Diving even deeper... On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Grant Foster <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
In an attempt to simply a complex issue (always perilous!), I neglected to mention that where Fitchburg uses a "Bicycles Only" plaque below the yield signs. This is an attempt to indicate that "yield" does not apply to pedestrians.
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.
To be clear, I wasn't advocating or describing a four-way yield situation. The crosswalk itself (whether marked or unmarked!) is the traffic control device that requires vehicles on the road to yield. Yield signs are inappropriate and must not be used facing road 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.
Agreed. Speed is an important aspect of riding safely around pedestrians, but there are others.
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. ...
Then you'll love the new advance warning signs on the Badger State Trail: "Trail Crossing Ahead" and "Road Crossing Ahead". However, I think it's important to have a regulatory sign at the crossing itself, not an advisory sign.
-- 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
