"BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE" signs in the South Bay

We on the same page bruddah! The "Share the Road" signs need to go; they are ambiguous as you point out and ineffective. On Homestead just west of Kiely there is a "Bicycles in Lane" sign created where an existing right of way causes the sidewalk and bike lane to disappear for less than a block (I've been honked at riding in the lane there, even while pointing at the sign - and no, not with that finger). At least someone knew to communicate expectations instead of spew dogma (Share the Road... or else, what?).

Where should BMUFL signs go? Anywhere you see need for sharrows, IMO. Kiely is an example of what Santa Clara considers a "bike route". I'd love for City folks to ride with me there sometime... (to be fair there are N-S alternatives and many safer ways to get around Santa Clara). My point is the city actually recommends riding on it on their maps and marks it with Bike Route signs when it is not the best route for the inexperienced - and sharrows won't fix that but BMUFL at least helps lay expectations succinctly.

A good and worthy cause! I can see many places where this would be warranted. I guess high traffic areas with narrow 'lanes' would be the most important place to point out this right in. Course, I hope that drivers don't start taking the absence of such a sign that the bicyclist don't have the right to use the full lane if the conditions call for it. I agree that the 'share the road signs' are pretty weird. Should really be a warning sign to motorists that there may be extra many bicycles present instead. The rules for sharing the road are already spelled out in the vehicle code. Seems to me, other than this kind of signs, that the cyclist anti-harassment ordinance passed in Sunnyvale must be a good tool for these kind of situations. At least one can then take the quarrels about this off the road. Maybe similar ordinances can be passed in other cities here in the valley. Cause what we really need is more bike lanes, but that is of course obvious.

OTOH bike lanes in general have created an expectation among many drivers that bicyclists may not use the full lane (in my experience with being told "use the bike lane!" where there isn't one on so many occasions). The BMUFL sign is really just an attempt to mitigate ignorance (like "Slower Traffic Keep Right").

Signs are expensive, so the first places to look may be where more incidents occur. I see reference to an Incident Report Database (where is this online?) - maybe this data could be mined to help prioritize location? Also, in theory, where there's good infrastructure (i.e. bike lanes, sidepaths) the signs shouldn't be necessary.

In the South Bay, as in many places, most of the area is quite cyclable, but there are barriers that separate this into islands of cyclability, separated by barriers. Here most of our barriers are freeways, major highways, and train tracks. There tend to be few roads that cross these barriers and where there are such roads, a lot of traffic is funneled onto those roads, and they rarely have good bicycling infrastructure. Examples close to my commute include Hedding and Taylor where they cross the Caltrain tracks, the Alameda where it crosses 880, all of the streets that cross Central Expressway east of Highway 237 to the airport, etc. All of these choke points should have BMUFL signs on them as a minimum. The BMUFL signs are far less expensive than restriping the roads to make room for bike lanes.

My first suggestion is East San Antonio between 17th and King. Not sure about exact best locations. I think it’s a good candidate because it’s a planned bike route, has a medium-high volume of both bicycle and vehicle traffic, and is quite narrow especially if cars are parked along the side, which is often the case.

There are so many to choose from, but I have been basically squeezed off the road between the San Tomas expressway and the Lawrence Expressway on both of these streets. These signs could be a great help in reminding drivers that when there's not a safe place for bikes to ride, the right lane IS the bike lane.

emaurer, I agree with you on those two streets. I use Homestead as a bike-laned alternative to Benton, and Cabrillo instead of Monroe, but I think Monroe would be a great candidate as it's a feeder to the San Tomas Aquino path, Lawrence, and San Tomas X-way.

I took Brittan Road in San Carlos the other day and they've done it right. "May Use Full Lane" signs with "CA 21202" in subtext, and another sign below instructing "Change Lanes to Pass" for those who don't get it. Google Street-view here: https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.502202,-122.250472&spn=0.000436,0.000648&....

S. Wolfe Road on the 'Bay side' of El Camino could use BMUFL signs. Quite a lot of traffic. Two lanes in each direction, no bicycle lane, and not really enough space for a bike and a car in a lane, at least at the part right next to El Camino.

Anyone give me a link to DMV code or a gov't doc that stipulates use of BMUFL signage? I've looked at CA 21202, but what I need with my town's Public Works Director is a citation that shows it is is approved signage. For example, this is all I find at DMV, and it's only sharrows http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm

In 2009 the BMUFL sign was adopted by the federal government. Check out 9B.06 here for guidelines: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9_toc.htm. Here is a letter stating it may be used on streets with speed limits over 35 MPH: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/9_09_19.htm.

In Cupertino: McClellan Rd - The west stretch of the section between S. Stelling Rd and S De Anza Blvd has a pronounced narrowing where BMUFL signs would be warranted. This road has a fair amount of both car and bicycle traffic and this narrowing basically creates a dangerous situation. This road should really have bicycle lanes but in lieu of that some BMUFL signs would help.

2 Years ago, there was a BMUFL sign on Page Mill west of 280 before Arastedero. After a few weeks, it was replaced by the current Share the Road sign. Any one know the story behind the switch. It's a narrow section with high bike traffic, so BMUFL seems justified, but some one must have overruled the original sign.