[HN Gopher] Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn't wo...
___________________________________________________________________
Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn't work and nobody
wants
Author : Tomte
Score : 165 points
Date : 2020-12-13 20:04 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (macwright.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (macwright.com)
| femto wrote:
| "Sharrows" are cynically known as "dead cyclists" in sections of
| the Australian bike community, with an analogy to the chalk body
| outlines one finds in crime dramas. They save the police having
| to draw the outline when a car runs over a cyclist in the shared
| lane.
| [deleted]
| etempleton wrote:
| I am not a cyclist. And it is because I think it is unsafe to do
| so on most all roads where there are cars.
|
| Roads may not have originally been designed for cars, but that is
| what they are for now. You can make a philosophical debate that
| they shouldn't be, and I would agree with you, but that is our
| shared reality.
|
| The issue then is that cyclists are frustrated because they feel
| they have the same right to the road as cars do and drivers are
| frustrated because all but the most elite cyclists simply cannot
| keep up with posted speed limits.
|
| The answer is full separate lanes either elevated or with a curb
| or barrier. We have them for pedestrians, we have them for cars,
| why not for cyclists where it makes sense?
|
| It would be expensive, especially initially, but in cities it
| could help alleviate traffic congestion.
| xinsight wrote:
| > cyclists simply cannot keep up with posted speed limits
|
| Do you not understand what the word "limit" means?
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| I am a cyclist and a driver. Unfortunately, I think the only way
| forward for cyclists is intense litigation against both cities
| and drivers around car collisions. The city will not prosecute
| cars for dangerous driving or violations, even if they hit
| drivers. Its crazy to me how getting caught going 15 miles over
| the speed limit will double your car insurance rates, but hitting
| a cyclists won't do anything because as a driver you can say
| "they darted into the lane" to any cop and won't be cited for
| anything. I was hit by a car once, had my bike totaled, and got a
| small settlement from the driver's insurance company. If I was
| hit again, I would immediately go to a lawyer and take the
| insurance company to the cleaners an donate all of the money to a
| bicycle advocacy org, and I advise everyone I know who gets hit
| to do the same thing. It sucks but it seems like personal injury
| law is the only avenue to make change here and introduce some
| form of penalty and feedback to hitting a cyclist with a car.
| There is no infrastructure to stop this because drivers don't
| care, they can hit cyclists without consequence.
| TylerE wrote:
| Sure.
|
| And let's hit cyclists with the same penalties as drivers for
| the same violations.
|
| I see cyclists blowing stop signs and ignoring traffic lights
| regularly.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Sure, when cyclists start killing car drivers.
| zabzonk wrote:
| They kill and maim pedestrians at lights.
| et-al wrote:
| Bike commuter here.
|
| The reason why I sometimes treat traffic lights as stop signs
| is because I'm worried the driver coming up to the red light
| might be distracted by their phone and run right into me.
| This has happened to two of my friends.
|
| So my seemingly disregard of the traffic laws is often to put
| more space between me and heavier vehicles.
|
| However if car and I end up at a four-way stop at the same
| time, I'll let the car go first because I don't trust that
| driver saw me.
|
| With driving a two-ton vehicle should come more
| responsibility and attention, but Americans view driving as a
| God given right.
| smogcutter wrote:
| > The reason why I sometimes treat traffic lights as stop
| signs is because I'm worried the driver coming up to the
| light might be distracted by their phone and run right into
| me. As has happened to two of my friends.
|
| This is something motorcyclists need to be hyper-aware of
| too. Same idea approaching yellow lights. Here's a scenario
| that happens _all the time_ : you're coming up on a yellow.
| There's a car in the intersection ahead waiting to make a
| left into your path. The car behind you isn't slowing down,
| he either isn't paying attention or wants to run the
| yellow. What do you do to stay alive?
|
| The right answer is to act earlier to avoid that situation
| in the first place, but there _will_ be times when you find
| yourself in a bad spot.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| IMO the answer is to have registration and insurance for bikes,
| which would create financial incentives to drive reporting and
| behavior.
|
| In the limited experience that I have as a frequent pedestrian
| visitor with dedicated cycling lanes in NYC, they feel
| dangerous to pedestrians. Many cyclists don't want to stop or
| yield to pedestrians, and left turn markings on avenues are
| still evolving and confuse a lot of drivers.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| That will mostly create an incentive to not cycle, which is
| the last thing we need.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I doubt it.
|
| Cycling is well established, but the rules around road use
| are insane. That won't get fixed unless someone is getting
| a big bill.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| I'm not sure where you live, but here in Ohio cycling is
| definitely not "well established". When you compare
| infrastructure it's not even a competition. Don't want to
| deal with bicyclists breaking laws? Get them off the
| streets onto their own dedicated infrastructure. Then
| bicycling actually would become well established.
|
| "Big bills" do nothing to stop drivers from breaking the
| laws, but go on thinking that it will change cyclists.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| It's even worse than that. I'll just let this URL speak for
| itself: https://ggwash.org/view/37541/drivers-who-kill-people-
| on-bik...
|
| That said, when I am driving, I have absolutely no issue with
| people on bicycles who ride predictably and follow the rules.
| It's those who don't that anger me. Specifically, I'm talking
| about things like riding through a crosswalk, riding the wrong
| way, and not signaling lane changes. There's a _reason_ you 're
| supposed to walk your bike through a crosswalk, and not
| signaling when you're a ~200 lb driver + rider combo facing
| down vehicles weighing more than 10x and capable of going much,
| much faster than you is just dumb.
|
| That doesn't mean drivers aren't dumb, too. On top of the usual
| traffic BS we all deal with while driving, I also see a lot of
| instances of drivers not taking over a bike lane when turning.
| Usually, in this case, this just seems to lead to a lot of "go!
| no, you go! no you go!" business, but it's 100% a recipe for a
| crash.
| bdamm wrote:
| While there's a valid point to be made about expecting
| cyclists to behave, one also needs to consider that the vast
| majority of infrastructure in the US is for cars. Lights
| often don't respond for cyclists, for example. If you were
| driving your car and you needed to get out of your car and
| walk over a nearby light standard and then get back in your
| car whenever you wanted to use a lighted intersection, how
| long would you go on before concluding that this was a waste
| of your time and start crossing when there is a large enough
| gap in traffic instead?
| bjourne wrote:
| Another example is one-way traffic signs. They are
| positioned for drivers which means that they are low enough
| to easily be missed by cyclists whose sitting positions are
| higher up.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| I have no problem with that if it's done safely. But, I've
| had people try to blow through an intersection when I'm
| turning at a protected left. That's just asking to be hit.
| AdamN wrote:
| As a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian, I'm reasonably
| confident that virtually 100% of collisions involving a
| car and a pedestrian or cyclist involves real mistakes by
| the driver. I use the 6 year old rule. If a 6 year old
| ran (or cycled) recklessly into the street would you hit
| them? If so, you're not driving safely.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Citation needed.
| fastball wrote:
| ...
|
| Well obviously if your standard of who is at fault is
| "the driver is always at fault", obviously 100% of
| collisions are going to be the fault of the driver.
| [deleted]
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Another thing to consider is that bicyclists behaving badly
| are almost always only a risk to themselves, while drivers
| behaving badly are a risk to others. You can't compare the
| two.
| bigbubba wrote:
| > _" go! no, you go! no you go!"_
|
| Seattle streets in a nutshell. As a frequent pedestrian I've
| lost count of the number of times a car has stopped in the
| middle of an intersection and frantically tried to wave me
| across a street. Some people are just bonkers. If you're
| already _inside_ an intersection, don 't yield to a
| pedestrian who's standing still on the sidewalk! Are people
| _trying_ to get t-boned? Worse, in those situations I feel
| morally compelled to run across the street just so the driver
| will remove themselves from the dangerous situation they put
| themselves in for my sake. Absolutely infuriating.
| ghaff wrote:
| Pedestrians behave unpredictably. And they're often pretty
| isolated from their surroundings these days. I don't really
| disagree with you but the driver has probably also seen a
| pedestrian obliviously walk into an intersection like that.
| bigbubba wrote:
| If the pedestrian seems oblivious that's one thing, but
| if the pedestrian is staring you in the eyes and is
| broadcasting _' what the fuck are you doing?!?'_ body
| language and gestures, I don't see much excuse.
| ErikAugust wrote:
| Call me crazy, but as a runner I've thought of getting one of
| those follow drones for documenting trails... but what about as
| a "dash cam" for cyclists? You would certainly be able to get
| evidence of the sort of thing you are describing.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Where I live it is illegal to use dashcams for this purpose,
| whether on cars or bicycles. If you do it and give another
| reason that's fine, but it will still not be accepted as
| evidence in court. The rarity of good bike lanes does not
| improve the situation either.
| recursive wrote:
| Why on earth would it be illegal to use a dash cam for your
| own protection?
| [deleted]
| callinOutLiars wrote:
| I'm a cyclist and driver too, and I always get annoyed when
| cyclists always blame the cars. Most cyclist don't follow the
| laws and then yell at you for their fault. I stopped my bike at
| a stop sign, the dude behind me wasn't prepared for it and hit
| me with his bike. He then yelled at me for stopping. Honestly,
| both drivers and cyclists are rude and selfish on the road.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Usually this sort of thing is grassroots and ooorly funded -
| but just imagine what the enormous financial resources of the
| self-driving car industry could do - by increasing the costs
| and deadly perception of human car driving in every city that
| say Uber operates in, the likelihood of those jurisdictions
| approving even stage 4 cars on the road will increase.
|
| Just hire the same lawyers that the tobacco industry was
| paying.
|
| I should send someone a memo
| godelski wrote:
| I've been hit twice. Both times I was at a stop sign. The
| second time the guy just said "oh sorry, the sun was in my
| eyes." Meanwhile I thought I was going to be pushed into moving
| traffic and die by someone who in no way could have avoided me.
| Took me a full minute to catch my breath and gain enough
| composure to lay into the guy who hit me. He never got out of
| his car, never said sorry (real sorry), nothing. I've had cars
| chase me because they don't think I should be riding in the
| right most lane (no bike lane or construction).
|
| One time a Pizza Hut driver almost killed me. I called his
| boss, they didn't care.
|
| One time an ___UBER DRIVER_ __almost hit me and then proceeded
| to chase me because I yelled and flipped him off. I sent a
| photo of the license place to Uber and the local PD, nothing.
| Not even an acknowledgement.
|
| The fact is that people don't care. You go on HN or Reddit and
| people will complain and actively encourage hitting riders. It
| is always the rider's fault, even if the driver broke the law.
| And I'm tired of it. I don't care if the rider was in the
| wrong, you're a lot more squishy on a bike than in a plastic
| housing with a motor. There's this weird dichotomy of not
| caring about the life or safety of someone.
| zbrozek wrote:
| I stopped in a bike lane to take a picture of an illegally
| parked Uber driver. He used his vehicle to try and plow me
| out of the lane and cut short my window of opportunity for a
| photo.
|
| Reaction from police and Uber to a photo with the plate and
| the car making contact with my bike? "meh"
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I was cycling on an empty, straight country road in daylight
| once. A guy in a car turned onto the road a nearly hit me. So
| unnecessary. He could have just waited 2 seconds for me to
| pass. I was incandescent with rage and gave chase, while
| screaming obscenities. Just as well he didn't stop as it was
| a long uphill and I would have been barely able to stand, let
| alone fight. ;0)
| prepend wrote:
| I'm sorry you had these experiences. I too got hit twice, but
| no major damage other than totaling my bike.
|
| The reason why I have little sympathy for these types of
| stories is that I witness cyclists being assholes every day I
| drive. Stuff like running lights and stop signs, changing
| lanes with no signals, riding on sidewalks and crosswalks,
| riding in lanes with moving cars, etc etc.
|
| I understand that in the US bike environments are really
| unsafe, but I don't think that routine not obeying traffic
| laws or conventions is the way to go.
| recursive wrote:
| Car drivers seem to violate traffic laws at least as often
| as bicyclists. And that's just speed limits.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| > riding on sidewalks and crosswalks, riding in lanes with
| moving cars
|
| In one sentence you managed to point directly to the
| dichotomy cyclists face. Car drivers: "get out of the road
| it's for cars!", pedestrians: "get off the sidewalk it's
| for pedestrians!"
|
| In many places there just isn't safe areas for cyclists
| that doesn't end up putting them in conflict with other
| users of streets.
|
| One thing that's hard on a bicycle is to keep your cool
| after a collision or near miss. You end up with so much
| adrenaline pumping that anger often comes.
|
| Like others on this thread have mentioned though, getting
| angery at people in cars is not helpful, best case they
| feel bad, worst case they become anger and now have a
| multi-ton weapon on their side.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| I believe bicycles are purposely devoid of rights by the
| automobile industry lobby to get people to go through all the
| pain of buying and owning a car. It's painful, and people hate
| it, but they do it because there's no other good way to get
| from point A to point B in America.
|
| Some examples:
|
| 1) I suspect the "new car smell" that car buyers believe
| affects their judgment is purposely chosen glue (I think it's a
| glue) that dissipates into a gas that literally,
| psychiatrically impairs buyer's judgment. It's real. [edit:
| it's still relatively mild].
|
| 2) Stealing a person's main means of transport should be
| punished independently of how expensive that mode of transport
| is. So, the penalty for stealing a car should be based on the
| price of a car _and_ the fact it was the main means of
| transport for that person. Same goes for bicycles, it could
| have been a $100 bike, but it 's the main means of transport
| and that person is equally stranded as the driver without it.
| For this reason, being a bike thief stealing 10 bicycles could
| mean a decade in jail, if laws were different. Who would steal
| bikes then?
|
| 3) Enforce both car driving violations and bike driving
| violations, but based on lethality of the vehicle. Right now
| both driving a car drunk and riding a bike drunk are a DUI,
| which is ridiculous.
|
| 4) Legislation that privileges driving over biking harms
| children, because they _can_ ride a bike starting age 8 or so,
| but can 't drive until 16.
|
| 5) Driving is an extremely lethal activity, but AFAIK biking
| deaths are mostly attributable to automobiles. If you try to
| run someone over with a car you can be charged with (I forget
| the wording but more or less) "using a deadly weapon". Because
| that's what it is. A killing machine.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| If you _try_ to run someone down, and end up killing them,
| that would be considered murder. If you try, but don 't end
| up killing them, it would be assault with a deadly weapon at
| the very least, or possibly attempted murder. If you just so
| happen to kill someone without intending to, it could be
| considered vehicular manslaughter.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > If you just so happen to kill someone without intending
| to, it could be considered vehicular manslaughter.
|
| There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If
| you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty
| and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be
| convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously
| that you didn't have time to react).
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of
| the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent
| or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even
| at speed, without intending to do any harm is not
| "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is
| fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced
| to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the
| maneuver.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come
| within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver._
|
| Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches".
| IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's
| safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist
| while leaving at least eight feet.
|
| If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading
| "within a few feet" as "six inches."
| taeric wrote:
| Cyclist get pushed by the air more than cars. Give a bit
| of extra room.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Yeah, I think that's the phrase I'm looking for, "assault
| with a deadly weapon". Happens a lot when marriages break
| up, from what the person who introduced me to the term
| described, divorcees-to-be chasing their husbands down in
| their cars.
|
| We talk so much in America about gun control, why not also
| car control?
| clankyclanker wrote:
| So your suspicions are partially verifiable. The automobile
| industry did buy laws (and the LA subway-trolley system) to
| favor cars in America.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM
|
| https://gizmodo.com/90-years-ago-the-los-angeles-subway-
| was-...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp.
| ..
|
| Apparently LA's loss of underground subway was tied to its
| loss of overland subway, as well. They seem to have been the
| same system?
| rossjudson wrote:
| I like the rules in China. If you are driving a car and
| collide with a bicycle, it is presumed to be your fault. If
| you are riding a bicycle and collide with a pedestrian, it is
| presumed to be your fault.
|
| Of course, just like everything about driving in China, the
| rules mean very little. It's pretty hard to enforce your
| rights if you're dead.
|
| My ten-years-old experience driving there was interesting. At
| any given time you could expect the cars around you to do the
| stupidest of all possible things, completely ignoring the
| rules. But they'd do it _slowly_ , and expect others to
| adapt...which they did.
| telesilla wrote:
| The legal infrastructure you suggest absolutely works to reduce
| accidents and increase driver responsibility. When I'm driving
| in the Netherlands I am critically more aware of cyclists
| there, due to the road layout but also because of assumed
| liability, I'd better be 100% sure I'm driving safely.
|
| https://www.bikecitizens.net/presumed-liability-shrinks-cycl...
| an_opabinia wrote:
| This is my perspective, I exclusively bike to get around. We
| can play out the premise described by the OP, and it just
| doesn't add up.
|
| If some schmuck with California's minimum $15,000 per person
| injury insurance disables you, what would you do? Sue them
| for their additional median $97,300 net worth? Which might be
| less than $10,000 liquidated? That is you'd expect to get,
| somewhere between $25,000 and $112,300, for your lifetime
| injury. Perfect enforcement with 100% liability legal system
| would get you $25,000-$112,300 in my estimate, for the rest
| of your life. If you're permanently disabled, it's peanuts.
|
| It's a shitty outcome. The problem is in part, clearly, that
| people are really poor.
|
| And then suppose it's a totally recoverable injury. Out of
| $112,300 you recover $25,000, realistically, and the driver
| is bankrupted. You could put a whole family on the street.
| It's not Europe, they will go on the street! Is that justice?
| They're all completely broke dude. They have nothing besides
| their car.
|
| People are living paycheck to paycheck, and you're comparing
| European countries where neither disability nor bankruptcy
| condemns you to a life of poverty. 20% of Americans claim
| some disability. 20% of Americans have zero or negative net
| worth, which is 4x the EU + UK's 5%. You have a 1 in 5 chance
| of getting hit by someone in their car, and recovering a
| maximum of $15,000, or $0 if they're uninsured.
|
| The simplest answer is that only people who are rich enough
| to pay the remedies of death by vehicle accidents should
| drive. That can be as simple as either requiring self-
| insurance (i.e., you must have a net worth more comparable to
| death settlements, or $500k-1m), or at least an insurance
| that covers that kind of injury (which poor would not be able
| to afford).
| numtel wrote:
| I'd say that the simplest answer is to have a no-fault
| program for anyone involved in an accident like they do in
| New Zealand.
|
| https://www.acc.co.nz/
| fnbr wrote:
| Damn, those numbers are wild. In Canada, my insurance
| company won't provide less than $1m liability insurance,
| and the gov't requires a minimum of $200k in coverage.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I'm unsure if anyone in the US actually has policies that
| go so low either.
|
| The minimums might get thrown around a lot to convince
| you to help sell you under-insured insurance coverage.
|
| But you always do need to worry about completely
| uninsured motorists.
|
| Depending on your province, it's gotten a lot harder to
| claim much for soft injuries or even income replacement
| if you're injured in an MVA.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| This is a bad way to look at the numbers. In urban areas,
| cycles are on average below median income, and drivers are
| above to far above median income. Yes, there are poor
| americans, they are by and large not driving cars in urban
| areas, wealthy folks are on balance driving cars, and the
| poor people are riding bikes. Laws that shift monetary risk
| from bicyclists to cars are progressive policy.
| Retric wrote:
| Unfortunately, many cyclists stake stupid risks which also
| cause accidents. I have seen stoped cycling between rows of
| parked cars and darting through a red light, or going full
| speed down a sidewalk past rows of parking garages etc. Without
| dash cams it's nearly impossible to tell the root cause as
| reckless driver or a suicidal cyclist.
|
| This is why both drivers and cyclists really should be
| recording things. It doesn't prevent injuries, if it can make a
| huge difference afterwards.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _I have seen people cycling between rows of parked cars_
|
| It's kinda ironic that that's used as an example of bad
| cycling, and also exactly where most bike lanes are put: in
| the door zone of parked cars.
| Retric wrote:
| I meant stoped cars at a stop light. That and other
| instances of sharing a lane beside a car is monumentally
| stupid.
|
| The only way to fight stereotypes like this is with hard
| evidence.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Legislation is one part of the correct answer, but not all of
| it. Here in the Netherlands there's "strict liability" [0], in
| which the driver is always liable for at least 50% of the
| damage, and usually 100% liable, but that is only a part of the
| solution. The law is worth very little without proper
| infrastructure. Infrastructure that provides clear and physical
| separation works, as demonstrated by Oslo's zero cyclist
| fatalaties [1].
|
| [0] https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-
| liabili...
|
| [1] https://thecityfix.com/blog/how-oslo-achieved-zero-
| pedestria...
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| yea, I am not advocating for "legislation" I am advocating
| for law suits. I think the proper process to make change here
| is
|
| (1) Create real penalties for drivers that hit cyclists (2)
| get insurance agencies and drivers themselves to want safety
| infra so that they are no longer exposed to the risk of
| hitting cyclists (3) safety infra is built
|
| What we have in the states now where more and more people are
| biking, and people are begging for infrastructure, but there
| are no changes isn't working.
| consp wrote:
| > 50% of the damage, and usually 100% liable
|
| Not strictly, the driver (bestuurder) of a vehicle (anything
| requiring a drivers license, also mopeds) is considered a
| more capable participant in traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists
| are at the bottom of that food chain. If you hit something in
| the "lower classification" you have to prove you are innocent
| and the burden is on you completely. If the cyclist was using
| his phone, collect witnesses after you help the victim as you
| are in no way liable if you made every effort to stop and
| look. (e.g. in a low speed collision, assuming the cyclist
| made a mistake). High speed collisions are usually completely
| attributed to the driver as they should be aware of cyclists
| all the time. e.g. Not slowing down at a crossing (even one
| with traffic signs) is reason to forgo any rights if you hit
| a cyclist as you should be aware of any participant in
| traffic which is less capable (in the protection sense) as
| you are. Even if the cyclist drives though a red light as you
| should anticipate mistakes. You are usually liable for the
| 50% but it is not a given. Always go to court if you consider
| the cyclist made a mistake.
|
| e: please not that in normal cases the damage is a percentage
| fault division to both parties, in case a pedestrian or
| cyclist is involved the minimum will rise to 50% for the
| other party to cover in case "overmacht" (force de majeure)
| cannot be proven which is where the "always 50%" comes from.
| There are however numerous cases in which this has been
| proven and can be used in a court of law. It will however
| almost never be 0% for the driver of a vehicle.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| You might be interested in the history of the "Stop Murdering
| Our Children" campaign. It had a massive impact on the
| development of the Netherlands. In the 60s, automobile-
| pedestrian deaths were higher per capita than in the usa. It
| wasn't always a bike mecca.
|
| https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-n...
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Accusing people involved in accidents of murder might not be
| the best way to make them sympathetic and gain their support.
| corty wrote:
| Nowadays, you can get yourself sentenced for murder for a
| traffic accident: https://m.dw.com/en/berlin-car-race-
| death-top-german-court-p...
| teekert wrote:
| Interesting! To me the best bike "lanes" are not lanes at
| all, they are bike paths through the Forrest, no cars allowed
| or even in sight. Paths like this [0]. The air is clean, it's
| safe and relaxing. When taking my kids to school I go over
| such bike paths, it's nice, I don't have to worry so much
| about the kids. Then we hit the road again, I'm breathing
| fumes, I keep telling my kids to stay at the side, tell them
| exactly where to brake and cross the road... We should
| separate cars from bikes as much as possible.
|
| https://cobblescycling.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/07/4-gave...
| D13Fd wrote:
| Honestly, as a driver and pedestrian, I don't have a lot of
| sympathy for bicyclists. In my city, at least, I've almost been
| hit by cyclists multiple times as a pedestrian. In one case,
| the cyclist was going the wrong way, blatantly ran the light,
| and screamed at me as he passed within maybe two-three feet of
| me at full speed while I was crossing the street.
|
| In another case, a cyclist blew by my at full speed down a
| steep hill on the sidewalk, again coming stupidly close to an
| accident (for both of us) for no reason.
|
| As a driver, I constantly see cyclists on the wrong side of the
| street, back and forth between the sidewalk and not, and not
| obeying stop signs or stop lights (let alone other rules). I've
| never even heard of one being ticketed.
|
| I'm all for new bike lanes that are separated from traffic. But
| honestly before a city encourages more bike riders I really
| think they need to dramatically step up enforcement of traffic
| laws against them. If running a red light or stop sign is a
| $200 ticket in a car, it should be a $200 ticket on a bike.
| Otherwise it is just unsafe for everyone involved.
| fastball wrote:
| Not sure why you're getting downvotes, you make a great
| point.
|
| Bicyclists (I am one) apparently want to have their cake and
| eat it too: driving all over the place (sidewalk, street,
| wrong way, etc) while at the same time wanting drivers to
| always be at fault for collisions.
| enriquto wrote:
| > If running a red light or stop sign is a $200 ticket in a
| car, it should be a $200 ticket on a bike.
|
| Curiously; in France many red-lights are excepted for
| bicycles. There's often a special, permanent "orange" signal
| that applies to bikes, thus they are explicitly encouraged to
| run the red light. If I understand well, this was in
| agreement with drivers, who were annoyed to wait for all the
| bikes to start slowly after the light turns green.
|
| I think that if you ever try to use a bicycle in transit (I
| mean, seriously over a few days, not for 5 minutes), you will
| see that it is essentially impossible to do correctly.
| Sometimes you have to turn left across many lanes of fast
| cars, what are you supposed to do? Inevitably you take the
| least dangerous path.
| gumby wrote:
| Cars took over the bicycle infrastructure; if we had
| dedicated bike infrastructure as we do for cars I think you'd
| see things a lot better. Sure there are self-righteous creeps
| in every subculture, but a lot of the things you see are
| consequences of adapting to a dangerous environment
| maladapted for bike use.
|
| Bike infrastructure in a lot of European cities demonstrates
| that it can work. American drivers are much more polite than
| European ones yet kill more cyclists per capita.
| taeric wrote:
| I suspect there is a fair bit of confirmation bias in what
| you are noticing. I say this as a biker that also notices
| these things.
|
| I also notice them from drivers all the time, as well. Is it
| stupid when a cyclist runs a stop sign? Yes. The same as a
| car doing it. And people are notorious for not stopping well
| if they are going to take a right. Such that we design for
| the behavior with round abouts. Car or bike.
|
| Meanwhile, both times I've been hit, the car turned right not
| checking that there was a biker in the bike lane right next
| to them.
| fastball wrote:
| I'm not sure the confirmation bias matters here.
|
| The GC seems to be a comment replying to a lot of sentiment
| in this thread which is basically "the driver is always at
| fault". Given what I'm sure we've all seen from cyclists
| (and the things I've done as a cyclist), I can confirm that
| this is definitely not the case.
| taeric wrote:
| Your rhetorical style isn't helping. From what we have
| all seen from drivers, nobody should be allowed to drive
| a car. :)
| 1over137 wrote:
| >If running a red light or stop sign is a $200 ticket in a
| car, it should be a $200 ticket on a bike.
|
| Why? They are different crimes. Cars are faster and heavier,
| thus will injure someone much more when misused.
| bigbubba wrote:
| By that logic, should the fines car drivers face scale with
| the weight of their vehicle? Is blowing through a redlight
| in a small sports car a lesser crime than doing the same
| with a large pickup truck?
|
| I'm receptive to this, but I doubt it would ever be
| implemented.
| jimmytidey wrote:
| Yes. Or you could use a system of weight categories, for
| example one category for cars and one for bikes.
| taeric wrote:
| The fines probably do scale up as the class of the
| vehicle scales up. In large because you can lose your job
| if you are a bus or truck driver and do this.
| varjag wrote:
| A cyclist absolutely can get badly injured when running
| red, arguably more likely than a car driver.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| A cyclist can cause harm to themself and rarely one other
| person while running a red light, a car driver can cause
| mass casualties while running a red light. Difference of
| scale.
| rossjudson wrote:
| I say this as someone who commutes by bike whenever possible
| -- there are some real assholes riding on the paths. It turns
| out that riding a bike does not change who you are,
| fundamentally. If those cyclists owned diesel pickups, they'd
| be coal-rolling with the best of them.
|
| I used to cross a bridge to get to work. There was a shared
| pedestrian/cycle pathway, about 6 feet wide, with cycles
| yielding to pedestrians. I remember walking across that one
| time with my family, including my daughter who was about 3.
| This one jerk rang no bell and blew past my entire family,
| about a foot away, at 20+ MPH. I didn't even hear him coming
| from behind.
|
| 3 year olds are prone to random movements. If she had moved
| by a foot or two at exactly the wrong time, it would have
| been a very bad situation.
|
| On the plus side, the cyclist behind the asshole (who
| properly rang his bell and passed us) stopped at the end of
| the bridge to _apologize_ for the first guy.
| blakesterz wrote:
| ugh. This is sad. The creator of the sharrow, James Mackay,
| essentially said that it was a bare-minimum way to do something
| for cycling in a city that didn't want to do anything:
|
| "Part of it was the city of Denver's reluctance to do much of
| anything for bicycles. So I figured, this would be a less
| expensive approach versus the conventional bike lane markings. A
| lot of the agencies don't want to do anything involving change or
| spending money for bicycles. I was always under pressure to do
| less as the Denver bicycle planner."
| redelbee wrote:
| When I commute to work by bicycle I have to deal with a mile or
| so long stretch of sharrows. It is by far the worst and most
| dangerous part of my ride. They were put in place instead of the
| non-separated bike lane in the rest of downtown to preserve on-
| street parking.
|
| On the majority of rides I am either dodging doors, dodging cars
| that are overtaking too close, or both. This entire stretch of
| road has a double yellow as well, which makes the overtaking even
| worse.
|
| I got a Varia light/radar from Garmin so I can at least know when
| people are approaching from the rear. I feel a lot safer but
| that's probably not actually true unfortunately. I highly
| recommend the light/radar combo because it is very helpful with
| overall awareness while riding.
|
| I don't know how this could be resolved because much of the
| street is residential with fairly small front yards and no
| driveways to speak of. So I'll just have to do my best to stay
| safe and hope that drivers in my city get more accustomed to
| sharing the road.
| [deleted]
| s0rce wrote:
| I used to deal with that on my commute in Oakland and I spent a
| long time exploring and looking at maps and end up going about
| 3/4mi extra to avoid sharrows on larger roads and take the side
| streets. Takes longer but I feel much safer. Don't like getting
| sideswiped (happened twice) and screamed at (few times).
| [deleted]
| tqi wrote:
| What is the alternative? The article acknowledges that changes
| are the result of COVID related budget cut backs ("But the budget
| collapse caused by COVID-19 scaled back the project radically,
| and now we're considering sharrows instead of separated bicycle
| lanes."), then spends the rest of the article talking about how
| both the current situation and new proposal are unacceptable, but
| neglects to propose any kind of solution given the budget
| constraints.
| matsemann wrote:
| The solution is to block the street off from cars. I don't get
| why _every_ street need to have two-way car traffic. It can
| even lead to more congestion when there 's more roads and
| intersections.
|
| Here someone will always cry "it will kill the businesses on
| that street", but then the opposite happens. It's a more quiet
| street, it's walkable, can sit outside and drink a coffee etc.
| burnthrow wrote:
| I like them because if you ride through the point of the arrow
| you get a speed boost.
| mannykannot wrote:
| So that's what they are! I have come across these markings a
| couple of times while driving, and found them quite distracting,
| as I had no idea what information they were intended to convey,
| and no idea how I was supposed to respond to them. Both the idea
| that more information always improves safety, and that the
| meaning of symbols is always obvious, seem naive.
|
| I am all for measures that improve cyclists' safety, but
| presenting drivers with puzzles does not seem to be a good way to
| go about it.
| godelski wrote:
| My big problem with sharrows is that they are typically placed on
| streets that are adjacent to the main road and cars frequently
| use as a means to get around the traffic of the main road. So
| they typically blow through stop signs and such. Now it's been
| quite some time that I've biked in the Bay but when I did I
| remember in Berkeley they solved this by putting blocks at
| intersections so cars had to stay on the main road.
|
| But honestly where I feel safest, as both a driver and a cyclist,
| is in protected bike lanes. I'm much more scared of someone
| dooring me than I typically am of a car hitting me. I've adopted
| strategies to avoid moving vehicles but parked ones I'm typically
| forced to stay pretty close to and my avoidance options are
| usually 1) swerve into traffic and hope that the car next to me
| is paying attention and also avoids or 2) hope my brakes work
| super well and I can do a turn slide and hit the car door
| sideways. But natural reaction it to go with option 1 and 2 still
| sucks.
|
| The issue is that cyclists aren't motor vehicles _or_ pedestrians
| but we typically classify them as both (hell, one of the most
| recent Simpsons made this joke). If we 're going to be
| encouraging cycling, and I think we should, we really need to
| rethink this classification conundrum.
| ztravis wrote:
| Crappy bike infrastructure (e.g. sharrows, bike lanes that end
| and dump cyclists onto bad/dangerous roads) is a negative for
| everyone: cyclists, drivers, bike advocates,... better to save
| the money and build more limited but higher quality
| infrastructure.
| bendbro wrote:
| Bikes really should have their own lanes, just like cars and
| pedestrians effectively do.
|
| I hit a cyclist once, breaking his shoulder and collapsing the
| windshield and roof of my car. I was driving on a three lane, 45
| mph road in the middle lane, and as I passed a slowed right
| turning car in the right lane, the cyclist rode his bicycle out
| into my lane, from the front of the right turning car,
| perpendicular to the flow of traffic. I had maybe 10-20ft to
| slow, and hit him at probably 20mph, if not more. His home
| insurance ended up paying for my damages.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I see sharrows as an excellent low cost solution. Not sure what
| these studies are that say motorists and cyclists are blind to
| them, by that logic why have any signage on the roads at all? I
| absolutely notice them as both a motorist and cyclist, and I'm
| sure many others do too. They work. Of course they don't work as
| well as dedicated bike lanes, but to shit on something that is at
| least a step forward just because it didn't take us all the way
| to the ideal solution is a great way to ensure progress is never
| made.
|
| Edit: I suppose it's also worth pointing out most of my bicycling
| experience comes out of San Francisco. A lot of the bicycle
| infrastructure here is newer than you would think, it was a
| noticeably more hostile place to be a cyclist 10 years ago when I
| moved here, but same could be said of any US city I assume haha
|
| Edit: guess the downvote button means "I don't agree with you" on
| hacker news now :/
| fbelzile wrote:
| Low cost by what metric?
|
| Cycling accidents costs money in other ways as well: a)
| emergency responses to cyclist/car collisions b) insurance
| costs c) loss of healthcare savings (nationalised healthcare or
| not) d) well-being through physical exercise
|
| Perceived safety from sharrows vs real safety created through
| separated bike lanes is exponential. You'd have a lot more
| commuters/children being allowed to bike to school and much
| more adoption. The investment in biking infrastructure will pay
| for itself in other ways.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I mean low-cost for the immediate benefit is all.
|
| I agree with you that there are hidden costs to just ignoring
| the infrastructure too, don't get me wrong. Hell tack on the
| health benefits too, from both the act of riding and the
| improved air quality, investing in bicycles makes tons of
| long term sense.
|
| But reality is we live with people who refuse to think ahead,
| who vote against their own best interests, who would gladly
| hold their wealth and watch others die from their homes. And
| they vote. Progress can and has been made, it's just
| painfully slow and frustrating because it's actively a
| problem that is actively killing people :/
| richk449 wrote:
| > I see sharrows as an excellent low cost solution.
|
| What problem do they solve?
| toast0 wrote:
| A sharrow indicates an acceptable lane position for a bike.
|
| This can be a good thing to remind cyclists and drivers that
| that position is acceptable. Sharrows are often to the left
| of where people seem to think cyclists should ride.
|
| It can be a bad thing, if cyclists and drivers take it to
| mean that's the only acceptable position. Depending on
| conditions and where the cyclist is headed, they may need to
| ride on either side of the sharrow, and it's presence may be
| limiting (like bike lanes can be).
|
| Sharrows at intersections can be pretty useful to indicate
| the position of traffic detectors that are tuned for
| bicycles. It's usually possible to notice the patterns of
| pavement cuts for the loop sensors, but a little paint to
| highlight it is nice.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I see them on the road as a driver and they remind me to be
| more alert of bicycles, especially when making turns that
| intersect with a bike route.
|
| As a cyclist, they are a decent signal that you are on a path
| that probably won't lead you into un-bikeable conditions.
|
| Those feel like real problems to me.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| I bike sometimes (and jog too), so I'm aware of and
| supportive of the need to be safe around other users of the
| road.
|
| Yet, I could still use more reminders of where bikes
| actually are going to be. Especially when driving in a
| different area of town where I'm not familiar with routes
| that bikes take. I know I've made some driving mistakes
| which I wouldn't make in my own neighborhood.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Cars are less likely to try running you over in a blind rage
| if they see a sharrow. I experience way more aggression when
| I'm cycling on roads without them.
| klyrs wrote:
| And yet, I've been honked at by a city bus for taking up
| the lane in a very quiet residential area
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I know it's hard because it happened to you, but it was
| just once.
|
| We throw out polls with tiny sample sizes as unreliable
| proof, a single ding against taking the lane shouldn't
| discredit the entire mission of iteratively improving
| bicycle infrastructure.
|
| Though yeah it's really frustrating when it does happen,
| I've been there and I'll give you that haha
| [deleted]
| rhizome wrote:
| In California, bicycles are defined as vehicles, so they're
| allowed to take the whole lane if there isn't a bicycle lane
| and a car and a bike can't fit side-by-side. Sharrows are an
| indicator of this state of the law.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| It is false that bicycles are defined as vehicles in
| California. Vehicles must have a non-human power source.
|
| http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio
| n....
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yup. They have them on the very few roads around here that are
| (fictionally) "bicycle-friendly."
|
| I watch drivers drive over them all the time. They're worthless.
|
| Long Island, NY (where I live) is probably one of the most
| dangerous areas in the country for bicyclists. We had a big ol'
| controversy, a couple years back, when some politician stated
| that people just plain shouldn't ride bikes on Long Island. That
| did not go over well.
|
| I used to live in the DC suburbs, where they had _real_ curb-
| separated bike lanes. They were much better.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Drivers are supposed to drive over them, since sharrows are
| only used where bicycles and other traffic share the lane,
| hence the name.
| scythmic_waves wrote:
| Honestly these two comments speak to how confusing sharrows
| are.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Around here, we're not supposed to be in them at all, except
| when we're making a turn.
|
| https://nybc.net/education/bike-
| law/2-uncategorised/68-a-sum...
|
| I see people swerving into them, all the time, to get around
| other cars. That's a Bozo no-no.
| maelito wrote:
| Just in case, here's a free sharrow SVG :
| https://github.com/laem/velolibre/blob/master/coronapiste.sv...
| mauflows wrote:
| I'm a cyclist who in July was hit by a car on a sharrow lane when
| it made a right turn into me. Since they aren't always avoidable
| in brooklyn, I imagine my solution will be to just bike in the
| middle of the road (when I can bike again)
| oftenwrong wrote:
| In some cases, even the police do not know what sharrows
| indicate, as demonstrated in this unfortunate killing:
|
| https://www.massbike.org/16seconds
|
| >The police report confuses the presence of a shared road marking
| (or sharrow) as a bike lane.
| gnicholas wrote:
| The sharrows on Sand Hill / 280 N are a complete mess. The dashed
| line (which indicates where cars are supposed to cross over the
| sharrows) are way too late. If you actually crossed at the marked
| location, you would barely have enough time to make the on-ramp.
| And that's under ideal circumstances -- if the pavement is wet or
| you're in a top-heavy vehicle, it would be very unsafe to wait
| until the dashed lines appear.
|
| I actually once saw someone cross at the dashed lines and then
| take the on-ramp, and my first reaction was "whoa, that guy just
| careened across traffic to make his exit". Then I realized that
| he had actually waited for the dashed lines to appear. But when
| you do this (locals don't), it makes you look like a lunatic.
| teucris wrote:
| Being a cyclist and a driver, I see sharrows as a middle finger
| to cyclists. They are worse than nothing as they cause confusion,
| which then leads animosity between drivers and cyclists.
|
| I'm all about incremental measures to test theories. This is not
| one of the situations that warrants that approach. If a city
| wants to test out increasing bicycle infrastructure, they
| unfortunately have to build bicycle infrastructure.
| matsemann wrote:
| In Norway we have this failed campaign for bicycle safety. On
| some roads there are big signs with "share the road" and the
| picture of a cyclist looking behind as he's overtaken by a car
| [0]. The intention was to "humanize" the cyclist and make cars
| behave, but instead the cars see the sign as "cyclists should
| look behind and let us pass!" or "he should cycle on the curb!"
| and instead increase the rage they feel when getting slowed
| down..
|
| [0]: https://imgur.com/a/KSLAFzl
| kubanczyk wrote:
| I've never been to any place that felt safer for lane sharing
| than Norway. You have very considerate and careful drivers,
| if I may generalize a bit.
| chrisballinger wrote:
| I would love to see all "Share the Road" signs replaced with
| "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" [1] signs. This is the law in
| California but many motorists are unaware, or don't care.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycles_May_Use_Full_Lane
| toxik wrote:
| This makes it seem like it would be some kind of exception.
| Bikes can ALWAYS use the full lane!
| gumby wrote:
| I agree.
|
| Though my dad thinks you only have to slow for pedestrians
| where there is a posted sign reminding you of that fact. So
| you can't win.
|
| ("Can't win" doesn't mean you shouldn't try.)
| godelski wrote:
| > The intention was to "humanize" the cyclist
|
| This is sadly a big part of the problem. It is amazing to me
| how common and popular it is to talk about hitting cyclists.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I'm torn, but I think I lean more towards agreeing with you
| that we just have to build the infrastructure.
|
| I don't think sharrows do nothing, that feels a bit hyperbolic.
| If a city were to build infrastructure for example, starting
| with sharrows seems fairly logical to get everyone used to the
| upcoming change.
| teucris wrote:
| Maybe it depends on the city and its situation. I'm in
| Seattle, and I feel like the areas with sharrows are
| consistently the streets where I am (as a commuting cyclist)
| tailgated by cars or finding myself (as a errand-running
| motorist) unable to safely pass a cyclist for a very, very
| long time. And those sharrow streets are often an inefficient
| route for cyclists with no clear indication for how the route
| would be improved.
| c22 wrote:
| At least those sharrows are better than the "bike lanes"
| they paint into the pothole and garbage strewn shoulder
| which are frequently occupied by illegally parked vehicles,
| fallen branches, and delivery trucks.
| rossjudson wrote:
| On the second last stretch of road before my home we have
| the "bike lane at the side of the road". On garbage day
| you'll find some of the homeowners view it as "garbage
| lane". Not that many, though...I think some of my fellow
| cyclists "relocate" garbage cans in the bike lane to the
| other side of the road, or well down it. There are a few
| houses where the homeowners really don't have that many
| options (bottom of a steep driveway) and those ones at
| least make an effort to minimally encroach.
|
| Illegally parked vehicles don't last long around here ;)
| corytheboyd wrote:
| For context my experience comes from San Francisco. There
| are definitely streets exactly like what you mentioned,
| which can be frustrating but the ones I am thinking of are
| generally touristy anyway (Polk comes to mind as I spent a
| lot of time around there)
|
| I just can't see how some paint on the road makes it
| actively WORSE, the cars and bikes are still there in the
| same volume as before.
|
| Cars and bikes just don't belong in the same
| infrastructure, it's ridiculous to expect it to work long
| term. People in this thread mentioning bike lines in the
| middle of the road scares the shit out of me, that cannot
| where bicycle infrastructure ends up
| rossjudson wrote:
| I like the green-painted bike lanes out of the non-
| physically separated mechanisms. Over in Kirkland we have
| some reasonably good bike lanes (some green, some not).
| Dooring is still a highly rational fear, though, and when
| I'm going past cars that are parked I slow down quite a bit
| and I presume that pretty much any car might contain a
| driver that's opening a door without looking. Hugging the
| left side of the bike lane is also helpful.
|
| The biggest lesson I had in my first season of commuting to
| work was "TRUST NO-ONE". Do not trust cars to do what they
| are supposed to do under any circumstances. Do not assume
| that eye contact with drivers will affect their behavior.
| Do not assume that slow car speeds are safe speeds. Any
| given car can turn in front of you at any time, or flip
| open a door on any side.
|
| I once had the _same guy_ almost get me _twice_ in a single
| commute. He didn 't mean to do it...just a very distracted
| driver.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| Huge +1 to trusting no one as a cyclist. Another thing I
| have learned is to be EXTRA cautious around slow cars.
| It's ALWAYS the slow car that is about to do something
| erratic. Makes sense if you think about it, as a driver
| you usually slow down to give yourself time to find that
| parking spot, check if you should turn here, etc.
| dsego wrote:
| In my experience drivers also often times just don't see
| you (something about saccades) or even if they do, it
| doesn't register. Or they misjudge you speed, they don't
| expect you going 25-30kph. An accident that happened to
| me not long ago was a driver failing to yield and pulling
| in front me, causing me to slam the brakes and lose
| traction, skidding and scraping the asphalt. Luckily it
| was just road rash and bruises (and I wasn't wearing my
| clip-less shoes - only flats from now on for me).
| adamcstephens wrote:
| https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/montrealgazette/wp-c.
| ..
| mistahchris wrote:
| Agreed. In my experience bike commuting on a road with
| "sharrows" provoked a lot of anger from drivers. I don't fully
| avoid them because I'm a fairly aggressive city cyclist, but I
| don't prefer them and most of the people that I have ridden
| with avoid them completely.
| jopsen wrote:
| I remember biking around San Francisco, and constantly being
| lured into the dooring zone by sharrows..
|
| Most of all though, coming from Europe, I was shocked by how wide
| the street was, how wide the pavements was, and the enormous
| amount of space dedicated to inefficient street parking, even on
| major roads.
|
| Somehow 400-500 years old city centers in Denmark manage to find
| room for cyclist in the very narrow streets. Often dedicating
| them to pedestrians and/or bikes. And adding bike lanes on major
| roads. But this is old cities without room for making bike lanes.
|
| In SF, you could have bikelanes everywhere, give up street
| parking on one side of street... Or even just make the pavement
| less broad on broadway :)
|
| It's a choice, Americans choose not to. To be fair their cities
| tend to be less dense involve greater distances.
| wonnage wrote:
| Theoretically the sharrows are supposed to be painted so that
| you're not in the dooring zone if you ride down the middle of
| the them.
|
| SF bike lanes are a joke though, most of them have no actual
| barriers, so Uber drivers will just park in them/use them as a
| passing lane.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| I think sharrows are usually poorly-implemented - say on streets
| with high speeds or high volumes of cars. But I think they can be
| not completely worthless depending on the context. For example,
| Mountain View has design practices that suggest only streets with
| low speeds (I believe it's 25 and under) should have them.
| Furthermore, they should be augmented with additional treatments,
| such as speed humps, chicanes, and bollards that force vehicles
| to turn off the road (so drivers can't use the quiet neighborhood
| as an extensive cut-through). In that context - as just one tool
| that complements others - they have some value. Portland has good
| examples of this on their Neighborhood Greenway network.
|
| Market Street seems like a poor place for sharrows.
| janosett wrote:
| The bottom line here is that there are essentially no
| repercussions when cars injure or kill cyclists. This needs to
| change, and hopefully we can also add proven separated bike lanes
| which make it safer and more efficient for cyclists as well as
| drivers.
| epistasis wrote:
| There's a fantastic law article by Greg Shill about how law
| favors driving, and how it subsidized US car lifestyle, a
| deadly way of living that would probably not be possible
| without the legal support:
|
| > A century ago, captains of industry and their allies in
| government launched a social experiment in urban America: the
| abandonment of mass transit in favor of a new personal
| technology, the private automobile. Decades of investment in
| this shift have created a car-centric landscape with Dickensian
| consequences.
|
| > In the United States, motor vehicles are now the leading
| killer of children and the top producer of greenhouse gases.
| Each year, they rack up trillions of dollars in direct and
| indirect costs and claim nearly 100,000 American lives via
| crashes and pollution, ...
|
| >Many of the automobile's social costs originate in individual
| preferences, but an overlooked amount is encouraged--indeed
| enforced--by law. Yes, the United States is car-dependent by
| choice. But it is also car-dependent by law.
|
| https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3345366
| toxik wrote:
| Tangential, but I think people would be happier if they biked
| and walked more. Especially walking is proven over and over
| to improve quality of life. It's a shame, really.
| liversage wrote:
| In Denmark we have light blue lanes in many intersections to make
| it obvious where cars can expect bikes to cross and also guide
| the bicyclists.
|
| Also more recently "bike boxes" have been drawn on the street
| effectively widening a bike lane to cover the entire lane right
| in front of the intersection to ensure that all bicyclist are in
| front of and not to the right of waiting cars.
|
| Unfortunately bicyclists are getting injured or even killed by
| cars or trucks turning right without noticing the bicyclist and
| the blue lanes and the "bike boxes" are attempts to prevent this
| from happening.
|
| Danish publication about bicycle safety in intersections with
| some photos: https://idekatalogforcykeltrafik.dk/krydsloesninger/
| glasss wrote:
| In Chicago, they recently (in the last couple of years from
| what I can see), started implementing similar lanes / boxes in
| high cyclist traffic areas.
|
| I realized I am much more aware of these bright green lanes on
| the road than simple sharrows. Anecdotal, but I do think these
| or completely segregated lanes are the best bet to make sure
| everyone is safe.
| madsbuch wrote:
| In Denmark we also have the notion of soft road user. Where
| pedestrians are the most soft, then bikes and lastly cars.
|
| If a car is in a traffic accident with a pedestrian or a
| cyclist he will always be assumed responsble.
| kdamica wrote:
| I call these "prayer lanes" instead of shared lanes, because you
| just have to pray you don't get it.
| noetokyo wrote:
| The author should fix their data visualizations.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| I studied the safety impacts of new bike ways in Los Angeles, and
| found that sharrows reduced collision rates just as well as bike
| lanes. https://blueskiesabove.us/entry/to-live-and-ride-in-la-do-
| bi...
|
| (I emailed this to the author a few days ago.) I'm not saying
| these findings would hold up with better ridership data. But they
| were surprising findings, nonetheless. Plus, nobody wanted to
| hear it.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Did you control for the added publicity (some of it
| substantial) surrounding the addition of sharrows? I know it
| was a big deal in the Seattle area when they started to appear.
| Maybe the benefit was due to a temporary spike in public
| awareness, and if so, the risk level will fall back to baseline
| soon enough if it hasn't already.
|
| First rule of bicycle safety: "Paint won't save you."
| ryantgtg wrote:
| No, but there was not positive publicity for sharrows in Los
| Angeles. Everyone either hates them, or are unaware of them
| (I've spoken with a few drivers who said they have never
| noticed them).
|
| I think the benefit is likely due to increased numbers of
| cyclists on those routes (and other routes - just a general
| heightened awareness of bicyclists).
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| "Sharrows" don't provide the main advantage of a dedicated bike
| lane: a feeling of subjective safety. The majority of people
| consider the roads too dangerous to cycle on and only a
| dedicated space will fix that.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| More likely, only a dedicated path, not a lane, will fix
| that.
| toast0 wrote:
| Bike lanes are a double edged sword. Yes, there's subjective
| safety, but as much as the white line (or sometimes more)
| holds cars out, it also holds bikes in.
|
| Once you have a condition where you need to move left, out of
| the bike lane, it's a big step. But depending on your route,
| you may need to avoid pavement issues, trash or other debris
| in the bike lane, vehicles crossing the lane, or you may need
| to turn left or pass slower bicycles. And the aditional
| problem that if there's a marked bike lane, drivers will
| expect bicycles to remain in it.
|
| Sharrows don't provide subjective safety, they just remind
| everyone that bicycles are allowed there, and should be
| expected there. (Of course, when they're marked too far to
| the right, it's worse than not having any markings)
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| This is an interesting point, and it was made by UK cycling
| bodies back when the private car had only just started to
| dominate UK streets. They argued that dedicated bike paths
| would limit the freedom of cyclists, since they would be
| obligated to use these paths.
|
| In hindsight, this was a missed opportunity to build this
| infrastructure at a time when cycle usage (and therefore
| public support) was very high... and cycle participation
| has plummeted in the decades since to 1.7% of all journeys.
| Now, cyclists have the right to use all UK roads (except
| motorways), but only the bravest actually do so.
|
| Meanwhile, the Netherlands has fantastic cycle
| infrastructure and participation is very high - although
| still lower than it once was in the UK! I don't think it is
| hyperbolic to say that given what we now know about climate
| change, harmful emissions and the health consequences of
| inactive lifestyles, this is a national tragedy.
|
| Good cycle infrastructure encourages more people to cycle,
| and the rights of cyclists are better protected in
| societies where more people cycle.
| bnralt wrote:
| A car making a right turn is also going to be a lot more
| dangerous situation when there are bike lines than if the
| bicycles are sharing lanes with cars. I was curious about
| how it's handled in Copenhagen (since that is usually held
| up as a particularly bike friendly city), but it seems to
| be an issue there as well, according to this article[1].
| What's interesting about this article is that it suggests
| that a large part of the bike safety efforts are directed
| at getting cyclists to adopt safe behaviors. It seems like
| most of the discussion in states is directed at everyone
| except the cyclists themselves.
|
| [1] http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2015/10/23/how-to-
| decrease-rig...
| [deleted]
| dietr1ch wrote:
| If I were told I had died from a bike accident when biking to
| work, I'd be betting really hard on that I was not on a
| dedicated bike lane..
| ryantgtg wrote:
| If that happened, according to the SWITRS data you were most
| likely within an intersection. So yes, not within a bike
| lane.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Is there data that suggests how to fix intersections?
|
| I (used to :/) bike to work daily and was mostly scared of
| the intersections where the right lane crosses the
| shoulder/bike-lane to give drivers a quick right turn. A
| co-worker almost died on the scariest one after getting hit
| from behind, but was lucky enough to roll next to the car
| and only lose the bike.
|
| Other risky ones are where the driver that's merging in
| won't expect a bike and suddenly blocks the bike lane to
| get a better view of the traffic. This generally happens on
| the long streets with fast traffic 45m/h+ as few bikers
| take the risk making it more likely that drivers "forget"
| that there's bike traffic.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| There is a design treatment called protected
| intersections that slows vehicles turning, increases
| visibility of bicyclists, and gives them some physically
| protected buffers. https://altago.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Prote...
|
| Additionally, you can continue the bike lane paint within
| an intersection. But I don't recall the data on that.
|
| And yeah, those mixing zones are a disaster, especially
| when the bike facility completely disappears 100 feet
| before the intersection.
| aqme28 wrote:
| These are so haphazardly placed in NYC. I can think of a few
| roads where the sharrow abruptly switches from one side of the
| road to the other, encouraging I suppose lane switches within
| traffic. It's abysmal.
|
| I do occasionally appreciate them when they're in the _middle_ of
| a one-lane road, so it's more clear that I as a cyclist have
| equal right to take over the lane.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| For signage alone, i much prefer "Cyclists may use full lane".
|
| it's true, it's much more explicit, and more equanimous.
| andys627 wrote:
| That sign sucks. It should say "cyclists will use full lane"
| jfim wrote:
| It still causes confusion in areas where there is no such sign
| though. Can cyclists use the full lane where there is no such
| sign? They can, but it's not necessarily obvious.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| the actually preferable solutions involve one lane paved a
| different color, one lane physically separated in some
| obvious way, etc.
|
| and, in urban areas, a culturally dominant expectation of
| what ought to happen on roads.
|
| but if all you get are signs: those are the signs to get.
| crisnoble wrote:
| I want a sign that says "Cyclists can use full lane, on all
| roads"
|
| I have had to explain that it is not illegal for a bike to
| ride on a road which didn't have "share the road" signs.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| there do exist limited access roads, but it should be super
| obvious that bicycles and interstates aren't friends.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Not an urban designer, but missing from this perspective: transit
| planning.
|
| Lane markings could work if the whole area is designed for shared
| use: roads are made single-lane or one-way, speed limits lowered
| to safer levels (30km/h), roadside parking spots removed both for
| safety and visibility, buffer spaces around corners and
| intersections, raised crossings for cars... a lot of cycle paths
| in the Netherlands have no grade separation and while a little
| less comfortable, they are still pretty safe due to how the
| traffic is organized.
|
| This doesn't cover grade separation etc but is a good look at
| some of those design principles:
| https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban...
| baggy_trough wrote:
| There are numerous roads with painted sharrows near me which I
| would be shocked and horrified to see a bicyclist use.
|
| Sharrows are dangerous on a busy street. That is why bicyclists
| are afraid to use them. Which causes cars to ignore them, because
| there is never a bicycle in them. Which makes them more dangerous
| to use.
|
| They should never have been placed on busy streets to begin with,
| and those that are there should be removed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-13 23:00 UTC)