Now this is a road sign!
It’s from Arizona, posted by Ed Pavelka over at RoadBikeRider.com today
Arizona? The law only applies to bicyclists who have proof of citizenship visibly posted on the back of their bike.
This sign should go hand-in-hand with the new “Share the Road” signs that, like the sign above, depict a bike and car NEXT to each other, rather than the outdated one depicting them from the side with the bike in front.
I like the Arizona sign a lot better than I like the this bill in Harrisburg.
But really, that’s O/T. I really don’t care what anyone’s status is, so long as they’re on a bicycle.
This sign should go hand-in-hand with the new “Share the Road” signs
If you go to http://www.roadbikerider.com and scroll down a bit you’ll see several examples of such signs. (Not sure the yin/yang one would work around here.)
I like this:
Saw something different on Leechburg Road recently… “Equal Rights / Equal Responsibility” with a car & bike silhouette. Not sure if the wording is correct, but something along those lines.
@quizbot I’ve seen a sign like that in S.F. that adds the wording “Change lanes to pass”
+1 quizbot. Clear and unambiguous.
Anybody seen the story about the new MBL law in FL?
I put this patch “Bicycles Allowed Full Lane” on my bag a few years ago thinking it would be useful to tell drivers to give me some space.
That did not happen. It immediately resulted in a dramatic increase in drivers screaming at me, honking at me, and passing me with inches to spare. After a few weeks of daily aggression, I decided to sew a bland patch over it and go back to my normal level of “Get off the Road”s. For all the rage my little patch inspired it might as well have said “I’m sleeping with your teenage daughter and I’m going to get her pregnant and leave her.”
I just cut bland patch off though, maybe I’ll have better luck in Pittsburgh than I did in DC.
I forget the stat, but there is some insane amount
of drivers who think the standard “share the road”
sign is actually directed at cyclists.
Bicycles allowed full lane? I don’t think so hot shot.
What do they teach people in Drivers Education?
Love that sign!
Stu, how do you like this bill in Harrisburg?
Patch from Microcosm, Law from WABA:
Where to Ride
Full lane use allowed when traveling at the normal speed of traffic, passing, preparing for a turn, avoiding hazards, traveling in a lane 11 feet wide or less, avoiding a mandatory turn lane and when necessary for the bicyclist’s safety.
I’m not hopelessly negative: Much of DC is lovely to ride in and there are many people riding bikes and many visible, widely publicized improvements. But my last two years I lived in a part of the city where all roads to anywhere were about 35 mph on average with long uninterrupted stretches that almost become raceways. Bicycle infrastructure is not distributed equitably among neighborhoods.
Lots more giant SUVs there because everyone shops for vehicles like they need a motorcade.
@scott. Awesome bill! I’m composing a note to Dan Frankel right now thanking him for co-sponsoring. If they get it through the legislature I hope they consider putting up signs like the Arizona one–four feet!
Most of it I like a lot but I’m concerned about 3301.b.2 — is there some way that could be interpreted to hurt us? Because, you know, if it can, somebody somewhere will try.
If I understand it correctly, the non-underlined parts are the current law, and this would just add explicit exceptions saying cyclists don’t need to follow that law if unsafe conditions exist, or the road is only one lane wide. I am not sure about this bit though:
Pedalcycles operating in accordance with Chapter 35 (relating to special vehicles and pedestrians).
Lyle, what is your thinking that it may hurt us?
Anything underlined is new text.
Anything in brackets [such as this] are deleted text.
All else is existing law.
Yes, I see this as generally very good. I wish I had a better eye for what might be missing, and a better sense for what has already been tried in other states, especially as tested by case law. This is where real lawyers and professional activists are of value.
But if this goes in as is, I think it will help.
Basically, section 35 says: 3301 applies to bicycles. So now 3301(b) says 3301(a) does not apply to bicycles. And where does that leave us? Damned if I know.
Before, it was pretty clear that bicycles were to be treated as other slow-moving vehicles. And there was some ambiguity in that, cf Selz v. Trotburg. But now I can’t tell if this means that bicycles are being denied any right to the road, or are being given the right to ride anywhere they want.
Arizona takes a step back:
I don’t like to rag too much on the republican agenda, ’cause, hell,even GW Bush rode bike and there’s ‘pubs here most likely.
But there is this agenda thing
1) Lower taxes (particularly for the rich)
2) Increase services (for the upper middle class and more prosperous folks)
3) When you go bankrupt? Blame illegal immigrants.
Does this sound like Arizona to you? Maybe California?
It’s seems that if the cam program makes the streets safer AND make some money for the bankrupt state government, keeping it would be a no-brainer.
But “less government in our lives” wins out!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.