Who should do what at a path/street crossing can be confusing, regardless of how it is signed. On this page is a link to a .PDF document "Guide for path/street crossings" that has the DOT's interpretation of who should do what according to the various state statutes involved. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/guide.htm As Robert says below, regardless of what the law is, the most important thing to do is keep yourself safe. At some such intersections I will stick my wheel out in the crosswalk to reinforce my intent to claim my right of way in that crosswalk, but I always give myself an out as to either being able to stop, or knowing that I can jam across quickly if the driver of the approaching vehicle shows no indication of yielding. If I am pulling my daughter in the trailer, I am probably not going to do that. As to what Grant said about how fast or slow a bicycle needs to be going in order to be "...consistent with...a pedestrian...", realize that joggers are considered pedestrians. So a bicyclist does not need to be crawling along or even having to stop before entering the crosswalk, they just need to be aware of the speed of any approaching vehicles and remember: "No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield. " (also from statute 346.24) Be safe out there, John Rider -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert F. Nagel Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:17 PM To: Grant Foster Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] Updated signage on Cap City
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. --- <https://mail.google.com/mail/c/photos/private/AIbEiAIAAAAhCLb07c3c8K-rDxDlm 5Wf5ojdzXEY2Nu6rNaKy9KXATABSD0Us7KFk8TqCxcjefJTk980XpA?sz=32> 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_Conserv ation. 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 <tel:%2B1%20608%20278%207700> 608 278 7700 . Facsimile +1 608 278 7701 <tel:%2B1%20608%20278%207701> [email protected] . http://Arnold.US Become a supporter: like http://facebook.com/ <http://facebook.com/ArnoldforAlder> ArnoldforAlder. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/ <http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-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
