> The graphic from Miami LOOKS like a traffic sign, but it's > really an advertisement on a bus shelter, so it's out of > Traffic Engineering's jurisdiction, and it's not covered by > the MUTCD. (It might not be a bad idea to have a sign like > that in the MUTCD, but I'm not holding my breath).
=v= The MUTCD's "Bikes May Use Full Lane" sign evolved from signs that San Francisco experimented with. The S.F. sign was a yellow diamond and said "[Bicycles] Allowed Use of Full Lane" (a.k.a. BAUFL). I have a few photos of those signs in the wild: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/tags/baufl The MUTCD argued that, as a regulatory sign, it should be white and rectangular, whereas yellow diamonds are warning signs. They replaced the word "Allowed" with "May" to make it fit. =v= Oddly enough, there's a wide variety of "Share the Road" (StR) signs all over the country. They are all yellow diamond "hazard" signs, and aside from the wording there's absolutely no consistency. I vaguely recall seeing the Miami advert's graphic on somebody's StR sign. =v= Personally I think "Share the Road" is too vague to be of any value. The phrase has even been used against bicyclists who take the lane, sometimes by violent motorists. Even worse, though, some of the graphics on these signs indicate dangerous situations, such as bikes riding in the door zone and not taking the lane. So I don't quite get why the MUTCD was so keen on reining in the BAUFL signs but has done nothing about the years older and far more problematic StR signs! <_Jym_> _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
