Wait for it…wait for it…merge… NOW!
Sometimes I just have to shake my head. And take a picture.
This bike lane on US 17/92 in Seminole County, just north of the Orange County line, is correctly placed between the right-most through lane and the long merge lane.
(This Google Map shot was taken before the road was rebuilt, so you won’t see the bike lane there, but shows the wider context; it runs from the Maitland Blvd. interchange to the Spartan Drive intersection; about 900 feet).
But the traffic engineers seem to think motorists should only merge during this very short dashed line section.
Not to worry. The motorists seem to be smarter than that and pass/merge where it makes sense for them.
Posted in Bikeways, Safety
13. July 2009 at 5:33 am :
I think I see a bicycle icon near the top of the photo, which qualifies, in my alleged mind, calling this section of paint a bike lane.
If one considers the same configuration, paint stripes, spacing and the like, but remove the signs and painted icons of bicycles, does it become something else?
Now ignoring intersections of this sort, consider a single paint stripe spaced away from the curb at approximately the distance shown in the photo, no bicycle icons, no signs, is it a bike lane or a paved shoulder?
13. July 2009 at 9:09 am :
Indeed, it is a bike lane (on US 17/92 in Seminole Co. BTW). Without the pavement markings and signs it becomes a (duh) “undesignated bike lane.” An “undesignated bike lane” to the right of a right-turn-only lane is, well, just an undefined part of the roadway that is not a lane. By definition, a roadway with curbs doesn’t have shoulders.
This confusion is part of the reason why FDOT eliminated the “undesignated bike lane” option from its Plans Preparation Manual. Now there are only (designated) bike lanes and wide curb lanes in it (and paths, of course).
13. July 2009 at 10:34 am :
I wasn’t aware that a roadway with curbs didn’t have shoulders, but that does make sense. Lucky for me, the cops who stopped me didn’t know that either, as I described an “undesignated bike lane” as a paved shoulder and it was accepted. I’m still unwilling to call a very-sub-standard-width segment of pavement as a bike lane, especially when there are no signs. I’m also quite happy that Florida does not have mandatory bike lane use laws.
There’s a segment of roadway in Port Orange, at the intersection of Nova Road and Charles Street that is two lanes northbound, expanding to three. The undesignated bike lane stripes to the left of the right-most lane. The right-most lane has right-turn arrows within, but no signs indicating right-turn only, either on the pavement or on the right-of-way. This puts undesignated bike rider in an area not suitable for safety, in my opinion and does not properly reflect destination positioning.
About the only thing that makes this intersection work is that I’ve never seen a motor vehicle operator continue straight ahead from the right-most lane. I believe that a driver who does not turn right is not violating any statutes, but no one seems to go straight from that lane. Lemmings all, including myself. I remain in the center lane and after crossing the intersection, signal, check and change lanes. (It’s the reverse of the recommended check and signal, because no one can see me turn my head inside the velomobile cockpit.) Conventional cyclists, please take note, as your head check is also a means of communicating to other road users of your intent.
13. July 2009 at 2:40 pm :
It probably helps if I had my information straight. The intersection I’m noting is located at Herbert and Nova Road in Port Orange:
http://tinyurl.com/knz5on should return a street view in which one can navigate north and see the undesignated bike lane split to the left and the right turn (and straight ahead) lane break off to the right.
I probably should request an informal discussion with someone in the FDOT about this, but it rarely carries bicyclists. They are usually riding on the sidewalk, against traffic!
17. July 2009 at 9:42 am :
That’s a classic (and extreme) case of the difficulties posed by those dotted lines… I think bike lane makrings should just fade out well before the intersection, leaving people to their often better instincts.
1. September 2009 at 12:05 pm :
I had the same reaction when I saw that interchange for the first time. And we wonder why paint markings are meaningless to most people.
Anyway, I was just up there this weekend. They have ground off paint and extended the dashed part.
I agree with Rantwick.
1. September 2009 at 5:44 pm :
I got a laugh from your post, Keri, as I’ve not been on that stretch of roadway for many weeks. Since I have two clients in Port Orange on Wednesday, I’ll have to take the bumpy Nova Road route on the way home, since it’s less bumpy than the trip outbound… I can cut west and pick up the smoother roadway at that light, however. It does put me on a stretch of tw0-lane, moderately heavy traffic, but I’ll manage.
Did you bring your bike when you visited our fair city (cities)?
It’s a lonely ride for vehicular cyclists in Eastern Volusia County.
2. September 2009 at 2:09 pm :
Fred, I was referring to the Maitland interchange in Mighk’s post.
It’s becoming a little less lonely for vehicular cyclists here. I actually see one from time to time. It makes me smile.
2. September 2009 at 7:36 pm :
I discovered that today too! The misleading paint is still in place at the intersection I posted. Mighk had informed the FLDOT and cc’d me, but they have done nothing about it as yet.
You’re lucky to see those cyclists. I get the salmon and the gutter riders all the time. Just yesterday I watched that terrified recumbent rider on the three-inch stripe once more.