Has anyone else noticed the new signage on the Cap City path at Jackson? There are now mini-Yield signs for path users at the crossing. Previously, there was a Stop sign for westbound path traffic and no sign for eastbound. I think I saw the mini-Yields at another crossing in this stretch (maybe Corry?)
What do others think of this approach? I feel it's much better than a Stop sign, although a Yield is still a little off-the-mark based on my understanding of traffic expectations at a crosswalk. Street traffic is expected to yield to crosswalk traffic (PEDs and bikes) and crosswalk traffic is expected to not dart out in front of street traffic in a way that makes it difficult to yield. So really, the appropriate message for path users should be 'Caution' (don't get yourself in front of street traffic that is failing to yield), rather than 'Yield' the right of way (to street traffic). As important as appropriate signage is for path users, signage for the street users seems even more important. I think many crossings have a 'Path Crossing' type sign for street traffic (yellow diamond with the bike and ped pictures?), but what about including a more specific Yield sign? I honestly don't think most road users know that they should be yielding to the bike and ped users depicted in the sign. Through the isthmus portion of the path, I get about 50% of street users yielding and 50% not. Even for the 50% that yield, I bet many do it because they want to be courteous and not necessarily because they know it's the law. I think more road users understand the need to yield at a painted crosswalk and those crosswalks with additional yield signage at the marked crosswalks are quite clear, but I don't think there's the same understanding for these high-volume, unmarked crosswalks. It seems like appropriate signage would be more effective than just trying to touch on this in Driver's Ed. I know traffic engineering is hesitant to create false security through traffic controls and worries that by using explicit controls (Stop and Yield signs) for street traffic that path users may feel overconfident and blindly ride out into the street assuming street traffic will yield. (This is what I've heard as the reasoning behind not using explicit stop/yield controls at Dickinson and the path.) I get the worry, but I really think that philosophy is missing the mark. Why can't we notify/warn/caution path users of cross-traffic at high-volume and blind crossings, but also reinforce the expectation to yield for street users? What do others think? Grant
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
