undefined | Better HN

0 pointseyelidlessness4y ago0 comments

I’m not particularly concerned with the wording on the sign, but this sentiment is exactly why I prefer “sharrows”[1] over designated bike lanes. They very clearly indicate that cyclists are expected to be a part of traffic.

In my experience—at least in Seattle which is more bike friendly than baseline in the US but certainly not on par with Portland—drivers are far more likely to yield to cyclists with these markings than where a bike lane is present. In contrast, I’ve had drivers try to run me off the road, screaming mad, when I had the gall to perfectly legally ride in the main road where a bike lane was present[2]. Even when there was plenty of space for them to pass.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking

2: Several of my cyclist friends disagree with me on this, but I find the particular bike lane exceedingly dangerous. I frequently avoided it when it was on my daily commute route, after numerous frightening close calls. Riding along with the aggressive drivers really did feel safer.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

notatoad4y ago

When installed correctly - that is, in the very center of the lane - sharrows are slightly better than a "share the road" sign. Too often, cities install sharrows on the very edge of the lane, creating a suggestion that cyclists are only permitted to ride on the edge of a lane and that drivers should continue passing without giving adequate space.

My towns main street has sharrows directly in the "door zone" between the street parking and the traffic.

And of course all the normal criticisms of sharrows hold. Mainly that they're much more visible to cyclists than to cars, creating a false sense of security where cyclists feel entitled to a lane while drivers disagree.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse