Ponce de Leon Avenue Gets Bike Sharrows
Decatur Metro | August 29, 2011 | 9:54 amMy wife and I noticed these new bike sharrows (share + arrows) all the way up Ponce de Leon Ave in downtown Decatur yesterday morning. Dave says in a FFAF comment that he saw them being painted early Saturday morning.
Sharrows generally indicate that bikes may use the full lane where marked.
This is great, but it’s just not something motorists “get”. If you take a lane, they just assume you’re doing it to be an ass, not for purposes of self-preservation.
Still, a step in the right direction, IMHO. I have always been of the opinion that the root cause of the tension between cars and bikes in Atlanta is the roads themselves. They just aren’t set up to accommodate both types of vehicles.
Does it matter much if you can’t get to them? I tried Ponce east from Briarcliff during my ride yesterday and unless you actually ride along Ponce (taking up a full lane and risking getting run over from behind by cars going 50-60 mph) it’s not possible.
The biggest problem lies near Artwood. You can’t cross into traffic from the road behind Deepdene from there, and you can’t ride that length of sidewalk to reach the light without severe tire damage. Even if you get to Artwood in one piece, you can wait 10 minutes for the damned light to change, even if you get off and press the button.
The best route from the west into Decatur remains Decatur Street-DeKalb Avenue. It actually calms down east of Rocky Ford because the PATH comes in there.
Until bikes are safe on Ponce in unincorporated DeKalb County, all these sharrows and bike lanes are a joke, just excuses in slowing down traffic and making it one lane each way.
I agree that Ponce is a bad place to bike west of the city. Two alternatives:
(1) McLendon through Candler Park and Lake Claire. At its end, although it’s a little winding and inconvenient, you can take a left on Ridgecrest and a right on East Lake. Then cutting through E. Parkwood and Upland will dump you onto the portion of Ponce within the city limits.
(2) If you’re further south, Hosea Williams is a very good biking street. Wide and with a bike lane through Whitefoord (and even after it ends, no problem). I actually use Hosea to its end –> Wylie (parallel to Hosea but one block south) –> through Krog tunnel –> L on Edgewood as an easy way to bike to downtown from Oakhurst.
You want all of Ponce down to 2 traffic lanes? It’s already at or near capacity much of the time with 4 lanes. 2 lanes will turn it into a complete disaster during rush hour.
Bikes can already get from Decatur to downtown or midtown without ever riding on Ponce (though a crossing is required if you are heading to midtown).
Who said that DEM?
No one, actually. On reflection I think I totally misread Dana’s comment.
Excuse me, but where is Ponce 4 lanes in COD? Some places have 4 lanes, but only 2 are thru lanes.
Love them. Thank you.
Oh and by the way, as far as I can tell, I have not seen a single ‘car sharrow’ anywhere in town. So, now we know, bikers rule baby.
we used these to go through DT Decatur Saturday night on our way to diner at Ted’s. we were a little nervous crossing Church Street as we had to ride side by side while we waited for the light. all cars gave about 3 feet of space though coming across the square.
This sign is completely confusing. Roads are already for both bikes and cars (with the exception of interstates). Why put down some sign that means nothing? It’s going to confuse motorists into thinking that they made a mistake and ended up on a bike path.
I agree. Motorists still aren’t going to get it. And even if they do, most motorists are too busy talking on their phones to pay attention to a symbol on the road. They already can’t seem to see the traffic lights and other signs at eye level. Too bad we have to clutter up our already ugly roadways with more signage for people to ignore.
I admit I’m confused too. If they are there to indicate that bikes should use the full lane, then why are they painted to the right side of the lane? I’m not arguing that bikes shouldn’t use the full lane (I bike too and don’t want to get hit by car doors!) but I just find the markings confusing.
Ugh…”sharrows”, my current pet peeve. Cyclists can already take the lane if there are two or more, and if you’re just by yourself, you generally don’t need to take the lane (there are exceptions around town). Sharrows do nothing to change the spatial interface between cars and cyclists, which is the real issue. IMHO, they’re just a waste of money…
(BTW, I am an avid cyclist, and yes, I feel better now.)
Agree it is a waste of money, especially where these sharrows are. I ride there almost every day, and have never had a problem w/o sharrows. There’s plenty of room for cars and bikes along that stretch of road. Ditto Sycamore. The sharrows there seem completely unnecessary.
I’ll also say from experience that a certain percentage of drivers believe very strongly that cyclists have no business whatsoever on roads, period. Some have said that to me point-blank. (My response is not something I can say on this blog.) I doubt that sharrows will make any difference to those people; in their view, a bicycle is in their way and entitled to nothing. A ticket for not observing the 3 foot rule might make a difference, but I’ve yet to even hear of such a citation being issued.
Is this true? Can two bikers take up a full lane, or is that only the rule when there are 4 lanes? I’m curious b/c my family biked to Candler Park last weekend using PATH and McLendon (One adult biker, one adult biker w/ 4 year old on an attached trail bike, one five year old biker). We tried to stay single file, but, at times, I rode next to my six year old to protect him from the passing cars. We were yelled at (and given a lovely hand gesture) by one gentleman who insisted we should be single file. I’d love to know we had the law on our side….
I think sharrows are a great idea. Not all motorists will understand them, but they have to learn sometime. Along Clifton at Emory, there are signs that explain the sharrows; they say something like “Bikes may use full lane.”
Signs are not enough, though, and more education is needed–for motorists AND cyclists. Motorists need to know that cyclists (at least those with any clue at all about safety) cannot ride in parking lanes, that cyclists may use up more room that it seems they need because of potholes and other obstacles, and that defensive driving still applies, meaning that you should always assume that every driver, cyclist, runner, pedestrian, wheelchair user, etc. is a clueless idiot and could do something unpredictable, so leave more room than you need, slow down, and be ready to stop at any given nanosecond.
Cyclists (including me) need to know: Not to ever ride side by side; if you’re riding with a child, let her ride on the sidewalk (What’s the law? Up to 15 years old can ride legally on the sidewalk?), if you can’t be aware of your surroundings, don’t ride (which means don’t wear headphones, for #$%@’s sake!), don’t ride in the parking lane (because when you come out of it, you might surprise the drivers who are coming at you in two tons of steel for whom inertia is a much bigger deal than it is for you), use a mirror if you’re riding in traffic, and WEAR A HELMET. If I see a cyclist without a helmet, I assume that that person is an idiot–and without fail, I am always correct because riding without a helmet is the pinnacle of stupidity and irresponsibility–don’t make me describe the injuries I’ve witnessed. When I’m driving my car, I have to be extra super-careful when I see a helmetless cyclist because for all I know, they might just suddenly jump off the bike, dash into oncoming traffic, drop trou, and do the Cha Cha Shuffle (“Charlie Brown!”). It is inconsiderate and unfair to put that much extra responsibility on your fellow citizens.
All in all, as a driver and cyclist, it is my experience that the overwhelming majority of both are safe and responsible and if nothing else, sharrows and other such initiatives will–with increased education–be a reminder that there are all sorts of mobile humans on the rizzoad.
I’d guess they’re there to help make motorists alert to and more respectful of bikes, and it’s a good call to paint them. One of the biggest dangers to bikers is drivers who aren’t used to and aren’t keeping an eye out for bikes. That said, I’m with KC and hope we can agree never to use the term “sharrow” again.
They were also put in on Sycamore north of Ponce, so probably other places too.
It seems like the City is doing a lot of things to accommodate bikes and slow down auto traffic (which I fully support) but they are doing very little to educate the public on what they are doing and what these things (like a bike box and now “sharrows”) even mean. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of the term.
` Sharrows generally indicate that bikes may use the full lane where marked.
That doesn’t sound right. A bike sharrow suggests best lane positioning. They are helpful when that positioning shifts somewhat unexpectedly, such as transitioning from one type of bike facility to another.
I presume that a bike sharrow painted in the center of a travel lane would be construed as permitting “taking the lane.”
This sharrow is largely pointless.
I don’t need (or want) a road marking to tell me when to take the lane and prevent a car from unsafely passing. However, the official stamp of approval right there on the road may calm down ragers who think my action unwarranted or illicit.
I think you’re onto something, Ridge. The value of sharrows as they become more ubiquitous is largely educational. They’re a formalized reminder that different types of users have equal rights to the road — a fact many drivers, especially on roads clearly designed for cars and cars alone, seem to forget.
Every time we separate cars from bikes, we reinforce the idea that streets are only for cars. Plus, there will never be enough money to maintain redundant infrastructure in all cases. Sharrows may seem silly to those already willing to share the road but, sadly, that population is the minority. When streets have been made more humane (through lane reductions, etc.) such that speeds no longer ensure automatic death in the event of a collision, sharing is perfectly appropriate. But a cultural shift needs to take place because a lot of drivers don’t think this way.
(And, yes, I know some cyclists — just like some drivers — don’t follow traffic laws.)
“(And, yes, I know some cyclists — just like some drivers — don’t follow traffic laws.)”
Maybe it’s just me, but I see way more bikers disobeying traffic laws than automobile drivers.
This morning on the way to work, a woman with a toddler on the back of her bike unexpectedly darted and swerved in front of my slow-moving car and then proceded to travel down the wrong side of the opposite lane, startling other motorists in her path.
I was absolutely infuriated by her arrogance and carelessness. Not only did she put herself and her child at risk; she also put me at great risk of harming them both. Fortunately, I was traveling well below the speed limit (and had just let two faster cars pass me by). I hope that the education associated with these sharrows demands equal accountability from drivers and bikers.
Borrow a radar gun and check motorist compliance with maximum speed limits. I’ll bet the compliance rate is around zero percent.
As someone who rides a bike and sides more often with cyclists, I agree. I got a ticket for running a red light, even though there were no cars in sight, I stopped and looked, and went slowly. I’m told by the mailman that I’m not the first, nor the tenth cyclist to get ticketed by “Motorcyle Mike” (or Bob, or whatever).
The freedom we feel when riding a bike makes some of us less responsible.
…but that lady with the kid on her bike needs to have her ride taken away from her and squashed into a little cube.
Not a fan of motor cycle police man. The only rude City of Decatur cop I have met. My ticket was dismissed but it cost me a morning of missed work.
A friend of mine got a $212 ticket for not completely stopping at a stop sign. How did you get yours dropped?
And it brings up a question, whether on bike or in auto: What is the definition of “stop”? I.e., how fine is the line between a sliding stop and a legal stop? Does the vehicle have to rock back? I have been known to bring my vehicle to a speed of zero at a stop sign but then have my family claim that I did not actually stop because there was no backward momentum. Is there a minimum time interval of immobilization required?
I realize this is nitpicking. But I come to quite a few stop signs daily and my nitpicking family is often with me.
The city needs to get some bikers involved in these decisions. PATH is a bad joke — crossing driveways and even going through a filling station. It’s clear that the people who are doing this have no idea what it’s like to actually ride a bike in an urban area. Look at how Madison, Wis. — a city with superb bike commuting infrastructure — does it:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/bikeMadison/planning/network/
PATH is the work of the not-for-profit PATH Foundation, not the city. And it’s not ideal for a lot of cyclists because it wasn’t built solely to serve cyclists. It’s equally for walkers, runners and skaters. The more varied the user pool, the less specialized it can be to the needs of any one type of user.
Agree. From a cycling perspective PATH is far from ideal, but “bad joke” is overstating it. Some parts of it are actually pretty well done, though it tends to get worse the closer you get to Stone Mountain. Now, as for all those walkers and joggers using the left lane — ugh.
I use the left lane when walking and jogging. I think it’s better to face oncoming traffic, and on PATH, that’s the bicycles coming in the right lane. Is that wrong? I had imagined it’s just as easy for a bike to go around me when I’m facing them as when I’m walking the same direction.
Staying right except to pass is the default rule.
http://pathfoundation.org/trails/trail-etiquette/
The reason for the stay-on-the-right rule is simple physics: The distance between two objects approaching one another closes at their combined rates — so if I’m riding toward you and you run toward me, there’s less time for both of us to react. Conversely, if you are running in the same direction I’m traveling, there is more time for reaction. Does that make sense? I know your first instinct is to see what’s coming at you, but it doesn’t really make you safer. Of course, the higher the speeds involved, the more reaction time you lose.
As for my earlier hyperbole about PATH and sharrows, it’s just frustration. If you travel to a place like Madison or Eugene, Ore., and see how well-organized and well-thought-out the bike travel situation is, you get a real sense of how inadequate it is here. Madison even has overpasses for bicycles — they essentially have their own highways through town. It’s like bike heaven. And, yes, they use them even in winter. The city plows the lanes and riders put on their knobby tires. Consequently, the percentage of Madisonians who commute by bike to work year round is among the highest in the nation. My point is that if we’re going to spend the money, let’s spend it wisely, with the object of making it possible for bikes to be a real alternative to cars. I’m not sure what our goal is right now…
To appease DEM and Decaturite, I’ll change sides, except on Dekalb Ave. It’s no fun to run or walk on the right side of the path, right next to oncoming traffic.
But, no offense, I’m still not sure either of you are right. DEM, the PATH rules seem to be written to bikers, as the first rule is “yield to pedestrians.” Also, when explaining the rule to stay right except to pass, it says that “the trail is like a roadway.” And that’s why I ran on the left, because that’s what I do on a roadway.
Decaturite, I know what you’re saying, but simple physics doesn’t take into account the reduced need for either of us to react if we both see each other. If I’m running and see something on the path, I might change direction into a biker coming up on my rear, which I wouldn’t do if I knew a biker was coming up on me.
Do what you want, no reason to appease me. But keep in mind that even if you read these rules to apply only to bikes, giving you free reign to run on the left means I can’t possibly comply with the rules to pass ONLY on the left. Now I have to pass you on the right. And I have to violate that rule without any way of letting you know in advance if you (as many runners do) are wearing earbuds.
The whole point is to instill some certainty as to where everyone is supposed to be. I’m supposed to know that I can pass you safely on the left, and that you won’t change lanes abruptly on me. You are supposed to know that anyone who passes will be on the left hand side only. Also keep in mind that it gives everyone direction when you have a group of folks passing each other. If I am coming up on your right, and you have another jogger or bike coming at you in your lane, where am I supposed to go to avoid all of you? There’s no acknowledged rule telling me what the others are supposed to do.
“It’s clear that the people who are doing this have no idea what it’s like to actually ride a bike in an urban area”. Wow. Sounds like a serious indictment of whoever plans this stuff. This could affect people’s life!
Ahem. “Sharrows” = not a real word. And, from what I’m reading here, not a real fix to problems, either.
How could I forget to mention that the bicycle is a good invention
Make it up makin’ you my business
A funny buttercup but I let her forgiveness
Happy days but sad I’m facin’
Heaven knows that I’m on the case
How could I forget to mention the bicycle
-Red Hot Chili Peppers
Was Queen too obvious for the lyrics guy?
I’ve been used
-Jeff Beck
And I’ve seen it before
And I’ll see it again
Yes I’ve seen it before
Just little bits of history repeating
-Propellerheads
I have to admit, I get confused about what the latest bike riding etiquette is these days, and how to properly follow all these rules and laws.
When I’m with my kids we are on and off the sidewalks quite frequently to try to stay safe, and when it comes to the pedestrian cross walks, sometimes we walk bikes across, sometimes we ride depending on whether we think cars will obey the law and stop.
As a car driver, i get quite frustrated by the bike riders who are all dolled up looking like professionals in their outfits yet ignore all the traffic lights and stop signs ( I slowly pass them until we hit a light -then they blow through the light and pass me, then I pass them, etc.
I would actually prefer more “PATH” like sidewalks that are safe for the casual bike rider out for some light exercise with the kids.
“yet ignore all the traffic lights and stop signs”
That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. And then they complain if they get a ticket. Maybe it will take a bad accident or two to convince them, if then.
How many millions upon millions of cars run red lights everyday? Of course there are more cars on the roads, but I bet the proportion of motorists running them, is still a hell of a lot higher than those on bikes.
I would be interested to know the number of accidents involving car and cyclist smashups, and who was at fault. It’s easy to blame the perceived self-righteous cyclists on the boards, but I bet the reality is that mostly it’s the cars that are to blame. I really don’t know to be honest, just a suspicion. At least once a week you hear about a bicyclist killed on the road, and it’s usually someone who came up on them from behind.
+1. Not to mention the fact that if you sat by the side Scott for a few hours and counted the number of cars doing the speed limit, you’d get a number close to zero. Of the speeding group (i.e., almost everyone) you’d very likely find a contingent that is schocked! and outraged! if they see a cyclist pass through a stop sign at an empty intersection. And signal turns? How passe!
Also, almost all cyclists are also drivers. But most drivers don’t cycle, much less anything close to seriously, much less commute to work on a bike. Yet they freely pass judgment on cyclists, having next to no understanding of what it’s like to ride a lot of miles in city traffic. I do think much of what drivers see as pointless rulebreaking is actually not that at all, and in some cases is done because the cyclist knows it’s the safer thing to do.
Bad karma. You may want to take it back or knock on some wood or wear a helmet at all times or something.
I live near Sycamore st and travel that road often. Every time I encounter a biker I dread it. Reading all of your comments has made me think the reason I feel this dread is that I don’t know what is the proper etiquette is for car and bike. I would like to think that as long as the car isn’t pushy the bikers should move to the right when it safely allows and let the car pass. Sounds like this doesn’t seem (a lot of the time) to be the case on either side. Both wan’t all of the road.
Would love to hear what is the true law/etiquette?
The bike should move to the right if it can, giving you enough room to pass on the left. Keep in mind that bikes might have to veer a bit to avoid rim-damaging potholes, but they should not be taking the entire lane for extending periods for no reason.
And there’s the real problem. I commute to work every day on a bike down Sycamore, and I wish that instead of spending $$ painting pointless symbols on the road, they had repaved the road and trimmed all the eye-level branches sticking out in bikers’ faces. I’d be a lot safer if I didn’t have to try to avoid potholes and tree branches on my ride while trying to stay on the right-hand side. But that’s just me.
You’re right, I also ride down Sycamore every day and the condition of that road is pretty horrible. It’s like navigating a minefield.
@angry motorists
Just mentioning bike anything seems like it immediately ignites some aggression in folks. Drivers tend to be immediately irritated merely when they see a bike, but especially are forced to get behind one.
But I think it’s more noticeable when it’s someone on a bike because that mental switch is flipped the minute you see them. Motorists conversation to self when they see a bike: “Look how cool these people think they look, I bet they’ll try to pass. Oh, I knew it, now I have to get behind them in traffic for 3 miles!!!”” and then you’re riding their tail hardcore.
So, OK, we have established drivers and bicyclists alike break laws. Bicyclists can do things on the road cars can’t simply due to size issues, and that’s also annoying to drivers. But I bet if you sat at any intersection on ponce and the same number of bicyclists and cars were faced with a yellow in afternoon traffic, the bicyclists wouldn’t be making the mad dash to push through it like the cars, darting in both directions knowing they’re going to be crossing on red. They know their limits.
Moral of the story: Bikers have a right to be on the road, and neither bikers or drivers are perfect.
“the bicyclists wouldn’t be making the mad dash to push through it like the cars, darting in both directions knowing they’re going to be crossing on red”
Yes they do.
Sorry, but I’ve had many more close encounters with bikers breaking traffic laws than automobiles. I am anything but aggressive to bikers; I consciously give bikers the space and benefit of the doubt every time I can.
I’m getting a little tired of the holier than thou attitude of some bike supporters and until I see a far greater proportion of bikers obey the law, I’m going to continue to have a bad attitude.
You seem to be irritated with cyclists being reckless, so how do you account for the fact that most accidents that happen, occur with just motorists involved, and not a bike involved at all? Everyday there are accidents backing up every major freeway around town, no bikes present. What more proof do you need that motorists are not perfect either?
Who really has the holier than thou attitude here?
Every person jaywalking, doesn’t represent the whole group of people all over the world with legs. Every car running a red light, doesn’t represent every driver. Every cyclist not obeying a traffic signal doesn’t represent the whole lot of cyclists.
Next time your on a collision course with a bike, and they are at fault, just hit them. Get it out of your system one good time I guess. Then you can say “Hey, I told you so!”
It sounds like #DecaturGA could benefit from regular community meetings that push out cycling education and pull in ideas on enhancing bike facilities.
Every special interest in Decatur is free to push their agenda at city hall. Bicyclists have probably been among our most active. I guarantee you, the goals of Bike Decatur (http://groups.google.com/group/bikedecatur/topics) are no secret to the commission. Those folks have been very involved in transportation-related issues around the community.
And, Fred Boykin is a long-time commissioner and even longer-time owner of Bicycle South. He has made himself the transportation go-to guy on the commission by educating himself on all aspects of transportation.
Forgive me, but I am missing how either reply relates to my comment, which was a reflection on the other comments here.
I love the bikers running through lights and dashing out in front of me, makes me feel like I am back in Boston, Portland, NYC!
Oh by the way, if you are only driving 20 mph like I do and actually stopping at the stop signs and passing bikes 3 feet away and stopping for pedistrians you can get everyone mad at you but it makes for a zenlike day!
Funny also is how the city can get out there and paint those signs so quickly but I have to constantly call them to mow open areas, fill potholes, repair sidewalks.
And for the people needing to know rules and etiquette, maybe just open another browser and google it?
To our city commissioners, Senior Engineer John Madajewski and David Junger, Assistant City Manager-Public Works for their constant efforts to make our city safer for everyone.
Thank you
Decatur generally does an exemplary job of goal-based budgeting, a recognized best
practice that isn’t as easy to carry off as it seems. But in this case, I think the city’s goals are muddled. Does Decatur really want to be bike-friendly, or just look bike-friendly?
I think the city government wants people to be able move about it safely, efficiently, confidentally.
Modifying a built environment that was designed only for automobiles will require flexibility and compromise given tight budgets of right of way and revenue.
+1
+1. Investing in more humane streets where safe and efficient sharing can take place is far more responsible from a government standpoint than always defaulting to vastly more expensive separated facilities. Creating infrastructure that serves just one type of user is what got us into this mess to begin with.
But which restaurants around town may I bring my bike to?
Iseem to remember some of the most recent roundtables about Decatur’s future strategic goals got input suggesting that Ponce from Commerce to Commerce become a pedestrian mall.
I recall having a conversation with one of the city’s commisioner’s a year or two ago where traffic came up, and he felt (I thought strongly) that the street’s future was as a car-less avenue.
Perhaps sharrows are an incremental step toward that end?
…’Put a frog in boiling water and he hops out, turn the heat up slowly, and he boils in blissful ignorance.’
Here’s the rundown on the what and why, along with how the sharrows fit into the larger transportation plans that have been in the works since 2008 (even before, really):
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=42&recordid=131&returnURL=%2findex.aspx
Oh yeah. Love the “sharrows”.
The users of them – not so much.
Just coming back from lunch – heading WEST on Ponce between Commerce and Church.
Got a beautiful middle finger salute from a “sharrow” user.
He was WEAVING all over the road and taking the entire lane and heading EAST riding INTO TRAFFIC.
For those who will immediatley presume that I, since I consume fossil fuels, provocted this fine example of the sharrow using community – I did not. I gave him plenty of room, didn’t honk, make eye contact or anything else.
Behaivior such as this, along with that bunch who for a time were riding around “corking” intersections coupled with the inumerable riders who upon being passed, will pass a driver on the right at a stop light so that the driver has to pass them again is what gets people as fed up as they do with the cycling community.
Should my vehicle and yours collide, who do you think is worse off? You will barely scratch my paint. Yet there are so many occurances where members of this group go out off their way to seemingly dare a confrontation with a vehicle that the lightest of which is a minimum of 10 times their mass.
You want courtesy – back atchya.
I want some to.
“…with the inumerable riders who upon being passed, will pass a driver on the right at a stop light”
FYI:
This particular activity is legal and proscribed by the state as proper bicycle operation.
http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/docs/gabicyclelawenforcementguide.pdf
Yeah, but I think the law also says they have to stop if the light is red.
It may be legal but it is not very smart or courteous.
After having to wait behind cyclist to find either a wide spot in the road to safely pass or pass crossing the double yellow line to give them their 3′ of clearance only to have them pass me on the right riding in the gutter at a light so I have to do the whole thing all over again is stupid and discourteous even if it is legal.
Excercising one’s rights often “inconveniences” others.
That’s why they have to be spelled out in the law.
If a motorist chooses to be angry because someone on a bicycle gets in front of them, that’s on them and their lack of emotional maturity. There is nothing discourteous about it on the cyclist’s part.
As a daily bicycle commuter, I think back to when I drove everywhere and shared an opinion with Skeptic. I remember how road-ragey I started to feel when I had to pass a cyclist more than once.
That recollection combined with the safe cycling mantra of “be as predictable as possible” means that I wait in line when I get caught at a red light.
As a co-worker likes to say, if you assert your rights to the road against a road-rage-inclined driver, “you might be right, but that won’t help you when you’re dead.”
For me, it’s all about getting home safely when I have to share the road with people who aren’t as calm and reasonable as Skeptic seems to be.
+1 (me too)
I had never heard of “sharrows” and was pretty confused about what they were when I saw them. I assumed they were the first part of a restripeing project with bike lanes. Now that I know what the deal, I have to say that they are pretty stupid and useless.
Maybe if they said “share the road” or something they would be useful.
But since we now have them can we also put “No Bicycles” signs on the sidewalk?