View Full Version : These share-arrows suck

06-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Before any more of these get installed, how????? can we tweak the design so that they are:
1. not every single block on a quiet street
2. not concentrated in wealthy inner-portland

It's almost as if an good idea was metastasized into a bad one.
These would be more welcome on some larger streets, where sharing could be improved.
Better still, why not just enforce the existing laws and stop trying to paint our way into a cycling-city?

06-15-2010, 12:31 PM
And these markings on the street effect you in a negative way how?

06-15-2010, 01:51 PM
And these markings on the street effect you in a negative way how?

Sharrows use funds that could be used for other safety improvements and add to the public perception of cyclists as a specialized, preferentially treated class of users and not as legitimate road users.

My experience is that the Portland sharrows fail some of the purposes sharrows are designed to achieve, thereby making the roadway less safe. That is, on sections of my commute the sharrows better define road hazards and where not to ride. In PBOT's defense it appears that showing preferred lane position to riders was not one of their goals.

As currently installed they seem like an idea generated by a committee of the uninvolved and uniformed and assembled from overstock parts.

06-15-2010, 02:06 PM
Right on, did you miss this post and comment war?

06-20-2010, 11:48 AM
concentrated in wealthy inner-portland

Oh please. They just put a ton of them on NE Holman. Woodlawn might have some new businesses cropping up, but by and large the area is anything but "wealthy".

They're being installed where the planners want to direct bike traffic, simple as that.

While I'd prefer an actual bike lane (or maybe traffic-calming devices), the sharrows at least make it very obvious that bikes are supposed to be there. Of course this will undoubtedly prompt the "we're allowed full use of the lane everywhere" response, which of course is legally true. But the sharrows don't designate a mandatory route, of course. Feel free to ignore them.

06-25-2010, 09:15 PM
I know they bring some sense of security or affirmation to some riders but, I now choose to ride only on roads without them.

06-25-2010, 11:40 PM
I don't live in an area that has them. Haven't ridden in an area that has them either. Maybe that's why the concept seems a little weird to me. I did kind of read through the comments to the story brewcaster posted the link to.

Check out commenter 'are's post for some basic regulatory info on them:


The impression I get as far as the concept behind the sharrow street designation and accompanying markings is concerned, is to convey to motor vehicle traffic that bike travel on streets so marked is prioritized, and that drivers should moderate their use of the road consistent with that status. In practice, what's this mean? Do motor vehicle operators on such streets commonly match their travel speed to that of bikes they approach from the rear, until either they or said bikes turn off the sharrow marked road?

06-30-2010, 04:26 PM
I know they bring some sense of security or affirmation to some riders but, I now choose to ride only on roads without them.

That seems like a strange reaction. I can see your point about diverting funds from other projects (although I don't necessarily agree), but how does having sharrows make the street LESS useful for cycling? :confused:

07-01-2010, 07:17 AM
I like them on every single block... it lets me know right away when I cross the street that it's a bikeway... otherwise I wouldn't know it and might continue into less friendly territory...