$9K huh, I can get my 4 year old to paint a stencil just like this for half ($4.5K)

ping me. Thanks.

"City Transportation Engineer Atul Patel explained that sharrows are not bike lanes". No, they just officially encourage cars and bikes to share the same physical space.

Mixing bicycles and cars in the same physical space will lead to injuries and deaths and none of them will be to the occupants of the cars. Every successful urban bicycle program separates cars and bikes - the physics of a 4000 lb car hitting a 200 lb bicycle are simply overwhelming.

Who has the 'right' to the road is not the issue - protecting lives is.

Here is what happens when unprotected humans encounter cars:

Lawsuit filed after Menlo Park teen struck in El Camino crosswalk


1 - injuries
2 - lawsuits for street markings which encouraged unprotected humans to be less tha vigilant when they entered areas being used by cars

Hopefully the safety issue will be addressed and resolved, especially where cars are now doing u-turns in middle of streets. Yet this is a beginning to becoming bike friendly and that's good. Bikes are here to stay and that's good, too.

good idea, but $9000, you have to be kidding?

Put it out to bid

No doubt that bikes are here to stay but why not learn from the experience of European countries who learned long ago that mixing cars and bikes does not work. Or do we have to be really dumb and learn the hard way?

"Perhaps the most important reason for the higher levels of cycling in northern
Europe—especially among women, children, and the elderly—is that cycling is much
safer there than in the USA. Both fatality and injury rates are much higher for cyclists in
the USA compared to Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Averaged over the years
2002 to 2005, the number of American bicyclist fatalities per 100 million km cycled was
5.8, compared to 1.7 in Germany, 1.5 in Denmark, and 1.1 in the Netherlands (see Figure
3). Thus, cycling is over five times as safe in the Netherlands as in the USA, which
probably explains why the Dutch do not perceive cycling as a dangerous way to get
around. "

"The provision of separate cycling facilities is the cornerstone of Dutch, Danish,
and German policies to make cycling safe and attractive to everyone. They are designed
to feel safe, comfortable, and convenient for both young and old, for women as well as
men, and for all levels of cycling ability. "

Web Link

Peter, I think the point is that bikes are already in the area, and the sharrows will provide guidance on how to do it more safely. Bikes on sidewalks are more dangerous (I believe one of the most common causes of bicycle accidents is bikes on sidewalks getting hit by cars on driveways due to blind spots; being hit from behind when in clear view is not so common). Certainly, improved separate bike paths would help, but they have to use the options they have, and make them as safe as they can.

I don't think they should banish bicycles from downtown Menlo Park.

Are you suggesting that they should banish cars from downtown? :)

Motorists also have a lower fatality level in Europe. It's not the infrastructure - it's our drivers...

How about a high school or scout project with materials provided (donated?). Or is there an MP clause or exclusionary contract against creative problem/monetary solutions? $9000 - overall budget is not much, but a little here, a tad there.....

"Motorists also have a lower fatality level in Europe. It's not the infrastructure - it's our drivers..."

The European highway infrastructure is dramatically better than the US highway infrastructure - better signage, better on and of ramps, better traffic signals etc..

And getting a driver's license in Europe is MUCH harder than getting one in the US.

"Are you suggesting that they should banish cars from downtown?"

Not at all - I believe that pedestrians, bicyclist and automobiles should all be accomodate on public thoroughfares whenever each can be accommodated safely.

We have long ago separated pedestrians and cars.

We prohibit pedestrians and bicycles from freeways.

We prohibit bicycles from sidewalks in heavily trafficked pedestrian areas.

It is unwise to mix pedestrians, bicycles and cars.

Public policy which encourages mixing of pedestrians, bicycles and/or cars is simply stupid.

The European data on the dramatically improved safety of separating pedestrians, bicycles and cars is unambiguous.

I believe that we should be providing SEPARATE rights of way for pedestrians, for bicycles and automobiles and until we do there will be unnecessary and avoidable injuries and deaths.

Claiming the 'right' to mix with cars carries with it the very real possibility of being dead right.

Ah, Peter -

As far as I can tell, I do not believe bicycles are forbidden from all roads in Europe. According to the "Sharrow FAQ" from the city of San Carlos, "shared-lane markings have gained acceptance in European and Australian cities".

Get specific: if someone is not going to use these roads to bicycle to downtown - what is the alternative? Sidewalks are more dangerous. Where is the space for a bike path or lane? The whole point is that there is no room. Given the space they have, I think they're trying to create the safest environment.

These particular roads ... are somewhat busy, but traffic moves quite slowly to begin with, as there are crosswalks and other reasons to slow down. I think a car 15-20 mph is realistic for this area. These sharrows only extend for a few blocks. The busiest roads - Santa Cruz and El Camino - will not have them.

"Where is the space for a bike path or lane?"

Life consists of making choices. If we want safe, separated bike lanes then the very simple answer is to give up parking spaces. Otherwise we create an unsafe mix of cars and bicycles.

Dedicated bike lanes are the rule not the exception in Europe.

See: Web Link

Folks - bikers already bike on these streets. The sharrows should make it more clear that the road is to be shared. I am not a serious biker but I think it's nuts not to bike around to run errands rather than use a car.
Dedicated lanes would be far far safer. They are possible if the council and city would only make it happen. Some ideas:
Widen Menlo enough to allow a full lane - give the property owners the same amount they can build on their property as they can now. The additional amount needed shouldn't be a lot
Make Menlo 1-way west-bound, with angled parking on one side, bike lane on the other. Make Oak Grove 1-way east-bound similarly.
Menlo Park could be a lot more bike-friendly. Even San Francisco and Paris have added bike lanes in the middle of their hearts. We can, too.

There are many competing interests on roadways with residential and commercial parking, thru traffic, and bikes. Bikes are on these roads already and, yes, it can be dangerous. Sharrows will raise sensitivity to the issue and hopefully improve safety. Thinking that dedicated and separate lanes cn be the norm across MP is not practical. You have to deal as best possible and find ways to provide for multiple modes as needed. European roadways are safer for a number of reasons, but the most important is a culture of bike and cars operating together. Each expects the other on the road and travels accordingly. Dedicated paths help, but it is the culture that matters most.

"hopefully improve safety" is just that - a hope.

"Bikes are on these roads already and, yes, it can be dangerous." You are so right.

"Thinking that dedicated and separate lanes cn be the norm across MP is not practical." Would you prefer more injuries and deaths? Just eliminate parking on one side of any road and you have space for a dedicated bike lane on both sides of that road.

Sharrows are an official encouragement/sanction to mix cars and bicycles in the same physical space. The result will be more injuries and greater liability for the jurisdictions that install sharrows.


PLEASE take the time to read the above postings and their references - there is no data that supports European mixing of cars and bikes:

""The provision of SEPARATE cycling facilities is the cornerstone of Dutch, Danish,

and German policies to make cycling safe and attractive to everyone. They are designed

to feel safe, comfortable, and convenient for both young and old, for women as well as

men, and for all levels of cycling ability. "

Why have these three European countries seen such a dramatic increase in bicycle use?

"In the mid-1970s, transport and land use policies in all three countries
dramatically shifted to favor walking, cycling, and public transport over the private car.
To some extent, this was a reaction to the increasingly harmful environmental, energy,
and safety impacts of rising car use (1, 6, 14, 15, 16). Most cities vastly improved their
bicycling infrastructure while imposing ever more restrictions on car use and making it
more expensive. That policy reversal led to turnarounds in the previous decline of bike
use. From 1975 to 1995, the bicycling share of trips in the previously cited sample of
Dutch, Danish, and German cities rose by roughly a fourth, resulting in 1995 bike shares
of 20-43%. In Berlin, the total number of bike trips quadrupled from 1975 to 2001
(increasing by 275%), reaching 45% of the 1950 bicycling level (13). The rebound in
cycling from 1975 is especially impressive given the continuing growth in per-capita
income, car ownership and suburban development in all three countries over the past
three decades. "
The key - vastly improving their bicycling infrastructure and imposing more restriction on car use. There is no free lunch, i.e. better bike lanes without taking away from something else.

A very interesting Wikipedia article (with over a hundred references) presents the arguments for an against segregated bicycle facilities.

Web Link

See article for references to supporting research. I prefer well-seperated bicycle trails, but there's good arguments against having a parallel bicycle path:

"When presented to the Committee in Sacramento on 19 June 1974, Cross's study showed the opposite: only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists."

"A 1994 study in Palo Alto, California by A. Wachtel and D. Lewiston[52] concluded that 'Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel." and "Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at these intersections.' It concluded 'the aim of a well-designed roadway system should be to integrate bicycles and motor vehicles according to the well-established and effective principles of traffic law and engineering, not to separate them. This conclusion is in accord with the 1981 and 1991 AASHTO Guides and the California Highway Design Manual'."

These conclusions aren't universal.

Blind intersection are the result of bad design, not an inherent feature of segregated pathways. And Palo Alto has NO segregated pathways.

The data are very clear:

"Both fatality and injury rates are much higher for cyclists in

the USA compared to Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Averaged over the years

2002 to 2005, the number of American bicyclist fatalities per 100 million km cycled was

5.8, compared to 1.7 in Germany, 1.5 in Denmark, and 1.1 in the Netherlands (see Figure

3). "

"While bike paths and lanes help protect cyclists
from exposure to traffic dangers between intersections, they can pose safety problems
when crossing intersections. Thus, Dutch, Danish, and German planners have worked
continuously on perfecting the designs of intersections to facilitate safe cyclist crossings.
The extent and specific design of intersection modifications vary, of course, from city to
city, but they generally include most of the following:
• Special bike lanes leading up to the intersection, with advance stop lines for
cyclists, far ahead of waiting cars
• Advance green traffic signals for cyclists, and extra green signal phases for
cyclists at intersections with heavy cycling volumes
• Turn restrictions for cars, while all turns allowed for cyclists
• Highly visible, distinctively colored bike lane crossings at intersections
• Special cyclist-activated traffic lights
• Timing traffic lights to provide a “green wave” for cyclists instead of for cars,
generally assuming 14-22km/hr bike speed
• Moving bike pathways a bit further away from their parallel streets when they
approach intersections to help avoid collisions with right-turning cars
Given the very nature of roadway intersections, it is virtually impossible to avoid all
conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists, but Dutch, Danish, and German planners
have done a superb job of minimizing these dangers. "

Pucher and Buehler Cycling for Everyone

Peter Carpenter is basically arguing for the second-class treatment of bicyclists by spreading the superstition that bicycles and cars can't safely coexist on the same roadways. In support of this bogeyman, he cites a single reference for the argument that a European-style segregated bikeway system is in all cases safer than the shared use of roadways by cars and bicycles that is more common in the U.S.

In contrast to Mr. Carpenter's very slanted citation, the Wikipedia reference cited above by Alan provides a much more balanced presentation of the pros and cons of segregated bikeways. For an even stronger rebuttal of Mr. Carpenter's biased views, please take a look at John Forester's web site (www.johnforester.com) and the articles linked therein. Mr. Forester is famous for his advocacy of vehicular cycling, which is also termed "effective cycling", because it allows for the safe and efficient integration of bicycle traffic into our existing roadway system. He has famously noted that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". I certainly trust Mr. Forester's many decades as a bicyclist and traffic engineer more than I do Mr. Carpenter's single citation, his personal antipathy towards bicycles in the roadway, and his incessant repetition of the unsupported opinion that riding a bicycle in traffic is somehow dangerous. I have personally been practicing vehicular cycling for most of the nearly fifty years I have been riding a bicycle, and I have yet to collide with a car. Indeed, you may see me on my frequent trips through downtown Menlo Park, riding smack-dab in the middle of the travel lanes. Car drivers and I tend to get along really well, since I ride predictably, I follow the traffic laws, and I basically act like a car--albeit a somewhat slow car.

With respect to the Almanac article and the impending installation of "sharrows" on Menlo Avenue and University Drive, the beauty of a well-placed sharrow is that it indicates where a bicyclist should ride 1) to avoid being "doored" by a parked car, 2) to be highly visible to approaching cars--from both behind and in front, and 3) to discourage drivers from squeezing past the bicyclist where there isn't room for a car to pass safely. It also emphasizes the bicyclist's right--yes right--to take the lane under appropriate situations, such as where the lane is too narrow for a car and bicycle to share safely side-by-side. The only thing a car driver suffers from having a bicycle ahead of him or her in the lane is a few seconds of time.

As more and more people are riding bikes around Menlo Park, I have noticed that both bicyclists and car drivers are more comfortable with an integrated traffic flow. Ultimately, this makes for a calmer and slower traffic behavior in our downtown, which is good for everyone. I am sure that self-proclaimed experts like Mr. Carpenter will continue to yammer about the dangers of bicycling, but I choose to ignore them. I would rather be out riding my bike.

" the dangers of bicycling, but I choose to ignore them. I would rather be out riding my bike."

You may be dead right about your right to the road but I prefer to have public policy which avoids death and injury rather than encourages the mixing of 4000 lb automobiles with 200 lb bicyclists. And I suspect that any bicyclist who is injured while using a marked sharrow will include the city in their law suit.

"Peter Carpenter is basically arguing for the second-class treatment of bicyclists"

No, as stated above "I believe that pedestrians, bicyclist and automobiles should all be accomodate on public thoroughfares whenever each can be accommodated safely."

" the Wikipedia reference cited above by Alan provides a much more balanced presentation of the pros and cons of segregated bikeways"

Yep - " A 2010 study in Montreal, Canada, by Lusk et al., compared the motor vehicle-bicycle crashes and injuries on six Montreal cycle tracks (physically separated bicycle-exclusive paths along roads) with comparable reference roads (a parallel road with approximately the same intersection frequency and cross traffic). The authors found 2.5 times as many cyclists rode on the cycle tracks compared to the reference roads. They also found that the relative risk of injury was lower on a cycle track than on the comparable reference road (the average being 0.72 the relative risk). They concluded that "[c]ycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase, crash and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street"[32]

The New York City Department of Transportation implemented a bicycle path and traffic calming pilot project for Prospect Park West in Brooklyn in 2010 and published their results in early 2011. It created a two-way bicycle path with a three-foot parking lane buffer and the removal of one lane from motor vehicles. They found that weekday cycling traffic tripled after the implementation; cyclists riding on the sidewalk fell to 3% from 46% (the count included children who are legally allowed to ride on the sidewalk); speeding dropped from 74% to 20% of all vehicles; crashes for all road users were down 16% and injuries to all road users were down 21%.[46]

An unfunded 1997 study by William E. Moritz of North American bicycle commuters[47] calculated a relative danger of different facilities based on the survey results of "[fraction of crashes] divided by the [fraction of miles ridden on that facility]". Moritz calculated a relative danger of 1.26 on a major street with no cycling facilities, 1.04 on a minor street with no cycling facilities, 0.5 for streets with bike lanes, and 0.67 for mixed use/"bike" path. The "other" category which mostly included sidewalks had a relative danger of 5.32. Moritz made it clear that this was "[n]ot a statistical or random sample of BCs [bicycle commuters]."


As for John Forester's web site - there is ZERO data their, just his opinion.

ZERO data on John Forester's web site??? Um, what about the two books he wrote, both published by The MIT Press and described extensively on his web site? Both have whole chapters on accident statistics that support the safety of vehicular cycling on non-segregated roadways.

Do you dispute all data, or just data you disagree with?

Here is what Forester's web site says:"Bikeways neither make cycling much safer nor reduce the skill required. They probably do the reverse." That is an opinion, not data.

If you have data then post it.

I love data but put your facts on the table don't just claim that there are facts.

Sigh. That's actually a conclusion, but nevermind.

I love data but put your facts on the table don't just claim that there are facts.

Wikipedia:

conclusion: when a statement or question comes to an answer; when an idea or thought is settled.

opinion:is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. Opinions are never right or wrong, they are merely a figment of what someone believes.

:"Bikeways neither make cycling much safer nor reduce the skill required. They probably do the reverse." That is an opinion, not a conclusion.

For those of you who want to help make a difference, engage with the city in some way, data and opinions in hand, to try to help make MP a safer bike town. Talk is cheap but you need to engage in the real issues at hand. We cannot snap fingers and make all streets 6 feet wider and all cyclist and drivers more attentive. Deal with the situation at hand and help make it better. MP is trying but can always find more ways to improve.

Peter - I don't have any hard data from you, other than Forester's data in his books (as David pointed out). However, here is what I can tell you from years of personal experience riding my bike in all kinds of traffic on different kinds of roads:
1. Bike/pedestrian paths that are completely separated from the road (set back from the intersection) are inferior for transportation due to extremely limited speeds (usually max 15mph due to pedestrians) and extremely frequent stops due to cross streets. The intersections tend to be dangerous due to turning traffic, and the presence of pedestrians leads to danger for all trail users. I avoid using such paths for transportation whenever possible, since it can take much longer and is more stressful than riding on real roads. If all roads had such paths, there would be no such thing as a "through" road for cyclists, we'd be forced to stop every block.
2. Bike-only paths that are physically separated by a curb or similar from vehicular traffic are great - as long as there aren't any opportunities for traffic to turn in front of or into you. Bicycle traffic should only be to the right of right-turning traffic when turning right. Unfortunately, bicycles are frequently found to the right of right-turning cars due to misplaced bike lanes and drivers who don't understand that they are supposed to merge into the bike lane and turn right from it. Luckily, the law states that one of the times bicycles are permitted to leave the bike lane is when a turn is possible, which means that I frequently take the lane before intersections where traffic can go right or straight. I have had many a close call when I have been unable to take the lane and cars not using turn signals turn in front of me or into me.
3. In my experience, generally the best roads for cycling on are those with an adequate bike lane that is clearly marked. Because it is marked, drivers of cars know to keep an eye out for bicycles and tend to be more cautious when turning. In general, cars stay out of the bike lane and bikes stay in the bike lane, with the exceptions of bicycles turning left (take the lane as necessary) and cars turning right (merging properly, not cutting off a bike).
4. Sharrows are a special case - usually sharrows are put in when the road is not wide enough for a standard bike lane. The presence of sharrows is not likely to cause more cyclists to ride on the road than before, but it may help drivers be more aware that cyclists may be present (and to pass with care).
5. Some signs and marking about bicycles seem to be more about legitimizing the presences of bicycles than actually making anything safer, which hopefully reduces the number of drivers out there who hate cyclists and are out to get us. Relations between cyclists and drivers of cars tend to be strained due to the negligent and reckless actions of a few cyclists and a few drivers. As a cyclist, I heartily wish that more traffic laws were regularly enforced for cars, the most important one being use of turn signals.

"1. Bike/pedestrian paths that are completely separated from the road (set back from the intersection) are inferior for transportation due to extremely limited speeds (usually max 15mph due to pedestrians) and extremely frequent stops due to cross streets. "

Properly designed bikeways do NOT permit pedestrian traffic.

"2. Bike-only paths that are physically separated by a curb or similar from vehicular traffic are great - as long as there aren't any opportunities for traffic to turn in front of or into you"

Properly designed bikeways include separate lights/turn controls for cars and bicyclists.

Compromise solutions like sharrows are just that - a compromise.

It would be much better to give up a lane of parking and have dedicated bike lanes on both sides of the street.

I'm with you there on giving up parking spaces. Also yes, properly designed bikeways do not permit pedestrian traffic, but I have never seen one in the US. As for separate lights/turn controls for cars and bicyclists, yes that might work if every intersection had a light, so may be appropriate for dense city areas and streets like El Camino. Such separated bikeways block parking and business driveways anyway, so would only be practical in dense city areas regardless - I don't see those happening anywhere on the Peninsula. I'd be happy with regular bike lanes and less parking.

Bicyclists, please hand-signal your turns. Don't be unpredictable. (On Oak Street last night, a bicyclist just ahead of me began to slow to make an unsignaled right turn. The distance between us diminished and soon I found myself uncomfortably close behind this person as we both turned).

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?