Irvin Dawid, an SVBC member from Palo Alto, recently wrote a Guest Column in the San Mateo Daily Journal. The subject was sharrows; those increasing popular stencils found on city streets with the bicycle symbol below two directional arrows pointed in the direction of traffic.
Irvin also wrote a guest column in the August 4, 2009 edition of the Palo Alto Daily News on the same subject. It seems as though Irvin has become quite the local expert on sharrows; his motivation stemming from an incident involving a high school classmate in New York City. Megan Charlop swerved into traffic to avoid being “doored” by a motorist.
What stood out about Mr. Dawid’s opinion piece was that it was extremely positive and also thanked many of the hardworking staff at the city and county level. In addition he thanked the citizens on the Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
What appears at first glance as something so simple as painted signs on the roadway actually requires money, city staff, and the input from local residents. In these times, as city staffing gets leaner, it is important that we thank them for their hard work in making bicycles an integral part of the transportation picture.
It is encouraging when cyclists phone, write, and visit the Santa Clara County Board meetings, or sign petitions for the removal of the “No Bikes” signs at the San José International Airport. At a time when Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings are being reduced due to reduced city staffing levels, it is extremely important that we continue to speak up for all cyclists.
So please continue to do what you do; calling, writing, volunteering, or attending meetings. If you are new to bicycle advocacy stop by one of our car-free happy hours to share notes with other cyclists. If you live in San Mateo County drop in on our monthly Peninsula Committee Meetings at Lada’s Thai Restaurant in Redwood City. We meet on the first Thursday of every month.
Photos:
Comments
What brought my eye to this
What brought my eye to this article was the new FHWA-sanctioned "Allowed Use of Full Lane" sign. My experience with sharrows here in Santa Clara is that drivers don't seem to know or care that you're allowed the lane, typically signified with annunciation of the horn. I believe this sign helps alleviate the former, strategically placed at intersections (to give time for drivers to see them, when they're not busy with makeup and iPhones that is).
Nicely written articles, Irvin, thank you.
Pete, the very topic of
Pete, the very topic of BAUFL's (Bicylces allowed use of full lane) came up at last night's San Jose Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The issue was sharrows or BAUFL's.
Many motorists don't really understand sharrows; or in many places along San Fernando St. and Park Ave. can't see them. Also they are limited on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. The BAUFL signs appear to be more direct both in and in quoting the CVC 21202 (California Vehicle Code)
The sign shown above is not
The sign shown above is not standard. The MUTCD standard (not yet adopted by California yet) is a white rectangle with a bike graphic and the words "MAY USE FULL LANE".
California has also not yet adopted the new MUTCD sharrow standards. California currently only allows sharrows when there's on-street parking, and I don't think there's currently a speed limit restriction.
Once California adopts/adapts the new MUTCD standards, it should be possible to have both sharrows and MUFL signs on the same stretch of road. It doesn't have to be one or the other, aside from the sharrow speed limit restriction. When California adopts the new MUTCD standards, they could decide to delete the 35 MPH sharrow restriction.
21202 doesn't give cyclists the right to use the full lane. 21202 REMOVES that right, unless one of the exceptions applies.
thanks, Pete. Just a word (or
thanks, Pete.
Just a word (or 2) of clarification. The sign you see above was taken in San Carlos - the new, green signs are up in Burlingame - they are unique to Burlingame, so I think it's safe to say they are non-standard. Personally, I would have preferred a stronger sign. I'll check with Carlos to see if I can upload the 'unique to Burlingame sign' here.
What's an 'acceptable'
What's an 'acceptable' traffic sign? Is this even relevant to the discussion of what signage to place on the road, or does it become more of an anal discussion, insisting that all signs conform to the CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Branch?
Technically, sharrow signage can only be done where parking is allowed - yet the city that was the first to use them, SF, installs them where they see fit from a safety perspective. Burlingame followed suit.
Burlingame chose to use signs specific to their city in terms of bike routing. Note the signs posted here for a 'bike route' and bike sharrows.
It seems like each city approaches these issues at their own discretion, within limits. I think this approach is far better than placing no signs to advance bike safety and information.
Is it "anal" to expect
Is it "anal" to expect standards to be followed? Otherwise, why have standards? Aren't standards the same thing as "limits"? Who decides if something is "within limits" if it's not to the standards?
It's easy enough to let this stuff slide when it seems to be in our favor. But if something is done that's detrimental to cyclists, and it doesn't comply with standards, we at least have a basis to challenge it.
Standards might be a pain when you're trying to do good, but they're you're friend when you're trying to prevent bad.