From Richard C. Moeur, P.E.
Missouri Vocational Industries*
The City of Ferguson, Missouri, has been provided with information from Missouri Vocational Industries, which makes a variety of signs for state and local agencies only, and has provided a quote for different sizes of signs based on the above. Typical cost for a 30" x 30" sign in quantities of 1 to 24 is $37.95 each, and for a 30" x 12" sign is $17.25 each. The final sign configuration and cost is currently being negotiated.
*Gil Althage, MVE Sales (Tel: 800/392-8486).
Now available in the CycleDallas cafepress store as an attractive and functional "golf" shirt!
18 comments:
Can I have that on the back of my jersey?
Ohhhhh... EXCELLENT idea!!
Wonder if I can get one made before I go down to Austin in a couple of weeks?
Since bicycles have enjoy this provision in the Texas Transportation code, "A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle", I have decided that the "far right provision [a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway] means as far right as prcticable for a motor vehicle.
As such, I ride in the left tire track exclusivly. What do you think, PM?
ChipSeal said...
"As such, I ride in the left tire track exclusivly. What do you think, PM?"
The left-track is where I was first taught to ride by/as a vehicular cyclist in the early '80s. I erroneously taught "right-track" for a number of years, which although it resulted in immediate improvement for the cyclists under my care (as opposed to gutter-running), nevertheless reinforced the FTR concept.
Your parsing of the Transportation Code might make for some interesting court room banter. ;-)
Eliot said...
"Can I have that on the back of my jersey?"
Check out the 100% cotton golf shirt in the CycleDallas shop.
http://www.cafepress.com/cycledallas.373517352
I've been pondering the disntinction between lane "position" and lane "control."
The old-guard of VC promotes the right tire track. And on very narrow roads, in light traffic conditions that works just fine. As PM said, it's a far better experience than riding in the gutter.
But I've found that right tire track positioning results in even closer passing on marginally wide (~12 ft) lanes, especially in heavy traffic. On multi-lane roads, motorists will squeeze through next to traffic in the next lane over rather than slow down and wait to change lanes if the cyclist doesn't make it absolutely clear that it isn't physically possible to do that.
I got an email from someone today who had that experience repeatedly on a 4-lane road this morning... he was riding about 3 feet into the lane and getting buzzed. I've thought about demonstrating that with video, but I'm not brave enough to ride that far right.
For the uninitiated it may seem counter-intuitive (or provocative) to take the left tire track on a road with high-speed, heavy traffic. But it is the best way to ensure complete lane changes and a large passing buffer. Along those lines, adding bike lanes to roads like that makes some people feel better, but will result in half the passing clearance at high speed. Not fun.
Keri said "But I've found that right tire track positioning results in even closer passing on marginally wide (~12 ft) lanes, especially in heavy traffic."
What's frustrating about this lane position discussion is that it should not be an issue. I never worry about lane position in my car, and faster traffic always changes lanes to pass, with reasonable clearance.
If I'm passing a cyclist while driving my car, I slow down and pass wide, regardless of their lane position. This should be normal motorist behavior, but it's not.
I have been giving this subject a lot of thought of late. The primary impetus has been this specious and ridiculous legislation (SB488 and HB827) currently pending in our state, known as the "Safe Passing" Bill. It has been roundly lauded by the cowering facilities proponents as a necessary safety measure. With that in mind, I have been pondering the necessity of this type of statute and found it lacking.
One of the first things I did was to research the average beam (er, width for you land lubbers) of an automobile. In the US, this is around two meters (a little over six feet. The law in this state decrees that a cyclist must ride as far to the right as practicable, UNLESS the lane is twelve feet or less in width.
With these facts in mind, I have made note of the degree of lane space remaining unoccupied by motorists traveling in the outside lane. My conclusions are that fewer than five percent of the roads on which I travel any given day meet, much less exceed, twelve feet in the outside lane - basically, two cars placed door-to-door from the curb face would extend only about a foot over the lane line. As a result, I have stopped riding anywhere right of the center of the lane on these roads. In fact, I largely follow Reed's practice of operating in the left track. Since adopting this practice, no one has attempted to pass me by straddling the lane; no one has attempted to do anything other than completely change lanes to pass me.
PM sarcastically adds, "[y]our parsing of the Transportation Code might make for some interesting court room banter." The fact that many patrol cars have passed me without the slightest glance aside, the law is on my side in this instance. It seems highly unlikely any municipal law enforcement organization is going to be able to rebuild a roadway between the time (if or when) I am ticketed and any court date. With the law and detailed, measured photographs, I will challenge anyone who suggests I need to be any further right than I chose to operate on any roadway with outside lanes less than twelve feet in width.
One caveat:
Have I experienced more passive-aggressive harassment (e.g. honking and verbal abuse) from passing motorists, since implementing this change? Admittedly, yes, on certain roads. Though, in my years of experience, I do find that motorists are more testy in the spring and fall, relative to the winter and summer. It may simply be the time of year.
Do I care? Ummmm, no - regardless of the cause.
Just as when I first began commuting by bicycle nearly two decades ago, people will become accustomed to seeing me operate in this manner and will come to accept me and my lane position - willing or not.
Drivers have to be trained to recognize the legal presence of cyclists on the roadway. As a rule, they are not provided adequate instruction during either Driver's Education courses or Defensive Driving instruction. This is one very important reason why I have chosen to educate my children. I simply do not trust anyone else to competently cover all of the necessary topics.
The claim by facilities proponents that the presence of more cyclists on the road will increase safety is not without merit. The problem is they seek to accomplish this by perpetuating the use of segregated safety zones, which does nothing more than maintain (nay, exacerbate) existing prejudices. We, as competent vehicular cyclists, must take every advantage the law already affords us and force the issue of co-utilization. Most motorists have no problem with this as long as we operate legally and safely.
velociped said...
"The law in this state decrees that a cyclist must ride as far to the right as practicable, UNLESS the lane is twelve feet or less in width."
I believe the Texas Vehicle Code's minimum for a shared lane is 14'.
Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; or
(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
Michael said... "What's frustrating about this lane position discussion is that it should not be an issue. I never worry about lane position in my car, and faster traffic always changes lanes to pass, with reasonable clearance."
True... however, motorcyclists often have to consider lane position--especially when riding side-by-side.
Eliot said "motorcyclists often have to consider lane position--especially when riding side-by-side."
If they're riding side-by-side, they usually know each other. The motorists who want to ride side-by-side with me are usually strangers.
More generally, the "far-to-the-right" rule for cyclists doesn't exist for motorcyclists. How often do people yell "ride single file" or "move over" to a motorcyclist?
@PM Summer
"I believe the Texas Vehicle Code's minimum for a shared lane is 14'."
Okay; so, I jumped the gun, taking my lead from Keri's comment, and did not verify the precise, legal width. My point is even more relevant in light of PM's redundant correction.
Fourteen feet is a lot wider than many people consider at first blush. Test it for yourself. Find a parking lot; measure fourteen feet; mark both ends; park a motor vehicle along one edge. The difference is the room which one is allotted, by discretion of law to limit one's self or, alternatively, to occupy the entire space. I choose to do the latter on multi-lane roads and force others to fully change lanes to pass. Not if conditions dictate; not if the speed of traffic gives one the willies. Do it, because the statute allows for it.
In so doing, the whole rationale for "Safe Passing" statutes and segregated facilities flies right out the window. The Magic Paint becomes the lane hash, the Bike Lane is facultative and exists only as long as the cyclist is present, and plenty of passing room is afforded.
All of this whining from timid, inexperienced vehicular cycling wannabes is quite tiresome.
Blogger velociped said...
"Okay; so, I jumped the gun, taking my lead from Keri's comment, and did not verify the precise, legal width. My point is even more relevant in light of PM's redundant correction."
I wanted to get the whole law out there, because there's a new twist that I believe has been added in the last few years. IIRC, the old standard was 12', and there was no mention of a bike lane. But now...
Typical Texas urban/suburban travel lane: 11'
Typical Texas bike lane (as seen in Austin, Houston, and San Antonio: 3'
TxDOT funded "Bike Lanes are Better" study: 11'+3'=14'
Is something being set up?
Florida "standard" lane width is 14 also. It is wide enough to share with a car, but not a box truck, utility trailer, bus...
We have very few of them ("standard" is quite the misleading term) and the majority are on 4-lane roads. I don't share in light traffic and try to avoid them in heavy traffic.
I agree with Michael that a cyclist should be passed safely no-matter where in the lane he is riding. I make full lane changes to pass cyclists, even if they are riding in the gutter. It's just simple human decency.
The fourteen foot designation as minimum shared width has been in the Texas UVC since the attempt to make major revisions in 2001. That is eight years. I guess, if one squints hard enough and crosses their fingers, it could interpreted as being "in the last few years."
The original language, as introduced, simply stated:
"...unless: ...(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width..."
There were also provisions for the infamous "Safe Passing" rule, an MHL, description and punishment for defining assault as throwing objects at bicyclists or acting in a menacing manner, and something akin to a Defensive Driving course for cyclists to have citations dismissed.
By the time all of this made it through reconciliation and was enrolled, everything had been stricken from the revised statute, except §551.103.a.4.A, and "Safe Routes to School" verbiage was added. §551.103.a.4.A had been altered to include the MSP rule and read as it does now:
"...unless: ...(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane..."
I am not familiar enough with the history of infrastructure in Austin, Houston or San Antonio to know whether the plans for bike lanes pre-dated coincided with or resulted from these revisions and if any of that was "being set up.". Frankly, I don't really care.
As I mentioned in my earlier post - whether or not I had the statutory width correct, most of the roads on which I travel have outside lanes of around twelve feet. Even if there is (or was) a plan being devised, it is unlikely to be implemented on the routes I use, as there is not enough width to accommodate an eleven foot outside lane and a three foot bike lane.
As an added note, bike lanes are rarely installed on every major road. The routes are selected for some theoretical, underserved subset of the population. Since I ride in a vehicular manner on roads which, apparently, make the average rider cringe in fear, any installation is unlikely to affect me to any great degree.
Let paternalistic politicians install bike lanes on a few roads. It will make little difference and I will be making use of other routes, where they do not exist.
velociped said...
"The fourteen foot designation as minimum shared width has been in the Texas UVC since the attempt to make major revisions in 2001. That is eight years. I guess, if one squints hard enough and crosses their fingers, it could interpreted as being 'in the last few years.' "
Or if one is older than dirt. ;-)
"I am not familiar enough with the history of infrastructure in Austin, Houston or San Antonio to know whether the plans for bike lanes pre-dated coincided with or resulted from these revisions and if any of that was "being set up.". Frankly, I don't really care."
I keep going back to Houston's failed bike plan, and how TxDOT wouldn't even let them put up a signed bike route unless the lane was 12'. This preceded the changes in the TTC. TxDOT has been pushing the 11'+3' alignment over the last few years (or nearly a decade, depending upon one's youthfulness).
"As I mentioned in my earlier post - whether or not I had the statutory width correct, most of the roads on which I travel have outside lanes of around twelve feet. Even if there is (or was) a plan being devised, it is unlikely to be implemented on the routes I use, as there is not enough width to accommodate an eleven foot outside lane and a three foot bike lane."
-snip-
"Let paternalistic politicians install bike lanes on a few roads. It will make little difference and I will be making use of other routes, where they do not exist."
For me, the issue is the rapidly growing belief you MUST have (and use) bike lanes, and the possibility of motorist resentment if you don't. Currently, the mot "resentful" attitude toward non-bike lane cyclists comes from BL advocates and their non-cycling allies.
The "use full lane" signs make me think of the "bike boulevards" they have in Berkeley (video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8wkI7CwpU), which are roadways designated as bike routes, easily differentiated from "normal" streets by extensive and uniquely colored signage and large sharrows-style markings that are meant to communicate to all road users the right of cyclists to be on the roadway and to take the lane.
Just curious what thoughts on this sort of system are. It would seem at first glance to be a potentially powerful tool for educating road users that might avoid many of the drawbacks of bike lanes or segregated facilities.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment