The Sharrow’s National Discussion
- Details
- By Brian Ulaszewski Follow @BUlaszewski
- | Monday, 02 November 2009 23:30
On Friday I was informed of a USA Today article focusing on the sharrows and green stripes installed on Second Street in Belmont Shore. Sharrows are an illustration on the street that demarcate that bicycles are to share the road with motorized vehicles as defined by California Vehicle Code. A five foot wide green stripe was included on Second Street to inform bicyclists to ride in the middle of the right-hand lane away from the door swing zone of parallel parked cars. The new bicycle improvements have been praised by many while cursed by others.
Unfortunately, the article “City puts bicycles directly in the path of motorists” by Chris Woodyard was written almost entirely from the perspective of a few frustrated motorists and people with little understanding of the legal rights and obligations of cyclists. Perhaps it is to be suspected by a column titled “Drive On: a conversation about our cars and trucks” who had a previous article about whether bicycle rights have gone too far. Frustrated about the tone of the article and the seemingly lack of investigation for the green stripe’s purpose I felt obligated to write a letter with the hope of providing a more balanced perspective. Judging by the nearly two hundred reader comments I was not alone in wishing for a better informed editorial.
I am not sure what kind of emails you are getting from your article (City puts bicyclists directly in the path of motorists) but the article seems pretty distorted toward the perspective of motorists. I would have assumed that you are better informed to the purpose behind the green stripe and sharrow on Second Street in Long Beach and hope that you have the opportunity to speak with bike planning experts and even Long Beach city staff involved with the project (Charlie Gandy – City Mobility Coordinator, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) to provide greater clarity.
I am an urban designer in the area and used to live a few blocks from the bike improvements you wrote about and can tell you while it has been a contentious topic, the green stripe and sharrow has been developed with the full intention of making it safer for bikers as well as pedestrians in this commercial district. The green strip encourages bikers to ride away from the door swing area of the parallel parked cars while discouraging drivers from sharing the narrow lane as they pass. It is also meant to keep bikes off the crowded sidewalks, a hazard for pedestrian as well as for the cyclists as they navigate intersections.
The commercial district as well as the adjacent residential neighborhood is parking impacted so encouraging alternative forms of transportation (including biking) is important to maintaining the vibrancy of the local businesses. As the driver complaints allude to there is a perception that they slow traffic. For a variety of reasons automobiles do not typically travel very fast on this street nor should considering the amount of pedestrian activity happening in and around the streets. The addition of the green stripe and sharrow does little to further slow traffic.
Beyond on all of this conversation, bicyclists are legally obligated to share the road with automobiles. In very few situations are they allowed to ride on sidewalks and dedicated bike lanes are not always an option due to limited street profiles. The green stripe and sharrow should be considered part of an education for drivers and bicyclists for how to properly share the road. I do wish you follow up this article with a more balances view.
This was apparently not the last word in the discussion about Belmont Shore’s Second Street sharrows and green stripe. There was a follow-up article Monday in USA Today with greater input from bicycle planning experts including the city’s own Charlie Gandy. Overall, it appears that Woodyard is attempting to be provocative in these articles, either to increase readership or spur actual discourse related to bicycling. Judging by the comments section (not always the best indicator) it seems that this article has just added fuel to the fire. I hope that a more thoughtful discussion continues to take place in Long Beach as it endeavors on greater bicycle facilities across the city.
since installing the green lane June 20, 2009, 4,725,000 motorists have successfully shared 2nd Street in Belmont Shore with 74,250
cyclists. Zero crashes are reported in the street, door zone, or sidewalk. Maybe the green stripe is a wake up call for all to be in the right place and attentive, therefore safer.
I have known many cyclists over the years who have been hit by cars because they were "sharing the road" and several years ago I watched a woman cyclist get run over by a car right next to me on the street as I rode my bike on the sidewalk. I know its often incorrect, but I ride my bike on the sidewalk as much as possible. I stop for pedestrians when necessary, and I am careful with my speed when people are around, I feel that the street is a million times more dangerous for a cyclist than a bicycle is on the sidewalk for a pedestrian. Although I didnt read the USA Today article, I think the writer was probably just being realistic about the fact that painting the ground green does nothing to protect cyclists unless every single driver on the road is completely knowlegable and sympathetic to its purpose, otherwise the green stripe just lures a biker to closer proximity to danger.
How is green paint covering most of the right lane encouraging safe biking?
This looks to me like an attempt to change the rules of the road as we all understand them.
2nd street appears to have both substandard width lanes, and parked cars whose doors might open. "Dooring" has been known to knock cyclists into traffic, and kill them, so we ride away from parked cars.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge
Thanks for the thoughtful post and all of the responses. It is certainly interesting to see the variety of perspectives.
I am an avid cyclist and frequent user of the sharrows on 2nd street. The difference that the sharrows have made for me is that I now feel safer riding on 2nd street because there are very visible signs (the green paint) that say "bikes belong." I am no longer afraid that a driver will come up behind me and start honking their horn - or worse trying to squeeze me into a parked car because they don't think I have any right to be there. In the past I was more inclined to ride in what is affectionately known as "the door zone" because I didn't want to have someone try and intentionally run me off the road because they felt I had no right to street. The Green paint has made a big difference from that perspective.
It's also made a difference in where I stop when I come to a light. In the past....since I was in the door zone anyway I'd tend to "squeeze up to the front of the line" at a red light. Now I just take my place with the rest of traffic. And from what I've seen most (certainly not all) cyclists do the same.
I certainly agree with what many of you have said...it is not right when we see cyclists running red lights...or riding a 5 mph down the green lane blocking traffic (they may have the "right to do it" but it doesn't make much sense). And we should enforce those laws. There is no excuse for illegal behavior on the part of cyclists or motorists.
But most of all everyone needs to use common sense...cyclists and riders. Part of that common sense is for riders to be respectful of cars and not ride significantly slower than traffic. And...most of the time...that's clearly not an issue...as it's the cars that slow the cyclists down not the other way around. But the respect goes both ways. My guess is that if you are a motorist and live in the shore or the heights...you know when to avoid 2nd street. You know when the streets going to be crowded and when you are going to have to stop at nearly every light. You also know that the reason it's slow is because of car traffic -- not bikes. When traffic is moving faster it's pretty easy to change lanes....and again...the bikes shouldn't be an issue. In that case ask yourself...if it was a slower moving motorcycle in front of you...or golf cart...what would you do. My guess is that you would just change lanes and move on.
So for me...the Green lanes have made a difference. I'm much more inclined to hop on my bike and go down to Billing's or to one of the myriad of other stores on 2nd street to pick up something than to get in my car; I am a much more frequent vistor...and shopper on 2nd street.
And finally I'm looking forward to the work of Charlie Gandy our mobility coordinator and Tony Cruz, out bike ambassador, as they work to educate both cyclists and motorists regarding the best ways to coexist...and to make our great city a better place to live.
Mr. Metz, I re-read the vehicle code, and have ridden a bike in California since the 1970s. I appreciate that you can't ride near the gutter when cars are parallel parked, but that doesn't mean that bikes are free to roam the entire nearest traffic lane (as the Sharrows are painted). You are still supposed to stay as far right as possible if you are impeding traffic.
The words used in the code for where cyclists should ride are "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge." The key word here is "practicable" - note the word is not "possible." Yes it is possible for me to ride in the Door Zone...but it's not safe to do so...thus it is not "practicable." As I understand it this wording was careful chosen when the law was written as the lawmakers clearly understood the difference between what is possible to do vs what is reasonable (and safe) to do.
While you may not be aware of any cyclists that have been "seriously injured" by being doored...I have been hit by a door on 2nd street...knocking me into the street. Fortunately the traffic was moving slow enough that I was not hit. Had I been riding future out into the lane I would not have been hit...and the young woman driver would not have been traumatized by her inadvertent action that caused me to crash.
i also drive my car/motorcycles regularly on 2nd street and, again, i fully support the sharrows.
what is mr. woodyard's angle... is he funded by the auto industry? by the indy 500? :)
if he wants to drive fast, he can drive up to 7th... hope he gets a nice, fat ticket!! :)
The animosity toward cyclists in this country is amazing. Riding a bike is healthier for the rider, the environment and the economy. More people choosing to ride a bike instead of car will mean less money being spent on transportation costs and healthier citizens means less money being spent on health costs. Sharrow lanes help to encourage this behavior. I'm not sure if these lanes are more efficient than just adding a bike lane but I like that the city is trying to do something.
Making LB bike friendly will be a huge boost for the LB economy in the long run. Imaging if that guy you know that spends $400 a month on a car payment and $150 a month on gas traded those expenses for a cheaper car and a nice bike. Imagine what that person could use that "new found" discretionary income on.