buzzman

Or behind the keyboard of a computer.

Mike Loveford

+, they are really useless

Chris0516

There is one guy on YouTube. Who lives in London, and goes by the YouTube moniker CycleGaz. He does a video of every ride. He 'hugs the curb' sometimes. But his verbal reactions, as to how many 'close passes' during one ride. Is off the charts.

What I am trying to illustrate with him. Is not necessarily his reactions'. But his road position. Closer to the curb is an indirect 'permission slip' to motorists', to pass a cyclist with reckless abandon.

Digital_Cowboy

No, the thing that is wrong is when cyclists who have the skills and the confidence and the experience to drive their bicycles safely away from the so called "safety" of a bike lane, or sidewalk or MUP or other segregated facility is WRONG.

Why must the the experienced, skilled and confident cyclist treated the same as an inexperienced, less skilled and confident cyclist?

genec

Bottom line... no form of simple paint, or a simple sign will make cycling safer, if first, motorists have no idea what they mean; and second, if motorists really don't care anyway.

Rollfast

Because the same is expected for the motorists.

I'm not sure what all the hubbub is about. I don't believe I've SEEN a sharrow in 25 years if at all. I live near Interstate 84 at the Idago border and we have bike lanes on TWO roads, and then only parts. You are expected to work with all traffic safely and be defensive and alert. Exactly what I have done for 38 years in this county. We got rid of almost all traffic lights in my old hometown of Nyssa, OR years ago, it's that small.

kickstart

Because that's how the rules and laws of the road work, applying equally to all, or they're pointless. That means some need to learn how to bring their skills and confidence up to snuff, and some need to learn how to practice restraint.

Sharrows are informational only, they do not restrict or define ones actions, so I don't see the relevance of your statement.

mr_bill

I have a hard time thinking of more ignorant and more uncaring road users than we have in our fair city, yet sharrows changed behavior. Huh dat.

-mr. bill

genec

Without even clicking I knew you were a car talk fan...

Perhaps there is some change, but it is most likely due to drivers seeing the sharrows and just not knowing what they are.

In my area, they are showing commercials about sharrows... (which is interesting as I have never seen cycling PDAs before...) and they tell the motorists that "Sharrows are for Sharing." There is more to it than that, but I don't recall all the text right now... but at least the DOT is trying to get the word out...

kickstart

If someone is too stupid to figure out sharrows, they're most likely going to be too stupid to understand many things, and its a moot point anyway.
Like with most things, they can't be judged by the lowest common denominator, whether they be pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist.

prathmann

Nevertheless, this article and included video indicate that this appears to be a problem for at least some LA sheriff officers.
Shared Bike Lanes Cause Confusion For Cyclists, Motorists And Traffic Officers « CBS Los Angeles

Rollfast

All of that snow has brought it all to C&V today...we're arguing about optional road markings.

kickstart

And?

I'm sure there's opinion pieces out there representing every point of view about them. So what, plenty of agendas on the internet, doesn't prove anything that we don't already known, some people are ignorant, naturally or willfully.

Digital_Cowboy

Kickstart, because in states like Florida where we now have and have had a mandatory bike lane use law. Even though not only myself, but several others that I know have the confidence, and experience and the skills to safely navigate the roads with motorized traffic we are FORCED by law to use the bike lanes, when they are present. Bike lanes that I have personally on far TOO many occasions have seen people walking or running or roller skating/blading, skateboarding in. And that are also usually filled with all sorts of debris that has been blown from the travel lanes.

genec

Oh that was sooooo classic... the officer only seems to know three things...
1) you cannot slow up the flow of traffic
(I wonder what he does when there is a slow cement truck or other large vehicle moving slow in the lane)
2) cyclists must ride to the far right
(the law actually specifies as far to the right as practicable... it does NOT say to the far right)
3) the officer knows absolutely nothing about sharrows or cyclists sharing the lane
(I wonder what Obi does when he encounters "cyclist may use full lane" signs...)

SIGH...

Is it any wonder cyclist may feel like they are constantly "fighting" for their place on the road... neither LEOs nor other drivers seem to have a clue about anything beyond "driving the speed limit" and "don't slow down anyone else."

This is why I often considered that when I bike commuted, I was "training" everyone around me.

GamblerGORD53

We did that thread a year and a half ago. He is rather devoid of riding sense.
The writer is also loopy, saying he was DRIVING his bicycle. LOL
Anyway, any VCer will tell you sharing in their dictionary = TAKING the road.

kickstart

That has absolutely nothing to do with sharrow, and is another issue entirely.
I'm against mandatory use laws except for some exceptional circumstances

mr_bill

So, the paper has been published, behind a paywall.

The survey section of previously published sharrow research (including misrepresenting the data collected in our fair city) - wow. The flaws are bad, but the minor errors are did anyone review this?

The methodology (two decennial census results, with changing census districts, interpolated, with semi-arbitrary grouping of census blocks to no-infrastructure, sharrow and bike lane coding), to injury data uncertainties, to basing some conclusions on statistically meaningless data.

Sigh. Even ILTB is right twice a day, there's nothing to see in this study. Other than how not to.


Meanwhile, visiting Seattle again, I find the sharrows pretty useful as an out of towner. Then again, I don't hate the 2nd ave bike lane (non-salmon direction).

-mr. bill

CliffordK

One would expect the city to send out a required reading update PLUS SIGNATURE to all police officers with every new traffic control change.

Motorcycle laws typically allow, but don't require bikes to share a lane. Forcing the motorcycle into the cyclist's lane would seem to be bad form.

It reminds me a bit of this interaction.

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...-gets-hit.html

I am beginning to see some advantages of sharrows on slow moving 4 lane roads (not fast moving, 25 mph avg speed?). 2 lane 2 way roads have other issues including forcing unsafe passes for both cars and bikes. Like the Darwin officer above, given a choice of hitting a car head-on vs side-swiping a bike, they will likely choose to sacrifice the bike.

kickstart

Today I rounded a corner marked with those yellow signs warning of a sharp curve....and ironically there was evidence of a vehicle going off the road there. Even without the signs, the curve was unobstructed and visible a long way off.

Signs and markings won't fix stupid, but who's to say that they haven't ever saved somebodies bacon in a moment of weakness.

mr_bill

Exactly. Some stupids continued to ride in the door zone. (Not blaming the victim here, but who has skin in the game?) And some stupids will give you a few inches, no matter where in the road you are, because.

BUT, even without savoy [sic] courses or BMW courses, lots of folks with a TINY hint will do the right thing.

Digital_Cowboy

NOT every VCer. I know plenty who believe in sharing the road, but not the lane. There is a difference between the two.

Digital_Cowboy

If you scroll back up you were the one who was saying or implying that even though one might have the confidence and experience and the skill to safely do something that someone else does not. That the more confident, experienced and skill operator must in effect "dumb" down to the level of the the less confident, experienced and skilled operators.

And I too am against mandatory use laws as they usually result in the more confident, experienced and skilled operators having to place themselves into positions that can end up being more dangerous to them.

Digital_Cowboy

The sings I've always have had to laugh at are the:

a) stop ahead
b) turning traffic must yield to pedestrians

In more than a few cases the "stop ahead" signs are placed within sight of the stop sign that they're warning about.

kickstart

That's why I concluded by saying that I don't see the relevance of your statement.

If someone lets their experience and confidence place themselves in a dangerous position, maybe their skills and judgment are lacking as they don't know their limitations. Just saying, as I have absolutely no respect or confidence in anyone who claim s to be an expert, than has a laundry list of places they can't or won't ride.