Santa Cruz, CA approves "Bikes in Lane" signs — maybe Tucson should too
Many have noted the dangerous stretch of road Patti Jane Lopez was riding on when she was killed. Under Arizona law a bicyclist has to stay as far to the right “as practicable.” ARS 28-815. An exception to that is when “the lane . . . is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” ARS 28-815(A)(4).
My question is, what does that mean exactly? Given that a Chevrolet Suburban can reach almost eight feet in width when you count the mirrors, how narrow must a lane be before a rider can lawfully take the whole lane?
Santa Cruz has solved this problem by simply declaring that cyclists can take the whole lane in certain dangerous areas. Other cities have done the same, and installed signs such as those shown above along streets that are especially dangerous for bicyclists.
Maybe that stretch where Ms. Lopez was killed should have had one of these, and maybe she would be alive today if it did. And maybe we need to start arguing for such signs on roads that are particularly dangerous for cyclists. My vote: Speedway from Euclid to Main.
More on the Santa Cruz decision here.
–Erik Ryberg
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Great find. These are great!
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
The “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign is proposed to be included in the manual on uniform traffic control devices set for adoption next year. The sign may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders
usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow
for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side.
The Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign may be used in locations where it
is important to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the
travel lane. The decision to use the sign will be up to the individual jurisdictions. I think the city will use the sign in the many “pinch points” that exist and, hopefully, those areas will be so numerous that drivers end up thinking that the message applies everywhere.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
May I nominate the 22nd Street overpass?
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Getting the signs included in the MUTCD that coghauler refers to is the key to moving forward with the signs. Neither the city nor county are going to want to use non-standard signs. From a driver education perspective, it’s important to have the same signs everywhere, especially in Tucson where we have so many winter visitors.
Steve
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
The situation in Santa Cruz is rather muddled. Here’s a detailed account from Bob Shanteau:
http://lists.svbc.dreamhost.com/pipermail/bikes-svbc.dreamhost.com/2008-May/011232.html
Erik said “Santa Cruz has solved this problem by simply declaring that cyclists can take the whole lane in certain dangerous areas.”
Not quite. They rejected the “may use full lane” sign because some officials disagreed with that concept.
The “bikes in lane” message is nonstandard. It’s purposefully vague.
Even without a sign, cyclists can use the full lane whenever the exceptions to the far-right rule apply. The point of putting up a sign is to make cyclists and motorists aware of these exceptions.
Erik asked: “How narrow must a lane be before a rider can lawfully take the whole lane?”
In some states, the vehicle code says 14 feet. In Santa Cruz, some officials want cyclists to share the 11 foot lane with smaller cars.
Fundamentally, no matter which part of the lane the cyclist is in, the greater responsibility is for overtaking traffic to pass safely.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thanks for the link, Erik, but I think it’s important to point out that the situation in Santa Cruz isn’t finished yet. Like Mike notes, Santa Cruz voted for a non-standard and untested sign. Because of that, approval for “Bikes In Lane” sign is uncertain by the state agency that approves these experimental signs on state highways. The Santa Cruz police department are especially being sticks in the mud about the whole process and being a little bit unprofessional, IMO.
I’ve noticed lately that the cement trucks on Hwy 1 now change lanes completely when passing cyclists on Mission Street, which is a great thing to see.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
All points taken. The news article I linked to did not make clear that this is not a done deal yet, and I hope SC can get around the red tape with the state and the foot-draggers in the city to overcome the problem.
I think it would be a big step forward to have a sign posted at all, because it gives bicyclists the courage they need to just take the whole lane. Waiting on the various engineers in the various agencies to agree on what the sign should look like could take forever, and you can always modify the sign later to conform to what they finally come up with.
And, I totally agree the “bikes in lane” sign is vague and obviously the “may use full lane” sign is a thousand times better, but I would hate to see the perfect be the enemy of the good here. I think the message gets across with the picture of a bicyclist in the middle of the lane.
–EBR
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Don’t misunderstand — we’d be pleased with the “Bikes In Lane” sign. The objection to that sign is that it may not pass muster with the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, whereas for the familiar “May Use Full Lane” approval would routine. Caltrans District 5 engineers now say that they’ll lobby for it so we’ll see what happens.