Month: October 2011

Street Films has an excellent video about Minneapolis’s bike paths (https://www.streetfilms.org/minneapolis-midtown-greenway-good-for-biz-good-for-bikes/ ) And I challenge anyone to come away from that and not wanting more bike paths.
No doubt what they have is marvelous and no doubt the trails in Montgomery County better serve the Washington Metro Area better then the trails we have in Baltimore County that serve the Baltimore Metro Area, so wouldn’t be nice if we had what they had?
Sure.
But show me the long range plans of 100 miles of trails that crisscross all of Baltimore City like what Minneapolis has.
What? No such plans, no such crisscrossing, no such network.
Shouldn’t funding priorities reflect plans? Or should they reflect pipe dreams?
I’ve ridden in cities with far more bike lanes then greenways and paths and you know what? They have a lot more cyclists then what we have, doesn’t that say something to anyone?
See our poll in the right column (results: https://www.baltimorespokes.org/polls/index.php?pid=2010010614524956&aid=-1 ) by far we want ALL types of bicycle facilities and not just one kind. This is NOT anti-trail but a pro bike stance, we need to see more of the budget, more of the long range plans devoted to accommodating cyclists. There is nothing wrong with promoting to be more like NYC or Tempe. AZ with lots of bike lanes and some nice greenways.
Does it really make sense to promote the ideals of Minneapolis with funding but not in the plans? If we could get those kind of plans, then ya we should support that but that’s my point, we have bike master plans but they have no support, not in funding and not in the long range plans.
Please add your voice in correcting this, see our Alert: Demand more for bike/ped https://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20110921214018820

As Maryland’s new Drivers
Manual points out, “often the safest place for a cyclist to ride is in the center of the
lane.” Unfortunately most drivers do not understand this,
and they assume that a cyclist in the lane is being selfish (or
worse). Since 2009, the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
has had a sign that would go a long way toward educating drivers. The
sign says “Bicycles May Use Full Lane.” (R4-11) But two years later,
Maryland still has not approved the use of that sign.

In fact, the State Highway
Administration (SHA) initially decided that these signs would never
be posted on Maryland Roads. Fortunately for us, SHA
employees were very open about their thinking, and sent the Glenn Dale
Citizens Association (Prince Georges County) a letter saying that they had
decided to not use the sign. In late June, one of the members of that
association (Jim Titus) also on the board
of the Washington
Area Bicyclists Association
, drafted an alert asking WABA members to write the Governor and
the Secretary of Transportation to reverse that decision; 700 people wrote letters; and MDOT reversed the decision as
the letter writers had suggested. About
a week later, an activist with Potomac Pedalers suggested to SHA’s Bob Herstein that the
words “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” should be placed on the typical big yellow
diamond warning sign; so
SHA created such a sign, and emailed
it to Jim Titus, who sent it around to all the activists who were
closely following the issue. We all told Jim that the sign would be
fine. (For the complete details of this saga see some of the
articles by Jim
Titus on the Washcycle blog.)

For some background: White rectangular signs are “regulatory signs” which means that they
can change the rules of the road, while yellow signs are
just giving you advice or a warning.
We were not especially concerned about whether the
sign is a white rectangle or a yellow diamond, because it does not matter
in Maryland, you already have the right to use the full
lane if the lane is too narrow to share side-by-side with a motor vehicle.
In some states the color of R4-11 could make a difference (to change the legal requirement on where to ride) but not in Maryland:
We need a sign that clarifies to drivers where we are legally allowed to ride… and that’s all and we would like this in as many places as possible.

A few weeks later, we heard that SHA might actually approve both signs. MDOT’s Michael
Jackson, a longtime proponent of the R4-11 sign, rejected
SHA’s proposal to approve the yellow sign instead of the official
R4-11 regulatory sign. But the staff of SHA’s Office of
Traffic and Safety had become quite enthusiastic about the yellow
sign. So SHA staff collectively decided that the best thing to do
would be to compromise with Mr. Jackson, and approve both his preferred
white sign and their preferred yellow sign.

This struck me as the best possible outcome. Up to
that point, I had always assumed that the white R4-11 sign should be placed on
major urban bike routes, while “Share the Road” signs would still be useful on
rural roads and some highways with few cyclists. But the ambiguity of
“Share the Road” is very problematic, since many drivers think that it means
that bicycles are supposed to ride the edge, and get out of the way of the
cars (See
NHTSA says “Share The Road Sign” sends mixed messages.)
A traffic control sign that means the opposite of what many people
think can be worse than no sign at all. So it would be far better to
gradually replace “Share the Road” signs with the yellow diamond “Bicycles May
Use Full Lane” signs, while using the official R4-11 sign along major bike
routes (which will some times also need sharrows).

The
head of the Montgomery
County Bicycle Advocates and the City
Engineer of Laurel have provided additional
reasons for why approving both signs would be better than just one of the
signs. The most important point they make, is that some localities will not
use the white regulatory sign on some roads but they would use the yellow
sign. They have alot of different reasons but the bottom line is that alot
of roads that need the message “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” are only going to have that message if SHA approves the yellow sign.
The City of Baltimore has already been using the white R4-11 sign,
and my hunch is that they will keep using that sign. But the counties
have alot of roads with only an occasional cyclist. I would not be surprised to
see them resist the R4-11 sign on most of their roads. The yellow sign would
give them another option.

So we have that rare case where
bureaucratic competition is giving us a better product. Mr. Jackson
and SHA staff each would have liked to give us just one sign but the other would not agree to it.
So the only way forward is approve both
signs and that is better than what either of them wanted.

So what’s the holdup? People who attended the last meeting of
Maryland’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee say that Michael Jackson is now
trying to block the compromise. SHA’s Herstein came to the meeting ready to show
the MBPAC members both signs, but Mr. Jackson prevented Mr. Herstein from
talking about the yellow sign. I have to admit, that does sound like the
Michael Jackson I know. He is dedicated, sincere, and persistent. In
this case, his persistence brought SHA to the point where it is willing to
approve the official R4-11 sign, which is a good thing. But once he makes up his mind, he
sometimes refuses to listen and gets too involved in fighting for the details, irregardless if they are a benefit for cyclists or a hindrance… it’s like “it’s the principle of the thing that maters.” even though the premise of that principle is questionable.

At this point, I think that advocates need to ask
Michael Jackson to stand down. He won.
It’s time to stop arguing with SHA, and instead get them to start
posting these signs before they change their mind!