BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
84

Should We Abandon 'Share the Road'?

This article makes a pretty interesting point.


http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/share-the-road-meaning/


msprout
2011-02-20 20:54:23

Absolutely. Those signs need to go, the sooner, the better.


edmonds59
2011-02-20 21:26:59

I agree. Share the road to a driver that has never biked on the street means to get out of the way. They simply don't understand why anyone would get in the way of a car.


rsprake
2011-02-20 21:33:45

I think lots of people lack common sense... or maybe they thnk that they are drivers and it means they should share the road in the way that a 2 year old shares things (2 year olds usually don't reciprocate when someone else shares something with them). To me, the signs are clear. What isn't clear about the meaning of the word share? I kinda don't like the signs that show the car up the cyclist's ass, but i think that has been discussed before.


stefb
2011-02-20 22:14:45

maybe we need an additional sign that explains what the meaning of "sharing" is.


nick
2011-02-20 22:18:10

I've always hated that phrase. I'd bet the majority of motorists think it's directed at bicycles and certainly not at them.


I don't think it's going to make a real difference what the signs say though. It's not a substitute for education.


salty
2011-02-20 22:22:23

I like the 2nd road sign in the article:


"[bicycle icon] MAY USE FULL LANE"


pseudacris
2011-02-20 22:41:10

As I've said in other threads, what signs exist should instead say Cyclists May Always Use Full Lane.


stuinmccandless
2011-02-20 22:42:41

and it’s no surprise to us that many motorists have little understanding of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is the law of physics that explains why a car can’t occupy the same space as a bicycle.


To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


It is no surprise to me that many bloggers (and screenwriters), having never actually opened quantum theory textbook, have no idea what the hell the Pauli Exclusion Principle is, and would be best to structure their arguments without it. He makes a good point about the signs though.


dwillen
2011-02-20 23:45:53

+1 For MAY USE FULL LANE.


Comes pretty close to nailing the point in a succinct way.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-21 00:05:03

+1 to rprake's comment. To most motorists the cyclist has no inherent right to take the lane, they choose to interpret it as we should get out of their way since we're supposed to "share" that part of the road we're using. - At the same time at least the signs indicate that cyclists are out there (not that people will notice the signs anymore than a brightly dressed cyclist with lights).


icemanbb
2011-02-21 00:36:46

The cynic in me enthusiastically awaits to see how BMUFL will be misinterpreted by motorists.


edmonds59
2011-02-21 01:06:14

It's pretty apparent that the Share the Road campaigned is pretty flawed, but it is most likely due to a lack of education more that anything. I remain adamant about driver's test including information about how to deal with bicyclists and pedestrians on the same road space. I'm sure if everyone with licenses had to take said test over with that included, about 50% of them would get that part completely wrong.


impala26
2011-02-21 01:13:50

Consider how motorists misinterpret the most common of signs:


Red=Go

Yellow=Get through that thing

Green=Get the hell outta my way mo-fos


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-21 01:25:56

The cynic in me enthusiastically awaits to see how BMUFL will be misinterpreted by motorists.


"The lane wasn't full with just your bike in it. That's why I had to squeeze my car in next to you. No need to thank me!"


steven
2011-02-21 02:38:24

right, even if the driver sees "bicyclist may use full lane", that probably means "here" and not where the sign is not present. stu's idea may help - but then again probably not given what ALMKLM said. people don't pay any attention to the other signs that say "stop" and "speed limit xx" although they have theoretical consequences to ignoring them.


salty
2011-02-21 06:21:56

(admits to not yet reading article)


I've been yelled at on a road where I was taking the right-most thru land (there was another, that was an on ramp) by some prick in a sports car "share the lane".


i don't want "cyclists may use full lane" i want "GIVE FULL LANE TO CYCLISTS" Why not? why should we have to ride our bikes aggressively and try to "take" the lane from people in relatively armored tanks who resent lending us the shoulder or applying their brakes?


why do we tell cars to 'share', but advise cyclists to 'take', when neither seems all that well equipped, either in mentality or physical ability, to do so? it's set up for fail. cars won't do it anyway. i dunno, maybe insomnia has made me more cynical than usual.


ejwme
2011-02-21 07:51:26

Ejwme: I'm with you on the word "take". I've decided that I no longer take the lane but rather have the lane. Like, I'm having a glass of water but that doesn't mean you can't have a glass of water too.


ck
2011-02-21 12:21:38

BMUFL sounds so bureaucatic and legalese, and requires more mental processing to grasp the meaning, motorists just don't have the time to process it, what with the radio adjustments and the texting and the eating the triple bacon cheeseburgers. I like something much more direct, like

DON'T F#!K WITH BIKES

There's my campaign.


edmonds59
2011-02-21 13:10:07

It might be time to abandon STR, Item 1: When I Google "Share the Road" top of the list is sharetheroadsafely.org: "Welcome to the Share the Road Safely web site! The Share the Road Safely program strives to improve the knowledge of all highway users to minimize the likelihood of a crash with a large truck..."


If the "message" is so diluted that the USDOT is co-opting it for use by a commercial truck protection program, the battle is lost and the war is over. Time to start anew.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-21 13:33:16



pseudacris
2011-02-21 13:49:51

Sort of reminds me of myself. Has anyone seen me in my AmFIBs?


shel
2011-02-21 14:03:57

I'm on board with edmond's campaign. How about a picture of Lewis Black on the sign with the campaign slogan at the bottom?


roadkillen
2011-02-21 14:09:34

One part I like about mine is that the only way it could possibly be misinterpreted, not to have sex with bikes, is an equally valid message. Win, win.


edmonds59
2011-02-21 14:21:59

I dont know edmonds... there are some pretty sexy bikes bikes out there. Just saying...


dbacklover
2011-02-21 15:03:25

Ha!


edmonds59
2011-02-21 15:09:18

@edmonds: ...but I love my bike...


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-21 16:32:09

It seems that we mostly agree that the efforts by earlier advocates to place StR signs were a "well-intended mistake", perhaps enabled by insufficient cynicism.


What lesson can we take from that and apply to current advocacy efforts?


lyle
2011-02-21 17:50:47

I don't have any bad stories about those signs, but if we did replace them I'd prefer something more like "Bikes Belong". As salty said, the "Bikes may use full lane" sign implies that that's not true elsewhere.


erink
2011-02-21 20:13:43

I'm not sure I agree with the following rationale: "the "Bikes may use full lane" sign implies that that's not true elsewhere..."


As you know, road signs are color-coded for different purposes. It is not the intent of "Yellow" road signs (which are "warning signs" to alert the driver to dangerous conditions) to inform the road user of every applicable law. These signs are, in my opinion, rather arbitrarily placed in any event - as opposed to a STOP sign which is placed in relation to a fixed point. Therefore, these signs are of a more supplementary nature, and serve to remind road users of a variety of things, whether it is the possible presence of cyclists, dangerous curves or driveways.


In fact, a "cycling" sign ought not be yellow at all, it should probably be a "white" or "regulatory" sign, like a speed limit sign,

alerting road users to a legal fact (in this case "Bikes May Use Full Lane").


Our expectations of what these signs should or could accomplish then, is different from an overall goal of greater acceptance of cyclists, and by extension greater safety for cyclists. A different sign isn't going to cure all ills.


I agree STR sends the wrong message. BMUFL states a legal fact, issues the reminder that bicycles may be present, and that cyclists have aright to the use of the lane pretty neatly.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-21 21:06:07

This is why I like sharrows - they unambiguously claim road space for bicycle use. I suppose it's still possible that people will think that bikes are only allowed where there are sharrows, but many of those people don't think bikes are allowed on the road anyway.


willb
2011-02-21 21:42:25

@edmonds59 & dbacklover


What, you forgot about this photo?



stuinmccandless
2011-02-21 22:57:03

nice touch with the rocks there.


rubberfactory
2011-02-21 23:22:58

I like the "Bikes Belong" idea. Simple and to the point.


icemanbb
2011-02-22 02:59:12

I like Bikes Belong for an advertising campaign, but I thought this thread was about road signs - like the kind the DOT puts up.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-22 03:28:44

Bikes Belong... ON THE SIDEWALK!


rsprake
2011-02-22 03:31:57

I really hate the "Walk bikes on sidewalk" signs on the southside (whatever that street is that runs parallel with e carson). They're right by the "Watch for bicyclists" signs. A mixed signal, if you ask me.


rubberfactory
2011-02-22 03:39:43

How about


YIELD

to BIKES

($10,000 fine)


pseudacris
2011-02-22 03:44:45

"Walk bikes on sidewalk" is for the trail detour. I figure they're aimed only at novice cyclists who can't handle any possible interaction with traffic. They just omitted the implied "until you take off the training wheels" part. :-)


(It's odd that they're overcautious on McKean Street, but over on 4th Street, they have the trail crossing active railroad tracks without any gates or lights or other warning devices.)


As to the photo, I think it's great that the young lady loves her mountain bike so much, she chooses to keep it safe in the tent with her boyfriend instead of exposing it to the elements. (It's all about assumptions.)


steven
2011-02-22 04:52:59

ATTN: SCOTT BRICKER


I have drafted a production-ready sign to be pitched to the state. Please consider.




msprout
2011-02-22 14:53:31

Awesome! But can you make the car look more like Pac Man?


And, can you do a mock-up of the fat, bald, ear-bud-wearing jogger on the Highland Park Bridge sidewalk inbound last summer who hollered me off the sidewalk, and told me BIKES BELONG ON THE ROAD!


Make the fat guy look like Pac Man too. He kinda did anyway.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-22 15:09:39

How about this one?




reddan
2011-02-22 15:20:34

That's a start - but show the cyclist swinging a u-lock... and can't we make the car a little more like pac-man?


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-22 16:26:39

"Walk bikes on sidewalk" is for the trail detour. I figure they're aimed only at novice cyclists who can't handle any possible interaction with traffic. They just omitted the implied "until you take off the training wheels" part. :-)


i guess it is all about assumptions; i assume that sign should say "walk bikes when on sidewalk." the addition of but a single word would clarify their meaning, and not cause other road users to believe that bikes belong only on the sidewalk.


hiddenvariable
2011-02-22 17:42:07

I'm for making the car look more like a Nissan Armada.


stuinmccandless
2011-02-22 19:28:50

How about the familiar silhouette of a cyclist, but with horns on the helmet. Placard reads: BEWARE OF VIKINGS.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-22 19:32:48

HV, I think you're right about what they meant. Didn't occur to me before.


Now I hate that sign too, for its ambiguity.


Could the yellow warning sign show the car knocking over the Walk Bikes On Sidewalk sign?


steven
2011-02-22 19:39:40

Per work-shirking request:



reddan
2011-02-22 19:42:56

can the Pac Man pellets be tiny bicycles?


sloaps
2011-02-22 19:52:02

Can the pac man pellets be tiny u-locks?


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-22 19:55:27


From here.

edit: (wo, sorry about the size)


marko82
2011-02-22 20:14:33

I hate the "same rights" thing because then car drivers use a cyclist not 100% stopping at a stop sign as a good reason to pass them too close. After all, why give a cyclist safe passing distance when they aren't even obeying the traffic laws themselves? Argh.


tabby
2011-02-22 20:48:14

You're going to get some of that anyway. The same-same-same message is pretty easy to get across, though. Diminishing it by creating bicycle-specific rules (like idaho stops) is a bad precedent, imo.


lyle
2011-02-22 22:06:50

i'd discourage the 'same rules' thing, though. bikes SHOULDN'T follow the same rules. we have to follow slightly different rules because our vehicles can't suddenly accelerate to 45mph!


msprout
2011-02-24 18:18:06

that's why I like "GIVE FULL LANE TO CYCLISTS". Doesn't muddy the waters with rules or rights or equality. Just give me the lane that I'm already taking. Stay off my butt, don't buzz me, do what the sign says. Just give me the damn lane.


Granted, in the city, where even CARS don't get a full lane, this could be tricky.


ejwme
2011-02-24 18:56:22

+1 ewjme. You're getting lots of those lately.


lyle
2011-02-24 20:10:22

If we had a safe passing law then we could do something like this:




gimppac
2011-02-24 21:18:54

this state needs to be progressive and adopt the Idaho stop law.


msprout
2011-02-24 21:33:47

"this state needs to be progressive..."


...about a LOT of things...


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-24 21:39:51

Ok, I'm a motorist. "Since my car is in the lane, that bike is supposed to be 3 feet off the road".

And he's supposed to have a rivet in his neck. Like on the sign.


edmonds59
2011-02-24 21:50:50

Ok, so I'm a motorist (Part 2): "Can I rivet the cyclist's neck myself? And is that the only place I can rivet them?"


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-24 22:51:54

i'm not a motorist, but that is a tiny car, and a very wee cyclist! he must be no more than a foot and a half high on his bike!


hiddenvariable
2011-02-25 13:58:39

Ha, ha!


edmonds59
2011-02-25 14:27:24

ok, so that's a bad example :P


Let's not forget about our tractor brethren in Farm Country:




gimppac
2011-02-25 19:52:02



edmonds59
2011-02-25 20:16:34

wtf - is that horse flipping cars the bird?


salty
2011-02-25 20:31:31

Those are some edgy Amish.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-25 20:49:08

this may take a few tries


Image and video hosting by TinyPic


only 2 tries this time :)


bikelove2010
2011-02-27 16:54:51

@bikelove: no Viking?


Oh, my bad.

Vikings don't share.

Never mind.


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-02-27 17:16:51



hiddenvariable
2011-03-01 16:09:57

HV for the win :D


ejwme
2011-03-01 16:32:48

Success!


atleastmykidsloveme
2011-03-01 20:41:56

Huzzah HV!


gimppac
2011-03-01 21:48:08

If we made a viking ride T-shirt it would need to have HV's sign on the back.


Bravo!


mick
2011-03-01 21:54:33

This girl recently purchased a screen printing machine. +1 for viking tshirts


bikelove2010
2011-03-02 02:04:48

This girl recently purchased a screen printing machine. +1 for viking tshirts


bikelove2010
2011-03-02 02:04:50

You can say that again!


lyle
2011-03-02 03:30:41

A friend of mine posted this on my Facebook wall.




rsprake
2011-03-02 14:25:54

+1 to shirts.


myddrin
2011-03-02 15:16:47

I'd shell out for a shirt with a viking on it.


Rsprake, that pic is hilarious, though I do feel sorry for the puppy.


ejwme
2011-03-02 15:52:45

ryan, that is exactly why i hate the off leash dogs in frick. i am pretty sure this is going to happen to me eventually.


cburch
2011-03-02 16:00:18

I am, eventually, going to get a penny farthing.


edmonds59
2011-03-02 18:19:24

chris has one down at thick now. he is planing on doing the ms150 on it.


cburch
2011-03-02 19:29:23

Here ya go!



stuinmccandless
2011-03-02 19:35:32