I have a copy of the book on accepted standardized roadsigns in the US. There are on-line resources now, too.
I agree, signage on roads will be a top priority of the Infrastructure group. We'll talk this over this week.
Comments by people on the other sub-committees that will help us at our meeting are welcome. I will share full info on meeting time and location as soon as the location is finalized. All welcome, but we'll do the heavy lifting.
Greg
"Jim Rye" Jim.Rye@mail.wvu.edu 1/6/2007 12:04 PM >>>
Frank noted at our last meeting that the 2030 Plan neglects the facilitation of roadway cycling. I certainly agree. Outside of the city limits, and to a considerable extent inside those limits, the lack of shoulders (and the current law against using sidewalks) requires the “utilitarian” cyclist to use the road. However, I do note one aspect of the Plan that does attempt to facilitate roadway cycling: Item 44 (grouped with items 41-44 under “Other”) on “Table 1: Non-Motorized Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimates” states “Install Share the Road signage throughout the county.”*albeit this action really belongs on the “Roadway” table instead (which gets back to the question of why did they ever separate the two to begin with).
I believe that one of our initial desired “outcomes” to send to the Traffic Commission is the installation throughout the city of “Share the Road” signage. If the literature documents that the current prototype for this sign promotes motorist misconceptions (i.e., that cyclists should share the road with motorists), then we need to design (or find) an alternative prototype shown to promote the correct conception. My rationale for recommending this signage outcome:
1. It is integral to all 3 of our top priority areas (Education, Infrastructure, Commuting). 2. From an infrastructure standpoint, it is one of the least expensive and most quickly accomplished outcomes. 3. It will set the stage for the 2030 Plan to extend such signage throughout the county. 4. It is a “billboard” to the motorist that cyclist use of the road is legitimate; it may promote greater enforcement and lead to achieving additional regulations (e.g., 5’ minimum passing distance between motorist and cyclist).
We do not want this outcome to compromise realizing the “use of city sidewalks by cyclists” outcome suggested by John, so I suggest that we send for both simultaneously.
_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard