Report a Comment

Here are a few responses to comments that came in after 4:30 pm yesterday, and before noon today.

@Erik: Jones Bridge Road has been the subject of much discussion as cyclists take the lane. Of course it is a county road. The second part of this story, which will probably run here next week, suggests that Montgomery is open to placing the signs on such a road, though I did not drill down to specific roads in that discussion.

@Justafed, Capt Hilts, and some others. We have two separate issues here: Should cyclists ride on roads with heavy traffic and speed limits above 30 mph, and, given that some do, should we post some signs to help them to ride more safely on the path that they choose. The R4-11 signs are oriented toward the latter. For any number of reasons, sometimes cyclists riding as safely as possible will still be in the way of a motorist, who will wrongly assume that the cyclist should be hugging the curb, and honk or perhaps pass the bike too closely as punishment for the perceived infraction.

The actual effect depends on whether we have 1 or more lanes in a given direction. If just one lane, the sign may help to direct the momentary annoyance of the motorist away from the vulnerable cyclist and toward the highway department (for posting the sign or building such narrow lanes). Hats off to the highway department that would rather have the motorist angry at the government than angry at the driver in front of them. Where there are two or more lanes, the signs seem to be interpreted as “change lanes to pass” by many drivers.

I think that University Blvd ended up on the list because PG-BTAG pushed for Greenbelt Road, where the right or three lanes is right-only half the time anyway. Then it has a shoulder. But why stop at UMD, when it is a major East-West road that some people do ride on? To some extent, the R4-11 sign is just meant to be a way to give a little help to the unlucky soul who as to be on that road.

@Capt Hilts: A lot of roads will not have bike lanes any time soon, nor a nice parallel route. SHA is basically trying to do what it can here. Sharrows would be a bit stronger of a message, they are more affirmatively telling cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane. The R4-11 sign is interpreted by some motorsists to mean: See that guy who is only 3 feet from the right edge of the pavement? He could be in the middle of the lane. So give him the full lane as you pass.

@Berkle: Feel free to email me offline about the specifics of your situation if you don’t want to discuss here. But from what you have said, your insurance company did not have to pay the cyclist a cent. If the cyclist was even 1% at fault, and the accident occurred in Maryland, you do not owe the cyclist anything under the doctrine of contributory negligence. So please explain why your insurance company chose to pay.

I can believe that you had to take the cyclist to court to pay damages. Cyclists often have to take motorists to court for damages as well. When everybody is totally covered, sometimes the insurance companies work it out amongst themselves, but that problem is not limited to car-bike accidents. A driver carrying liability only might have to sue a negligent motorist simply because insurance companies will stiff individuals when there is a close case.

Frankly, you are more likely to sustain serious economic damage from an underinsured motorist than from a cyclist. A serious accident could cost you a few hundred thousands dollars (or more), and most motorists do not carry that much liability insurance—and they don’t have that kind of money in their bank account either. The cyclist will only do so much damage, and he probably has that much money. Both drivers and cyclists, unfortunately, often are in a situation where they have collided with someone who is at fault and refuses to pay.

@bluelinedad: If you want to analogize to pedestrians, think of these signs as the bicycle equivalent of a painted crosswalk. Both remind motorists of the law, both can be misconstrued as implying that the law does not apply elsewhere by people who don’t really care about the law anyway. Both will be ignored, but both also provide some safety to those who assert themselves.

The need for cyclists to use full lane has nothing to do with a pedestrian on a trail. The issue is not the right to hold up traffic, but rather the warning that a road user has the right to be where she is. If you feel under assault by cyclists who seem to want you off the pavement onto the grass, you know how cyclists feel on roads. As others point out, it is appropriate to somehow warn pedestrians that you are passing, but probably not be shouting the word “left”; pedestrians should maintain their course because no matter which way you move, it might be the wrong way.

@ Cpt Hilts and AWalkerInTheCity: The speed limit is not the only variable that matters. Glenn Dale Rd (MD-193) has a speed limit of 40 mph. One uses full lane because there are trees and mailboxes up to the pavement edge, and because drivers squeeze between the cyclist and oncoming traffic at times. But traffic is so light that drivers usually do not need to slow down to pass. And when there is oncoming traffic or a sharp turn, the wait is momentary. So one might use full lane the entire time.

On MD-450, which also got the signs this week, the speed limit is 35 mph and traffic starts getting heavy. There we have 2-3 lanes and drivers can usually change lanes to pass. Perhaps at times, it all just gets so intimidating that a cyclist will move over to the extreme right and share the 12.5-ft lane with a driver, at the point where that becomes less scary than using full lane. In my own experience, before 7:30 AM the traffic is light enough that the whole right lane could be a bike lane without inconveniencing drivers. But none of this is to say that this is ideal, but simply that whatever it is, the signs should help a bit.

by Jim Titus on Aug 2, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report