Archive for June, 2009

Rumble Strips

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Rumble StripsA NY Times article (6-8-09) discusses the potentially hazardous condition created by rumble strips in roadway shoulders. A bicycle club in New York is trying to force the state to reconsider the placement of rumbles strips that are causing injury to cyclists.  The article highlights the experience of a NYC Police Sergeant:

” ‘I was going real slow, just coasting,’ said Sergeant Wilt, 51. ‘And the next thing I know, I’m doing a 360 over the handlebars. I hit the pavement like Pete Rose sliding into first base. I’m thankful I’m not dead.’ “

The Washington State Department of Transportation recognizes this fact and follows specific guidelines for their placement.

“SRS [shoulder rumble strips] usage on the shoulders of undivided highways demands strategic application because bicycle usage is more prevalent along the shoulder of the undivided highway system.  Rumble strips affect the comfort and control of bicycle riders; consequently, their use is to be limited to highway corridors that experience high levels of run-off-the-road accidents.”

A local website, bicyclewatchdog.org , reports that along Highway 2 in Washington there are rumble strips that force cyclists into the road, opposed to staying in the shoulder.  The image above is posted on bicyclewatchdog.org as an example of poor strip placement (taken of a Wyoming highway).

Chelan County – tisk tisk

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

chelansign21

The federal government publishes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  The Manual is the standard for roadway signage.

Chelan County may be patting themselves on the back, but it’s not deserved (so say the experts).  Communicating with signs should never be a haphazard effort.  Professionals devote their careers to studying the effectiveness of different methods based on color, placement, wording, font, images, etc.  The comments from the transportation professional community do not favor Chelan County’s creation of this new sign (see my prior post).

1 – The sign does not comply with the MUTCD.

2 – The warning sign should be yellow, not brown (normally associated with recreational signs).

3 – The bike symbol is not the standard MUTCD one.

4 – The car symbol unnecessarily crowds the sign – of course cars are on the road!

5 – Chelan County should have used standard signs within the MUTCD rather than create their own one from scratch.

6 – The sign has too many pieces of information to be comprehended fully by a passing driver.

7 – The symbols are too small to be legible at a distance.

Below are the standard images from MUTCD.

bike2farm1ped1