Arthur Peabody

https://www.abqjournal.com/1249551/s...sts-safer.html

jon c. 

makes a lot of sense

Jim from Boston

Santa Fe to replace `Share the Road' signs with 'Bicycles May Use Full Lane'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Peabody

https://www.abqjournal.com/1249551/s...sts-safer.html

FYA, I posted this to a now-closed thread, "What specific type of car or truck do people who hate cyclists the most drive?":

JW Fas

I wish the BMUFL signage would pick up steam and become ubiquitous everywhere. Delaware was the first state to implement these statewide and saw very positive results.

Study Confirms: ?Share The Road? Signs Don?t Work ? Bike Delaware Inc

Why ?Share The Road? Is Gone in Delaware ? Bike Delaware Inc

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0136973

winston63 

I like this and wish more jurisdictions would go in this direction. "Share the Road" as it's usually promoted seems to imply that the cyclist must ride in the gutter and get the hell out of motorists' way.

Jim from Boston

FYA, see this previous thread on A&S from January this year:

JoeyBike

I have HATED "Share The Road" since Day 1. So happy that nonsense is going away.

mcours2006

Very sensible.

CB HI

The real question is why has it taken so long for the common sense move and why have other refused to make the change?

Jim from Boston

After a second look at the Santa Fe sign, I think it really is the SOS (same old “share the road”) sign as written and illustrated by the pictograph…car in the lane, cyclist to the right, “in the gutter.”

genec

Seriously? In a motorist centric society, that favors traffic throughput over safety, and sees speed as a solution... you actually wonder this?

mcours2006

Yep. Every time some kind of bike-friendly initiative is piloted, or even remotely suggested motorists and businesses along that road are up in arms.

People don't know what's good for them, that encouraging more people to cycle means there are fewer cars on the road; that pedestrian and cyclist friendly means it's better for everyone; they can't see beyond their own windshield glass.

JoeyBike

I really prefer "Change lanes COMPLETELY to pass cyclists" on certain kinds of roads. So no matter where I position myself in the lane, motorists have to make a safe pass. And adding the word "PASS" in there triggers the motorist brain to know that passing is an option, not riding my wheel honking like an @$$.

BobbyG

Nice!

JW Fas

The initial signage came from legislators who weren't cyclists, and it's taken so long to change likely due to cost.

CliffordK

I like the "Share the Road" concept. I think it applies to both bikes and cars. Cars share the road with bikes... Bikes share the road with cars. Both have duties to keep traffic flowing safely.

The problem is that it is also pretty meaningless unless one really thinks about the concept.

"Bicycles may use the full lane" may apply in certain restricted settings, but I don't believe in the concept in general.

For example, Springfield, OR has some suggested bike routes on residential streets that run about 30 blocks through the middle of the city. Using the full lane makes sense... but also sharing the road, so if a car comes up behind me, I'll looking for space in the parking lane to pull into until the car passes, then continue on my way.

Oh, and I'd rather cars pay attention to the road rather than puzzling about silly road signs.

JW Fas

I prefer the KISS method, and I think BMUFL signs do that. Preferably, I'd like a universal legal standard among all 50 states where the laws simply say, "Bicycles are vehicles and may use the full lane. Change lanes to pass." It would end the pointless pissing contests motorists and cyclists have, which get nuanced by each state's overly complicated laws. Admittedly, getting such a universal standard passed is somewhat pie in the sky, but what is the alternative? Well, we're living the alternative right now where every state has to write 1-3 paragraphs in its law books on where a bicycle should ride.

CliffordK

What about simply posting the safe passing distance? 3 feet? 4 feet? 5 feet?

JoeyBike

You assume that everyone driving a motor vehicle knows what "a foot" looks like, much less 3-feet, much less be able to judge that distance on the far side of the car as they pass. But they sure as Hell can SEE that line(s) down the center of the road, and they know what "change lane completely" means. Also, it is easier for a cop to judge an infraction, if a cop happens to be nearby, and cares.

Also, if the law requires a lane change, then video evidence (helmet cam, handlebar cam, backward cam) of a purposeful close pass becomes much more relevant.

CliffordK

Perhaps part of the driving exam should be to estimate distances. Heck they could have the kids pass a post with a laser measuring device say at a distance between 4 and 5 feet. Simulated bicycle?

While change lanes completely may be good for 4-lane, 2-way roads, I don't believe it is appropriate or necessary on many 2-lane, 2-way roads. One of my greatest fears is that some driver will be driving in the wrong lane around a blind corner in attempt to pass me... barrelling head-on into another car, or even another cyclist.

What cars do need to do is to use caution around bikes.

Knowing passing distances? My last close pass... I was about 24" to the right of the fog line. The pickup passed me at about 50 MPH about 18" to the right of the fog line. One would think the driver could at least see painted lines on the road.

Actually, it is not as much about any distance, but really about over-driving road conditions. So, mirroring speed and a slow pass with a small vehicle is far less dangerous than a close high speed pass, or perhaps passing pulling a trailer (often wider than the tow vehicle, or a semi-truck which is far more lethal).

B. Carfree

In Eugene, OR, a city that once boasted a cycling modal share of over 10% but since 2012 has charted a course to go to zero bikes by 2024, our traffic engineer (since promoted to the head of engineering) came up with a new excuse to not put up BMUFL signs. On one of the main routes out of town for people on bikes, a third of a mile just inside the city limits consists of travel lanes of about 9.5 feet, no shoulder and a slight incline. I have requested BMUFL signs here for years. This year, the city put up yellow "bicycles and peds on roadway" signs, which are both meaningless and ignored.

Why no BMUFL signs? The engineer claims, without evidence, that it is somehow safer to ride hugging the ditch and he wouldn't want to encourage anyone to take the lane on a narrow, winding road. Huh? That's exactly where state law tells cyclists to take the lane. He believes that being hit from behind by some part of the front end of the car that is near the right wheel is better than being hit by the center of the car. Somehow the notion that a driver would choose to not run over someone on a bike is foreign to him, as well as the knowledge of which part of the roadway motorists are paying attention to. (Hint: it's not the part over by the ditch, as evidenced by how many motorists I see hit overhanging branches.)

Bear in mind that this engineer actually rides his bike a wee bit. He even shows up to the occasional evening meeting on his bike. I believe we have a bit of a war between the "one right way to ride" people (upright, slowly, far to the right or, better, on sidepaths that are basically sidewalks, only) and those of us who ride in other ways. If someone who is not from the "one right way" crowd wants something, it is pre-judged as bad by these folks. They're even trying to shut down e-bikes because they go too fast and thus don't fit into their dogma.

JoeyBike

If I couldn't ride fast when need be, I would have never taken up commuting by bike nor had the ability to go car-free for 30 years. My city now has many bike lanes/greenways to accommodate slow riders. So as I get older and slower I feel it is still reasonable to cycle on certain roads/trails. My point: The one "fault" with "Bikes May Use Full Lane" are those cyclists who ride at 7 mph in the middle of a busy roadway. I do not feel comfortable taking a lane at less than 18mph. This is the speed where (in my experience) cars going up to 35 have a few seconds of patience (generally) for me to get past whatever is forcing me into the lane center. And i LOOK LIKE i am TRYING to get out of "the way". I just feel like taking the lane (for any length of time) at jogging speed on a bike is rude. I wouldn't do it. Many in my city have no problem mindlessly hogging the road at slow speeds. <-- THIS is why local officials and other motorists opt for removing "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signage. Slow, entitled cyclists, acting within the law, hurts all of us.

Perhaps electric motorized bikes will p!$$ off less motorists?

mcours2006

+1, though in the middle of winter with my studs and a strong headwind there's no way I'm getting up to 18 mph. But if I know I'm going to slow on a section I might just hop up on the sidewalk on sections of the road where cars are going more than 35 mph.

On most road that I ride I figure if I can maintain half the posted speed limit I'm okay to take the full lane.

JoeyBike

Whatever your technique you have convinced me that you, A) have noticed that you are not the only person on planet Earth, B) have the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and, C) you CARE about those strangers (on some level anyway) that you share the road and this planet with. If everyone had those attributes we could save a lot of money on signage.

jon c. 

That could be a problem, but it isn't one I've witnessed.