Except that all vehicles do NOT have to stop for bicycles, only pedestrians. The bicycles have a stop sign they are required to stop for, and then yield and continue. From Arthur's Right-of-way on bike path doc:
"You are riding on a bicycle path approaching an intersection. You are faced with a stop sign and a marked crosswalk. What should you do? First, from a purely technical perspective, the stop sign is clearly intended for bicyclists on the path. The stop sign requires you to stop, then yield to traffic on the cross street before proceeding. It could be assumed that the marked crosswalk is irrelevant to the bicyclist, except in that it helps draw drivers' attention to the path location." (http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/statutes/BikePathROWAns.pdf) A driver would only have to yield to a bicyclist who was behaving as a pedestrian. The only way to require it would be to change the law, and require drivers to yield to anyone using the path to cross the street, I think. Rich *************************************** Richard Frueh WHEDA Network Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] (608) 267-1080 (o) (608) 267-2825 (f) *************************************** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: net.org Subject: [Bikies] Re: SW Path Street Crossings 10/20/2003 10:28 PM I still like the idea of the city posting signs saying something like: BICYCLE PATH UP AHEAD: ALL VEHICLES MUST STOP FOR BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS The problem now is consistency. Some vehicles stop, others plow right through. If there are two lanes of traffic in each direction (Midvale), or no island(Glenway), it is even more risky. Signs that said the above would greatly reduce the risk for the path users, I believe. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
