Is this sign legal? It makes zero sense to me.
California. This is a residential neighborhood. There is a T-intersection with no control for the roadway (presumably the terminating street is yield control). As far as I know, drivers are required to stop for crosswalk users, and not the other way around.
(https://i.imgur.com/ox4DVRm.jpg)
I would think this is not enforceable. However, there are usually legal provisions for pedestrians not to enter the path of a vehicle when it would be impractical to stop (aka don't jump on the road right in front of a moving car)
So it makes perfect sense and perfectly legal to require pedestrians to lift their eyes off iPhone screen and look on the road before crossing. If it takes such a sigh to achieve that - so be it, it should work
It's possible the stop sign controls bicycles rather than pedestrians, especially considering the width of that sidewalk.
It's quite common around here for bicycle trails.
https://goo.gl/maps/MUb3r37eJvG2
https://goo.gl/maps/iDbvpk2D8zK2
And yes, it is enforceable for bicycles.
I'm reminded of this example (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7802755,-84.2729984,3a,35.4y,116.9h,90.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn2c5jn3AN1J1cHd1geG5mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) near me, which seems just plain weird.
I concur with others that it is being treated as a bicycle lane as much as a sidewalk. Every multi-use trail in Massachusetts has a stop sign at the road crossing, with the town of Chelmsford demanding cyclists dismount and walk across (we can debate that dubious legality down the road).
Pretty normal here for trails
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.014263,-86.1366713,3a,75y,0.55h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQNE7W1rOC4XkemFaRx2og!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0138318,-86.1366626,3a,75y,18.58h,74.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQs9oUO3DswtvEo1ICM4xug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.021707,-86.1367061,3a,88.4y,146.65h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKkwXF86-GKFEymy72TGy-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The width definitely looks more like a multi-use trail than a typical sidewalk. And as others have said, it's not unusual to see stop signs when a trail intersects a roadway. It's common practice on all the trails I've seen in the Vegas area and most of the ones around Reno.
I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?
Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?
At low-volume, low-speed intersections, it's not necessary for there to be signed controls at intersections.
I can think of some sidewalks in DC that have stop signs. I've never seen a single cyclist obey the signs, though. This Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8884058,-77.0508828,3a,75y,140.35h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSLHyhiXrO2lE-GkotDjwyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is from August 2018. See if you can identify the signage errors. (The National Park Service posted the signs, rather than the District of Columbia.)
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?
Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?
As far as I can tell, there is no stop sign, so no duty to stop. Some mutual courtesy yield is usually enough for within neighbourhood intersections with traffic of tens vehicles per day.
Besides, my impression is that there is no real road going straight where camera points, more like a dead end cul-de-sac.
I see them on bike trails all the time, many of which double as sidewalks/hiking trails.
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?
Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?
Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to
yield, not necessarily to
stop. I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:
Quote from: California Vehicle Code – Division 11. Rules of the Road
Chapter 4. Right-of-Way
21800.
(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway" means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?
Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?
Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to yield, not necessarily to stop. I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:
Quote from: California Vehicle Code – Division 11. Rules of the Road
Chapter 4. Right-of-Way
21800.
(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway" means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.
So why is the "intersecting continuing highway" shown a stop sign?
Aren't there standards that must be met to install a stop sign?
I assume trail stop signs must be somewhat enforceable. Well, at least in Washington, as Seattle has at least one four-way stop with a trail: http://bit.ly/2D0BnhC -- it can be a little awkward when several cyclists or pedestrians arrive at the same time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2019, 10:26:49 AM
I can think of some sidewalks in DC that have stop signs. I've never seen a single cyclist obey the signs, though. This Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8884058,-77.0508828,3a,75y,140.35h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSLHyhiXrO2lE-GkotDjwyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is from August 2018. See if you can identify the signage errors. (The National Park Service posted the signs, rather than the District of Columbia.)
I noticed that on my 2006 trip to DC: "State law, vehicles must yield to pedestrians." Um, DC isn't a state.
I also noticed the district motto on the license plates: "Taxation without representation." I thought the slogan was "
No taxation without representation." Oh, this is their snarky comment on their political situation, made instead of actually changing things.
"State Law" is one of the errors. There's another.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 09, 2019, 06:27:09 PM
I assume trail stop signs must be somewhat enforceable. Well, at least in Washington, as Seattle has at least one four-way stop with a trail: http://bit.ly/2D0BnhC -- it can be a little awkward when several cyclists or pedestrians arrive at the same time.
They should take their turns, as if driving in a vehicle. Of course, I'd expect folks out there to actually obey it while cycling. I was utterly stunned by the law-abiding behavior of Washington and Oregon bicyclists. In Chicago, it's the wild wild west and no cyclist obeys any signage. Here, they'd just ignore the stop signs and blow right through them, pedestrians be damned.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2019, 08:49:36 AM
"State Law" is one of the errors. There's another.
Doesn't DC require the use of "stop" instead of "yield" on these signs?
Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2019, 08:52:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2019, 08:49:36 AM
"State Law" is one of the errors. There's another.
Doesn't DC require the use of "stop" instead of "yield" on these signs?
Correct!
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 10:06:23 AM
I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?
Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?
Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to yield, not necessarily to stop. I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:
Quote from: California Vehicle Code – Division 11. Rules of the Road
Chapter 4. Right-of-Way
21800.
(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway" means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.
So why is the "intersecting continuing highway" shown a stop sign?
I looked at the OP photo again, and I don't see a stop sign on the intersecting continuing highway. There's a stop sign on
path, but not the road next to it. The statute I cited was to point out that cross-traffic is not required to stop in the absence of signs, merely to yield–and that "cross traffic does not stop" could technically be a correct interpretation of the intersection.
Quote from: jamess on January 09, 2019, 06:08:35 PM
Aren't there standards that must be met to install a stop sign?
meh.
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.
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?
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?
It certainly requires more work than doing so in a car.
Accelerating on a bike costs physical energy. Doing so in a car requires a slight shifting of a foot.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
(https://i.imgur.com/HkESjdW.jpg)
They have bike trails in Michigan that have stop signs like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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,
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: jamess on January 11, 2019, 05:09:58 PM
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.
Geez, all that pomp and circumstance for a trail that peters out after crossing the street... Virtually nobody is going to cross there.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2019, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 11, 2019, 11:57:05 PM
And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.
Probably once a week, I see someone come to a complete stop at an uncontrolled intersection. No stop sign, no yield sign, no nothin'. Then, probably once a month, I see someone come to a complete stop at an intersection where the cross street has stop signs. :banghead:
The former, I can understand in tight one-lane urban areas like this (http://bit.ly/2QIkTy5) (one of literally hundreds of uncontrolled intersections in Seattle), but the latter ... that's just inattentive (although when you get used to slowing down at every intersection, I can see how the mistake can happen, especially in areas where horizontal visibility is poor, like in my example).
Quote from: jakeroot on January 12, 2019, 02:24:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2019, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 11, 2019, 11:57:05 PM
And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.
Probably once a week, I see someone come to a complete stop at an uncontrolled intersection. No stop sign, no yield sign, no nothin'. Then, probably once a month, I see someone come to a complete stop at an intersection where the cross street has stop signs. :banghead:
The former, I can understand in tight one-lane urban areas like this (http://bit.ly/2QIkTy5) (one of literally hundreds of uncontrolled intersections in Seattle), but the latter ... that's just inattentive (although when you get used to slowing down at every intersection, I can see how the mistake can happen, especially in areas where the stop signs are not obvious).
We have intersections like that here too. I can see yielding at the intersection for an uncontrolled intersection like that but if you don't have to stop you shouldn't come to a complete stop either. You're never going to know if someone is flying down the street that you are crossing and with the way people in Michigan drive that isn't uncommon to happen.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 11, 2019, 11:57:05 PM
And then you come across the people that come to a complete stop at a yield sign for no reason at all. Only reason to stop at a yield sign would be if there is traffic coming, if not you don't come to a complete stop.
I can understand stopping, or coming almost to a complete stop, at a yield sign if you feel like you're having trouble seeing the other road to determine whether it's clear; examples of that sort of situation might be the sun in your eyes or construction equipment in the way or some such. Stopping in those situations is just the sensible thing to do. But yeah, some people overdo it.
On the Arizona Canal (Sun Circle) Trail (Ped, Bicycles & Horses) at the 25th Avenue Crossing/Crosswalk (approx 1/4 mile north of Dunlap Avenue) in Phoenix, AZ there are stop signs on the trail. The speed limit on 25th Avenue is 35 and the street has 5 lanes (2 Bicycle, 2 Thru and a 2 Way Left Turn . But Soon 25th will be narrowed to 1 lane each direction with Valley Metro Light Rail Phase 2 NW Extension construction beginning in mid to late 2019 to be complete in 2021-2023. With the trains a Traffic Signal or a Underpass would be required for the trail crossing. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5714941,-112.1121376,86m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5714941,-112.1121376,86m/data=!3m1!1e3)
So, carrying this comparison to its natural next step...
Perhaps a cyclist should at every intersection dismount, move the bicycle to the roadside, cover it with a blue tarp, wave a red flag, and shout "WATCH OUT! CYCLIST!", then proceed only if traffic is clear within three blocks, walking (not riding) his bicycle across the intersection at a speed no greater than 2½ mph–all while wearing the proper attire, including fully reflective jacket and trousers, helmet-mounted spotlight, bicycle-mounted headlight and taillight, all while blowing a whistle.
Then...
maybe...
just maybe...
we can make a dent in the brutish behavior exhibited by these insects of the roadway.
Or, alternatively, we could all admit that a reasonable approach to an intersection by a cyclist is not necessariliy the same as a reasonable approach by a motorist. And that coming to a complete stop actually puts a cyclist at greater risk than not stopping (especially when clipped in or carrying a heavy load or cycling with companions or on a hill or on soft gravel or you get the idea). And that there's not actually a problem needing correction to begin with.
[/snark]
[/rant]
Better.
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:12:41 AM
Better.
Actuallty found the original one. Much worse than I expected, it is clearly a deliberate fake news one.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/12/injuryprev-2018-043025
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2019, 10:12:41 AM
Better.
Oh, and if you need these to craft DOTs response to those speed reduction requests from Malta or CP, I can write a better analysis with more professional terminology. Will be happy to help showing those folks a big middle finger.
Quote from: kalvado on January 30, 2019, 10:16:18 AM
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.
A lower deviation in speeds from the mean is a definite operational safety improvement, even if the mean speed remained the same. Injury severity and fatality rates of struck pedestrians increase dramatically in the 30—50 mph range, so keeping as many vehicles out of that range as possible is definitely desirable.
QuoteThe speed limit reduction was associated with a 0.3 % reduction in mean speeds (p=0.065), and reductions of 2.9%, 8.5% and 29.3 % in the odds of vehicles exceeding 25 mph, 30 mph and 35 mph, respectively. All these reductions were statistically significant.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 30, 2019, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 30, 2019, 10:16:18 AM
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.
A lower deviation in speeds from the mean is a definite operational safety improvement, even if the mean speed remained the same. Injury severity and fatality rates of struck pedestrians increase dramatically in the 30—50 mph range, so keeping as many vehicles out of that range as possible is definitely desirable.
QuoteThe speed limit reduction was associated with a 0.3 % reduction in mean speeds (p=0.065), and reductions of 2.9%, 8.5% and 29.3 % in the odds of vehicles exceeding 25 mph, 30 mph and 35 mph, respectively. All these reductions were statistically significant.
All these reductions were statistically significant. <- Bullshit
Pretty obvious from Providence data.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2019, 04:06:28 PM
unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly -1% chance of being considered.
FTFY with appropriate spacing. :biggrin:
Quote from: kphoger on January 30, 2019, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2019, 04:06:28 PM
unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly -1% chance of being considered.
FTFY with appropriate spacing. :biggrin:
no i'm retarded and put in a hyphen. I meant +1% (though the annoyed engineers who received the request may install a few extra stop signs for fun, making it negative!)
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2019, 04:42:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 30, 2019, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2019, 04:06:28 PM
unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly -1% chance of being considered.
FTFY with appropriate spacing. :biggrin:
no i'm retarded and put in a hyphen. I meant +1% (though the annoyed engineers who received the request may install a few extra stop signs for fun, making it negative!)
You're unduly optimistic.
Quote from: kphoger on January 30, 2019, 04:43:39 PM
You're unduly optimistic.
I usually am. :-D
Quote from: kalvado on January 30, 2019, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2019, 04:06:28 PM
I'm not trying to say that right-angle yields are bad. Just that, I hardly ever see them used by city/state/county engineers. Baloo's request that unwarranted stop signs be replaced has a roughly-1% chance of being considered.
I have seen new right-angle yields, but mostly in suburban developments, like in Olympia, WA: http://bit.ly/2CSNfkr
Neither do I. I am just thinking about different engineering approaches to signing and associated limitations.
My impression is that for right angle yield to actually work, you need at least 30-40 feet of visibility across the corner - OR drivers who know the deal and take yield sign as a "rolling stop" (unsigned intersection + common courtesy may work). None of your two examples provides enough visibility IMHO, and actually I don't understand the logic why those particular spots got yield, while similar spots nearby got either stop or no signs at all.
Those examples (except the last one) are all pretty old. I don't exactly how they ended up installing yield signs at those locations. Maybe the engineers were foreign? There's quite a few right-angle yields in Vancouver proper (as I mentioned), where there's also a ton of first- and second-gen English immigrants that very well could have brought their practices with them.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 30, 2019, 08:45:03 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 30, 2019, 10:16:18 AM
Actuallty found the original one. Much worse than I expected, it is clearly a deliberate fake news one.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/12/injuryprev-2018-043025
All observed effects are within the error margin. Lowering speed limit did not demonstrably affect traffic flow. Average speed and 85% were not affected at all, fluctuations in distribution are responsible for the rest of "results"
Next, please.
I'm not able to read anything more than the abstract on account of being paywalled.
If anyone has access, I am curious to know:
- The methods used to measure speed (particularly if it is average speed or spot speed)
- Whether they account for possible differences in the levels of enforcement before and after the speed limit drop, or between the study area and the control area.
There is nothing fancy in the measurement approach. Not accounting for anything beyond most basic things.
Here is their main table:
(https://i.imgur.com/SnaOe00.jpg)
My main concern is that they see variations of similar type and magnitude both at Boston site and Providence site. There is no explanation of why Providence got any change at all - so I assume those are day-to-day variations.
But they do attribute same variations (aka measurement error margin) in Boston to speed limit change - and claim those are statistically significant. WHich is IMHO dishonest at best.
If you want original text, PM me..
Quote from: Duke87 on January 30, 2019, 08:45:03 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 30, 2019, 07:55:10 AM
Going to straight yield for cars may be a bit more hazard as yield doesn't imply single digit MPH.
It doesn't have to. When you as a driver see a yield sign, you are supposed to slow down as much as necessary to ensure the coast is clear before proceeding, and you are expected as a competent driver to be able to judge how much that is. If you have a situation where vehicles can safely proceed after having slowed down to 5 mph but no faster, that should be a yield sign. Even if the speed limit approaching the sign is 55. A stop sign should not be used unless an ordinary driver in ordinary conditions cannot determine if the coast is clear at any speed greater than 0 mph.
I see what you say, but I am a bit more cautious. You put a lot of faith into driver's common sense and vehicle braking capabilities, I suspect such approach would increase problems with drivers not familiar with the area.
I would say that for many drivers yield sign means they can maintain relatively high speed and there is enough time to stop if needed. It is not about what MUTCD or state law says, this is about sign perception by drivers - IMHO it is a priority sign.
If anything, a sign which explicitly assumes a very low speed approach is missing from the sign pallet. Stop sign plays that role, at least over here, for lack of a better candidate.