<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bicycles May Use Full Lane, SLM; MUTCD updates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/</link>
	<description>Cycling, traffic safety and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:34:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: azbikelaw</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-12201</link>
		<dc:creator>azbikelaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:20:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-12201</guid>
		<description>Press Release from Phoenix Political Pedal Power (P4)
January 3, 2012, For immediate release

Phoenix Political Pedal Power  strongly appreciates that the City of Phoenix has begun to use Shared Lane Markers (SLM, aka Sharrows) for increasing cycling safety when street configurations warrant them.  The first use is on 48th St approaching Guadalupe Rd. where the right-most traffic lane is too narrow to be shared by a cyclist and motorist at the same time.  

The presence of a Sharrow has meaning to motorist and cyclist alike.  To the motorists, it means that cyclists may be using the whole lane in compliance with State Law, ARS 28-815.A.4.  To the cyclist, it indicates the safest position relative to the configuration of the road and is a discouragement to motorists trying to squeak by when there is insufficient room for a safe passing.

We hope motorists and cyclists alike will continue to Share the Road in this new configuration.  In this case, Arizona Law provides for the cyclist to use the whole lane when it “is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane&quot;.  Sharrows have been used in other Cities and States for a few years and the results have been better for all users of the roads.

See P4 on FaceBook at www.tinyurl.com/p4bike.  P4 functions as the political action arm of Arizona Bicycle Club (ABC), a 501(C)4 organization advocating save and effective cycling, and organizes many rides for all abilities and skill levels.  ABC is a member of the  League of American Bicyclists which provides education by certified instructors in cycling safety and ratings of the cycling friendliness of communities, States and businesses.

For information, call Gene Holmerud, LCI #1193 at 602.243.6136 or 602.390.5344

###</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Press Release from Phoenix Political Pedal Power (P4)<br />
January 3, 2012, For immediate release</p>
<p>Phoenix Political Pedal Power  strongly appreciates that the City of Phoenix has begun to use Shared Lane Markers (SLM, aka Sharrows) for increasing cycling safety when street configurations warrant them.  The first use is on 48th St approaching Guadalupe Rd. where the right-most traffic lane is too narrow to be shared by a cyclist and motorist at the same time.  </p>
<p>The presence of a Sharrow has meaning to motorist and cyclist alike.  To the motorists, it means that cyclists may be using the whole lane in compliance with State Law, ARS 28-815.A.4.  To the cyclist, it indicates the safest position relative to the configuration of the road and is a discouragement to motorists trying to squeak by when there is insufficient room for a safe passing.</p>
<p>We hope motorists and cyclists alike will continue to Share the Road in this new configuration.  In this case, Arizona Law provides for the cyclist to use the whole lane when it “is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane&#8221;.  Sharrows have been used in other Cities and States for a few years and the results have been better for all users of the roads.</p>
<p>See P4 on FaceBook at <a href="http://www.tinyurl.com/p4bike" rel="nofollow">http://www.tinyurl.com/p4bike</a>.  P4 functions as the political action arm of Arizona Bicycle Club (ABC), a 501(C)4 organization advocating save and effective cycling, and organizes many rides for all abilities and skill levels.  ABC is a member of the  League of American Bicyclists which provides education by certified instructors in cycling safety and ratings of the cycling friendliness of communities, States and businesses.</p>
<p>For information, call Gene Holmerud, LCI #1193 at 602.243.6136 or 602.390.5344</p>
<p>###</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: azbikelaw</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-12095</link>
		<dc:creator>azbikelaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-12095</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/opspublic.nsf/discussionDisplay?Open&amp;id=9B0CCC966FA61435852576BD006D9E17&amp;Group=&amp;tab=DISCUSSION#9B0CCC966FA61435852576BD006D9E17&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Re: Shared lane use (&quot;sharrow&quot;) placement&lt;/a&gt;
Richard C. Moeur, PE, 02/01/2010
Remember that the MUTCD dimensions are intended to define reasonable minimums, 
not establish blanket recommendations. It&#039;s expected that other design 
guidelines, such as the next AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities (currently a 
final NCHRP draft), will provide much more detailed guidance for shared lane 
markings, similar to how the current Guide provides details on bike lanes.

In lanes without on-street parking, the width of the outside lane will be the 
critical factor in SLM placement - not traffic volume, bicycle volume, presence 
or absence of curb or gutter, etc. If the lane width (excluding gutter) is 14 
feet, then a 4 ft offset is appropriate, as the lane can accommodate a motor 
vehicle and a bicycle side by side in that lane. If the lane is narrower than 
14 ft, then UVC 11-1205.a.3 (and the law in most states that is similar to this 
provision) releases bicyclists from any obligation to stay to the far right. In 
these narrower lanes, SLMs should be placed near the center of the lane, as a 
placement to the right will likely encourage unsafe passing by overtaking 
traffic within the lane - which can then increase the risk of a hit-from-behind 
crash, and reduces overall safety.

A recent study of lane positioning vs. passing offset in narrow non-sharable 
lanes showed a marked difference in passing offset based on lane position. 
Riding to the right side of the lane was much more likely to encourage passing 
by overtaking traffic with less than 3 feet of separation, whereas riding 
toward the lane center (remember, this is a &quot;non-sharable&quot; lane) was associated 
with much wider passing separation distances - an important factor in the many 
states with &quot;3-foot-passing&quot; laws.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/opspublic.nsf/discussionDisplay?Open&#038;id=9B0CCC966FA61435852576BD006D9E17&#038;Group=&#038;tab=DISCUSSION#9B0CCC966FA61435852576BD006D9E17" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Re: Shared lane use (&#8220;sharrow&#8221;) placement</a><br />
Richard C. Moeur, PE, 02/01/2010<br />
Remember that the MUTCD dimensions are intended to define reasonable minimums,<br />
not establish blanket recommendations. It&#8217;s expected that other design<br />
guidelines, such as the next AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities (currently a<br />
final NCHRP draft), will provide much more detailed guidance for shared lane<br />
markings, similar to how the current Guide provides details on bike lanes.</p>
<p>In lanes without on-street parking, the width of the outside lane will be the<br />
critical factor in SLM placement &#8211; not traffic volume, bicycle volume, presence<br />
or absence of curb or gutter, etc. If the lane width (excluding gutter) is 14<br />
feet, then a 4 ft offset is appropriate, as the lane can accommodate a motor<br />
vehicle and a bicycle side by side in that lane. If the lane is narrower than<br />
14 ft, then UVC 11-1205.a.3 (and the law in most states that is similar to this<br />
provision) releases bicyclists from any obligation to stay to the far right. In<br />
these narrower lanes, SLMs should be placed near the center of the lane, as a<br />
placement to the right will likely encourage unsafe passing by overtaking<br />
traffic within the lane &#8211; which can then increase the risk of a hit-from-behind<br />
crash, and reduces overall safety.</p>
<p>A recent study of lane positioning vs. passing offset in narrow non-sharable<br />
lanes showed a marked difference in passing offset based on lane position.<br />
Riding to the right side of the lane was much more likely to encourage passing<br />
by overtaking traffic with less than 3 feet of separation, whereas riding<br />
toward the lane center (remember, this is a &#8220;non-sharable&#8221; lane) was associated<br />
with much wider passing separation distances &#8211; an important factor in the many<br />
states with &#8220;3-foot-passing&#8221; laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 48th Street; Piedmont to Guadalupe @ Arizona Bike Law Blog</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-11593</link>
		<dc:creator>48th Street; Piedmont to Guadalupe @ Arizona Bike Law Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-11593</guid>
		<description>[...] appears the best thing the city could do would be to install Shared Lane Markings (SLM, a.k.a. &#8220;Sharrows&#8221;). The standard calls for &#8220;the centers of the Shared Lane [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] appears the best thing the city could do would be to install Shared Lane Markings (SLM, a.k.a. &#8220;Sharrows&#8221;). The standard calls for &#8220;the centers of the Shared Lane [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharrow / Shared lane marking (SLM) @ Arizona Bike Law Blog</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-11255</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharrow / Shared lane marking (SLM) @ Arizona Bike Law Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-11255</guid>
		<description>[...] For the latest from the 2009 MUTCD and sharrows/SLM/BMUFL (bikes may use full lane); see bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For the latest from the 2009 MUTCD and sharrows/SLM/BMUFL (bikes may use full lane); see bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard C. Moeur</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-2547</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard C. Moeur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-2547</guid>
		<description>The 35 MPH wording was inserted during final debate at the January 2007 meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Approval would have been unlikely without this provision (it had already been voted down in June 2005).

Note that the 35 MPH wording is a Guidance condition; i.e. recommended but not mandatory. An agency can install SLMs on roadways with higher speed limits, as long as engineering judgment or an engineering study indicates that it is appropriate.

rcm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 35 MPH wording was inserted during final debate at the January 2007 meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Approval would have been unlikely without this provision (it had already been voted down in June 2005).</p>
<p>Note that the 35 MPH wording is a Guidance condition; i.e. recommended but not mandatory. An agency can install SLMs on roadways with higher speed limits, as long as engineering judgment or an engineering study indicates that it is appropriate.</p>
<p>rcm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BB</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-2472</link>
		<dc:creator>BB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-2472</guid>
		<description>Yes but 75 percent of Phoenix is residential roads. 

I wonder why the 35 mph limit is there?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes but 75 percent of Phoenix is residential roads. </p>
<p>I wonder why the 35 mph limit is there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Romeo Alpha</title>
		<link>http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-may-use-full-lane-slm-mutcd-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-2408</link>
		<dc:creator>John Romeo Alpha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=828#comment-2408</guid>
		<description>I posted today about the &quot;helmeted bicyclist symbol&quot; from the 2009 MUTCD that is replacing the diamond symbols on bike lanes that I have ridden on recently. I just noticed it this morning, but couldn&#039;t find a reference online for exactly when they started doing that in Phoenix. I&#039;m with you regarding the sharrows; most of the Valley would not appear to be suited for them. Perhaps downtown streets?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I posted today about the &#8220;helmeted bicyclist symbol&#8221; from the 2009 MUTCD that is replacing the diamond symbols on bike lanes that I have ridden on recently. I just noticed it this morning, but couldn&#8217;t find a reference online for exactly when they started doing that in Phoenix. I&#8217;m with you regarding the sharrows; most of the Valley would not appear to be suited for them. Perhaps downtown streets?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

