Sharrows vs Bike Lane

[Roadtrip]

My hometown, Cincinnati Ohio, has been trying to cultivate a more bike friendly environment. They've developed a master plan, which includes both sharrows and actual bike lanes in the city, along with finally connecting several larger bike trails that would allow you to ride all the way into downtown Cincy from the outer burrows. It's a 25 year plan. When a road is due for repaving, they'll do so with this bike plan in mind, so tis the plan.

On one of the very heavily congested roads I'm seeing yellow bike signs with the message "Share the Road", so I'm assuming that the wide berm (about 5' wide) is meant to be this "new" sharrow. By new I mean the road ALWAYS had a wide berm and was more of an e-lane with glass and other debris, or when someone didn't want to wait to make a right turn, they'd ride the berm to get up to the light. This is a four-lane road with a turn lane and traffic normally runs about 40mph. I honestly wouldn't ride here, just as I wouldn't a year ago before they put up these signs, so if this is what the city is thinking is "innovative" and forward thinking... pffffffttttttttttttttttttt.

Is it too much to at least ask for a stencil and a few gallons of paint to at least mark that area? Perhaps it's still too narrow to be considered a bike lane or some regulation on curbs and the like for the road itself, but the only real difference here is a sign every block kindly asking the drivers to "share", like they have to give UP something that was inherently theirs.

Road:


This part of the road doesn't have a turn lane, so berm is quite large here, but it seems down the road a bit where there are turn lanes, the berm is smaller.
Perhaps I've got it all wrong here as I'm finding it hard to find information on sharrows and how they legally differ from bike lanes.

I thought I'd ask what you ladies (and men) thought.

Shannon

[Thorn]

If I'm not mistaken, a sharrow marks a typical car lane as one where cyclists are being instructed to take the lane. That is, it is too narrow to ride to the right so it is safer to take the lane and cars are being notified that this will be occurring.

As for the berm, that would be "bike lane" but only if marked as such. Otherwise, it is just a paved shoulder. There is a fine-line distinction at least in my neck of the woods. If the paved shoulder is marked with a bike lane on the pavement then the government is responsible for street sweeping the bike lane. That is expensive and comes with liability. So they'll simply call it a paved shoulder and if a bike chooses to use it over the lane, then it is their responsibility. That said, in some areas a bike is required to use the shoulder, but not all.

I know in Arizona new roads have "road surface stabilization shoulders" installed on them. While they make nice bike lanes, technically they are not. I was told that if they were called bike lanes, they wouldn't be approved (too costly and not important), but that by calling them "road stabilization" they get approved. But, they are not swept and can be full of gravel.

[Becky]

My understanding of the term "sharrow" is the same as Thorn's.

I ride shoulders similar to what is shown in your picture, most unmarked as bike lanes. For the most part, there are no issues. The only time that it gets sticky is when a turn lane pops up and abruptly ends the shoulder, and then resumes on the other side. Our local bike advocacy group is working to address this issue with some selective painting to warn cars and to protect cyclists' legal rights.

[Eden]

Your photo looks like neither a bike lane nor a sharrow, but just a plain old shoulder.

this is a sharrow:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,9.04,,1,16.83

(hmmmm can't seem to get the google map image to show up here... sorry, but click on the link and give it a moment to resolve [the resolution is very low when you first get there])

Honesty - they are not my favorite things..... They are meant to indicate to motorists one thing, that they should regularly expect cyclists in the lane on that street. Motorists however often misinterpret them to mean that if you are a cyclist you need to ride on them.... They way they've been implemented here they are too small and too far to the right. If you ride "on" them you are often smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. They really should be in the middle of the travel lane to be effective. I find that I get more crap from motorists on sharrowed streets than on ones that have no paint, so I would prefer that the city save the money and just leave well enough alone....

[Owlie]

I haven't spend much time in Cincy over the past 4 or 5 years, but it looks like a paved shoulder to me. I've never seen a bike lane in Cincy, just a lot of "Share the Road" signs. That road is probably pretty popular with cyclists and someone finally got around to putting up signs.

The sharrows we have up here are on streets that are frequently used by cyclists but are too narrow to support a bike lane. The problem with them is exactly what Eden described--and some of the cops think that way too, at least by anecdotal evidence. Since you can be ticketed for taking the lane, this has the potential to be a bit of a problem.

(I really hope that they do get around to connecting all the trails up, though. Riding down to the Ohio sounds like it'd be awesome. I'd just need a ride back up. )

[indysteel]

Interesting. I've never heard the word "sharrow" before and wonder if Indianapolis even utilizes them. Is that what a "share the road" sign if supposed to connote? If it does, I doubt the average motorist understands that.

Indy's handful of bike lanes are ill conceived in my opinion. Most are typcially full of debris and those that are downtown have some pretty scary interfaces with traffic. The changes they made to the actual traffic lanes are confusing as a motorist. So, it's the worst of both worlds. I preferred it before when I just took the lane as I saw fit.