FHWA press release on new MUTCD

[Bob Shanteau]

The Federal Highway Administration has announced that it will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register in the coming days of revisions to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Many of the revisions relate to bicyclists, too numerous to list here. One that stood out was this one that I have been advocating for years:

"FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9C.07 Bicycle Lane Ends Warning Sign (W9-5) and Bicycle Merging Sign (W9-5a)” to provide Support, Option, and Guidance for two new signs, W9-5 and W9-5a that can be used to alert road users when a bicycle lane is ending or a bicycle merge is occurring."

Here is the press release. Follow the links to the preliminary Federal Register announcement and then to the proposed language of the notice itself.

https://cms8.fhwa.dot.gov/newsroom/federal-highway-administration-calls-comment-latest-update-mutcd

[Jim Baross]

Thanks Bob.

If you have ideas for comments that you'd like further research and discussion let us know. Where there are areas of special concern... or applause? 

The document that I copied the portions below from is available at https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-26789.pdf

Lots and lots of things of interest. Not enough detail to make decisions yet. The complete "final" proposal is due out Dec. 14th. 

Here are some bike related sections that I copied out; I used bold text to draw your attention. 

Most look very useful, maybe long overdue. Others...?

Which should we follow closely?

"152. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2C.60 SHARE THE ROAD Plaque
(W16-1P) and replace it with a new proposed Section 2C.66 IN ROAD and IN STREET
Plaques (W16-1P, W16-1aP) that contains Option and Standard statements regarding the
use of these optional signs to warn drivers to watch for other forms of slower
transportation traveling along the highway, such as bicycles, golf carts, or horse-drawn
vehicles. Since its adoption in the 2000 MUTCD, research has shown that the “share
the road” message when applied to bicyclists does not adequately communicate the
responsibilities of either user group on the roadway. Road users are unclear whether
“share the road” means that drivers should give space when passing or that bicyclists
should pull to the side to allow drivers to pass. FHWA is proposing the IN ROAD/IN
STREET plaques to replace the SHARE THE ROAD plaque based on this research and
for consistency with all in road vehicle types."

"153. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2C.67
Except Bicycles Plaque (W16-20P).” The new section contains an Option to use a new
Except Bicycles plaque below a warning sign where it is appropriate to notify bicyclists
that the conditions depicted by a warning sign are not applicable to bicycles. An example
is a roadway which terminates as a dead end or cul-de-sac but serves as a continuous
route for bicycle travel through the use of connecting paths or barrier opening and the
plaque would be used to supplement a DEAD END or NO OUTLET warning sign. This
section also includes a new Standard statement that if used with a warning sign, the
plaque shall be a rectangle with a black legend and border on a yellow background,
consistent with similar provisions for the color of supplemental plaques."

"370. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 3H.06

Green-Colored Pavement for Bicycle Facilities” to include Standard paragraphs
establishing the use of green-colored pavement for a variety of bicycle facilities and
prohibiting its use on shared-use paths, shared-lane markings, crosswalks, and on
separated bicycle lanes on an independent alignment." 

"396. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 4D.03

Provisions for Bicyclists,” with an Option to allow bicycle signal faces to be used where
it is desired to provide separate signal indications to control bicycle movements at a
traffic control signal, and a reference to new Chapter 4H Bicycle Signal Faces. FHWA
proposes this change due to the increasing bicycle activity and bicycle infrastructure
deployment throughout the Country and based on Interim Approval 16.75"

"417. FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter, numbered and titled, Chapter 4H Bicycle
Signals, that includes provisions for the application, design, and operation of bicycle
signals. This chapter contains twelve sections and provisions related to the use, warrants,
application, size, placement, mounting height, intensity and light distribution, and yellow
change and red clearance intervals for Bicycle Signal Faces. These sections and
provisions are generally consistent with provisions for traffic control signals. A bicycle
signal face consists of RED BICYCLE, YELLOW BICYCLE, and GREEN BICYCLE
symbol signal indications that controls bicycle movements from a designated bicycle lane
or from a separate facility, such as a shared use path. The proposed provisions are based
on the Interim Approval 1681 and multiple experimentations across the Country. One
notable change from IA-16 is the removal of the green arrow signal indication
requirement when there are conflicts with motor vehicles moving concurrently from an
adjacent lane. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with an option to control
bikeways or bicycle lanes at signalized intersections."

"   FHWA also proposes a new Standard prohibiting the use of bicycle signal faces at

a pedestrian hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes this because the speed at which bicyclists
are able to enter and traverse the crosswalk would make it unsafe to allow a green or
yellow bicycle symbol signal indication to be shown at the same time that a flashing red
signal indication is shown to motorists. If the motorists are shown a steady red signal
indication for the entire length of time that the bicycle signal face is showing a green or
yellow bicycle symbol signal indication and a red clearance interval, the hybrid beacon
would essentially be functioning as a traffic control signal, and not as a pedestrian hybrid
beacon."

"459. In new “Section 5B.06 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities,” FHWA proposes a
Guidance statement recommending that bicycle facilities be segregated from other
vehicle traffic using physical barriers where practicable and that road markings are
needed to denote the end of a bike lane that is merged with traffic. FHWA proposes this
language to accommodate machine vision better and benefit the performance of the
human vehicle operator."

"    FHWA also proposes to add new Guidance paragraphs discouraging raised
pavement markers with bicycle lanes or shared-use paths and also recommending that if
raised pavement markers used around bicycle facilities that they are not immediately
adjacent to the travel path of bicycles. FHWA proposes this Guidance because raised
pavement markers create collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects
immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist."

"587. In Section 9B.01 (existing Section 9B.03) STOP and YIELD Signs (R1-1, R1-2),

FHWA proposes adding a Standard that prohibits a STOP sign or a YIELD sign from
being installed in conjunction with a bicycle signal face. FHWA proposes this restriction
to provide uniformity in the application of signals and to avoid conflicts between bicycle
signal indications and signs."

588. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.02
Except Bicycles Plaque (R3-7bP).” This section describes the use of this plaque for
circumstances where bicycles are exempt from regulatory restrictions that apply to other
traffic. FHWA proposes new Standard paragraphs to prevent Except Bicycles Plaques
from conflicting with STOP signs or YIELD signs and requires the plaques to be placed
below the regulatory sign that it supplements. FHWA also proposes new Figure 9B-1 to
show examples of how the Except Bicycles Plaque can be applied. FHWA proposes this
new section because there are circumstances where it is appropriate to exempt bicyclists
from regulatory restrictions applied to other traffic."

"589. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.03
Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs for Bicycle Lanes (R3-8 Series)” to provide
Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support statements for accommodating bicycle lanes on
the R3-8 series of signing where determined to be appropriate. FHWA proposes this new
section because improper dissemination of this information can result in unwieldy sign
designs or legends. The amount of information that can be legibly displayed and
comprehended by road users on signs or in signing sequence on the same approach to an
intersection is limited. The number and combination of permissible movements by both
the motor vehicle and the bicycle may be numerous, thereby complicating the cognitive
task of the road user at a decision point."

"590. In Section 9B.04, retitled, “Bike Lane Signs and Plaques (R3-17, R3-17aP, R3-

5hP),” FHWA proposes changing a portion of the existing Guidance regarding the
placement of Bike Lane signs and plaques periodically along the bicycle lane to an
Option in order to give agencies the discretion of sign placement when developing a
policy for the use of Bike Lane signs. As part of this change, FHWA also proposes to
allow the use of other regulatory plaques such as BEGIN (M4-14) and END (M4-6) with
Bike Lane signs."
"FHWA also proposes adding Option statements allowing the use of a BIKE
LANE plaque to supplement Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs in places where
only a single bicycle movement is permitted from the bicycle lane and to supplement
Optional Movement Lane Control signs where two or more movements from a bicycle
lane are permitted in order to prevent operational problems. FHWA proposes these
additional statements to provide uniformity in signing."

" 592. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.10 BackIn Parking Sign (R7-10).” This section provides Option and Support statements and a figure regarding the application of the proposed new R7-10 sign, which may be used where back-in angle parking is required by motor vehicles due to the presence of a bike lane. "

"593. In Section 9B.11, retitled, “Bicycles Use Ped Signal (R9-5),” FHWA proposes a new Option to remind drivers making turns that a Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians (R10-15) or Left Turns Yield to Bicycles (R10-12b) sign may be used. Also, to increase uniformity in placement location, FHWA proposes new Guidance for the location and installation of the R9-5 sign to recommend placement where bicyclists cross the street." 

"594. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.12 Bicycles Yield to Peds Sign (R9-6).” While this sign exists in Section 9B.11 of the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA proposes to add additional Standard paragraphs regarding the application and use of this sign, along with a new figure, to provide practitioners with additional information and to promote uniformity in its use." 

"595. In Section 9B.14 (existing Section 9B.06), FHWA proposes to change the legend

of the existing R4-11 (Bicycles May Use Full Lane) sign to “Bicycles Allowed Use of
Full Lane.” The standardized sizes of the sign would not change and the proposed legend
would continue to be of commensurate size for its application, ensuring adequate levels
of legibility and recognition. FHWA proposes this change because the legend of the
existing sign, which was introduced in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, conveys a
warning message on a regulatory sign while the proposed legend would be consistent
with regulatory signs that display notification of vehicle codes governing rules of the
road."

"596. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.15 Bicycle 

Passing Clearance Sign (R4-19)” to describe the use of this proposed new sign. Option and 

Guidance paragraphs are added to provide details on the use and restrictions of this sign that 

is only allowed in jurisdictions that have passed a law or ordinance specifying a specific passing clearance."

597. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.16
Bicycles Use Shoulder Only Sign (R9-21)” to describe the use of this proposed new sign
that is an option to use on freeways or expressways. Also, FHWA proposes a new plaque
R5-10dP that is an option to use on freeways to prohibit bicycles on ramps leading to an
adjacent or parallel freeway. The Guidance provided in this section proposes that the
Bicycles Use Shoulder Only sign (R9-21) only be placed adjacent to the on-ramp or
entrance to the freeway at or near the location where the full-width should resume beyond
the entrance ramp taper. FHWA proposes this sign because there are places where
bicycles are permitted on a freeway but are required to travel on an available and usable
shoulder."

"598. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.17
Signing for Bicycles on Freeways and Expressways” to provide Standard, Option, and
Support paragraphs along with a new figure, for bicycle signing on freeways and
expressways. FHWA proposes to add a new Bicycles Must Exit (R9-22) sign that is
required in advance of a location where a freeway or expressway becomes prohibited to
bicycle travel. FHWA also proposes a new Standard requiring the No Bicycling Sign
(R5-6) be placed downstream from the ramp departure point where the prohibited
segment of freeway or expressway begins. FHWA proposes this new section to provide
uniformity in signing for bicycles on freeways and expressways."

"599. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.18 TwoStage 

Bicycle Turn Box Regulatory Signing (R9-23 series).” FHWA proposes Standard, Option, and 

Support for the new sign as well as a new Figure 9B-5 that illustrates
required signing for two-stage turn boxes that are used to simplify the turning task for
bicyclists at certain intersections."

"600. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.19
Bicycle Jughandle Signs (R9-24, R9-25, R9-26, and R9-27 Series).” FHWA proposes
the new section to define a bicycle jughandle turn and provide Guidance, Option, and
Support, as well as a new Figure 9B-6, that illustrates signing for such locations."

"601. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.20
Bicycle Actuation Signs (R10-4, R10-22, R10-24, R10-25, and R10-26),” created from
paragraphs in existing Section 9B.11 and Section 9B.13. FHWA proposes to rename sign
R10-22 from “Bicycle Signal Actuation” to “Bicycle Detector.” Also, FHWA proposes
to add a Guidance paragraph giving recommendations on where to place Bicycle Detector
signs."

"602. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.21 LEFT
TURN YIELD TO Bicycles Sign (R10-12b)” to provide information regarding the
proposed new R10-12b sign and refers the user to Section 2B.53. FHWA proposes this
change because road users approaching a signalized intersection with opposing counterflow 

bicycle lanes may not expect to yield to oncoming bicycles."

"603. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.22
Bicycle SIGNAL Signs (R10-40, R10-40a, R10-41, R10-41a, R10-41b).” FHWA
proposes this new section in concert with the addition of bicycle signal faces in the
MUTCD. The proposed Standard in this section requires that a Bicycle Signal sign be
installed immediately adjacent to every bicycle signal face to inform road users that the
specialized signal control face is intended only for bicyclists. FHWA proposes this new
section to be consistent with past FHWA action and proposed changes to Part 4 to
establish uniform signal control indications for bicycles on a national basis, which would
improve bicyclist safety, especially at locations where separate signal phases are provided
for motor-vehicle and bicycle traffic."

"604. In Section 9B.23 (existing Section 8.17) LOOK Sign (R15-8), FHWA proposes to
relocate this section from Part 8 and allow the use of a LOOK sign on a shared-use path
or separated bikeway at a railroad or LRT grade crossing."

"605. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.25
General Service Signing for Bikeways” to provide information regarding General Service
signs and their applicability for bicycles as referenced in Chapter 2I."

"606. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9C.05
Except Bicycles Plaque (W16-20P)” to provide information regarding a proposed new
plaque that can be used to notify bicyclists that a warning sign is not applicable to them."

"607. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9C.06
Bicycle Cross Traffic Warning Plaques (W16-21P, W21-16aP)” to provide information
regarding a proposed new plaque recommended for use below a STOP sign in isolated
locations to alert motor vehicles of unexpected bicycle traffic."

"608. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9C.07

Bicycle Lane Ends Warning Sign (W9-5) and Bicycle Merging Sign (W9-5a)” to provide
Support, Option, and Guidance for two new signs, W9-5 and W9-5a that can be used to
alert road users when a bicycle lane is ending or a bicycle merge is occurring."

"609. In Section 9C.08 (existing Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle Warning Signs, FHWA
proposes an Option to use a plaque displaying the legend IN ROAD (W16-1p and W16-
1aP) with the Bicycle Warning Sign (W11-1) to communicate to bicycles and motor
vehicles that bicycles are in the road. The SHARE THE ROAD plaque has been
removed from the MUTCD based on research indicating that road users do not
understand the intended message."

"611. In Section 9D.01 (part of existing Section 9B.20), retitled, “Bicycle Destination
Signs (D1-1b, D1-1c, D1-2b, D1-2c, D1-3b, D1-3c),” FHWA proposes to change the
Guidance regarding the substitution of Bicycle Destination signs for vehicular destination
signs to a Standard to be consistent with existing provisions in existing Section 9B.02.
FHWA proposes this change to prohibit the use of smaller size Bicycle Destination signs
when the message is also intended to be applicable to motorists as well as address an
existing conflict in the MUTCD."

FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph regarding the purpose of
Bicycle Destination signs and example locations for placement.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement to permit Destination signs and
Street Name signs to be installed instead of or in addition to Bicycle Destination signs if
the Destination or Street Name sign applies to motorists and bicyclists.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement to permit the use of an
oversized bicycle symbol as the top line of a Bicycle Destination sign instead of
individual bicycle symbols for each of the destination/distance lines. FHWA proposes
this option to facilitate legibility on these signs and in accordance with FHWA’s Official
Ruling ..."

"612. FHWA proposes to create a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9D.02

BIKE ROUTE Guide Signs (D11-1, D11-1c, D11-1d, D11-1e, D11-1f, D11-1g)” that
contains relocated paragraphs from existing Section 9B.20 and new D11-1d, D11-1e,
D11-1f, and D11-1g signs. FHWA proposes to add these new signs to provide alternative
layouts and eliminate the potential need for an additional, separate sign on the same post.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement to discourage displaying travel
times on BIKE ROUTE Guide signs or Alternative BIKE ROUTE guide signs in concert
with the proposed change in Section 9D.01 (existing Section 9B.20)."

"613. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9D.03 BIKE
ROUTE Plaque (D11-1bP)” to provide two new Options for installing the D11-1bP
plaque to supplement the Alternative BIKE ROUTE Guide (D11-1c) sign and a Street
Name (D3-1) sign, in addition to the Option contained in P3 of existing Section 9B.25 to
supplement the Bicycle Directional (D11-1a) sign. FHWA also proposes to add three
new Standards regarding the use of the proposed new sign."

"614. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9D.04
Numbered Bikeway Systems” to provide Support, Guidance, Standard, and Option
statements, as well as a new Figure 9D-3, describing the proper signing for numbered
bicycle routes. FHWA proposes this new section to provide uniformity in the numbering
and signing of bicycle route systems."

"615. In Section 9D.05 (existing Section 9B.21), retitled, “Numbered Bicycle Route
Signs (M1-8, M1-8a),” FHWA proposes a new Standard to require a bicycle symbol
when the Numbered Bicycle Route (M1-8, M1-8a) sign is used on a roadway so that the
bicycle route can be distinguished from other numbered route systems. FHWA also
proposes new Guidance to clarify the dimensions and placement of use of a pictograph, if
used, on these signs...."

   FHWA also proposes to add an Option permitting a new Bicycle-Sharing Station

(D4-4) sign to be installed to provide directional information to a designated bicycle
sharing system. FHWA proposes to add a Guidance recommending that, if used, the
Bicycle-Sharing Station sign should be used in conjunction with a regulated bicycle 

sharing system. FHWA proposes these changes to establish uniformity with signing for 

these new bicycle facilities."

"622. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9D.13 TwoStage 

Bicycle Turn Box Guide Signing (D11-20 series)” with Standard, Option, and Support 

statements related to the use of the guide signs for two-stage bicycle turn boxes.

FHWA also proposes a new Figure 9D-6 that illustrates the guide signing for two-stage
turn boxes that are used to simplify the turning task for bicyclists at certain intersections.

623. In Section 9E.01 (part of existing Section 9C.04), retitled, “Bicycle Lanes,”
FHWA proposes to revise the Standard to require the use of bicycle lane symbol or word
markings, in addition to longitudinal pavement markings, to define bicycle lanes. In
concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement permitting the use
of the word marking BIKE LANE as an alternative to the bicycle symbol. FHWA
proposes these changes to inform road users of the bicycle lane and to reduce wrong-way
bicycling.
    In addition, FHWA proposes adding clarification to the Guidance regarding the
placement of the first symbol or word denoting a bicycle lane. This proposed change
makes the bicycle markings consistent with preferential lane word and symbol markings.
FHWA also proposes a new Option allowing the use of arrow markings in
conjunction with the bicycle lane symbol or word markings.

    Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Standard prohibiting the bicycle symbol or

BIKE LANE pavement word marking and the pavement marking arrow in a shoulder.
FHWA also proposes to require that a portion of the travel way cannot be established as
both a shoulder and a bicycle lane because each serves a different use and has differing
regulations that apply. The uniform marking of each type would minimize any confusion
and accommodate the expectancy of the road user.

624. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.02 Bicycle
Lanes at Intersection Approaches,” which contains material from existing Section 9C.04.
FHWA proposes a new Option statement to allow a bicycle lane to be located on
the outside of a turn lane if a bicycle signal face is used and the signal phasing and
signing eliminates potential conflicts.

   FHWA also proposes a new Standard that requires bicycle lanes located at an
intersection approach between contiguous lanes for motor vehicle movements be marked
with a bicycle symbol and arrow pavement markings. FHWA also proposes a Standard
to prohibit bicycle lanes from being marked as contiguous with a general purpose turn
lane, either with dotted or any other line markings. FHWA proposes these additions to
alert motor vehicles of the presence of bicyclists and prevent potential conflicts.

In addition, FHWA proposes Option, Guidance, and Support statements for
shifting over of buffer separated or separated bike lanes at intersections to improve
visibility for motor vehicles and bicycles to account for developments in bicycle facility
design since 2009 edition of the MUTCD.

Finally, FHWA proposes new Option, Standard, and Support statements and a
new figure to provide an option and requirements for the use of mixing zones, which are
when general purpose and bike lanes must share the same space through an intersection.

625. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.03 Extensions of
Bicycle Lanes through Intersections” to provide Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option
statements on the application of bicycle lane extensions. In this section, FHWA proposes
to clarify that shared-lane markings and chevrons shall not be used through intersections.
This is not a new Standard, rather a clarification of the Standard in existing Section 9C.07
and of the use of chevrons. FHWA proposes new Standard statements requiring only
dotted lane lines for extensions of bike lanes through intersections, and requiring lane
extension markings to extend buffer-separated or separated bicycle lanes through
intersections and driveways. As part of these changes, FHWA proposes Support and
Guidance statements regarding pavement markings for bicycle lanes through
intersections. FHWA also adds a Standard requiring the lateral limits of bicycle lane
extensions through intersections when the bicycle lane is contiguous to a crosswalk. FHWA proposes this new section because the uniform application of extensions of bicycle lanes through intersections assists all users of the intersection in identifying where bicyclists are expected to operate."

" 626. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.04 Bicycle

Lanes at Driveways” to provide options for bicycle lanes at or through driveways.
FHWA proposes this new section to provide practitioners with options for marking
bicycle lanes in the vicinity of driveways and to promote the uniform application of these
treatments."

627. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.05 Bicycle
Lanes at Circular Intersections,” which contains material relocated from existing section
9C.04. FHWA proposes additional Support statements related to the use of shared-lane
markings and bicycles on the sidewalk at circular intersections, since bicycle lanes are
already prohibited through circular intersections.

628. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.06 BufferSeparated Bicycle Lanes” to provide practitioners with Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option statements and a new figure to provide information on the application of buffer separated bicycle lanes. FHWA proposes new Standards that provide requirements on the buffer-separated bicycle lines, including line types, markings in the buffer, width,

location, and color. FHWA proposes this new section and associated figure, because 

providing a buffer space between a bicycle lane and a travel lane can reduce vehicle
encroachment into the bicycle lane and reduce crashes between a bicyclist and open
vehicle doors in a parking lane. In addition, the provisions of this Section would promote
uniformity in the use of this treatment in accordance with existing traffic control devices
in Section 3B.25 (existing Section 3B.24) and Chapter 3E (existing Chapter 3D).

629. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.07 Separated
Bicycle Lanes” to provide Support, Standard, Option, and Guidance statements, along
with a new figure, for the application of separated bicycle lanes. FHWA proposes
Standard statements requiring a buffer space between parking spaces and separated
bicycle lanes, buffer space markings, restrictions for edge line and lane line colors, and
requiring directional arrows. FHWA also proposes Standards related to requirements for
signalization with two-way separated bicycle lanes and prohibiting right turns on red
across separated bicycle lanes when bicycle traffic is allowed to proceed through the
intersection. FHWA proposes this new section to provide practitioners information for
uniformity in application to promote the safe and efficient operation of the bicycle lanes
by reducing conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians accessing parked vehicles, and
between bicycles and motor vehicles turning across their path on separate traffic signal
phases.

630. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.08 CounterFlow Bicycle Lanes” to provide Support, Standard, and Guidance statements, along with a new figure, for the application of counter-flow bicycle lanes, which is when one
direction bicycle lanes travel the opposite direction of the general traffic that is also
traveling in one direction. FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that a counter-flow
bicycle lane be placed on the right-hand side of the road with opposing traffic on the left.
    FHWA also proposes a Standard requiring double yellow line markings, a painted
median island, raised median island, or some form of physical separation to define the
counter-flow bicycle lane where the speed limit is 30 mph or less. When the speed limit
is 35 mph or greater, FHWA proposes a Standard requiring a buffer, a painted median,
raised median island, or another form of physical separation to ensure safe operation
through adequate separation between opposing flows of bicycles and motor vehicles.
Lastly, FHWA proposes new Standards and Guidance for required and
recommended signing and signalization for counter-flow bicycle lanes. FHWA proposes
this new section to provide practitioners information for uniformity in application.

631. In Section 9E.09 (existing Section 9C.07) Shared-Lane Marking, FHWA proposes
to revise the Guidance to recommend that shared-lane markings not be used on roadways
with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or above, instead of 35 mph or above per the 2009
version of the Manual.
    FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard to expand the listing of locations
where shared-lane markings are prohibited. FHWA proposes this change to include some
of the new applications that are proposed in this NPA but are not in the 2009 Edition of
the Manual, and to address field experience with this marking since it was adopted in the
2009 MUTCD.
   In addition, FHWA provides new Guidance statements on the placement of
shared-lane markings and the use of Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane (R9-20,
redesignated from R4-11) signs.

     Lastly, FHWA proposes new Options and an associated figure, for
implementation of shared-lane markings in places where the width of the roadway is
insufficient to continue a bike lane or separate bikeway on approach to the intersection.
FHWA proposes this new section to provide practitioners discretion when developing a
policy for the use of the shared-lane markings on intersection approaches.

632. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.10 Shared-Lane
Markings for Circular Intersections” to provide Guidance and Support statements
recommending that shared-lane markings not be used in the circulatory roadway of multilane 

circular intersections. FHWA proposes this new section to assist practitioners with

providing uniform treatments of shared-use paths in the vicinity of circular intersections
based on an NCHRP study.130

633. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.11 Two-Stage
Bicycle Turn Boxes” to provide Support, Standard, Option, and Guidance statements, as
well as two new figures, to describe the application of two-stage bicycle turn boxes.

130 “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition” NCHRP 672, 2010, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf.
    

FHWA proposes Standards to provide requirements on location, pavement markings,
arrows, and passive detection of bicycles at traffic signals. As two-stage bicycle turn
boxes are intended to be positioned within an intersection for bicyclists to queue safely,
these Standards define what is required to make those spaces both safe and operationally
effective for bicyclists at traffic signals.

In addition, FHWA proposes Guidance to consider the peak hour bicycle demand
and adjacent land uses for the size of the bicycle turn box.

FHWA also proposes an Option to use green colored pavement with an associated
Standard that requires the entire turn box to be green colored pavement when used.
 

Lastly, FHWA proposes a Standard that requires a full-time turns-on-red
prohibition where the path of vehicles lawfully turning right on red would pass through
the bicycle turn box. FHWA proposes this section to describe the proper use of this new
application that simplifies the turning task for bicyclists.

634. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.12 Bicycle Box”
to provide Option, Standard, Guidance, and Support statements and a new figure, to
describe the application of a bicycle box.
FHWA also proposes Guidance recommending consideration of motor vehicle
and bicycle conflicts for when the bicycle box should be used, recommending that a
bicycle lane be used on the approach to a bicycle box, and recommending that a bicycle
box not be contiguous with a crosswalk.

   In addition, FHWA proposes Standards requiring locations, markings, signal
yellow change and red clearance intervals, and countdown pedestrian signals when the
bicycle box extends across more than one approach lane of motor vehicles. FHWA
proposes these changes to mitigate the potential conflict between bicyclists crossing a
bicycle box across multiple lanes while motor vehicle traffic is given a green indication
to move into the intersection.

Lastly, FHWA also proposes an Option to use green colored pavement with an
associated Standard that requires the entire bicycle box to be green colored pavement
when used. FHWA proposes this addition to describe the proper use of this new
application that increases the visibility of stopped bicyclists on the approach to a
signalized intersection when the signal is red.

635. In Section 9E.13 (existing Section 9C.03), retitled, “Shared-Use Paths,” FHWA
proposes a new Option and Standard, and accompanying figure, to provide additional
design options for pavement markings.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance that the crossing areas for bicyclists should
use green-colored pavement in order to distinguish between the crosswalk for pedestrians
and the crossing area for bicyclists. FHWA proposes this new Guidance in concert with
the proposal to add green-colored pavement for bicycle facilities.

636. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.14 Bicycle
Route Pavement Markings” to provide Option, Standard, and Guidance statements, as
well as a new figure, for the application of pavement markings to simulate route auxiliary
plaques and Bicycle Route Guide signs to provide navigational guidance for bicyclists
and pedestrians on shared-use paths, separated bikeways on independent alignment, and
on improved trails.

Also, FHWA proposes Standards to limit the use of route markers on bicycle
lanes, separated bikeways in the roadway, or on roadways where the shared-use path runs
contiguous or concurrent with a street or highway.

Lastly, FHWA also proposes a Guidance to require that pavement markings
simulating official guide signs for bicycle routes be supplemental to the sign(s) and shall
not be a substitute for the sign(s), with an associated Guidance that recommends a
systematic methodology of locating signs and bicycle route pavement markings. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide uniformity for this new practice.

637. In Section 9E.15 (existing Section 9C.05) Bicycle Detector Symbol, FHWA
proposes the addition of an Option statement that allows WAIT HERE FOR GREEN
word markings to be placed on the pavement immediately below the bicycle detector
symbol to help bicyclists know to stop on the bicycle detector symbol.

638. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9E.17 Raised
Devices” to provide Support, Option, Standard, and Guidance statements for the
application of raised devices in coordination with bicycle facilities. FHWA proposes a
Standard that channelizing devices shall not incorporate the color green, consistent with
an existing requirement in Part 3 that the color of channelizing devices shall match the
color of the pavement markings they supplement. FHWA proposes this requirement to
reiterate the existing requirement because some bicycle facilities utilize optional green 

colored pavement to supplement the required white or yellow markings and the existing 

requirement could imply that the color of the channelizing devices are allowed to match
the color of the pavement (green, in this case) rather than the color of the pavement
marking. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the
existing underlying requirement.

FHWA also proposes Guidance statements that the channelizing devices should
be tubular markers, and that the selection of a raised device consider the collision
potential of both the post and the base.

Lastly, FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that if used in buffer-separated
bicycle lanes, channelizing devices should be placed in the buffer space and at least one
foot from the longitudinal bicycle lane pavement marking. FHWA proposes this new
section because the purpose of channelizing devices is to emphasize pavement marking
patterns associated with bicycle facilities. 

639. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9F.02 Bicycle
Signal Face” to provide a reference to Chapter 4H on the design and application of
bicycle signal faces and Section 9B.22 for the Bicycle SIGNAL sign.

640. FHWA proposes a new chapter numbered and titled, “Chapter 9G Bicycle
Accommodations at Alternative Intersections.” This new chapter contains six proposed
new sections numbered and titled as follows: “Section 9G.01 General,” “Section 9G.02
Displaced Left-Turn Intersection,” “Section 9G.03 Median U-Turn Intersection,”
“Section 9G.04 Intercepted Crossroad Intersection,” “Section 9G.05 Restricted Crossing
Intersection,” and “Section 9G.06 Diamond Interchange with Transposed-Alignment
Crossroad” to provide practitioners with information on how to accommodate bicyclists
through these various types of alternate intersections. FHWA also proposes four new
figures demonstrating examples of the bicycle accommodations at alternative
intersections. The information in these proposed sections, along with the accompanying
figures, are based on supporting research.131

641. In proposed Section 9G.01 General, FHWA proposes a Support that clarifies that
the Chapter describes examples for the application and accommodation of bicycle traffic
at alternative intersections but is not a requirement to provide the bicycle traffic control
herein.

642. In proposed Section 9G.02 Displaced Left Turn Intersection, FHWA proposes
Guidance to recommend that a left-turning bicycle movement should transition to an
independent alignment that facilitates the bicycle to a two-stage turn box where bicycle
lanes or shared-lane markings are used on the major street approaching a displaced left-turn intersection.

131 “Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR)" FHWA-HRT-09-060,
April 2010, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/09060.pdf.

643. In proposed Section 9G.03 Median U-turn Intersection, FHWA recommends
Guidance that a two-stage bicycle turn box should be used where left-turning bicycles
need to be accommodated at median U-Turn intersections.

644. In proposed Section 9G.04 Intercepted Crossroad Intersection, FHWA
recommends Guidance that shared-lane markings should be discontinued on a single lane
intersection approach on cross streets and the bicycle movement should be transitioned to
a bicycle lane contiguous to the exclusive right or left turn lane for motor vehicles.

645. In proposed Section 9G.05 Restricted Crossing Intersection, FHWA proposes
Guidance to recommend that bicycle destination or bicycle route guide signs should be
used at restricted crossing intersections where it is demonstrated that it would be difficult
for bicycle movements.

646. In proposed Section 9G.06 Diamond Interchange with Transposed-Alignment
Crossroad, FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend destination guide signs for shared

use paths to transition pedestrian and bicycle travel to and from the median of the
transposed alignment where a shared-use path is used.

 This document was developed by FHWA to define the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic

control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads.

.....................

 Jim Baross, CABO President

 League of American Bicyclists Board Member

 League Cycling Instructor Coach

--

[Gary Cziko]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for digging up the bicycle-related content in the new national MUTCD.

I won't pretend to have gone through all of this, but this caught my attention:

597. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 9B.16
Bicycles Use Shoulder Only Sign (R9-21)” to describe the use of this proposed new sign that is an option to use on freeways or expressways. Also, FHWA proposes a new plaque
R5-10dP that is an option to use on freeways to prohibit bicycles on ramps leading to an
adjacent or parallel freeway. The Guidance provided in this section proposes that the
Bicycles Use Shoulder Only sign (R9-21) only be placed adjacent to the on-ramp or
entrance to the freeway at or near the location where the full-width should resume beyond
the entrance ramp taper. FHWA proposes this sign because there are places where
bicycles are permitted on a freeway but are required to travel on an available and usable
shoulder."

I imagine that would never make it into the CA-MUTCD because there is no law in California that I know of that ever restricts bicyclists to a shoulder--even on freeways.

Is that how others here see it, too?

-- Gary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXdrSXaMuKFHPOsWb%3DmV8xc2jnmBjuO2zsWhP9ppePiUEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Forkosh]

On Dec 11, 2020, at 8:46 PM, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

"    FHWA also proposes to add new Guidance paragraphs discouraging raised
pavement markers with bicycle lanes or shared-use paths and also recommending that if
raised pavement markers used around bicycle facilities that they are not immediately
adjacent to the travel path of bicycles. FHWA proposes this Guidance because raised 
pavement markers create collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects

immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist.”

The paragraph above appears is an unnumbered paragraph appearing between 459 and 587.  So my question is ‘Aren’t pits in the road  (i.e. rumble strips) just as harmful as raised markers?  I believe so,. If so, there should also be a recommendation that rumble strips not be immediately adjacent to the travel path of bicycles (i.e. they should not be anywhere near a shoulder marking.

[Alan Forkosh]

I forget the context, but I once made the statement that bicycles using freeways were required to use the shoulder and was corrected by the CalTrans Bike Coordinator, Rick Blunden.

Alan Forkosh                    Oakland, CA
afor...@mac.com

https://al4kosh.com

[John Cinatl]

Hi Gang

I've seen this sign, or something very similar, already in use in several mid-western states along there interstate highways.  Might be appropriate here in CA if we change the laws to allow it.

John Cinatl

Port Hueneme,CA

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/E68BE04B-7515-40FA-A68C-DE36C6BCCA2A%40mac.com.

[Karl Rudnick]

I do like the language Allowed vs May in

"595. In Section 9B.14 (existing Section 9B.06), FHWA proposes to change the legend
of the existing R4-11 (Bicycles May Use Full Lane) sign to “Bicycles Allowed Use of
Full Lane.”  

I wish there were a shorter word than "Allowed" but at least it is unambiguous. The issue with "May" is its double meaning

From Merriam Webster:
a: used to indicate possibility or probability
b: have permission to  

In the context of BMUFL, I always assume that "may" has definition (b) aka "allowed." However, I had a North County Sheriff Deputy argue that (a) was how he interpreted it, which meant to him "sometimes you might and sometimes you might not" and it was up to him to decide whether you should be using the full lane. Fwiw, this is the same officer who was recently re-educated by the chief of the North County Coastal Sheriff Station that there is no single file law and cyclists do not need to ride far to right over the sharrows adjacent to the new Hwy 101 cycletrack in Cardiff South Beach.

Karl Rudnick

[bike...@att.net]

How about “Bicycles (or bicyclists) can use full lane”

 

Rick

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/af507caf-bd86-41c4-8d8a-efc10efe612dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Graff]

As long as we’re wordsmithing, it could be simply “[bike symbol] Use Full Lane”

That’s both

* a statement of fact, and 

* an instruction to cyclists

Grammatically, it’s the same dual meaning as “Choosy moms choose Jif”

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/002a01d6d167%2454ee0510%24feca0f30%24%40att.net.

[Jim Baross]

But where on street vehicle parking is the narrowing factor for installation of Sharrows, when vehicle parking is not present the space is sufficient for side by side operation. Controlling the lane use may not be expedient.

I too like "allowed".

[Karl Rudnick]

Can doesn't cut it for me. That means you are "able" to. Ability is different than the law gives you permission. I do like the shorter "Bikes Use Full Lane" which is faster to read and incredibly direct. If a cyclist chooses to edge ride, that's simply their choice.

Karl

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/caboforum/Miw0fQsvNXA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/002a01d6d167%2454ee0510%24feca0f30%24%40att.net.

[John Eldon]

I think Bikes Use Full Lane solves the problem.

John E.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABkk2QZYTFiyc9w%3D6evhSg1v724DrryZVLiSt%2BrON6cG3PC__A%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Harry Lichtbach]

I thought Sharrows are to be used when a street is not wide enough for side by
side operation. I've always preferred "Bike Use Full Lane". It is both
unambiguous AND directs untrained cyclist where it is best to ride, even if they
refuse to do so.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 08:20:11 -0800, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

>But where on street vehicle parking is the narrowing factor for
>installation of Sharrows, when vehicle parking is not present the space is
>sufficient for side by side operation. Controlling the lane use may not be
>expedient.
>I too like "allowed".
>
>On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 8:00 AM Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> As long as we’re wordsmithing, it could be simply “[bike symbol] Use Full
>> Lane”
>>
>> That’s both
>> * a statement of fact, and
>> * an instruction to cyclists

*-*-*-*-*-*
Harry

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Pete Penseyres]

Do you think that "allowed" may still "allow" LEO's to conclude that a couple of empty parking spaces are sufficient to preclude a cyclist from being "allowed" to use the full lane?

FWIW, I think the Bike Symbol should be combined with sharrow chevrons AND the words "Use Full Lane" for a pavement marking rather than a sign off the roadway that virtually no one even notices among all the rest of the mostly prohibitive sign litter. Removing the word May would make the stencil smaller and save taxpayer money for the redundant signs.

Pete Penseyres

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXchcjt%2B%2Bha7iCuoxVn%2BHqYFJMBsDhD7H_BcyHGzV%2BuKXg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Bob Shanteau]

When I worked as the traffic engineer for the City of Monterey, the supervisor of the streets crew told me to use signs for no parking zones rather than red curbs because signs were cheaper and easier to maintain in the long run. I would expect the same pushback from a lot of agencies on using Bikes Use Full Lane pavement markings instead of signs.

Bob Shanteau

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/2065074769.179186.1607892984532%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Jim Baross]

M no hiSharrows may be used on roads that have on-street parking. The parking narrows available space - use the lan; Sharrows or not. But when there are no parked vehicles there is plenty of space to let faster folks get ahead.

Yes, there are lots of considerations to take into account before making any moves out of some of the lane you had claimed to control all of.

[Gary Cziko]

I suspect BIKES USE FULL LANE may be rejected for implying that not using the full lane is prohibited, which of course it is not. That sign may work in Madrid where I understand the law actually makes it compulsory for cyclists to use the full lane.

For a fewer words using "allowed," howzabout:

BIKES ALLOWED FULL LANE

Ironically, it’s acronym would do less of what it sounds like. 

Or, for something more poetic at the cost of more words:

DON’T BE LAME

USE FULL LANE

— Gary

[Karl Rudnick]

Gary - But "FULL LANE" means we can ride anywhere in the lane. So, if they choose to ride on the edge, that would not be prohibited. We're overthinking this.

Karl

[Gary Cziko]

Karl,

Hm, I'm not so sure. To me, using the full lane means riding in a position where you are not sharing the lane with another driver. You are maintaining the full width of the lane for your own use.

Let's say on a street with BIKES USE FULL LANE, a motorist left-cross crashes an edge-riding cyclist screened behind a bus. The motorist's defense is that the cyclist was operating illegally by not using the full lane therefore making himself invisible to the motorist. So the bicyclist is seen by at least some as sharing some of the blame of the crash. I realize that's unlikely given that there is no law requiring a cyclist to operate in the center of the traffic lane, but the sign might imply so to some extent.

What's worse, overthinking or underthinking?

-- Gary

[Karl Rudnick]

Gary, you and I share the same "meaning." 

However, my claim is that definition is incredibly subtle, only understood by probably < 1000 bike wonks out of a country of a couple hundred million folks who drive and ride bikes, and "FULL LANE" certainly has no legal definition in our, or any other state's, vehicle code.

But, I do agree about underthinking. It's just that signage should be clear, simple and understood by all in my mind.

Karl

[Serge Issakov]

Yes, “ Bicycles Allowed Use of

Full Lane”  is an improvement. 

I agree “bikes use full lane” and “can” at egg problematic for the reasons given. 

Jim, I think you’re the only person I’ve ever heard express concern about the meaning of sharrows and BMUFL on roads with empty parking lanes. I suspect even the most strident lane controller would use that space to release when appropriate. 

So, practically speaking, I don’t think we need a law that clearly requires cyclists to ever travel in a parking lane. The edge of the travel ends at the “T” symbols marking the parking lane whether cars are parked there or not. So the lane of interest is “too narrow” even when parked cars are not present. Bicyclists may release in the empty parking lane, but that’s not required. Nor should it be. 

Serge 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_Yw9H%2BfDUmpzp%2BUHjfRWnVUoqateM93S2Y1uqd%3DHKsZOng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Autu-correction gaff repair. 

Was: I agree “bikes use full lane” and “can” at egg problematic for the reasons given. 

Fixed: I agree “bikes use full lane” and “can” are problematic for the reasons given. 

[Michael Graff]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

"FULL LANE" certainly has no legal definition in our, or any other state's, vehicle code.

That's an excellent point. 

First we had "share the road", with "share" being undefined.

Now we have "may use full lane", with "full lane" being undefined.

In both cases, we're dancing around what we *really* mean: Cyclists may *control* the lane. Of course, we probably should define what "control" means.

[Gary Cziko]

"Control" means total domination!

I'm dressed, are you?

[bike...@att.net]

Signs on Highway 1 – Mission St, Santa Cruz:

Rick H.

 

 

From: cabo...@googlegroups.com <cabo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Gary Cziko
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>
Cc: Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com>; Pete Penseyres <cyclo...@yahoo.com>; CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>; Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>; bikerick <bike...@att.net>
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] FHWA press release on new MUTCD

 

"Control" means total domination!

 

I'm dressed, are you?

 

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 3:22 PM Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

"FULL LANE" certainly has no legal definition in our, or any other state's, vehicle code.

 

That's an excellent point. 

 

First we had "share the road", with "share" being undefined.

Now we have "may use full lane", with "full lane" being undefined.

 

In both cases, we're dancing around what we *really* mean: Cyclists may *control* the lane. Of course, we probably should define what "control" means.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YyqU%3DzYmgaOuUa922HOBTP5z8tbN%3DdzSwy7_WNa9SY3LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Karl Rudnick]

If we're not careful, we'll have something more complicated than CVC 21202! I keep thinking of King Leopold in "Amadeus" to Mozart, "Too many notes!". I wish we could communicate what we want in the simplest possible way without "Too many words." Pete Penseyres recently relayed the story to me that a City Planner in Carlsbad never even noticed the BMUFL signs on the side of the road that have been there for 4+ years. If you don't read it, you won't follow it. I was not an English major, so I have no more input.

Karl

[Karl Rudnick]

Too many notes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU

[Jim Baross]

I'm preparing comments for FHWA MUTCD update effort.

I'd support adding such a law for shoulder use on freeways in return for getting this or similar signs on freeway entrances where bicycling is not prohibited on that freeway. 

We'd need a CVC to make it enforceable... I'd want exceptions though similar to those for Bike Lanes.

But I'm concerned about the shoulder use requirement on expressways... maybe with similar exceptions as for Bike Lane use?

 Jim Baross, CABO President

 League of American Bicyclists Board Member

 League Cycling Instructor Coach

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YxGf%2BZVEZhws8fZiGgsXqufj_4Y4GfL2eBgPiAFSqwd2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[petevannuys]

Without a list of exceptions like 21208 I oppose the whole idea. Where freeway/ expressway is the only route it's patently obvious that 21202 applies with all of its necessary exceptions.  So this restriction is redundant. 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>

Date: 12/19/20 7:41 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com>

Cc: Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com>, CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] FHWA press release on new MUTCD

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXfsCh0ekfLkyequm5D2j%2B2qgnv03cNtL-gxhGLL4P4CEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Seems like Pete split this thread into another, so I'm bringing it back here:

petevannuys	9:02 PM (40 minutes ago)
to jimbaross, me, Bob, CABOforum

Without a list of exceptions like 21208 I oppose the whole idea. Where freeway/ expressway is the only route it's patently obvious that 21202 applies with all of its necessary exceptions.  So this restriction is redundant. 

=================================

Can someone explain to me how cyclists are supposed to use freeways that are open to cyclists in CA? The only time I've done this in CA was many years ago cycling from Berkeley to Walnut Creek using a section of CA-24.

I remember seeing signs instructing cyclists to exit the freeway at exits and re-enter at the next entrance instead of crossing exit and entrance ramps to stay on the freeway. And that is what I did.

But now I don't understand the legal basis for these signs. If as I understand there is no law in California restricting cyclists to the shoulders of freeways, what is there to prevent me as a cyclist from using the travel lane to continue past an interchange that is intermediate to my planned freeway exit? Or even just crossing the exit and exit ramps from shoulder to shoulder to stay on the freeway?

-- Gary

[Karl Rudnick]

Gary - In your photo there will ALWAYS be a BICYCLES MUST EXIT to avoid the obvious danger. I've ridden many sections like this and if continuing, there always (in my experience) has been an on ramp connecting after getting off. Not sure why a "must use shoulder" is required or even useful. Freeway shoulders are usually very wide and safe to ride. Why wouldn't you use it? I've only had to leave the shoulder in a few cases of extreme debris, usually after a storm, and it's obviously done with extreme caution.

Karl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/caboforum/Miw0fQsvNXA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YwoVcjkW1%2Bo72r%3D1D%3DZCKMmy%3DtzBwC4rX34-y_ejFUj3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Karl,

Thanks for your response.

In your photo there will ALWAYS be a BICYCLES MUST EXIT to avoid the obvious danger.

Can you tell me the CVC section that provides the legal basis for regulatory sign R44C in the case where the next segment of the freeway in question is also open to cyclists?

-- Gary 

[Karl Rudnick]

CVC 21960(b). I guess it's somewhat circular in that you can only be cited if there's a sign that you disobey. So if the sign is NOT there, then no law applies. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I interpret it.

Karl

[Pete Penseyres]

When the route 76 expressway was extended to South Mission Road in Bonsall in 2012, CalTrans built a new two lane bridge over the SLR River EB. It was parallel to and similar to the bridge that bypassed the original Bonsall Bridge that is now almost 100 years old.

As soon as the new bridge was opened to traffic EB cyclists were led directly onto it via a Class II Bike Lane at East Vista Way. The older bridge was then re stripped to be one way WB

However, directional signs were posted to direct WB cyclists to an unmaintained trail over the original bridge, while a Bicycles Prohibited sign was posted on the WB bridge, even though the same bridge had been used for more than 20 years in both directions without any restriction.

The original Bridge is blocked off to all but bikes and pedestrians by gates and bollards. It is connected at both ends and leads to Old River Road. It does NOT meet standards for a Class I Multi-Use trail. Cyclists must possess a reasonable skill level at the connection to Old River Road where a WB cyclist needs to make a nearly 180 degree turn or ride over dirt/sand to make a slightly less tight turn to access 76 WB or East Vista Way.

The restriction was never enforced, perhaps because very few people, including cyclists and CHP noticed it was there? CalTrans does have the ability to restrict use of Expressway bridges. In this case, CalTrans eventually removed the Bicycles Prohibited sign.

Bottom line: Any "give away" to get a "better" freeway/expressway sign, should consider that CalTrans, although much better than they have ever been in recognizing that they serve all drivers, not just drivers in cars, still have a tendency to drift back into CARTrans mode, so should not be given more tools to do so.

Pete Penseyres

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABkk2QYC9vjGYGZO-sANFbKywe3kyYLOETthNu%2BBxvGGWiQVZA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Pete van Nuys]

Caltrans indifference to bicyclist use of freeways differs from District to District in my experience. With the exception of the heavily used I-5 'tween San Clemente and Oceanside, I've never seen a sign expressly offering bicycle access.

/

As Karl says, we ride onto the fwy when there's no sign prohibiting us (usually). But I think there may be on/off ramps where Bikes Must Exit signs are missing. Knowing we're in "car territory" we must be careful hopping from shoulder to shoulder at those ramps. There are uphill sections where the added grade of the offramp motivates me to cross it rather than exit.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

[Pete Penseyres]

I need to make a correction to my Dec 22 post that stated in part:

"As soon as the new bridge was opened to traffic EB cyclists were led directly onto it via a Class II Bike Lane at East Vista Way. The older bridge was then re stripped to be one way WB"

It's not a Class II Bike Lane, but a Class III Bike Route. Everything else is the same, and it does not change the point.

Pete Penseyres

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/b3a901ef-93af-2170-d6b3-e07ea0a56924%40cox.net

.

[William Sellin]

There should be another sign SB at Basilone & at Christinitos right? 

SD Caltrans has to constantly add detour signs when the Marines or State Beach decide to close portions of bike route between Las Pulgas and Christianitos.

Not impossible to merge across on & off ramps, but when traffic demands, it is prudent to exit & re-enter from the few intersections and rest areas along these miles of the 5 Freeway / future USBR 95.

Hope everyone is having a safe & happy seasonal holiday!

Bill Sellin

714 943 3678

WASe...@gmail.com

"Most of the World is either Downhill or Flat…"

On Dec 24, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

Caltrans indifference to bicyclist use of freeways differs from District to District in my experience. With the exception of the heavily used I-5 'tween San Clemente and Oceanside, I've never seen a sign expressly offering bicycle access.

<Bikes Permitted When Old 101 closed.PNG>/

As Karl says, we ride onto the fwy when there's no sign prohibiting us (usually). But I think there may be on/off ramps where Bikes Must Exit signs are missing. Knowing we're in "car territory" we must be careful hopping from shoulder to shoulder at those ramps. There are uphill sections where the added grade of the offramp motivates me to cross it rather than exit.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/b3a901ef-93af-2170-d6b3-e07ea0a56924%40cox.net.

[Jim Baross]

I searched for instances of "bicycle" in the FHWA document about their proposed changes to the MUTCD. I have collected the retrieved items and drafted comments for some items; a work in progress. 

I plan to submit appropriate comments to FHWA. I encourage you each to also do so.

Let us know if you find additional items that CABO might address.

Let me know if you have additional information that would help those of us who will be submitting comments.

The comments that have been submitted to FHWA can be viewed here; https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-0001/comment?postedDateFrom=2020-10-22&postedDateTo=2021-01-19 .

It is somewhat concerning that several of the FHWA items speak to changes to be made but fail to offer explanations of what will be proposed. 

 Jim Baross, CABO President

 League of American Bicyclists Board Member

 League Cycling Instructor Coach

[Jim Baross]

A request to ask FHWA to postpone.

 Jim Baross, CABO President

 League of American Bicyclists Board Member

 League Cycling Instructor Coach

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ken McLeod <k...@bikeleague.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Speak up?; bicycling items and comments for FHWA proposals regarding new MUTCD
To: 

Hi Jim,

We submitted a request to extend the comment period for 90 days: https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2020-0001-0167.  I am hopeful that an extension will be granted.

We've had a couple of organizing calls with other national non-profit groups. I have had separate meetings with our representatives to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) about the League's comments, and the NCUTCD has its own process that groups are engaged with.

I expect many national organizations, including the League, to have similar thematic or top-level asks, and then also have a long and specific comment form as provided by FHWA for specific feedback on language. My initial review comments are in this spreadsheet. NACTO has some recommendations here: https://nacto.org/nacto-recommendations-for-updates-to-fhwa-design-guidance/

If an extension is not granted it will be more difficult to have a coordinated campaign by March 15th. It would be great if CABO and others that you are working with submitted a request for extension.

Best,

Ken

KEN MCLEOD, Policy Director

He/Him/His
K...@BIKELEAGUE.ORG | 202-621-5447

THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS

The National Bike Summit is online February 28-March 3, Register today!   

[Jim Baross]

I want more eyes on this. We will benefit from each others research and proposals for comments.

I'm still researching.

The League is asking for an extention of time for comments.

We are the cyclists. Our concerns should be gathered, shared, and submitted... individually and through our organizations.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 8:23 PM Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

Jim, did you want us to review his spreadsheet and comment or just note his comments?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXdGbomL_VXWdsO76zXO%2B8c8FO60nnmnicVkLRjPXHJTpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bert Hill]

I support the request. It appears to support changes far more oriented to urban Active Transportation and Vision Zero safety improvements, critical to dense urban environments. Indirectly, it could discourage routine vehicular use, a benefit to achievement towards climate goals.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOdir" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabodir+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cabodir/CAG28zXdGbomL_VXWdsO76zXO%2B8c8FO60nnmnicVkLRjPXHJTpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Pete van Nuys]

Time to reflect by more effected citizens is a good thing. I need help reading between the lines. Perhaps a meeting to discuss?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAJ7XdqfMx1Ua%3Dkc9RsG9UbpECtkxoo4COK%2BTFrcs-NSQ1V1D8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Mace]

I saw some things in passing that gave me pause.

1.  Section 5B.06 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities: "To better accommodate machine vision used to support the automation of vehicles, bicycle facilities should be segregated from other vehicle traffic using physical barriers where practicable. Road markings should indicate the end of a bike lane that is merged with other traffic."

This is a dangerous trend, and for anyone who objects to advocates such as ourselves using the word "segregation," whelp, there it is, it's proposed right in the draft MUTCD, and I for one don't like it. I am quite disturbed by the notion that segregation must be increased to accommodate machine vision of AVs.

2.Section 9B.14 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11). "'The Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) sign may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicycles are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists bicycles and motor vehicles to operate side by side.' This seems overly restrictive and unnecessary. In most states there's no law that wouldn't let a person biking use the full lane next to a bike lane or shoulder."

I thought bicyclists couldn't be required to use shoulders.

3. Section 9B.21 LEFT TURN YIELD TO Bicycles Sign (R10-12b). "'The LEFT TURN YIELD TO Bicycles sign is used to emphasize the requirement for motorists to yield to bicycles in situations where the motorist is turning across a bicycle movement that may be unexpected in direction, location, or some other quality that would run counter to the typical bicycle lane.' This seems very concerned with limiting the application of these signs."

This begs the question, what about the elephant in the room, i.e. all the talk about "right turn yield to bicycles signs" to deal with right crosses across protected bikeways? And what exactly does the phrase "typical bicycle lane" mean?

4.Section 9E.09 Shared-Lane Marking. "'The shared-lane marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit of 40 mph or more.' I don't understand why this was raised from 'above 35 mph.' I think that most guidance would have lowered the applicable speed, maybe as low as 25 mph. Bicycle Friendly Community application currently does not ask about shared lane markings on roadways over 35 mph."

What our group more commonly calls sharrows should be usable with 35 mph roadways, and I support raising the mph to 40.

Scott Mace

[Pete van Nuys]

Scott, excellent points. Thank you for your comments.
Pete

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/40ae0b7d-a793-55b7-8a40-b985eec9a1c7%40wiredmuse.com.

[Judy Frankel]

As far as I know that 35 mph limit.on where sharrows can be put.was.completely.removed already from a.previous.version of.the CAMUTCD.  there is no speed.restrictiin on where BMUFL signs or.sharrows may be placed. BMUFL at any speed. Why should there be.  And why reintroduced here.

sent from semi smart phone. please excuse short responses and typos

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/25082a67-b5b8-9d53-a4b9-8399257ecab0%40cox.net

.