A Lane I can Support
In the interest of making constructive suggestions, I found an idea that I can support. It meets legal requirements, if not Greenbook recommendations.
"bicycle priority lane'' on Longwood Avenue
Comments are closed.
In the interest of making constructive suggestions, I found an idea that I can support. It meets legal requirements, if not Greenbook recommendations.
"bicycle priority lane'' on Longwood Avenue
I ran across a personal injury blog that addressed that flawed bill, and I believe that this issue will continue to gain traction in the communities. Although it may be too late to have secured the veto, we may still be able to rally more support to overturn the law.
The post can be found at
http://www.perenichlaw.com/blog/2010/06/florida-house-bill-971-signed-into-law-endangers-bicyclists/
THAT didn’t take long They can smell it.
“If you are a cyclist who has been hit by a negligent motorist, they may claim that you are ultimately responsible due to this new law. We strongly advise you to contact a bike accident lawyer to find out what your rights are.”
I hope it doesn’t take someone being killed because of an unsafe bike lane to get Tally to realize that their MBL law is a farce in the supposed name of bike safety. The law is asinine and I can’t believe there wasn’t at least one representative who bikes who could have spoken up against this
Given the apparent dimensions of the travel lane, and a reasonable interpretation of a “substandard width lane”, that “bicycle priority lane” already exists with or without the paint.
I’m conflicted on whether these sort of redundant/advisory markings on some roads are helpful or counter-productive in the overall scheme.
I have the same mixed feelings. I see it as being useful if it is used as a PR/awareness tool with the understanding that this is the safest (and legal) place to ride in any narrow lane (which is most roads). Selling one application as a special bike priority road does seem a bit counter-productive.
The cyclists in the article who weren’t willing to ride there (but presumably road in the door zone instead) made me sad. Are these people so beaten down and self-loathing that they won’t even protect themselves when they’re given official reinforcement? Why ride a bike and live like that.
My hope is that it will provide enough reinforcement to get at least *some* cyclists out of the door zone. That pro outweighs the con in my equation.
What that road marking is saying (like Long Beach’s green sharrow-lanes say), is that sharrows aren’t working as envisioned by planners. You can’t yell “Bikelane, bikepath, bikelane! Watch out for cars!” all the time, and then suddenly say “ride here instead” and expect people to understand it. Decades of gutter cowering can not be overcome (or even effected) by suddenly throwing out a contradictory message.
The entire fear-based message has to change.
The entire fear-based message has to change.
Amen.
We need to take a sober look at the fact that we have been promoting bicycling with deference and accommodation to car-culture misconceptions. That’s done immeasurable damage to the bike culture psyche and it’s gotta stop if we want real equity for human-powered transportation.
Unfortunately, the dominant voices in cycling don’t seem to recognize the parts of their message that assume motorists have priority.
I find that incredibly confusing, and I’m willing to bet most motorists will, too. Ironically, remove the dashed lines and leave just the sharrow instead, and it’s almost perfect! (If you must have paint at all…)
@ JohnB “Ironically, remove the dashed lines and leave just the sharrow instead, and it’s almost perfect”
Spot on JohnB.
What kind of engineer describes their work as “promote safe, happy and low stress lane sharing for all” Social engineering?
I’d like to suggest a name for this sort of lane, or the similar sharrow on top of green stripe in Long Beach:
overlane
Because the bike lane is overlain on the travel lane.