I believe the plan approved for the bike path in this area is for tables to be built so the bike path is completely level and the cross-streets need to stop for the path. Putting yield signs for bikes there is therefore a move in the wrong direction. (I don't know the difference between a yield sign and a mini-yield sign and I haven't ridden through there.) The city put yield signs on the bike path closer to Blair Street over ten years ago. Numerous loud complaints resulted in their being removed a day or two later. A change like this in the wrong direction should certainly not have been made without consulting the neighborhood association and its very active transportation committee.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]>wrote: > We are talking about this on a quite sophisticated level here, but I think > we have a big problem that is not being overlooked or perhaps even being > aggravated. I don't have the solution, but allow me to put the problem on > the table: > > My 13 year-old daughter is a regular rider of the Greenbush Link and > Southwest Bike Path, especially between North Shore and Commonwealth. She > crosses West Washington, and, of course, Monroe and Regent. Monroe and > Regent is not so much of an issue, since the lights and signs are clear. > West Washington is a huge issue. All the other crossings are issues as > well. The summer before last, when she was 12, and first learning how to > ride this on her own, she darted across West Washington. When I caught my > breath and stopped yelling at her for that move, I asked her what made her > think she could do that. She told me that she had been told by what would > otherwise be a responsible adult that, "The cars have to stop for you." She > has been reeducated that regardless of what the cars are supposed to do > (which is not really clear), she is supposed to stop at West Washington. As > for the lesser streets, she should at least slow down and make sure it's > safe to cross. Bottom line: I'm not sure what signs are where, but I think > we have a problem bigger than needing to add or swap some signs here and > there. > > --- > > Robert F. Nagel, Attorney > Law Offices of Robert Nagel > [email protected] > www.nagel-law.com > Thirty on the Square, 10th Floor > 30 W. Mifflin St., Suite 1001 > Madison, WI 53703 > 608-255-1501 office > 608-255-1504 fax > 608-438-9501 cell > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Grant Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, Steve. I think we're pretty much in agreement. I don't terribly >> mind the path-user mini-yield approach, but it does clash with the >> 'programmer' part of my brain. Pedestrians don't have yield signs at other >> uncontrolled crosswalks, yet they understand the need to not put themselves >> in the position of wearing a motor vehicle. I think the point you make >> about speeds is important and giving fair warning to path users travelling >> at higher speeds seems like good sense. This is probably most important at >> high-volume crossings and crossings with poor visibility. I do think the >> same communication could be accomplished by a 'motor vehicle crossing' type >> sign. Something like this: >> http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4QWG_Car_Crossing_Credit_Valley_Conservation. >> You get the same awareness for path users without confusing the issue of >> right-of-way. >> >> Part of the dissonance with the yield sign for me is in imagining a >> four-way yield environment. I don't think I've ever seen one and it just >> seems confusing. The fact that the law does clearly give right-of-way to >> traffic in a crosswalk seems at odd with using a yield sign to alert path >> users to cross traffic. I haven't seen anything in the law related to >> cyclists only getting "pedestrian rights" if they're travelling at ped >> speeds, but maybe it's called out somewhere. Here's the reg I'm familiar >> with: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/346.24 It >> does say that the user of the crosswalk must be "riding... in a manner >> which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk by pedestrians." I >> don't see that defined anywhere, but maybe that's where the ped-speed >> interpretation comes from. >> >> So basically, while I much prefer the yield sign to the stop sign for >> path users, I think a 'caution' or awareness-raising sign would be more >> consistent with defined right-of-way and would be as effective to keep path >> traffic from acting stupidly. But more importantly, I'd like to see more >> "yield" to crosswalk traffic signs for street users at high-volume >> crossings. >> >> I'd be game in helping on the awareness building campaign you describe as >> well. Other great locations to do this would be the SWC path at North >> Shore, W. Washington or Midvale. You can sit through dozens and dozens of >> motor vehicles before someone yields or, more likely, until there's a gap >> in the traffic to squeeze through. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Steve Arnold < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 12/21/2013 8:49 AM, Grant Foster wrote: >>> >>>> 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?) >>>> ... >>>> >>> >>> I've not seen the sign in question, but I approve. I've argued that >>> until we get the "Idaho stop" law (bicyclists treat stop signs as yield >>> signs) in WI, we should >>> 1. Use yield signs wherever appropriate (low volumes and good sight >>> distances) instead of stop signs, and >>> 2. Use mini-yield signs instead of mini-stop signs wherever multi-use >>> paths cross roads, except where there are active signals. >>> >>> This policy gives the same effect as the Idaho stop for bicyclists in >>> those situations, maintaining human-powered momentum, and for case 2, makes >>> regular motorist behavior (rolling through intersections) legal where it's >>> safe, saving time, fuel, and pollution. >>> >>> This policy has been adopted in Fitchburg, but we only have one yield >>> intersection for motorists so far. I've argued that when we need stop >>> signs for new intersections, we buy yield signs and swap them for existing >>> stop signs at low volume intersections, e.g., within subdivisions, but we >>> haven't done that yet. >>> >>> When the DNR put new signage along the Badger State Trail this fall >>> (e.g., "trail crossing ahead"), the mini-yield signs at Marketplace Dr were >>> replaced by mini-stop signs. I went over Fitchburg's reasons for the >>> policy above with the official who directed the change, and the DNR >>> converted the mini-stop signs back to mini-yield signs at that location. >>> (I also argued for mini-yields at Adams Rd, and for keeping stop signs at >>> the busier crossings at M, Lacy, and PD/McKee, for obvious reasons.) >>> >>> <opinion lawyer="no" checkedwithDOT="no"> >>> To your point about crossing behavior, bicyclists only have pedestrian >>> rights at crosswalks when operating at ped speeds, but by default, bikes >>> are operated at substantially higher speeds. So it is correct (but >>> potentially confusing, I agree) to have yield signs facing *both* the >>> motorists and the bicyclists where a path crosses a road. This means: >>> 1. If there is a gap, bikes may proceed with caution, otherwise >>> bicyclists must stop. >>> 2. If bicyclists stop, then proceed at pedestrian speeds, motorists >>> must yield to them. >>> Bicyclists who blow through such crossings at normal bicycle speeds and >>> crash with motor vehicles should appropriately be cited for failure to >>> yield, as bicycles are legal vehicles. >>> </opinion> >>> >>> Now, I agree that the preceding paragraph is way beyond the capability >>> and/or interest of most motorists and bicyclists to understand or care (You >>> should not have to be a programmer or lawyer to safely negotiate an >>> intersection), but the key directive that we all need to be reinforcing is >>> much simpler: Motorists must yield to crosswalk users! >>> >>> My view is that the most effective way to get this message across is to >>> invite all the local TV stations to the Badger State Trail crossing at >>> McKee, and some other busy crossings, for some well-publicized path >>> crossing enforcement stings. Next April would be a good month for that, to >>> prepare motorists for May, national Bicycle Month. >>> -- >>> Steve Arnold, Fitchburg Alder, District 4, Seat 7 >>> 2530 Targhee Street, Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711-5491 >>> Telephone +1 608 278 7700 · Facsimile +1 608 278 7701 >>> [email protected] · http://Arnold.US >>> Become a supporter: like http://facebook.com/ArnoldforAlder. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bikies mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > -- "If we continue to consume the world until there's no more to consume, then there's going to come a day, sure as hell, when our children or their children or their children's children are going to look back on us--on you and me--and say to themselves, 'My God, what kind of monsters were these people?'" --Daniel Quinn
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
