I looked at those signs last night and think they mean not yield, but warns motorists and users of the streets (Jackson, Corry) that a ped/bike crossing exists here. the same sort of sign has been in place on Russell and the bike path for several years.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Grant Foster <[email protected]> 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?) > > What do others think of this approach? I feel it's much better than a Stop > sign, although a Yield is still a little off-the-mark based on my > understanding of traffic expectations at a crosswalk. Street traffic is > expected to yield to crosswalk traffic (PEDs and bikes) and crosswalk > traffic is expected to not dart out in front of street traffic in a way > that makes it difficult to yield. So really, the appropriate message for > path users should be 'Caution' (don't get yourself in front of street > traffic that is failing to yield), rather than 'Yield' the right of way (to > street traffic). > > As important as appropriate signage is for path users, signage for the > street users seems even more important. I think many crossings have a 'Path > Crossing' type sign for street traffic (yellow diamond with the bike and > ped pictures?), but what about including a more specific Yield sign? I > honestly don't think most road users know that they should be yielding to > the bike and ped users depicted in the sign. Through the isthmus portion of > the path, I get about 50% of street users yielding and 50% not. Even for > the 50% that yield, I bet many do it because they want to be courteous and > not necessarily because they know it's the law. I think more road users > understand the need to yield at a painted crosswalk and those crosswalks > with additional yield signage at the marked crosswalks are quite clear, but > I don't think there's the same understanding for these high-volume, > unmarked crosswalks. It seems like appropriate signage would be more > effective than just trying to touch on this in Driver's Ed. > > I know traffic engineering is hesitant to create false security through > traffic controls and worries that by using explicit controls (Stop and > Yield signs) for street traffic that path users may feel overconfident and > blindly ride out into the street assuming street traffic will yield. (This > is what I've heard as the reasoning behind not using explicit stop/yield > controls at Dickinson and the path.) I get the worry, but I really think > that philosophy is missing the mark. Why can't we notify/warn/caution path > users of cross-traffic at high-volume and blind crossings, but also > reinforce the expectation to yield for street users? > > What do others think? > > > Grant > > _______________________________________________ > 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
