Off the top of my head, I can't think of a busier street than West Washington that a bike path crosses in Madison without traffic signals or a bridge. Shouldn't we be insisting on flashing yellow lights to better alert cars of the path crossing?
--- 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 Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM, John Rider <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > --- > > 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 <%2B1%20608%20278%207700> · 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
