Bill,
Mr. Hudson says, "I think our signage should remain consistent with our signage on other limited access highways". Monongahela Blvd. is not a limited access highway.
Mr. Hudson's proposed sign violates WV 17C-11-2. WV 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties as the driver of a vehicle".
Mr. Hudson's proposed sign provides no benefit to anyone since a cyclist may ride on the shoulder if he or she deems it safer to do so. Signing the roadway as Mr. Hudson proposes denies cyclists use of the roadway that WV 17C-11-2 gives them.
Prohibiting bicyclists from using the roadway and forcing them to use the shoulder as Mr. Hudson promotes is dangerous for the following reasons:
1. The shoulder is not wide enough to descend at the 45 mph speed limit: a speed achievable by a descending bicycle.
2. The downhill shoulder has large drainage grates that are at least 6-inches below grade: essentially holes that could easily kill a descending cyclist.
3. The downhill shoulder is bounded by an approximate 5-foot high concrete wall with a chain link fence on top. This wall could kill a cyclists should he or she run into it.
4. The shoulder ends in a curb at the bottom where a cyclist's speed could be maximum. Hitting the curb at speed could be fatal.
5. Even if the shoulder is regularly swept, because motor traffic does not regularly travel on the shoulder, occasional debris can be expected to collect presenting a crash hazard.
6. The shoulder is intended as a "break down lane". Given the potential descending cyclist speed, the curvature of the roadway and the distraction of passing motor traffic, a cyclist may not see a broken down vehicle parked on the downhill shoulder in time to take evasive action.
Mr. Hudson cites the Class B cyclist but don't the roadways have to accommodate all cyclists? What data does anybody have about current bicycle use of Mon Blvd? I know at least I and Don Spencer use it regularly and we descend in the rightmost lane in accordance with traffic law. The fact that the lanes are 12 feet wide and that there are two lanes on either side of the roadway permit motorists to pass bicyclists safely without having to wait.
Finally, this is not the first time that WVDOH personnel have referred to bicyclists impeding traffic. When bicycles are traveling on the roadway, they are part of "traffic". Case law: Trotwood v. Selz, 746 N.E. 2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) has found that "a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance (prohibiting vehicle operators from driving at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic) when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can".
The fundamental problem that the WVDOH has is that they want to violate 17C-11-2.
I will add that I agree with Mr. Hudson's proposals in his previous message for increased signage on the climbing lane.
These are my personal comments and do not represent the consensus of the Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board. I need more time for that.
Frank Gmeindl
League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703
From: Bill Austin [mailto:baustin@moncpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:15 AM To: 'Frank Gmeindl'; 'Damien Davis'; 'Terry Hough' Subject: FW: Morgantown Bicycle Lane Importance: High
Frank, Damien, Terry,
Please see the correspondence below. I do not believe the proposed signage is adequate or acceptable for addressing the concern expressed by the Bicycle Board. Previous correspondence I have seen says that the shoulder on the down hill side of Mon Boulevard is the same width as on the uphill side. I do not believe that this true. I don't believe it is either the same width or of the same pavement quality as the shoulder on the uphill side. Can anyone confirm this for me?
The comment below that cyclists on the down slope cannot keep up with traffic is simply a mis-expectation on the writers part. Cyclists should not be expected to match speeds even on flat sections they should be expected to not impede the flow of traffic. These are not the same things. We need to address this misconception quickly. I am not sure how Jim Hudson fits into the picture, I will look into it.
Please let me know your thoughts. I would like to respond to this comment ASAP.
Thanks,
Bill
From: Hudson, Jim E [mailto:Jim.E.Hudson@wv.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:54 AM To: Robinson, Bill C Cc: Keller, Perry J; Warner, Richard L; Lewis, Ray C; Shoukry, Fouad N; Bill Austin Subject: Morgantown Bicycle Lane
Bill
After much thought on the Morgantown Bike Lane issue I think our signage should remain consistent with our signage on other limited access highways. Therefore I propose we limit our signage and roadway markings to those found along Route 50, Route 33, and the East Beckley By-Pass among other places. These signs should be placed on both sides of Monongahela Boulevard and other locations where high-speed and/or high-density traffic and adequate shoulders indicate it is necessary.
While I understand the desire for a "climbing" lane for bicycles, I do not accept the idea that average bicyclists (Class B) can safely maintain the speed of 45 to 50 mph required to keep up with traffic on the downhill side of the road. Bicyclists who want to ride on the road where the signs I propose have been posted are in the same category as those semi drivers who want to drive in the left lane where signage prohibiting trucks in the left lane have been installed.
A photograph of the signage used in these locations is attached to this email.
Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
Jim Hudson
Community Development Specialist
Building 5, Room 863
1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, WV 25305-0430
(304) 558-9613
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.123/2595 - Release Date: 01/05/10 02:35:00
