I admit it. I'm confused by shared lane markings, aka sharrows. These pictures of bicycles with chevrons pointing in the direction of traffic flow make me feel like I, as a cyclist, am more welcome on the pavement where they are painted.
In reality, it means that there should be a dedicated bicycle lane, but there is no space for it. It means that instead of sharing the lane with motor vehicles, I should actually take a full lane for my bicycle and expect motor vehicles to pass safely around me. It means that cyclists should obey laws exactly as though they were driving a motor vehicle. (See pg. 19 of the Denver Moves "Making Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections" report.)
In short, it means that a street marked with sharrows is exactly like every non-freeway street with zero bicycle markings. The one possible difference is that a driver might see a sharrow and think, "Oh, right! Bicyclists exist. I should operate my vehicle accordingly."
Today NPR published this story which ends with the conclusion, "But at the end of the day, reducing cycling accidents may boil down to
something simpler [than creating bicycle infrastructure]: Making sure that bikers know the rules of the road —
and that drivers know how to deal with bikers." Unfortunately, this isn't so simple. Sharrows are possibly the most prominent example of how confusing "the rules of the road" can be, for both cyclists and motorists. They probably aren't going anywhere, though; sharrows are a cheap and easy way for governments to boast investment in bicycle infrastructure without undertaking the efforts that help the most: bike boulevards, buffered or protected bike lanes, and regional paths.
It is also important to note that one of the studies linked in today's NPR story only includes data involving motor vehicles. These injuries and fatalities most likely have nothing to do with increased frailty due to age, contrary to what the story suggests. If you're plowed over by a two ton motor vehicle, it probably won't make much difference whether you are 14 or 41. The study compares recent data with data from 40 years ago. Think about that for a minute. You know what nobody was doing 40 years ago while driving? Using a phone. Just ask Christopher Weber and Matt Boeve, who bravely speak about this issue.
NPR, I love ya, but the conclusions of today's story are WAY off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo data were presented to allow an evaluation of the conclusions in the NPR story. It's impossible to make any assertions without seeing the data ..... the story says the "rate" of crashes is increasing. Is it that? Or is it the total number of crashes by old farts on bikes that's increasing? If the number of old farts on bikes is increasing more quickly than the number of crashes, the "rate" is actually going down. Poor to worse journalism boys an girls.
ReplyDelete