CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"Share the road" doesn't mean what you think it means...

(14 posts)
  • Started 8 years ago by Stephan Matthiesen
  • Latest reply from Stephan Matthiesen

No tags yet.


  1. Stephan Matthiesen
    Member

    Interesting article about "share the road" signs:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antibiotic-resistance-and-share-the-road-signs-can-be-grossly-misinterpreted/

    "Although often described as a reminder to motorists that bicyclists may use the travel lane, bicyclists frequently complain that motorists interpret the sign to mean that they should get out of the way" wrote North Carolina State University researchers George Hess and M. Nils Peterson.
    (...)
    They found that signs reading “Share the Road” had virtually the same effect on respondents' mentality as did no signage at all. But an alternative wording that appeared to at least somewhat alert people to the life and limb of bike riders did exist. “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” got more people to say that a driver should wait until it's safe to pass and then give the bike a wide berth.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  2. fimm
    Member

    I don't know who I am quoting but:
    "To a driver, "Share the road" means "Get out of my way".
    To a cyclist, "Share the road" means "Please don't kill me".    "

    Posted 8 years ago #

  3. ih
    Member

    I hate the idea of "Share the road" for the reasons given, but " Bicycles may use full lane" is even worse because it can be interpreted that where there is no sign, bicycles may NOT use the full lane.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  4. Claire
    Member

    This: http://bikeyface.com/2014/11/13/sharing/

    Posted 8 years ago #

  5. Stephan Matthiesen
    Member

    @Claire The illustration to the Scientific American Article looks as if it was inspired by Bikeyface's second cartoon...

    Posted 8 years ago #

  6. Stephan Matthiesen
    Member

    "can be interpreted that where there is no sign, bicycles may NOT use the full lane"

    Ideally, we wouldn't need signs for something that should be obvious. A bit like all the "slow" painted onto roads everywhere. Shouldn't warning signs be restricted to locations where there is a specific unexpected hazard, but not about things drivers should really expect and be able to handle everywhere and all the time?

    Regarding the "slow" signs, why is there never a matching "fast" sign when the hazard is over?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  7. Stephan Matthiesen
    Member

    Actually, are there any "share the road" signs in UK (or Europe) actually on the road, or is it just used within advertising campaigns? I can't really see where it would make sense.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  8. ih
    Member

    @Stephan I'm pretty sure you're right. It's an American thing where decades of law and practice have resulted in the road being "owned" by vehicular transport.

    The only vaguely similar sign I've seen in the UK is very occasionally put up temporarily at roadworks and says something like, "Do not overtake bicycles". I feel this is rather good but sadly not very common.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  9. dougal
    Member

    @Stephan - like there is no matching "fast" sign, the implication behind "You are now leaving Kingston Notbarrow, thank you for driving carefully" is that you can now proceed to drive UNcarefully.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    Ha, I always think that when I see those signs too Dougal.

    They noted that the state of Delaware, which is just wide enough for two lanes of traffic in each direction,

    I didn't know Delaware was so thin!

    It will be interesting to see whether these signs make a difference. They are certainly less ambiguous.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  11. sallyhinch
    Member

    'Share the road' signs got quite heavily promoted by vehicular cycle campaigners in the US as all the infrastructure real cyclists needed (although they are also quite fond of 'sharrows' which have also, funnily enough, been shown to be quite useless). Of course cities were delighted to put them up so they could claim they were doing something for cyclists and shut up all those pesky other campaigners who wanted expensive complicated things like cycle tracks

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. paulmilne
    Member

    Say what you like about daft American signs, they are powering ahead with building protected bike lanes (the preferred nomenclature).

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/americas-10-best-new-bike-lanes-of-2015

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/portland-is-first-u.s.-city-to-make-protection-the-default-for-all-new-bike

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. ih
    Member

    @paulmilne Our friends from Roseburn should be made to read this link, within your first link, 10 times a day before their bacon rolls

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/salt-lake-city-street-removes-parking-adds-bike-lanes-and-sales-go-up

    Posted 8 years ago #

  14. Stephan Matthiesen
    Member

    @sallyhinch What is the default situation in the US? Are you allowed/supposed to cycle on the carriageway?

    I can't get my head around in which situation a sign makes sense that tells everybody about cyclists on the road (ignoring the wording for the moment).

    In Europe where pavement cycling isn't allowed, on roads without cycle lanes such a sign doesn't make much sense because it's clear cyclists have to use the carriageway.

    On roads with cycle lane, on the other hand, it might be useful from our perspective to remind drivers that cyclists can still be on the road, but authorities wouldn't put up such a sign which essentially undermines their cycle lane.

    More at home, I had a bit of an exchange with a council officer once when I pointed out a dangerous junction and they suggested to paint a cycle symbol and advisory lane on the road "to make drivers aware of cyclists" (to be fair, there wasn't really anything else they could suggest without expensive junction redesign).

    I actually suggested not to waste money on that because if a driver isn't aware of a full-sized cyclist (or oversized, in my case) then a painted bike symbol will hardly make them more aware, but there is a danger some drivers will think cyclists are only allowed to use a narrow bit of the road here, making it more dangerous.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin