Talk:Shared lane marking

Hyphenation

Can we please have more input on the shared-lane versus shared lane debate happening in the edits but not here in the discussion page?--Stevevance (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"a shared lane" but "a shared-lane marking" ?

ie shared-lane is an adjective describing the marking

people might think it was the marking that was shared - "a shared lane-marking"

Just my guess !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct usage: "a shared-lane marking identifies a shared lane." The compound adjective gets a hyphen to indicate that it is the lane, not the marking, which is shared. Jsallen1 (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Initial page status

A page is now created for shared lane markings (so Sharrow would be spared any more extraneous content). As initially created it's very "bare-bones", so feel free to add and embellish, but please ensure that any added content is consistent with good technical guidance and accepted practice for this marking and bicycle transportation engineering in general. RCMoeur 13:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If "bare-bones" means stub, we could mark the page with {{cycling-stub}}. I marked this talk page with {{cycling project}}, which might slightly increase the odds of attracting quality edits to Shared lane marking. The ultimate goal of WikiProject Cycling is to get all cycling-related articles up to at least a good article rating. Most likely that will take a long time. --Teratornis 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Sharrow

Is sharrow at portmanteau of share and arrow? or shared lane and arrow? or something else completely? 74.61.6.82 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me, the “sh” comes from “shared” and the “arrow” from arrow. There is nothing at all from “lane”. Wschart (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No sharrows in Germany

Bicycle pictograms declare in Germany always bicycle lanes (exclusive for bicycles, must be used; §2(4) StVO i.e. German road code) and bicycle roads, where cars can be tolerated at low speed (max. 30km/h), but bicycles have priority of use. They do not declare shared lanes, because bicycles normally have to use the right lane (shared with cars, bikes etc.) and bicycle lanes are the special case. HC Ahlmann from Germany 81.173.152.123 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually to my knowledge this is not the case, in Germany they also depict Fahrradstrassen which are bicycle priority streets which are shared with cars. --Sf (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Zum beispiel aus Munster You can just see the roundel and bike symbol on the road surface. --Sf (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

| StVO German road code no. 23:

Ge- oder Verbot/Order or prohibiton

1. Andere Fahrzeugführer dürfen Fahrradstraßen nicht benutzen, es sei denn, dies ist durch Zusatzzeichen angezeigt.

1. Other drivers (than bicyclists) are not allowed to use Fahrradstraßen, execept its shown by additional signs.

The example from Münster shows an oneway street for cars indicated by the parking cars on the left (left parking is forbidden except in oneway streets); the sign Fahrradstraße on the entrance must have additional signs, which allows cars, but the exit must not. Spitalbrücke in Nürnberg/Nuremberg shows additional signs: bikes and cars during unreadible hours (middle) and cabs at all times (TAXI frei, bottom). In front of the bridge is no Fahrradstraße and a not compulsory bicycle lane marked.

§2 StVO declares, that all kind of vehicles, cars, bikes, bicycles etc. must use the Fahrbahn i.e. roadway. Compulsory bicycle lanes are named in §2 (4) StVO as exception and are indicated by signs 237, 240 or 241 shown at | StVO i.e. German road code no. 16, 19, 20. HC Ahlmann from Germany 81.173.149.195 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi HC. In the US, UK etc bicycle logos don't "declare" a shared lane as any legal concept. Most lanes other than on Motorways(UK) and some Freeways(US) are shared and the shared lane logos are for information only - to highlight the potential presence of cyclists for motorists. If you want we can put a note in the article to highlight the fact that Germany they may change the legal status of the road. --Sf (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to expand on this point, in UK and Irish Law the bicycle logo in a cycle lane does not "create" the cycle lane as a legal object. The legal status comes from the blue metal signs on the side of the road. If I understand your post the situation is similar in Germany or does the bicycle logo create the legal effect? (Es ist jetzt vor zwansig jarhe seit ich habe Deutsche gelernt) --Sf (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

but so what?

As a driver of a car, there is one thing I have never seen mentioned in an explanation of sharrows: What should I do differently when I see a sharrow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.236.153 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Expect to see cyclists there, and give them due care and consideration. Not differently, but more than usual. The bike-in-red-triangle sign (UK) is similar - doesn't mean ignore cyclists elsewhere ! Often used eg where cyclists are permitted to use a 'one-way-street' the other way ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a great question, what to do when seeing a sharrow should be included!

Watch for people on bikes. When there's a person on a bike taking the lane, match their speed and give them room. Many places have different laws, like "3 feet to pass", but best practice is always to wait until you can safely move all the way into the next lane over to pass.

This is a what to do any time there might be a bicyclist on the road, and any time encountering a bicyclist on the road. The sharrows act as a reminder to do this. 173.222.1.130 (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous - "to indicate that a bicyclist may use the full lane"

Does this mean they may/shall/should not use the full lane if there are no 'sharrow' markings ? If the marking means different things to cyclists and motorists, then that can cause conflict ! To some extent, 'may' and 'may not' are not opposites. There is a sense 'possibly' in which 'may' and 'might' are interchangeable - 'I may do it' = 'I may not do it' !

• "to indicate to a motorist that a bicyclist might use the full lane"
• "to indicate to a bicyclist that they are permitted to use the full lane"

In the UK cyclists are taught 'primary position' - far from the kerb, but motorists are not taught to expect it or respect it ! It can be a problem. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jacksonville, FL have a poster that says

• The shared-lane marking indicating where a cyclist has the right to ride
• Under Florida law, bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles
• When lanes are too narrow to safely pass a cyclist, the cyclist must take the full lane

'must' not 'may' !

confusing ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed that the same marking is applied to show a lane that is too narrow to overtake within the lane,

and also to show a lane that is wide enough !

This does not seem at all well thought out - one sign should not have opposite meanings !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List of cities

Over 50 locations are listed in the US, with citations for almost 20. When will we have enough places using shared use arrows that we can delete the list and just say "used in many cities across the country?" --Triskele Jim 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The list, as it stands, is incomplete, and trying to update it would be an endless task. Besides, there's the problem of citations. I know for a fact, from personal observation, my own city (Columbia, MO), has them and if I really dug, I possibly could find a cite somewhere, but why bother? I would question the use of the word "many" in your proposed wording. A more neutral phrase, such as "a number" may be more suitable. 173.202.242.209 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing cited research

The study "Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case–crossover design", reached conclusions wildly contradicting other studies and is inconsistent with itself. Example: while more than half of injury-causing crashes it reported did not involve a motor vehicle, this study reported a 2000% reduction in risk where motor vehicles were excluded. See responses to the report on the study in the journal which published it. Jsallen1 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shared lane marking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070225035026/http://www.dot.ca.gov:80/hq/traffops/signtech/newtech/minutes/textMin081204.txt to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/newtech/minutes/textMin081204.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Bicycles May Use Full Lane into Shared lane marking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as the topics are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Bicycles May Use Full Lane and Shared lane marking seem to be overlapping subjects, and could be incorporated into one article. Sauer202 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

They are very similar, and I think it would be practical to combine the articles because they both refer to things used to designate a shared-use road. However, the Shared lane marking article refers to a lane marking on the actual road, whereas Bicycles May Use Full Lane refers to a sign placed on the side of the road.

I do think they should be merged; but if they are, then a new article title should be made. I'd suggest Shared-use road or Shared-use roadway, following the example of the similar article, Shared-use path, which refers to bikeways which are shared with pedestrians, sometimes horses, and which usually exclude motor vehicles. This title could possibly end up expanding the scope of the article to include non-bicycles sharing motor vehicle roadways, eg. horses; but, from what I've seen, most roadways designated for shared-use focus on bicycles more than often than not. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll further add that the German article linked as a translation of this article has a title similar to the one I suggested, but the contents seem to focus on sharrows. The Thai and Norwegian articles are strictly about sharrows, and the Czech article is a section within a larger Bike lane page that focuses on sharrows. If and when this article is merged, the Thai, Norwegian, and Czech articles/sections could be linked to a sharrow-focused section within the new article. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither indicates a shared use road. A BMUFL sign indicates a shared use lane. A sharrow, if centered, also indicates a shared use lane. But sharrows can also indicate recommended positioning within a lane, not necessarily in the center. Sharrows may also be used for way-finding. The distinctions are sufficient, along with the absence of a unifying topic, to warrant separate article. So I oppose a merge. —В²C ☎ 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

max speed limit

There are speeds at which it is unsafe for bikes and drivers to mix. For example, most bicyclists will die when they are hit at 40 mph. Most will live when hit at 20 mph. Reference to sharrow speed limit standards is needed. Thank you. 173.222.1.130 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

A cyclist hit by a 40 mph car is as likely to be killed regardless of whether they’re taking the lane as suggested by a sharrow, or if they’re riding at the road edge. However, if they’re following the guidance of the sharrow then they’ll be far more conspicuous and therefore far less likely to be overlooked and hit. —В²C ☎ 06:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)