MBPAC planned resolution
For those of you interested in the negotiations of the State shoulder striping policy: (Note this is a summery of email correspondence so the most resent is first and the oldest comments last.)
From Barry Childress:
I'll attempt to put forth some impressions that I have on this discussion in several blocks of thought:
Starting with the first message from Micheal (at the bottom) it reminded me of some past conversations of: If we have a roadway with bicycle accommodations of lets say a 12' shoulder, what's the bare minimum that it can that be reduced before the State is considered no longer accommodating bicyclists?
If the answer is 3' excluding gutter pan, I would be very displeased over that.
But if we could get roads (without a lot of truck traffic) that currently have no bicycle accommodations 3' excluding gutter pan area that could be a really cool thing.
There can be no one shoe fits all universal striping policy, we need to hold roads to a higher standard that are currently accommodating cyclists then roads that are currently not accommodating cyclists.
This block is influenced by Tao Te Ching
When people see beauty, they think, "that's beautiful".
Thinking of something as beautiful makes you think other things are ugly.
Calling something "good" forces you to call some other things "evil."
Thinking of something as beautiful makes you think other things are ugly.
Calling something "good" forces you to call some other things "evil."
-Lao Tzu
-Lao Tzu
It is important to understand these concepts, when we label something good like a bikeway, it also forces us to label non bikeways as evil, this is wrong. All things can have a functional component, but the functionality does not always come from what we are manipulating (the space to the right of the stripe) as it is the space to the left of the stripe that is the most critical.
Proof:
Given a lane width that is clearly not wide enough for a cyclists and motorists to safely share side by side. It is clear to passing motorists that they must leave the lane they are in in some fashion in order to pass the cyclists.
And
Given a lane width that is clearly safe for cyclists and motorists to safely share side by side. It is clear to motorists that it is safe to pass a cyclists in the same lane provided the cyclists is to the right and the motorists stays to the left of the lane.
Therefore
a cyclists traveling 1-2 feet from the curb (as is typical) will usually be passed safely in ether a narrow lane or a wide lane, as the behavior expected from motorists is self evident but we must make note that the behavior of the typical motorist is different in these two lane widths while the behavior for the typical cyclists is the same.
If
it is only the behavior of the the motorists that changes between lane widths and not the (typical) cyclist,
It is therefore
critical to be clear to motorists that they are in a narrow lane or that they are in a wide lane, as their safe behavior in passing cyclists is dependent on them making that determination.
So how can
lanes that are not narrow and are not wide either improve cyclists safety as what is expected from drivers is dependent on drivers identifying an almost wide lane as a narrow lane and acting accordingly?
Personally I think 12'-13' lanes are the worst to ride in, more harassment if you take the lane as it looks like cyclists belong to the far right and if you are off to the right you get more unsafe passing events.
That SHA not provide intended space for bicyclists on roadways less than 3 feet wide according to their 2007 Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. The discussion was based around creating shoulder space for bicyclists that is less than three feet wide. Here are reasons in support of the existing policy:
If we are talking about what criteria is needed to call the space to the right of the stripe a space for bicyclists, then this makes some sense, if we are talking about not striping any space to the right of the stripe unless it is a space for a cyclists then that is problematic, as that space can serve other uses then just solely for bicycle use.
1. Safety risks increase if bicyclists ride in a narrow space because they have less room to maneuver. Safety is more important than some bicyclists feeling fearful of overtaking motorists if they have to share the roadway.
The assertion here is that by not having a stripe we will improve the typical cyclist's road position and therefore increases his safety because of this position while totally ignoring the change in motorists behavior. Comments: no proof of that cyclists road position improves without a stripe, if anything it worsens. I've already made the case of motorists behavior.
2. Expectation may increase by some motorists that bicyclists must ride in this narrow space, creating confusion and possible hostility toward bicyclists taking the lane. While
it may be “possible” to ride in such a narrow space it is not “practicable” in the opinion of many bicyclists.
The assertion here is harassment from motorists is going to be worse with a stripe then without a stripe. My observations are; with a "shoulder" I am harassed to ride on on the shoulder, without a "shoulder" I am harassed to ride on the sidewalk, without a sidewalk I am harassed to ride bike trails, in short it's always something and adding a stripe only changes the noun used in discussions and nothing else.
3. Encouraging bicyclists to ride in such a narrow space is symptomatic of the “cyclist inferiority complex” coined by John Forester because vehicular bicyclists wouldn’t try to hug the curb but take the lane. The closest example of vehicular bicycling is motorcycles. Motorcyclists don’t hug the curb; they take the
lane.
Not having a stripe is not going to increase the brass content of cyclists' manhood, get rid of psychosis or change anything of significance on the cyclists side of things to get them to "take the lane". Typical cyclists ride to the far right with stripe or without stripe, or if no stripe they don't ride at all, end of story with no one taking the lane that didn't take the lane before. Forester and his English major/industrial engineer based psychobabble is pure quackery, he will ride to the right for the convenience of faster passing traffic but if anyone else attempts to do the same they suffer from cyclists inferiority complex. Forester is full of contradictions and cannot be used as as a reliable expert especially in the field of psychosis.
4. MDOT’s adult bicycle safety materials, Safe Bicycling in Maryland and the Competence and
Confidence video advise bicyclists to take the lane when it is too narrow, moving only to the far right to allow faster, overtaking traffic to pass, when safe for the bicyclist to do so on one lane roadways. SHA shouldn’t have an engineering policy contrary to their own guidelines, the vehicular bicycling concept nor MDOT’s bicycle safety materials.
I don't really get this argument, I like stripes and narrow lanes because if I am one one side of the stripe I am telling motorists it is safe to pass me without (much) lateral movement or inconvenience on their part and if I am on the other side the stripe I am in their way (sorry) and they will have to make adjustments in order to pass. Without the stripe if I pull to the right, the question of is there enough room in the lane or not to safely passed is not often answered well, and I'll get a mirror to the back of the head or worst if the motorist reads it wrong. If MDOT's safety materials encourage cyclists to move to the right when it is safe to do so, it is the stripe and not the lack of stripe that helps determine if it is safe to pull off the travel lane and it is the stripe and not the lack of a stripe that infomes the motorists if the cyclists is out of the travel way or not.
-=Barry=-
Cycling Advocate
BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . o
. ./L
=()>()
- Global warming, increasing obesity rates, traffic congestion, dependence on foreign oil, leading causes of premature death and the economy... if only there was a common solution.
--- On Wed, 2/18/09, Bill Kelly (WN) wrote:
From: Bill Kelly (WN)
Subject: Re: MBPAC planned resolution
To: ...
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 7:19 AMHi Michael Jackson,etal, Thank you for responding to my e-mail asking about a resolution being proposed by the MBPAC. to change/alter SHA/MDOT's policy of striping roadways when the space to the right of the white line is less than 3'. You refer to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Guidelines May 2007. stating that SHA NOT PROVIDE intended space for Bicyclists on roadways shoulders if the shoulder is less than 3'. In responding to my inquiry with your answer that a wide curb lane is better than a narrow shoulder is still open to discussion and puts fear in the heart of the road-riders when they are told to "Just Take the Lane". In the 2007 Guideline Book on Page 1-1 it boldly states, "SHA shall make accomondations for Bicycling and Walking a routine and intergal element of planning, desisgn, construction, operations and maintenance activities as appropriate" That APPROPIATE WORD always seems to be added. as an escape clause..I have always appreciated SHA/MDOT's work to accomonate the Cyclists on the roadeway and they have done a pretty good job under very difficult situations. I would encourage SHA/MDOT to continue the policy in place of striping the right side of ther roadway (After leaving a 10' Space for autos)and leaving whatever space to the right of the white as a "Safety Recovery Zone" There are 22 reasons for the shoulders on the right side of a roadway and only one of them is to allow a Bicyclists to share some of the roadway space with an auto. I agree we should not assume that this small shoulderway is an Approved/sSgned Bikeway.This issue is very complex and open to many discussions. To say "Take The Lane" is not an appropriate answer on our busy roadways today. I have taken the lane many times when there is no space on the right side of the road and had cars right on my rear wheel and been yelled at by police and motorist to get off their roadway. I am going to pass your memo around to see if others agree wiith your rational. There is no easy answer to this difficult situation, but I feel workling together we can arrive at resolution that will work for all roadway users:Autos Cyclists and Pedestrians. to travel More Safely on our busy roadways, Thank you for sharing thoughts. Bill Kelly----- Original Message ----- wide.From: Michael JacksonTo: Bill Kelly (WN)Cc: Springer, Jeff [USA]Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:59 PMSubject: RE: MBPAC planned resolutionThat SHA not provide intended space for bicyclists on roadways less than 3 feet wide according to their 2007 Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. The discussion was based around creating shoulder space for bicyclists that is less than three feet wide. Here are reasons in support of the existing policy:
- Safety risks increase if bicyclists ride in a narrow space because they have less room to maneuver. Safety is more important than some bicyclists feeling fearful of overtaking motorists if they have to share the roadway.
- Expectation may increase by some motorists that bicyclists must ride in this narrow space, creating confusion and possible hostility toward bicyclists taking the lane. While it may be “possible” to ride in such a narrow space it is not “practicable” in the opinion of many bicyclists.
- Encouraging bicyclists to ride in such a narrow space is symptomatic of the “cyclist inferiority complex” coined by John Forester because vehicular bicyclists wouldn’t try to hug the curb but take the lane. The closest example of vehicular bicycling is motorcycles. Motorcyclists don’t hug the curb; they take the lane.
- MDOT’s adult bicycle safety materials, Safe Bicycling in Maryland and the Competence and Confidence video advise bicyclists to take the lane when it is too narrow, moving only to the far right to allow faster, overtaking traffic to pass, when safe for the bicyclist to do so on one lane roadways. SHA shouldn’t have an engineering policy contrary to their own guidelines, the vehicular bicycling concept nor MDOT’s bicycle safety materials.
...
...
...
--- On Thu, 1/22/09, Michael Jackson ; wrote:
From: Michael Jackson
Subject: Bicycle Space Design Discussion
To:
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 6:18 PM
To All:
Thanks for your interest and attendance at yesterday$B!G(Bs meeting regarding roadway design for bicyclists when there is insufficient space to provide 4$B!G(B of space for bicyclists in the right-most travel lane, exclusive of space for motor vehicles or gutters. The Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines (see attachment) reads in pertinent part:
$B!H(BA shoulder may be striped as narrow as four feet on closed section roadways or as narrow as three feet on open section roadways. The shoulder must provide a minimum 3-foot smooth operating space, exclusive of the gutter pan, for a bicyclist to safely operate. On roadways where retrofitting shoulders would result in a paved shoulder that provides less than a 3-foot smooth surface, it is preferable to maintain a wide-outside lane.$B!I(B
However as you are aware some bicyclists have told SHA staff that they prefer a paved shoulder regardless of width over a wide-outside lane. Shoulder widths less than 3-feet would conflict with these guidelines. During our meeting we discussed other options designed to provide bicyclists with psychological comfort such as use of Share The Road with Bicycles signs, installation of BIKE ROUTE signs, sharrow pavement markings or BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE signs (expected to appear in the planned 2009 edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
Because we were unable to develop a consensus at this meeting as promised this is to continue our discussion electronically.
My question to you is: Do you agree or disagree with the text in bold italics and why? The Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee$B!G(Bs Commuting and Transportation Subcommittee will consider responses and whether advice to SHA is warranted.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Michael Jackson
Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Maryland Department of Transportation
410-865-1237
What's Related