Keri Caffrey, at Commute Orlando, examines the proper placement of sharrows. She says:
Shared Lane Markings were not intended to be a lane position indicator. They were intended to be used as Winter Park has used them on Palmer.
Exactly. The sharrow has nothing to do with lane positioning and everything to do will letting all road users know that bicyclists have the right to use the lane. The sharrow creates awareness. It makes drivers think about what they may encounter on the road.
Badly placed sharrows — and we have a few in Springfield — suggest lane positioning and, therefore, lose their effectiveness as creators of awareness. Let me make this real simple: A badly-placed sharrow is at best a waste of paint (taxpayer dollars) and at worst a health hazard.
Here’s a graphic from Commute Orlando showing proper placement:
I think the “minimum” and “better” examples are inadequate compared to to the example marked “best.”
Again, a sharrow is not a lane marker. Therefore placement anywhere but the center of the main travel lane (or virtual lane) completely negates the purpose, which, again, because it can’t be stated enough, is to alert road users to the presence of bicycles and encourage motor vehicle drivers to be alert and think.
I prefer sharrows over painted lanes — even really good painted lanes (in the American context).
Comments 12
I prefer sharrows over painted lanes — even really good painted lanes (in the American context).
Me too! 100%
It’s very important for cyclists to have the freedom to manage our safety on the roadway. We are the most vulnerable of vehicle drivers, passed with the highest speed differentials, yet we can be incredibly safe when given the freedom and respect to operate as full and equal drivers.
BTW, I tweaked the cyclist in the “best” scenario to illustrate that cyclists may choose to ride anywhere within the virtual lane based on their discretion.
Thanks for picking this up! I think cycling advocates are going to have to be alert to this issue and ready to watchdog sharrow installations in our cities.
Posted 30 Apr 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶There has been a long discussion about this on the LCI List Service. The problem is that bicyclists tend to ride at the center of the chevron. So, no matter what the intent is it will be impossible to educate all bicyclists on their purpose … they are going to tend to ride over the center of the arrow. If I remember correctly, it was determined that the point of the sharrow should be at least 13′ from the curb where car parking is permitted, just as shown in the ‘better’ example. Placing the sharrow in the center of the lane is being experimented with in at least one U.S. city, I think somewhere in Utah. I had a link, but it goes to a blank page now???
Posted 30 Apr 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶Oh Lord. If I start talking about our sharrows and where they are located I will begin to curse!
I’ll let this topic slide right on by…………..
Posted 30 Apr 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶Coy, I’d be interested in a study of cyclist behavior on roads where the Sharrow is in the center of the lane. I’m curious if an obviously off-center sharrow creates a different stimulus. Other pavement markings, like school zones, turn arrows, etc. are placed in the center of the lane. So if this one is off to one side, it must mean something…
In my observations, I have yet to see a cyclist ride down the center of Palmer Ave., directly over the sharrows.
Robert, after attending the NCUTCD-BTC meeting in January, it has taken me this long to be able to write about it without cursing. It’s horrifying to me that the city that killed Dana Laird would complain that 11ft was too far left. OK, I’m going to swear if I don’t stop now…
Posted 30 Apr 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶I prefer fully-separated bicycle lanes with the separation featuring barriers that keep cars out. And Copenhagen-style protection through intersections.
Ideally, the barrier is strong enough to stop dead an out-of-control car so that it cannot, possibly, ever get to the bike lane. The best one I’ve ever seen is in Toronto. See:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/masachiba/2537322527/
Second best is curbs, but they must be at least as wide as the door zone. See an example at:
http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/img_0779.jpg
Worst of all is mere paint. But paint can at least mark the door zone to warn cyclists NOT to ride there. “Here there be dragons.” See an example at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loewenherz/354569988/in/set-72157594576463970/
Posted 30 Apr 2009 at 7:29 pm ¶I agree with Keri re: need for a sharrow study about how cyclists tend to position themselves. If indeed they do tend to aim for the center, then, for me, that’s an argument for placement in the center of the lane.
Posted 01 May 2009 at 6:43 am ¶Kevin,
I can only imagine the cost of a truly separated system. Bicyclists and motorists must never be able to cross paths at grade. I’m imagining a system like the train system in Chicago where the tracks are all about 50 feet about the city streets on huge steel structures.
Otherwise, there would be no “real” separation cause they could still meet at intersections, right?
Got a call from the police department yesterday about a person riding a bicycle on the sidewalk and smacked by a car. No doubt, that person felt pretty separated as well but as far as I can tell that is an illusion as long as there are at grade crossings.
Posted 01 May 2009 at 8:07 am ¶Robert wrote:
“Bicyclists and motorists must never be able to cross paths at grade.”
Kevin’s comment:
Although fully grade-separated is the ideal, there are several inexpensive ways of protecting cyclists through level crossings.
Copenhagen has done an excellent job of protecting cyclists through intersections. Examples include bike boxes (note how cheap they were to install) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/07/117-safer-intersections-in-copenhagen.html
Or blue paint (again, cheap) to show the bike route through the intersection at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/11/copenhagen-blue.html
Or roundabouts (less cheap, but cheaper than human life) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/01/countryside-bicycle-lanes-and-city.html
Giving cyclists the right-of-way (signs are cheap) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/02/cars-stop-for-bikes.html
And separate traffic signals (cheap) for bikes at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/12/copenhagen-berlin-bike-traffic-lights.html
With the sole exception of reconstructing intersections as roundabouts (expensive), all these items are cheap and easy to do.
There are many North American examples, ranging from Davis, California to Toronto.
My test for infrastructure is “am I OK with my 10-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter cycling on these roads?” If the answer is “no,” then the infrastructure is broken and needs to be fixed.
For an example of good infrastructure, see this video of children going to school in Assen, NL at:
Posted 01 May 2009 at 9:25 am ¶
Robert wrote:
“Bicyclists and motorists must never be able to cross paths at grade.”
Kevin’s comment:
Interestingly enough, I was just writing about this at the Commute Orlando blog.
Level crossings do present a problem. Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. Here are five examples of potential solutions from the City of Copenhage, which has done an excellent job of protecting cyclists through intersections.
Example #1: Bike boxes (note how cheap they were to install) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/07/117-safer-intersections-in-copenhagen.html
Example #2 blue paint (again, cheap) to show the bike route through the intersection at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/11/copenhagen-blue.html
Example #3: roundabouts (less cheap, but cheaper than human life) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/01/countryside-bicycle-lanes-and-city.html
Example #4: Giving cyclists the right-of-way (signs are cheap) at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/02/cars-stop-for-bikes.html
Example #5: separate traffic signals (cheap) for bikes at:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/12/copenhagen-berlin-bike-traffic-lights.html
With the sole exception of reconstructing intersections as roundabouts (expensive), all these items are cheap and easy to do.
I’ll take a sixth example from Toronto, the so-called “Barnes Scramble.” To see how it works, take a look at the video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQkFEMisENU
Since human intelligence knows no limits, there are probably other solutions also out there, but here are six tools in the toolkit of protecting cyclists and pedestrians at level crossing.
Posted 01 May 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶Kevin,
The compromise on the placement of sharrows, resulting in a minimum guideline which endangers bicyclists, illustrates a major cultural problem in this country—lack of respect for bicyclists. Can you see how the same people who insisted on the sharrow placement would also be in charge of building bikeway facilities?
Building facilities on the current cultural foundation will make things WAY WORSE for transportation cyclists. The facilities will be inferior, inconvenient and possibly dangerous. Bicyclists will still be a minority, but we will have come to public attention as a special interest which has received expensive facilities built with “their” money. The majority will then insist we be required by law to ride on what has been built for us, and kept out of “their” way.
You can post a million links about how great European facilities are. It’s meaningless. What will be built here will not look like that. It will not be built by a culture which considers the bicycle a viable mode of transportation. It will be built by a culture that wants cyclists out of the way of motorists.
I’m not speaking hypothetically. I live in a city with 100s of miles of trails built for toy bikes. These trails are wonderful when they are on their own right-of-way. Some of them serve a transportation purpose. All of them have fundamental flaws in the way they terminate and interface with the roadway system. We have:
$4 million trail bridges not designed to be ridden over, they have signs which say “bicyclists must dismount.” They couldn’t be bothered to design them right, but they’re happy to pat themselves on the back for installing them.
We have a multimillion dollar trail tunnel which closes at sunset. You must have your toys home by sunset.
Almost all trials become poorly-designed sidepaths when they run out of separated ROW. Some of them even become ridiculous Frankenstein configurations next to residential streets. Or they just dead-end into sidewalks with no attempt to integrate back into the transportation network. Message is clear here: bicycles are toys, not vehicles. They don’t belong on the road, any road. Therefore, bicycles can’t possibly be a viable mode of transportation.
There were dozens of important physical features and cultural attitudes in place in Europe BEFORE the bikeways were built. Those features and attitudes make up a foundation that is absolutely required for building quality facilities. Attempting to force facilities in current US culture will likely result in a decrease of service for transportation cyclists.
Cycling advocates have a responsibility to understand the culture in which we operate, think ahead and form appropriate strategies so they don’t make things worse for cyclists.
Posted 03 May 2009 at 10:13 am ¶Keri… That’s an excellent articulation of the problems we face with bicycling infrastructure in the USA. It’s no secret that I admire what they’ve done in the Netherlands and wish that we had something like it here. But I think you’re right about the problems we face creating such a system, i.e. culture.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 8:47 am ¶I think there is a study which has already looked at these issues:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf
This is an impressive study undertaken in San Francisco.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶