Maybe simplifying is a good idea. My understanding of legal right of way:
- Road traffic (whether MV or bike) must yield to pedestrians, cyclists or people on assisted mobility devices when in a crosswalk (marked or unmarked). - Crosswalk traffic (whether pedestrian, bike or other) shall not walk, run or ride in front of road traffic (whether MV or bike) in a way that makes it difficult for the vehicle operator to yield. Paint, signage and lights can be used in different combinations to reinforce these expectations. Typically, there will be more treatment (some combination of paint, signage and lights) at a high-volume or dangerous/difficult crossing. My question and concern is *why do we continue to use Stop and Yield signage for Crosswalk traffic and Caution signage for Road traffic?* This seems to conflict with the legal right of way and it does not seem to support safer crossings for all users. *Shouldn't it be the other way around?* (Clear indication to *yield *for road traffic and to exercise *caution *for crosswalk users.) My guess is that it's simply based on the traditional power dynamic of MV's first and I'm trying to challenge that assumption. It's at the heart of this statement: "*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.*" Yes, the crosswalk itself *requires *the vehicle to stop (by law), but compliance with this requirement is strongly correlated to the use of paint, signs, and lights. In the same way, crosswalk traffic is required to exercise caution and not make it difficult for a road vehicle operator to yield whether there's any signage or not. But for higher speed crosswalk traffic (bikes), it can be helpful to call attention to problematic road crossings. The reason this is important, is because I think a lot of MV operators don't realize that cyclists have the right of way in this scenario and I don't believe that the Caution signs used today make this clear for MV operators or at least they are ineffective. I may get 30% or so of MV operators yielding for me at a low-volume street crossing and maybe 5% yielding for me at a busier road. Of those that actually yield, I bet a number are doing it out of courtesy as much as due to an understanding of the law. I think this caution sign means "watch out for bikes" to most drivers and not "yield to bikes". I believe MV operators are more likely to know that pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way (although this isn't necessarily a given and especially if the crosswalk is unmarked), yet we have begun to install signage that includes a Yield element (true, it's not an actual Yield sign) in order to bring about increased compliance and safety. The difference between this: and this: So, I guess I'm advocating for a sign like the last one, but that includes peds and bikes with the Yield element. I believe it would really help compliance without having to take the next step to flashing lights. And as far as the use of Yield signs for path users at road crossings, I think they're unnecessary and confusing. I think the use of a yellow diamond with "Road Crossing Ahead" or a picture of a car serves the same function, but doesn't confuse users on right of way. At the end of the day, all responsible path users know (or need to know) that entering into a roadway is their own responsibility regardless of legal right of way. My sons (7 and 8) know this; it's not a hard concept for them to understand. If a car doesn't see them they will get squished. Be careful when crossing the street, because you're vulnerable. I honestly think the only time to indicate anything to path users at these crossings is when it's a blind crossing and path users who are unfamiliar with the crossing may not realize that cross traffic can appear suddenly (Cap City at Waubesa, for example). For all other crossings, I think these signs are totally superfluous and confusing if they're Yield or Stop signs. My apologies in advance for the embedded images, but I think they're more effective than links and it shouldn't push anyone's inbox over the limit. Grant On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Steve Arnold <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
