With all the discussion going on about how to make bike travel safer on crowded downtown streets, I thought we should take a closer look at some of the options on the table.
The first one has to do with signage and how legislation, enforcement, and engineering deal with non-motorized vehicle travel lanes (previously known as bike lanes).
According to the law, a bicycle is a vehicle. So, it seems to follow that a bicycle lane should be considered (in the eyes of engineers and law enforcement professionals) as a vehicle travel lane, on par with motor vehicle travel lanes.
In the case of SW 14th and Burnside, where Tracey Sparling and a cement truck collided on Thursday, there were two vehicle travel lanes involved: one of them was a motor vehicle lane, the other was a non-motorized vehicle lane.
Here are the signs hanging across W Burnside. This is close to the view the cement truck driver would have had as he waited at the red light (I apologize for the poor quality):
Each of the three motor vehicle travel lanes have dedicated signage telling them what type of movement they can and should make.
However, the non-motorized vehicle lane has no signage. Also, there is no explicit warning on the motor vehicle lane signs that there is another vehicle travel lane at this intersection. This fact, along with several others, created a situation where Tracey Sparling was invisible to the driver of the truck.
Do you think a sign like the one below would increase safety at intersections like this?
I realize signs have limitations in their effectiveness and they are not the only answer to increasing safety. However, it seems if we are going to respect bicycles as vehicles in the law, and we are going to continue to use and maintain bike lanes downtown (some folks think we’d be better off without them, but that’s another post), then it seems we should give their travel lanes the same respect as motorized vehicle lanes in all other facets of our street engineering.
What do you think?
[Please note: I am not a bike planning or engineering expert and I am not saying that a sign would have saved Sparling’s life. The intent of this post is to promote a discussion of signage and how treatment of vehicle travel lanes differs between cars and bikes.]
Depending on the response to this post, I’d like to continue the “Safer Streets” series to explore other ideas like; bike boxes, the California bike lane law (proposed by the Police Bureau), removing bike lanes downtown, early-phase signals for bicycles, equipment requirements on trucks, and any other idea that rises to the surface.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
i\’d like to see those signs at every intersection.
That\’s the view from the left lane. The concrete truck was in the right lane and would have had a different perspective.
Yes, Jonathan, I think you are right. This would be a seemingly obvious first step in enhancing safety for cyclists downtwon.
Some signs would be nice. I agree.
BillD said:
\”That\’s the view from the left lane. The concrete truck was in the right lane and would have had a different perspective.\”
I realize that BillD. That was the best image I could grab. The exact view is not the point here. I just wanted to show all the signs.
I think the yield to bikes sign would be an excellent idea. In the case of 14th and Burnside, one sign placed on the corner and another on the overhead lane use sign. This is how \”no right turn on red\” intersections are marked and a well trained professional driver will automatically look to these locations at every intersection.
I\’m guessing the traffic engineers would have an argument against those signs similar to their argument against striped crosswalks: basically every additional sign you have like that would help make motorists start thinking that in places without the sign they wouldn\’t have to yield, and even in places with the sign it would just give cyclists a \”false sense of security\”.
Not that I agree with the argument, but it seems like something they\’d say.
I like it..that coupled with blue paint strips for bike lane throughways at like intersections. It seems to work OK on E. Hawthorne, on the bridge, if both driver and cyclists are alert to the situation…with that said, I see a lot riders not looking over their left shoulder there and just expecting cars will yield to them…which, IMHO, is pretty dumb.
I would like to see those signs at every intersection as well.
Headig West/South on the Broadway Bridge, there is explicit signage reminding both cyclists and motorists that when motorists are turning right, cyclists should not be going forward, and vice versa. I don\’t expect systems like that at every intersection, but I think some regular visual remind to drivers that they are crossing a bike lane (and to cyclists that motor traffic is crossing the bike lane) would help.
It is still counterintuitive and improper destination positioning to have a through bike lane to the right of a lane it is legal for a motor vehicle to turn right from, and the suggested signage, while certainly an improvement, is really just a band-aid fix for what always has been, and will continue to be, very bad engineering practice, MUTCD notwithstanding.
FYI, there\’s some good discussion on the Shift list on this topic, as well.
I like that sign and think it is good but if right hand motor vehicle lane that could hook a bike lane had them at every intersection (coupled with other missing non-motorized signage we should add) the quantity of signage around the city would become excessive. I think the blue bike travel lane at arterial intersections to remind drivers about the non-motorized travel lane and signage at extra dangerous intersections.
Non-motorized vehicle lane….is this term appropriate? I thought the only other vehicle allowed to travel in the bike lane is a motorized wheel chair. And to be obnoxious what about bikes with electric assist?
It would seem even more appropriate to outfit intersections like these with a different signal, one with four lights instead of three in this order (top to bottom): red, yellow, green arrow pointed up/straight, yellow flashing arrow pointed right. This would strongly reinforce the necessity to yield when turning right. However, it would likely be an expensive solution.
I like the signage from the Hawthorne viaduct and in that case it is very effective, but a key factor in that scenario is also the blue lane treatment for the \”non-motorized vehicle\” lane. I think the next (and most easily implemented) step to increase safety in the downtown \”NMV\” lanes is the blue lane treatment approaching and through the intersections.
I realize the argument often used against this sort of treatment is the short lifespan of the blue paint due to the number of cars crossing its path. Still, this is better than nothing. And if our \”almost platinum\” city wants to really step up, then change the paving material in these lanes. That certainly won\’t wear off.
Kudos, Jonathan for continuing the discussion and seeking input on positive alternatives.
I would love to see bike boxes and staggered signals at many of the highly trafficed or more complex intersections.
It couldn\’t hurt to have a sign for the bike lane but I don\’t feel like this will help too much. Most cars don\’t seem to notice these signs, i.e. NE Broadway, eastbound Hawthorne Bridge. Almost every time I have gone through the intersection at W Burnside, I\’ve just had to yield to cars that are turning and not looking for bikes. I don\’t feel like this will change unless cars were really held accountable for the safety of smaller vehicles/peds.
Jonathan,
This is a discussion that needs to be had. Please continue bringing ideas forward. Personally, I like the idea of bike boxes paired with signs at all intersections where right hooks are likely to occur. Even better would be some type of curb and/or barrier between the bike lane and motor vehicle lane, near the intersection only, that would force the vehicle to swing wider while making right turns. In addition to slowing the right turning vehicles considerably, it\’d also reinforce the fact that a bike lane exists there. The city could start with the same type of flexible yellow pylons used in the bike corrals. Just glue a couple to the bike lane stripe.
In the short term, signs alone would be a good first step. Start at the the most dangerous intersections and continue as cost and sign availability allow. This can and should begin tomorrow. The first sign belongs at 14th and West Burnside.
As for Kruger\’s \’California\’ suggestion, I hope no serious merit is given to it in official circles. It would simply encourage cars to drive in the bike lane to make right turns quicker, making things more dangerous, not less.
I don\’t think more signs will do anything. If a driver can\’t see somebody, a sign will not help much except to provide fodder for prosecutors. We already have plenty of signs indicating the need for max speed limits, full stops and STD protection but people just tend to ignore them for whatever reason they (don\’t) think of. The biggest thing that needs to happen to is to fully hold all users of the road accountable for their actions. But until the social change and technical means to actually prevent illegal vehicle operation by a driver who has had a license suspended/revoked are in place, nothing is really going to change. The DMV likes to say that driving is a privilege and not a right but it sure is tough to lose a license. Seems like a virtual right to me.
Many of us in the bicycling community have yet to learn that not all of the man-made laws in the multiverse will ever trump so much as one law of physics or in any way contravene geometric principles. By their very nature trucks are big, they are heavy, and large areas of the outside world surrounding the truck are invisible to the truck\’s driver. Nothing is likely to change this anytime soon.
While signs like that depicted in the photo above can serve a useful purpose, they might also have the unintended consequence of causing cyclists to develop a false sense of security. It\’s highly unlikely that such signs would have prevented Tracey Sparling\’s death, or that they would prevent similar accidents in the future.
A better course of action would be to educate cyclists to stay out of a truck\’s blind spots. A good rule of thumb is that if you can\’t see the truck driver, either by direct line of sight or reflected in the truck\’s rear-view mirror(s), the truck driver can\’t see you.
If I really thought it would help, I\’d be all for it, but I honestly think it would just contribute to sign-clutter. The sign on the Hawthorne Bridge is far more obvious (because there are fewer signs around) and, in my opinion, more necessary because the traffic is moving at higher speeds. Frankly, I\’m not convinced that signs and laws can \”fix\” this.
Education, on the other hand, has helped a lot. Portland drivers are among the most attentive and courteous American drivers I\’ve ever encountered and maybe I\’m crazy, but ever since Thursday\’s tragedy, I\’ve sensed an increase in motorist caution. I\’ve even been wished 3 times in two nights to \”ride safe\” by motorists downtown.
It\’ll take some patience, but we need to keep making Portland road-users even better. That, as far as I\’m concerned, is the key.
BURR- with all due respect.
you want to ride your bike in the road?
where would you like to have a designated non-motorized vehicle lane?
totally separate infrastructure for bikes and cars on all streets is a pipe dream…lets work within the scope of modern urban confinement to come up with solutions that will keep us all safer overall. signage and bike lane barriers (which I really like..NYC style barrier separate lanes) are one step in that direction..at least within the UGB.
\”If a driver can\’t see somebody, a sign will not help much except to provide fodder for prosecutors. … The biggest thing that needs to happen to is to fully hold all users of the road accountable for their actions.\”
Yeah, that\’s the way it works. The sign provides evidence of a standard of behavior, people who violate it get prosecuted, and then peoples\’ awareness of that fact makes them less likely to engage in the same dangerous behavior. You\’ve identified the mechanism by which the signs will promote this change in the same post in which you conclude it won\’t happen. Maybe try putting the conclusion at the end next time. 😉
At least two limitations with yield to bikes signs have been repeated: 1) may be ignored by drivers and 2) may give cyclists a false sense of security. Could we anticipate those shortcomings by giving the cyclist (especially the less experienced one) a heads up, too? What about a symbol or bright orange paint to warn cyclists that they may be in a \”Suicide Slot\” or other dangerous spot.
I like the blue pavement treatments, but they sure don\’t give me warm fuzzy feelings at night. Reflective paint? Great discussion, Jonathan. Thanks!
Excellent observation.
I think new signs would help in *most* situations.
This is one of many inconsistencies in Portland\’s actual bike practices v. policy.
I haven\’t noticed drivers being more cautious. I said this to the Oregonian reporter who interviewed me on camera this morning. But then I usually only ride downtown as much as I need to to get to work, and most of the drivers in SE where I ride all the time are already really good about making me feel safe. I told her that riding bikes has made me a safer driver because I understand what the cyclists are doing, and why. I said that even if drivers are trying to be safer around cyclists that without the knowlege of what cyclists are doing they probably can\’t change their behavior in an appropriate way. Are there any guides out there for drivers about best practices for operating a vehicle in proximity to bikes?
Maybe if the bike lane were wider the bicyclist would be more visible. When you have a narrow lane you can\’t be very far away from a truck, which increases the chance you are in a blind spot and reduces the space you have to react to a vehicle coming into your lane.
Overall in downtown though I think speeds are low enough that we are safer in the lane. The same guy (kruger) who wants us to let cars into the bike lane wants to ticket cyclists for riding in the regular lanes on broadway. I\’ve been doored exactly two times since coming to portland and they were both in the bike lane on SW broadway. With so much vehicle traffic in downtown the only safe bike lanes are no bike lane, or a separated one like NYC just installed that have lots of signage and striping to indicate how interactions with cars at intersections should occur.
Bjorn
Also in the google street view image note which side of the white bike lane stripe the vans right tires are on…
I\’m pessimistic about the effectiveness of signage intended either to inform drivers or cyclists. Those drivers that are already aware of cyclists will heed the signs, others will not. Those cyclists that tend to follow traffic laws will heed signs, others will not.
I would prefer to see a voluntary licensing program for area cyclists. It seems to me that we are victims of our own success. In other words, Portland is such a bike friendly town that cyclists are encouraged to ride on high traffic without necessarily understanding how to do so safely.
A voluntary licensing program, marked by some visible emblem on cyclists\’ bikes may help novices realize the importance of learning how to ride safely in an urban environment.
None of these proposals matter unless cyclists actually obey the laws.
Just today, a female cyclist flew through the Kearney intersection the the art school and 24 hour fitness. Yes – she saw me come to a stop. She didn\’t.
So would any cyclist propose that she should have been fined for failure to stop?
Yes, of course she should obey the laws, and if not, should be fined.
BUT….
NW Portland is notoriously unfriendly to bikes, with a stop sign every 200 feet. That is not an infrastructure that is conducive to cycling, and it must be addressed. If bike-friendly infrastructure were in place, I suspect many cyclists would consider it more reasonable to stop when the infrastructure commands a stop.
That said, the other night I rode home through NW, and of course, I stopped at every stop sign. It drove the driver behind me nuts. I guess he was hoping I\’d blow the stops so he wouldn\’t have to wait for me to stop and the start again.
Made me laugh when he blew past me.
@21- \”Yeah, that\’s the way it works. The sign provides evidence of a standard of behavior, people who violate it get prosecuted, and then peoples\’ awareness of that fact makes them less likely to engage in the same dangerous behavior. You\’ve identified the mechanism by which the signs will promote this change in the same post in which you conclude it won\’t happen. Maybe try putting the conclusion at the end next time. ;)\”
kind of like giving out $200+ tickets for blowing a stop sign? yeah, that\’s really helped stop the bike \”stings\” hasn\’t it?
the signage might be a good begining, but i agree with what some of the others have said. too many signs in a given space is counterproductive as a driver/bicyclist/ped only has so much time to try and decipher what each sign is before they pass by.
also, i\’d be afraid that the city would either a: decide the signs were good enough and not do anything else, or b: decide the signs \”might\” be a good idea and designate a commitee to research their viability and spend three years deciding what will be the most effective way to place them, then scrap the whole thing due to lack of funding.
Yes, right on. Put a sign up. Do it right away. Put it up last fucking week.
The place to put the \”Yield to Bikes\” sign (like the one on the Hawthorne Bridge) is hanging next to the traffic light.
Get rid of the sign that is currently there. It makes motorists think that they can turn right with impunity. Replace it with a sign like the one on the Hawthorne Bridge.
Jonathan,
The sign is a great suggestion. Actually, it borders on brilliant. Of course, even an attentive driver can\’t see us, but over time, the sign would make a difference.
Lt. Kruger\’s recommendation, to adopt a California-like law allowing motorized vehicles to cross into bike lanes prior to right turns, isn\’t totally nuts. But it\’s not the best solution. It mostly tends to move the potential collision point back from the intersection to the point where cars can cross into the bike lane. That said, it might have avoided the unspeakable tragedy at 14th and Burnside.
Riding in downtown Portland has it upsides and downsides. Traffic speeds are slow so collision speeds are generally less injurious to cyclists. On the other hand, because we can ride so much faster than cars, we\’re tempted into risky situations. I\’ve learned my lessons. When I\’m downtown, I prefer to stay in the vehicle lane, whether there\’s a bike lane or not. I NEVER creep up on the right side between cars in the travelled lane and parked cars UNLESS there\’s a very clear and very wide bike lane. Even then, I\’m cautious. I expect someone to cut me off or open a car door into me. I\’ve experienced both, and the results weren\’t pleasant. Injuries don\’t heal as fast as they used to.
I agree the signage would help, but it would need to be at ALL intersections where a certain number of vehicles, say 1000 +/- motorists, are estimated to turn right on a daily basis. In addition we need a \”final approach boundary\”, like bollards, curbing or something similar along the bike lane stripe to prevent motorists from driving in the bike lane the last 10-20 meters before turning.
I don\’t understand how a \”yield to bikes\” sign would help when there are situations in which a driver may not be able to see if there is anything to yield to. In those rare cases, right of way doesn\’t mean much and it\’s up to the individual in danger to protect themselves from harm. That\’s the whole theory behind defensive driving.
Even though there was a tragic accident last week, Portland is still a very safe place to ride a bike.
#20 what are you talking about? you can\’t have it both ways. unless PDX designates a central city car free zone, which I don\’t think is likely to happen any time soon, no one is going to carve out space for cyclists beyond the bare bare minimum of unsafe bike lanes. Most bike lane designs are inherently unsafe from the perspective of righ-hook and dooring incidents, and I challenge any traffic engineer or law enforcement officer to argue otherwise.
I like the sign; I think it would get a driver\’s attention. But I think I Iike the idea of bike boxes better, at least pending the upcoming discussion on that topic here.
Maybe it would help in comparing these strategies if we knew the relative cost of each. Can anyone estimate how much such a sign would cost per lane installed? And how much a bike box would cost?
My real preference is the Dutch system of separated lanes I saw working so well first hand this summer. I hope that option can be part of this Safer Streets discussion too.
in case you still don\’t get it, my preference is to be able to ride vehicularly in whatever lane I deem most safe in the downtown core. Given the imperatives of PDOT and the US traffic system, I see no safer way to do it. The fact that cycling is increasing exponentially in popularity in PDX while infrastructure development remains flat only proves my point. Separated bike facilities are a bike ghetto, often poorly designed, and to a large extent are what got Tracey killed. You can\’t make a silk purse out of a sow\’s ear, and I don\’t think Portland has either the political will or the necessary capital to execute a complete Amsterdam make over. Sorry to be so negative about it, but feel free to prove me wrong…
Jonathan, I am a transportation planner and I do agree with you, thanks for providing the space for discussion.
Over a year ago when I was inventorying your close calls list for a possible PDOT project, one thing that really stuck out was how many of the close calls are right hooks.
I suggested to a PDOT employee we should install the type of signage you are describing. His reply was that there are so many signs out there already, people become numb to them.
I disagree, especially in this instance, because most people are not aware of the frequency of this type of error, motorists as well as cyclists (I think more so motorists). Signs like these educate drivers, cyclists and even pedestrians to be more aware.
While visiting Grenoble, France I saw this sign http://tinyurl.com/2jeq4g
which I think is clearer than the one on the Hawthorne Bridge you show.
About a month ago I saw a woman get hit by a car while cycling east on SW Madison at 3rd, the car turned right, into her. After this I suggested to another PDOT employee we should do what most Northern European countries do, and paint in very bright colors the bike lane through EVERY intersection. Lots of options.
http://tinyurl.com/2ezd6s
http://tinyurl.com/27agkq
http://tinyurl.com/ywa2hj
http://tinyurl.com/2kdn9e
It seems really stupid to me that bike lanes end at intersections, where cyclists are most vulnerable. Pedestrians have crosswalks and in many places signage, cyclists need markings/signs too! The PDOT employee is looking into it.
Now, the intersection where Tracey was killed does have a dotted line through the intersection, but that is NOTHING! Of course these European countries can do this and upkeep the paint because they have adequate funding for bike infrastructure, whereas here we have a fraction of a percent.
Signs might work. Another option is installing rumble strips along bike lanes. They could help make motorists aware as they are crossing over bike lanes when making a right hand turn. I tend to think hearing and feeling the bumps of riding over a rumble strip is a stronger que than a sign or paint over a bike lane.
Here is another tool to throw into the discussion about making US arterial streets more bike friendly: near side traffic signal head placement.
Listen up pedestrians…tired of motorists crowding or waiting inside the crosswalk for a signal to go green? (Yes of course.)
By placing the traffic signal heads (properly angled) above the nearest crosswalk (vs. on the otherside of the intersection as is common in North America) then motorists who creep up into a crosswalk can no logner see the signal. This effectively manages the creep, as most drivers do not want to loose any green time.
Now by placing traffic signal heads back to this point there is also more room to locate bike boxes. Yeay.
Also an open invitation …to facilitate this design discussion with the community…I am sure that Michael Ronkin and I would be willing to dust off our street design presentation \”From Holland with Love\” that includes many of these tools and how they can be applied to the US. (Right Michael?)
And to Lt. Kruger…respectfully…please tell us if this is a case where your comments published in the Oregonian were incorrect/ misquoted or taken out of context…such happens to us all from time to time…just mention this point in your next TV press interview, so we can move on and start an effective publci dialogue towards well designed streets that safely serve both the powerful AND the vulnerable road user.
Also, good design makes streets easier for vehicle operators to self enforce their behaviors and for your officers to enforce the remaining instances of traffic laws that are broken…I would think that this would be on the top of the traffic division\’s wish list.
Motorists pay less and less attention these days, for many reasons. the gadget mentality (cell phones, mobile media, gps,
and vehicles do more and more for us than ever before.
I still would trust the driver of an 18 wheeler over a cell phone soccer mom driving an SUV with two 1/2 kids on board.
Of course the sign above would help.
but I know that intersection well.
for one, have you noticed the parking along the ballroom entrance? spaces literally to the corner, there\’s no room to even maneuver a bike out of the crush zone. smaller cars even have to go way out into the intersection to turn right.
It\’s fully possible, that Tracey believed that truck was actually going straight through that intersection and rode accordingly.
A truck of such a length (and girth) shouldn\’t even be able to turn there.
the bike lane changes abruptly from the LEFT side to right just one block prior to that light. If following the bike lane, you need to transverse 3 lanes just to stay in the bike lane.
To me thats a hazard, I take the car lanes through there.
The bike lane strat of California works for them, I\’ve ridden there and used them.
Portland is not CA.
Ca is far more spread out, those lanes give drivers and riders far more distance to integrate as a general rule.
I take more of a pro-active approach to riding in the city. It\’s my welfare at stake. If I can ride the traffics pace, I take a lane, If I see where the \”white line\” has been worn by vehicles, I believe cars are cutting the corner.
I take a lane(cautiously) then return after it\’s safer.
I rode through the Burnside/14th intersection every workday morning for about 6 months and I would leave the bikelane about a block before Burnside, entering and centering in the motorized vehicle lane about a block before Burnside. This is allowed by the SB 938, effective 1/1/06, allowing leaving a bicycle lane, \”When continuing straight at an intersection when the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right\”. I understand, for my own self-preservation that \”must\” in this instance is \”may\” which in my opinion should be the wording of the Senate bill. If it had been me last Thursday, I would have been IN FRONT of the cement truck. I would like to see discussion and review in Salem of 3 possible changes to non-motorized vehicle lane changes; route bicycle lanes to the left side of dedicated right-turn lanes, as has been done at several intersections around Portland, install \”yield to bicycle when turning right\” from a combination straight/rt-turn lane, and the possibility of showing a merged bike-motorized lane, with blue paint showing the bicycle lane in the middle of the lane instead of to the right. Staying alive commuting on a bicycle in Oregon should not depend entirely on being familiar with the hazards of every single intersection we travel on. Because the young lady may not have been aware of just how dangerous 14th /Burnside was, as she was new to town likely contributed to her death. Seasoned, experienced bicycle commuters like me stay alive by riding the edge of law-breaking, under current regulations, risking getting a ticket, depending on the PPB officer that may observe us and interpret the law. But…… we stay alive.
Signs are good. They are a deterrent to professional drivers who do NOT want any incidents. If a sign saves a life, it will be worth it.
Underneath all the \”rights\” is the feeling on a bike: I am the vulnerable one here. I want drivers to WANT to see me. If the cement trucker had signs, or if Portland had strict laws about NEVER crossing a bike lane if a biker is there, perhaps he would have been checking his mirrors more and would have seen her approaching from behind before she entered his blind zone. Perhaps. Isn\’t a perhaps a good enough rationale to strengthen signage and the laws to protect us? We are the ones without a several-ton carapace.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of this Lt. Kruger, and in addition to all these items we need to get more input on the CA solution. As a former saftey professional I still think it makes sense in addition to all the new signage. I understand the fear of vehicles abusing this law. But it does eliminate the blind hook. I had a conversation yesterday with the owner of a business that has many trucks on the Portland streets. He tells me that most of his trucks have a blind spot and cannot see when a rider comes up on the right.
Some of his vehicles have a window in the right hand door which helps, but most do not. Does anyone have a mirror solution that would allow a large truck to see a cyclist? Does anyone have any contact with CA traffic planners and professionals with regard to their law. I would really like to hear some on this outside of Lt. Kruger.
Did not have time to read through everyone\’s comments, so I am sorry if this is repetitive.
Having \”yeild to bike\” signs through out the city is a little like cring wolf. I think people would just ignor them after awhile.
I think the best way to deal with an intersection is the same as on the Boradway viaduct. Use signal lights for bikes in conjunction with the bike bolavard concept. Basically the light would turn green for the bikers and hold drivers for 30 seconds, giving enough time for bikers to get out in front and upto speed. Set up the bike boulevards with these at major intersections and the yeild signs at minor ones. The end result are grid of bike centric streets with some cars that should attract the bulk of the bike transit.
Ultimately, this would help get bikers aways from major streets, like 14th, onto ones better designed for them where they have clearly more right of way.
My 2 cents
Signs like that would probably help confused people from Boise who are lost and trying to make it back onto 84 East, but they won\’t do much for someone who lives in the area- people just don\’t give a damn, or will mentally filter it out after seeing it the first three times.
I think you\’d have to break down the mix of traffic in an area, and assess whether you could make more of a difference with the same money elsewhere.
Cyclists should at minimum merge with motorized traffic at intersections. This is the most important place to be visible and consistent with all other traffic so accidents can be avoided. Further, there should not be a large difference in speed so all cyclists and drivers should be OK.
Bike lanes at intersections frequently placing the cyclist in direct conflict with motorized traffic. There should never be a through lane to the right of a right-turning lane. This is bad design. A sign won\’t fix it, although it might help.
I would recommend that if you haven\’t tried out Vehicular Cycling, or some other technique, that you try it out and see what seems best. I fear that most people don\’t do this, and dismiss it without trying.
Either way, ride defensively and put yourself in the safest place you can. You may feel like you\’re slowing down traffic or yourself, but maybe it\’s worth it.