News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Stop sign for sidewalk

Started by jamess, January 08, 2019, 04:36:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NoGoodNamesAvailable

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2019, 05:24:01 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 10, 2019, 04:52:36 PM
Honestly, stop signs for bicycles are unnecessary in all but the most constrained conditions. A bicycle has much better visibility and stopping distance than a car, and coming to a full stop on a bike is an undue annoyance. The standard for MUPs should have been yield signs, but as with a lot of misguided MUTCD additionsHAWK beacons it seems we've gone too far using an inferior treatment to go back and change it.

An annoyance?  Is it really all that hard to put your feet down on the ground and stop?  Or are you just too lazy to do so?

With clipless pedals stopping is a bit of an ordeal. I tend to trackstand if I'm only stopping for a few seconds, but I don't see why that's safer or more desirable than me slowing down (to as low as 2 mph if necessary) and proceeding when clear.


jamess

Id also like to note that everything in the photo is brand new, which is why I havent provided a Google Maps link. Not even on satellite, never mind street view.

As such, any concerns about visibility shouldn't have been allowed to happen since it was a farm when they put the drawings together.

kalvado

I definitely disagree with bicycles having better visibility. Many folks pedal basically face down and not moving their head much.
Doing yield (aka stop if needed) IMHO makes sense - but I suspect yield signs would be treated as no signs at all.

sparker

2 questions:  (1) Exactly where in CA was the picture taken:  incorporated city or county territory?....and (2) What is the signage on the terminating street just prior to the crosswalk? (can't tell from the angle of the camera). 

jamess

Quote from: sparker on January 11, 2019, 02:05:43 AM
2 questions:  (1) Exactly where in CA was the picture taken:  incorporated city or county territory?....and (2) What is the signage on the terminating street just prior to the crosswalk? (can't tell from the angle of the camera).

Clovis, CA. The entire neighborhood is brand new, so it's not in google maps.

Here is the view from the roadway


Flint1979

They have bike trails in Michigan that have stop signs like that.

jamess

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Traffic control in a city is necessarily operates on right of way concepts. There is not enough grade separation, and flying vehicles are few and far in between.  Pretty much everyone has to stop in certain situations and let others pass. Even energency vehicles usually slow way down at intersections.
These comments about how difficult it is to stop and speed up mean only one thing - such loaded bicycles do not belong to the city, period. There has to be an option of reasonably obeying traffic control, or limit operations to dedicated tracks beyond normal traffic ops.

Id appreciate it if you could focus on the question at hand.

Why does the terminating street have the right of way? Does this not go against what most roadway users expect?

Is the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?

Does the "cross traffic does not stop" sign impact how people use the facility? Drivers are required to stop for crosswalk users. If the drivers see the sign, it is reasonable to assume that is not the case, creating a conflict.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Traffic control in a city is necessarily operates on right of way concepts. There is not enough grade separation, and flying vehicles are few and far in between.  Pretty much everyone has to stop in certain situations and let others pass. Even energency vehicles usually slow way down at intersections.
These comments about how difficult it is to stop and speed up mean only one thing - such loaded bicycles do not belong to the city, period. There has to be an option of reasonably obeying traffic control, or limit operations to dedicated tracks beyond normal traffic ops.

Id appreciate it if you could focus on the question at hand.

Why does the terminating street have the right of way? Does this not go against what most roadway users expect?

The terminating street does not always have the right of way. Based on state law, the driver approaching an uncontrolled intersections needs to yield to others.

QuoteIs the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?

Yes.  The stop sign is a traffic control device, and no matter where it is placed, it supersedes any other statute rule in regards to uncontrolled intersections.

QuoteDoes the "cross traffic does not stop" sign impact how people use the facility? Drivers are required to stop for crosswalk users. If the drivers see the sign, it is reasonable to assume that is not the case, creating a conflict.

Drivers are required to stop for PEDESTRIAN crosswalk users.  If a bicyclist is on the bicyclist, he/she is not a pedestrian.  If a bicyclist gets off the bike and walks the bike, then he/she is a pedestrian.

Other rules apply.  While pedestrians normally have the right of way in a crosswalk, it's also often stated that the pedestrian still needs to yield to traffic if the traffic is so close to the intersection that they wouldn't be able to safely stop, the pedestrian needs to wait until it's safe to enter the crosswalk.

NE2

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
Drivers are required to stop for PEDESTRIAN crosswalk users.  If a bicyclist is on the bicyclist, he/she is not a pedestrian.  If a bicyclist gets off the bike and walks the bike, then he/she is a pedestrian.
Stop lying.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

kalvado

Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Traffic control in a city is necessarily operates on right of way concepts. There is not enough grade separation, and flying vehicles are few and far in between.  Pretty much everyone has to stop in certain situations and let others pass. Even energency vehicles usually slow way down at intersections.
These comments about how difficult it is to stop and speed up mean only one thing - such loaded bicycles do not belong to the city, period. There has to be an option of reasonably obeying traffic control, or limit operations to dedicated tracks beyond normal traffic ops.

Id appreciate it if you could focus on the question at hand.

Why does the terminating street have the right of way? Does this not go against what most roadway users expect?

Is the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?

Does the "cross traffic does not stop" sign impact how people use the facility? Drivers are required to stop for crosswalk users. If the drivers see the sign, it is reasonable to assume that is not the case, creating a conflict.
I do not see this as a terminating street. My impression it is an L configuration with a cul-de-sac attached to the corner. You don't provide full map though(and I understand it is not that simple, just a statement that there is no map  -no blame).
Whatever users expect most is to survive the trip - and sign should help with that. Drivers are required to stop for crosswalk traffic, but pedestrians and bicyclists are equally required not to jump in front of a moving vehicle. Stretch of bike path past stone wall is not long enough for driver to reasonably see bicyclist moving at full speed AND stop before impact, neither it is long enough for bicyclist to do the same.
Looks like you are confused with "cross traffic" statement. It is usually used to say that cross traffic doesn't have stop sign, as opposed to cross traffic keeps moving no matter what. Drivers have a big pedestrian crossing sign facing them, which has same meaning as in most cases.  I don't see a conflict here.
Maybe stop sign is not legally enforceable - but, as in all such situations, telling ER doctor or funeral director that sign was illegal wouldn't affect their actions.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
Drivers are required to stop for PEDESTRIAN crosswalk users.  If a bicyclist is on the bicyclist, he/she is not a pedestrian.  If a bicyclist gets off the bike and walks the bike, then he/she is a pedestrian.
Stop lying.

Is someone driving an 18 wheeler on a sidewalk a pedestrian? 

jakeroot

#36
States need to be more specific, like WA: RCW 46.61.235

Quote
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

The rest of the law does not refer to "pedestrian(s)" without also saying "or bicycle".

RCW 46.61.261 shows the order of ROW to be pedestrians > bicycles > cars, and RCW 46.61.606 prohibits "driv[ing] any vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area".

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on January 11, 2019, 03:05:47 PM
States need to be more specific, like WA: RCW 46.61.235

Quote
(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

The rest of the law does not refer to "pedestrian(s)" without also saying "or bicycle".

RCW 46.61.261 shows the order of ROW to be pedestrians > bicycles > cars, and RCW 46.61.606 prohibits "driv[ing] any vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area".

CA doesn't go into deep details on bicycle operation. However there is one clear statement (VEH-21950):
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
I don't see any reason not to apply this to bicycles - and that is seemingly the goal behind original question

kphoger

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 03:47:36 PM
I don't see any reason not to apply this to bicycles

I see a big reason not to apply it to bicycles:  that law doesn't say anything about bicycles.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

NoGoodNamesAvailable

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Is the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?
Yes.  The stop sign is a traffic control device, and no matter where it is placed, it supersedes any other statute rule in regards to uncontrolled intersections.

That's not true, at least not universally. In jurisdictions I'm familiar with, designation of through roads and placement of stop signs need to be specified in an order or regulation pursuant to a specific statutory process for the device to be official. It's the existence of the order or regulation that makes the regulation enforceable, not just the physical existence of a sign.

As someone mentioned upthread, there are cases where all the tickets at a particular location need to be thrown out because the installing authority didn't follow the proper procedure to make the device official.

Considering how specific some states' laws are as to which agencies have authority to effect which road regulations, it's possible that the law in some jurisdictions may not allow for any process that would officially designate modified right-of-way rules at a mixed-use path crossing. In that case, the STOP signs on the mixed-use path approaches would be legally meaningless and their physical placement may violate state law, even if the assembly is MUTCD-compliant.

kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 03:47:36 PM
I don't see any reason not to apply this to bicycles

I see a big reason not to apply it to bicycles:  that law doesn't say anything about bicycles.
Well, maybe you're right. But.... Physics doesn't care about that. Neither do funeral directors.



kphoger

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 11, 2019, 03:54:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Is the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?
Yes.  The stop sign is a traffic control device, and no matter where it is placed, it supersedes any other statute rule in regards to uncontrolled intersections.

That's not true, at least not universally. In jurisdictions I'm familiar with, designation of through roads and placement of stop signs need to be specified in an order or regulation pursuant to a specific statutory process for the device to be official. It's the existence of the order or regulation that makes the regulation enforceable, not just the physical existence of a sign.

As someone mentioned upthread, there are cases where all the tickets at a particular location need to be thrown out because the installing authority didn't follow the proper procedure to make the device official.

Considering how specific some states' laws are as to which agencies have authority to effect which road regulations, it's possible that the law in some jurisdictions may not allow for any process that would officially designate modified right-of-way rules at a mixed-use path crossing. In that case, the STOP signs on the mixed-use path approaches would be legally meaningless and their physical placement may violate state law, even if the assembly is MUTCD-compliant.

Correct.  In a similar way, if a stop sign were erected at the intersection of two sidewalks in the middle of a city park, failing to stop while walking through the park wouldn't be illegal simply because there's a stop sign there.  Rather, there would have to be a law requiring that pedestrians must stop at a stop sign at an intersection of sidewalks.

In the California case, the stop sign would only be legally binding on a pedestrian if there is a law requiring pedestrians to stop for stop signs at all.  So far, nobody on this thread has come up with a pertinent law requiring pedestrians to stop for stop signs.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:04:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 11, 2019, 03:54:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
Is the stop sign legal in terms of meeting warrants and such?
Yes.  The stop sign is a traffic control device, and no matter where it is placed, it supersedes any other statute rule in regards to uncontrolled intersections.

That's not true, at least not universally. In jurisdictions I'm familiar with, designation of through roads and placement of stop signs need to be specified in an order or regulation pursuant to a specific statutory process for the device to be official. It's the existence of the order or regulation that makes the regulation enforceable, not just the physical existence of a sign.

As someone mentioned upthread, there are cases where all the tickets at a particular location need to be thrown out because the installing authority didn't follow the proper procedure to make the device official.

Considering how specific some states' laws are as to which agencies have authority to effect which road regulations, it's possible that the law in some jurisdictions may not allow for any process that would officially designate modified right-of-way rules at a mixed-use path crossing. In that case, the STOP signs on the mixed-use path approaches would be legally meaningless and their physical placement may violate state law, even if the assembly is MUTCD-compliant.

Correct.  In a similar way, if a stop sign were erected at the intersection of two sidewalks in the middle of a city park, failing to stop while walking through the park wouldn't be illegal simply because there's a stop sign there.  Rather, there would have to be a law requiring that pedestrians must stop at a stop sign at an intersection of sidewalks.

In the California case, the stop sign would only be legally binding on a pedestrian if there is a law requiring pedestrians to stop for stop signs at all.  So far, nobody on this thread has come up with a pertinent law requiring pedestrians to stop for stop signs.
However this discussion tends to agree that the sign there is primarily for bicycles - which do have rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

kphoger

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:43:39 PM
However this discussion tends to agree that the sign there is primarily for bicycles - which do have rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

And I think, now, we're back to the beginning of the discussion.   :spin:
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:43:39 PM
However this discussion tends to agree that the sign there is primarily for bicycles - which do have rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

And I think, now, we're back to the beginning of the discussion.   :spin:
Well, I think we can always agree that there are two possible things to discuss.
(a)Pedestrians are not bound by stop sign, but bound by "if it is impractical for vehicle to stop" aka "look around, idiot!"
(b)Bicyclists, which are not pedestrians. 

jakeroot

As far as I can tell, at least in WA, pedestrians are only required to follow pedestrian signals (RCW 46.61.060). There is no mention of signs.

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:50:21 PM
(b)Bicyclists, which are not pedestrians. 

But they are granted the same rights as pedestrians in some states.

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on January 11, 2019, 04:53:09 PM
As far as I can tell, at least in WA, pedestrians are only required to follow pedestrian signals (RCW 46.61.060). There is no mention of signs.

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:50:21 PM
(b)Bicyclists, which are not pedestrians. 

But they are granted the same rights as pedestrians in some states.
Not in CA. VEC-21200
(a) (1) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs,

kphoger

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:56:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 11, 2019, 04:53:09 PM
As far as I can tell, at least in WA, pedestrians are only required to follow pedestrian signals (RCW 46.61.060). There is no mention of signs.

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:50:21 PM
(b)Bicyclists, which are not pedestrians. 

But they are granted the same rights as pedestrians in some states.
Not in CA. VEC-21200
(a) (1) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs,


What about a person riding a bicycle upon a highway sidewalk?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jamess

Folks, good news! I made a mistake, and this specific example is available on Google Maps. My memory had me 2 miles away.

I hope this link works:
https://goo.gl/maps/6pbvUBm1LJU2

Street View is not available.

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:56:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 11, 2019, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 11, 2019, 04:50:21 PM
(b)Bicyclists, which are not pedestrians. 

But they are granted the same rights as pedestrians in some states.
Not in CA. VEC-21200
(a) (1) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs,


I'm sure WA and a few others are alone in granting cyclists the same rights as pedestrians at cross-over points. But at least the law reflects common usage, which is, cyclists will use trails when it's better than a road, but otherwise a road. There is simply no best option for cyclists, so it's better to just permit them to ride everywhere, as long as they yield to peds.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.