There are two things that I don’t believe in: coincidence and leprechauns. In yesterday’s story about E Street Plaza parking returning to paid status, we also made the remark that the city has revamped the Second Street Corridor, which was funded through the federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and City of Davis Redevelopment Agency funds, at a time when the city is lacking funding to do basic road repair work, and it gives us the opportunity to discuss parking once again.
We went on to make the observation that, while we say we want our downtown and core to be bike and pedestrian friendly, there are no bike lanes and, in fact, bike travel is rather dangerous given the traffic, lack of visibility and other problems.
She sent along a two-page FAQ sheet and requested that I share the information with my readers.
The FAQ begins by defining “Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings,” which are also known as “Sharrows,” a word “shortened from ‘shared use arrow,’ a design painted on a bicycle route or a shared roadway to assist bicyclists with positioning in the roadway and to alert motorists of the location a bicyclist may occupy in the traveled way.”
What do these new markings of a bike with two chevrons/arrows above it on Second Street mean?
According to the FAQ, “These Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings are intended to guide bicyclists to a safer position in the street to avoid being hit by a suddenly opened car door or a car backing out of an angled parking place. Although it is the motorist’s responsibility to check before opening their door or backing up, it’s safer to ride a bicycle out in the lane further from parked cars. The hazards associated with parked cars pose greater risk of serious injury than riding in front of motorists who can clearly see what’s in front of them.”
The FAQ goes on to ask, “Bicyclists riding over this marking will take the entire lane. Aren’t they supposed to move to the right?”
According their response, not always. “According to the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21202, cyclists are to stay to the right except to pass other cyclists or vehicles, to prepare to make a left turn, or when necessary to avoid conditions (including fixed or moving objects, surface hazards, or lanes too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel side by side) that make it unsafe to continue along the right. Moving to the left in the lane to avoid car doors and cars backing out, even if it means taking the entire lane, is permitted by the CVC.”
Next the FAQ asks, “Can’t bicyclists just look into parked cars as they ride and see if someone is about to open the door or back up?”
They respond, “Checking every parked car for a driver can be very difficult. Also, it is often impossible to see drivers when large parked vehicles block the view. Behind diagonally-parked cars, being further from the bumper can help bicyclists and motorists see each other.”
The FAQ clarifies that the markings are for shared lanes, not merely bicyclists. Moreover, bicyclists can ride on any street throughout California, except for limited access freeways with signs explicitly prohibiting cyclists. Bicyclists are allowed on every street regardless of whether there is a marking or sign for them, unless stated otherwise.
These markings will only be added on “select streets in the future where they will be most helpful to indicate that bicyclists would be safer toward the center of the lane, including streets where there is not room for a bike lane and cars are traveling at slow speeds.”
They are now being “used experimentally in several cities in California and other states.”
The FAQ also directs bicyclists to “position your bicycle directly over the sharrow if possible. Keep in mind that the sharrow is a guide. You should still actively scan the roadway ahead for cars emerging from parking and other hazards.”
However, “Just like on any street you may have to move further to the left toward the centerline to avoid hazards or automobiles pulling or backing out. The sharrow is a guide.”
Obviously the idea of a shared bicycle lane has some appeal and represents an improvement over the existing roadway. Nevertheless, yesterday’s point, I think, still stands.
We have ample off-street parking and we are still creating hazards for bicyclists by failing to create a dedicated bike lane in the heart of the bicycling capital of the nation, home of the National Bicycling Hall of Fame. Should we not be doing more, particularly given the underutilized nature of our parking garages?
One comment that was made to yesterday’s article was to suggest getting rid of angled parking.
Regardless, while this may be a step in the right direction, we ought to do more.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m not sure how getting rid of angled parking is going to necessarily help, other than to decrease the number of cars parked on the street. Cars still have to pull out, whether from an angle or parallel parked.
The observation that the parking garage is underutilized, and perhaps street parking should be eliminated in favor of bike lanes is an interesting one. But I suspect the downtown merchants will fight it tooth and nail. I’m sure the Transportation Task Force/Commission will be grappling w this issue in the future…
[quote]I’m not sure how getting rid of angled parking is going to necessarily help, other than to decrease the number of cars parked on the street. Cars still have to pull out, whether from an angle or parallel parked. [/quote]Perhaps I can illuminate… if you, as a car driver are parallel-parked, both your side-view mirror, and often your rear-view mirror can alert you to an approaching vehicle, be it motor or bicycle. In diagonal parking, you are often going out blind, particularly if you are a small car parked to the left of an SUV. This, actually is an advantage of reverse-diagonal parking… as you enter the stall, you can use two or more of your mirrors… when you exit, the driver is in a good position, as they start to pull out, to see conflicting traffic movements.
I do not advocate for any of the parking schemes, and parallel does yield less spaces than the two forms of diagonal parking, but I wanted to explain the mechanics of the driving tasks.
[quote]Perhaps I can illuminate… if you, as a car driver are parallel-parked, both your side-view mirror, and often your rear-view mirror can alert you to an approaching vehicle, be it motor or bicycle. In diagonal parking, you are often going out blind, particularly if you are a small car parked to the left of an SUV.[/quote]
You make a good point about the mirrors. I’m assuming the city went to angled parking to increase the number of parking spaces. I wonder if one way streets with bike lanes might not work? Bike lanes between the parked cars and the sidewalks. If traffic is only going one way, you don’t need two lanes worth of space, which would give room for a bike lane. Have every other street going one way in the same direction. Just a thought – but probably too complicated. They do it in larger cities of course, and some university towns during football season…
[quote]I wonder if one way streets with bike lanes might not work?[/quote]You are absolutely correct… it might not work… in the early/mid 80’s, this was tried in the Core Area… D & E streets were changed to a one-way-couplet config. This was restored to two-way for each, ~ 18-24 months later. Business community screamed, as I recall.
[quote]You are absolutely correct… it might not work… in the early/mid 80’s, this was tried in the Core Area… D & E streets were changed to a one-way-couplet config. This was restored to two-way for each, ~ 18-24 months later. Business community screamed, as I recall.[/quote]
The business community is going to scream at going back to parallel parking too! Interesting that one way streets were tried already. Wonder if they truly “failed”, or if it was just the vocalness of the business community that made it appear to fail?