Various “Share the Road” Signs generating controversy among signage experts
Above is a sign near Flagstaff, which a reader of mine alerted to me a few weeks ago.
And this sign, above, is from Tempe. Tom Thivener, City of Tucson’s Bike/Ped Coordinator, sent me this when I asked him about the Flagstaff sign. I had asked him if the Flagstaff sign was an official DOT sign, and if we could expect to see more of them around the state.
He did some looking into it and wrote me back to say, “The State and the Feds don’t want jurisdictions experimenting with signage without an official experiment process being undertaken. Sounds like Flagstaff will retroactively apply for experimentation process for the one sign they have. Could be a long process before anything like that is accepted for mainstream use.”
I guess progress is progress! I hope they can approve a sign soon and put some up around Tucson.
–Erik Ryberg
April 30th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I think that sign is fantastic!
April 30th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Funny, a fellow here in Colorado Springs was telling me the other day that ’share the road’ meant that cyclists shouldn’t be on the road, in the way of drivers. I wonder how many other motorists are thinking that way; the cyclist shouldn’t be hogging the roads they’re driving on.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
[...] says cyclists need to embrace their vulnerability and stop blocking the lane. A non-standard — but clearly better — Share the Road sign appears in Tucson. Bike-friendly Salt Lake City gets a promotion. The bike [...]
May 1st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Wow, BikingInLA really missed the point. And so did the fellow who mangled the definition of “share.”
May 1st, 2010 at 10:39 pm
P.S
Nah, its just a trackback so he could link it in his own blog.
The previous piece that he’d linked to was from some woman in San Diego saying that cyclists need to embrace their vulnerability etc etc.
The only bit that applies to this article is the “A non-standard — but clearly better — Share the Road sign appears in Tucson.”
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
I can see a driver seeing one of those signs and thinking, yea, that bike needs to keep on the edge of the road at least 3 feet away from my car.
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 am
Of course, all it will take is one educated motorist challenging the sign through ADOT to get it removed. If it’s not covered by the experimental process, it will be removed-sign must be covered by the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices to be enforcible. As it is, the current MUTCD has just been released, so it will be at least a couple of years before a new sign will appear in it.
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Red Star prefers the Flagstaff sign: likes the yellow caution paint, “minimum” could probably be deleted as it is redundant to the graphic (though true to ARS). Doing so would give more room super-bold and expand the FEET thing.
Do such signs work on motorists in a frenzied, congested, low income urban environment such as the Old Pueblo as compared to Flagstaff? Perhaps proper experiments would yield rational and informed decisions.
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I have gotten in arguments with people who were trying to tell me that it was the bike’s obligation to be 3 feet from the car. Why don’t I have those handy little books with me when I need them?
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Trickster:
I get the trackback, but he said a new share-the-road sign appears in Tucson, which isn’t the case.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
How about a sign that says, “Yes, cyclists do pay taxes and they do have the same right to the road as you. No, not all riders wear spandex, but there is a good reason when they do. Yes, it is your responsibility to give them 3 feet of space.
Might make the text a little small, though. Maybe a bigger sign?
May 4th, 2010 at 10:42 am
The sign is a good start, but it does not address one misconception that many motorists have. The misconception is that bikes must stay in the bike lane. Bikes are allowed to ride in the car lane if they wish, and 2 abreast, for that matter.
May 6th, 2010 at 7:25 am
My last trip up the 87 to Payson there was a bunch of riders. No a problem except those that ride on the white line. Pulling an RV gets kind of tricky and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a few people have been bumped off their bikes.
May 6th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I think a rewording is in order. It needs to say “DRIVERS – Share the Road with Cyclists”
May 6th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Lou, that’s why God invented brakes. So you can use them when waiting to pass the cyclists who have the right to part of the lane.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Actually, I think it is phoenix, not Tempe. But that makes me wonder; i dug up some pictures i took in 2007 and posted them here
http://blog.cazbike.org/2010/05/three-foot-signs-to-remind-drivers.html
The graphic you have is a little different; I prefer the one i have pictured because it says “BIKES GET 3 FEET” — i like that action-word GET in there…. compare to, for example the slogan “give bikes 3 feet”.
(i am generally agnostic on the value of generic share the road signs; for all the reasons mentioned already)
May 19th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Looks like this one is approved already in the latest MUTCD: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/part9.pdf
Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11)
Option:
01 The Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) sign (see Figure 9B-2) 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.
02 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.
03 Section 9C.07 describes a Shared Lane Marking that may be used in addition to or instead of the Bicycles May
Use Full Lane sign to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane.
Support:
04 The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) defines a “substandard width lane” as a “lane that is too narrow for a
bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the same lane.”