4 ms·

> I see sharrows as an excellent low cost solution. What problem do they solve?

corytheboyd 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  And yet, I've been honked at by a city bus for taking up the lane in a very quiet residential area
  - corytheboyd 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      [deleted]
- richk449 6y ago
  To me, this is part of the problem. It should never be acceptable to drive aggressively towards bikers. Sharrows seem to imply that there are certain locations where it is necessary to accept bikers - which leaves the question: what about everywhere else?
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    In an ideal world, I fully agree with you. It's already the case that bikes are permitted everywhere, so let's just enforce that. However, it's already the case that bikes are allowed everywhere and drivers are still aggressive. If printing some text on roads improves safety, I value that more than what ought to be.
rhizome 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=670 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
  - deathanatos 6y ago
    a. That's not what he meant. He meant that, "A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division,", from VEH 21200. (There's more nuance to it than that quote too, of course.) b. Some bikes do have a non-human power source.
- knaq 6y ago
  That might be your problem. Consider defining bicycles as pedestrians. Suddenly, we have bicycle paths everywhere, from which cars are prohibited. Bicycle usage becomes much more reasonable for the unathletic. Where did we ever get the idea that we're not supposed to ride on the sidewalk? Kids do it all the time. Parents don't let kids ride in the street. Are kids getting arrested for that crime? Compare mass. A typical bicycle weighs 18 pounds, adding just 10% to a human. The car is at least a factor of 10 more, and trucks are a factor of 400 more. Compare speed. A typical human runs at 10 MPH. The average speed in bike lanes is 11 to 12 MPH. Hey, that's almost the same! Cars obviously go far faster, often 70 MPH but rarely below 25 MPH. Compare energy. We can calculate it in junk units if we take any measure of speed, square it, and multiply by mass. That gives us a runner at 18400 units, a bicyclist at 26714 units, and a driver at 4900000 to 392000000 units. Even at the low end, with a small slow car, the driver has about 200 times the energy of the bicyclist. The bicyclist has only 50% more than the runner. So, by the numbers, it is really clear that bicycles should be considered pedestrians. The kind of people who join bicycling organizations and lobby for bicycling laws might disagree, but they are a tiny sliver of the potential bicycle-using population.
toast0 6y ago
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.
- richk449 6y ago
  > A sharrow indicates an acceptable lane position for a bike. But it doesn't. A biker has the right to take the lane on any city street, so any position on any road is an acceptable lane position for a bike. So what does a sharrows indicate?

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 6y ago
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 6y ago

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 6y ago
And yet, I've been honked at by a city bus for taking up the lane in a very quiet residential area
- corytheboyd 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    [deleted]
richk449 6y ago
To me, this is part of the problem. It should never be acceptable to drive aggressively towards bikers. Sharrows seem to imply that there are certain locations where it is necessary to accept bikers - which leaves the question: what about everywhere else?
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  In an ideal world, I fully agree with you. It's already the case that bikes are permitted everywhere, so let's just enforce that. However, it's already the case that bikes are allowed everywhere and drivers are still aggressive. If printing some text on roads improves safety, I value that more than what ought to be.

rhizome 6y ago

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 6y ago
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_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=670 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
- deathanatos 6y ago
  a. That's not what he meant. He meant that, "A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division,", from VEH 21200. (There's more nuance to it than that quote too, of course.) b. Some bikes do have a non-human power source.
knaq 6y ago
That might be your problem. Consider defining bicycles as pedestrians. Suddenly, we have bicycle paths everywhere, from which cars are prohibited. Bicycle usage becomes much more reasonable for the unathletic. Where did we ever get the idea that we're not supposed to ride on the sidewalk? Kids do it all the time. Parents don't let kids ride in the street. Are kids getting arrested for that crime? Compare mass. A typical bicycle weighs 18 pounds, adding just 10% to a human. The car is at least a factor of 10 more, and trucks are a factor of 400 more. Compare speed. A typical human runs at 10 MPH. The average speed in bike lanes is 11 to 12 MPH. Hey, that's almost the same! Cars obviously go far faster, often 70 MPH but rarely below 25 MPH. Compare energy. We can calculate it in junk units if we take any measure of speed, square it, and multiply by mass. That gives us a runner at 18400 units, a bicyclist at 26714 units, and a driver at 4900000 to 392000000 units. Even at the low end, with a small slow car, the driver has about 200 times the energy of the bicyclist. The bicyclist has only 50% more than the runner. So, by the numbers, it is really clear that bicycles should be considered pedestrians. The kind of people who join bicycling organizations and lobby for bicycling laws might disagree, but they are a tiny sliver of the potential bicycle-using population.

toast0 6y ago

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.

richk449 6y ago
> A sharrow indicates an acceptable lane position for a bike. But it doesn't. A biker has the right to take the lane on any city street, so any position on any road is an acceptable lane position for a bike. So what does a sharrows indicate?