

Doesn't the same rationale apply to 4 lane streets... why put in sharrows when an attentive driver can just see a cyclist on the road and drive accordingly.

On Main Street through West Springfield, and over the bridge into Glenwood, there is a 2-lane, one-way road. I find myself frequently using, and sometimes "taking" the left lane for various reasons for a 10 to 20 block section of road. So, putting sharrows in the right lane would be massively unproductive.

For me... there are times when the left lane is the lane to be in.

Sharrows are supposed to be placed in shared lanes where you are LIKELY to encounter bicycles. For one-way roads, that would be the right lane and the left lane. See this study, note in particular Guadalupe St. in Austin on pp. 8,9.

And not just on one-way streets. See this trifecta of sharrows since people on bikes can be going left, straight, or right.

-mr. bill

I wonder how long it will take for someone to state that the study is flawed.