Bike paths that cross a road

Here's my "hmmm, I wonder..."

In my little town, there is a fairly good sized "greenway" --
basically a pretty decent bike path. It is a good 10, maybe 12 feet
wide, smooth cement, well laid out, etc. The path has some real good
stretches on it that are at least 8 miles long, uninterupted. The
interuption is usually where one section has not been joined to the
next section. The city is real close to finishing the entire loop,
then it will be a circle around the city and be about 20, maybe 25
miles long. A real bonus for the community and a good testament to how
well this city takes care of things. (it helps that a city councilman
also owns a bike shop in town)

On a few spots, the path crosses a road. Some of these spots are at a
stoplight and there are WALK-DON'T WALK lights/signs/indicators. Many
spots on the path, it just crosses the road. Every spot where the
path crosses the road, there is a road sign on the road indicating
that there is a crossing ahead. A few of these crossings are also
demarked with a crosswalk on the road. On the path, there is a far
from legal "STOP" sign. I say far from legal as the sign is made of
wood and about 1/4 the size of a legal stop sign.

So, finally, to my ponderment.... If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault. When I took
drivers ed, all those years ago, I was taught that a crosswalk always
has the right of way and that a car MUST stop for people in it. I was
also taught the difference of the road sign with a marked crosswalk
and an unmarked crosswalk (the marked crosswalk has two lines on the
road sign underneath the pedestrian, an unmarked crosswalk just had a
picture of a pedestrian on the road sign). I beleive that crossing at
the stop light against the DON'T WALK indicator, the rider would be at
fault..... that's a leagally marked crossing. I beleive this would
be jay-walking if you crossed against the DON'T WALK.

Thoughts....??

Thanks....

On Jul 9, 4:50*pm, lsnadon wrote:
Here's my "hmmm, I wonder..."

In my little town, there is a fairly good sized "greenway" *--
basically a pretty decent bike path. *It is a good 10, maybe 12 feet
wide, smooth cement, well laid out, etc. *The path has some real good
stretches on it that are at least 8 miles long, uninterupted. *The
interuption is usually where one section has not been joined to the
next section. *The city is real close to finishing the entire loop,
then it will be a circle around the city and be about 20, maybe 25
miles long. A real bonus for the community and a good testament to how
well this city takes care of things. (it helps that a city councilman
also owns a bike shop in town)

On a few spots, the path crosses a road. *Some of these spots are at a
stoplight and there are WALK-DON'T WALK lights/signs/indicators. *Many
spots on the path, it just crosses the road. *Every spot where the
path crosses the road, there is a road sign on the road indicating
that there is a crossing ahead. *A few of these crossings are also
demarked with a crosswalk on the road. *On the path, there is a far
from legal "STOP" sign. *I say far from legal as the sign is made of
wood and about 1/4 the size of a legal stop sign.

So, finally, to my ponderment.... *If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault. *When I took
drivers ed, all those years ago, I was taught that a crosswalk always
has the right of way and that a car MUST stop for people in it. *I was
also taught the difference of the road sign with a marked crosswalk
and an unmarked crosswalk (the marked crosswalk has two lines on the
road sign underneath the pedestrian, an unmarked crosswalk just had a
picture of a pedestrian on the road sign). *I beleive that crossing at
the stop light against the DON'T WALK indicator, the rider would be at
fault..... *that's a leagally marked crossing. *I beleive this would
be jay-walking if you crossed against the DON'T WALK.

Thoughts....??

Thanks....

Cyclist is always at fault since bicycles have no place on the open
road.

-ilan

No, wait, ilan is right, the rider is at fault and the driver won't be
charged. Unless the biker gets off his bike and walks across like we
were all told to do in 3rd grade.

What you learned in drivers ed may have changed since then and because
traffic laws are set by states, they are different in all 50 states.
DO ped laws apply to bikers on ped areas? I'd guess not in most
jurisdictions as most states just don't have any such laws regarding
bicycles. Trail signs can be regulated by local parks, cities or
counties in some states or by the fed in federal parks. You could ask
your local cops since they should be up on the local traffic laws but
odds are they won't know either. Lots of crossings like that don't
have any cross walk lights or stop signs for the path. There may not
be any laws backing up those signs or lack of signs. Most signs are
usually ignored anyhow. The regular drivers on those roads will be
wary of the idiots shooting the gap but it is the rest that will hit
the rider expecting them to stop.

I was riding in Kalifornia last year. On the trails under the east
bay bart line, every crossing has signs for the trail users to stop
AND signs for the cross traffic to yield to peds. Seems contradictory
to me but all the car drivers stop for me when I'm on my bike and
waive me thru. I think it's the whopping fines and the resulting sky
high insurance that makes the bay area drivers so courteous. Hey,
stop laughing, compared to the midwest, California drivers are
brilliant.

"lsnadon" wrote in message
...
Here's my "hmmm, I wonder..."
So, finally, to my ponderment.... If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault.

"At fault" is a judgment made for insurance purposes based on many factors.
But in Massachusetts, where I live, pedestrians have the right of way in
crosswalks, but cyclists (unless walking) do not.

It gets confusing sometimes, and I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction.

So, finally, to my ponderment.... *If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault. *When I took
drivers ed, all those years ago, I was taught that a crosswalk always
has the right of way and that a car MUST stop for people in it.

This isn't really as much of a dilemma as you're making it out to be.

It's sort of like a 4-way stop. Both ways should stop. But then
(again similar to the 4-way stop) someone has priority to go first,
and in this case it is trail users.

In most all states, peds have the priority while in the crosswalk (or
approaching it) and vehicles on the street must yield. But at the
same time the peds have the responsibility to not just jump out
unexpectedly into the street. They have to give the vehicles a chance
to see them and to stop.

That seems to be the purpose of the stop sign. Bicycles,
particularly, if they just went whizzing out across the street without
stopping first, really don't give vehicles on the road any time to see
them and react.

Also stop signs (and other signs) on a path follow a different
standard than road signs. In particular they are smaller. If really
curious google something like "trail mutcd" or "path mutcd" for the
gory details.

*I was
also taught the difference of the road sign with a marked crosswalk
and an unmarked crosswalk (the marked crosswalk has two lines on the
road sign underneath the pedestrian, an unmarked crosswalk just had a
picture of a pedestrian on the road sign).

This is wrong--any place (like an intersection) where a walkway or
sidewalk or similar (even just the side of a road that doesn't have a
sidewalk, but where pedestrians are allowed to walk) comes up to and
crosses another road is an "unmarked crosswalk" and in this locations
the drivers are supposed to yield to peds just like in a marked
crosswalk.

*I beleive that crossing at
the stop light against the DON'T WALK indicator, the rider would be at
fault..... *that's a leagally marked crossing. *I beleive this would
be jay-walking if you crossed against the DON'T WALK.

Who is at fault is a somewhat different question than what you (as a
driver, or a bicyclist, or a pedestrian) should do in a particular
situation. Regardless of who would be judged as at fault in a court
of law, any bicyclist who just goes whizzing across a street--without
stopping to look first--on any of these street crossings you describe,
is pretty dumb.

There is an element of stop-look-negotiate with others that happens in
all these situations that really can't be captured in law.

And for what it's worth, some pretty good research shows that the
single thing pedestrians can do to improve their safety at
intersections is LOOK in all directions before crossing in a
crosswalk.

That's regardless of what the law says about who should yield to whom.

In article
,
lsnadon wrote:

Here's my "hmmm, I wonder..."

In my little town, there is a fairly good sized "greenway" --
basically a pretty decent bike path. It is a good 10, maybe 12 feet
wide, smooth cement, well laid out, etc. The path has some real good
stretches on it that are at least 8 miles long, uninterupted. The
interuption is usually where one section has not been joined to the
next section. The city is real close to finishing the entire loop,
then it will be a circle around the city and be about 20, maybe 25
miles long. A real bonus for the community and a good testament to how
well this city takes care of things. (it helps that a city councilman
also owns a bike shop in town)

On a few spots, the path crosses a road. Some of these spots are at a
stoplight and there are WALK-DON'T WALK lights/signs/indicators. Many
spots on the path, it just crosses the road. Every spot where the
path crosses the road, there is a road sign on the road indicating
that there is a crossing ahead. A few of these crossings are also
demarked with a crosswalk on the road. On the path, there is a far
from legal "STOP" sign. I say far from legal as the sign is made of
wood and about 1/4 the size of a legal stop sign.

So, finally, to my ponderment.... If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault. When I took
drivers ed, all those years ago, I was taught that a crosswalk always
has the right of way and that a car MUST stop for people in it. I was
also taught the difference of the road sign with a marked crosswalk
and an unmarked crosswalk (the marked crosswalk has two lines on the
road sign underneath the pedestrian, an unmarked crosswalk just had a
picture of a pedestrian on the road sign). I beleive that crossing at
the stop light against the DON'T WALK indicator, the rider would be at
fault..... that's a leagally marked crossing. I beleive this would
be jay-walking if you crossed against the DON'T WALK.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
|

Trollometer

--
Michael Press

On Jul 9, 10:50*am, lsnadon wrote:
Here's my "hmmm, I wonder..."

In my little town, there is a fairly good sized "greenway" *--
basically a pretty decent bike path. *It is a good 10, maybe 12 feet
wide, smooth cement, well laid out, etc. *The path has some real good
stretches on it that are at least 8 miles long, uninterupted. *The
interuption is usually where one section has not been joined to the
next section. *The city is real close to finishing the entire loop,
then it will be a circle around the city and be about 20, maybe 25
miles long. A real bonus for the community and a good testament to how
well this city takes care of things. (it helps that a city councilman
also owns a bike shop in town)

On a few spots, the path crosses a road. *Some of these spots are at a
stoplight and there are WALK-DON'T WALK lights/signs/indicators. *Many
spots on the path, it just crosses the road. *Every spot where the
path crosses the road, there is a road sign on the road indicating
that there is a crossing ahead. *A few of these crossings are also
demarked with a crosswalk on the road. *On the path, there is a far
from legal "STOP" sign. *I say far from legal as the sign is made of
wood and about 1/4 the size of a legal stop sign.

So, finally, to my ponderment.... *If a rider cruises on thru the STOP
sign on the path and is hit by a car, who is at fault. *When I took
drivers ed, all those years ago, I was taught that a crosswalk always
has the right of way and that a car MUST stop for people in it. *I was
also taught the difference of the road sign with a marked crosswalk
and an unmarked crosswalk (the marked crosswalk has two lines on the
road sign underneath the pedestrian, an unmarked crosswalk just had a
picture of a pedestrian on the road sign). *I beleive that crossing at
the stop light against the DON'T WALK indicator, the rider would be at
fault..... *that's a leagally marked crossing. *I beleive this would
be jay-walking if you crossed against the DON'T WALK.

Thoughts....??

Thanks....

Let me paraphrase your question: does signage confer invulnerability?

R

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
|

Trollometer

--
Michael Press



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^


JackAssometer

"1" wrote in message
...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
|

Trollometer

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^

JackAssometer

Apparently you didn't understand that people in rec.bicycles.racing aren't
interested in bicycle paths?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"1" wrote in message
...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
|

Trollometer

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^

JackAssometer

Apparently you didn't understand that people in rec.bicycles.racing
aren't interested in bicycle paths?

I'm in .misc so I don't care about racing, except for Lance winning the
TdF again. We have some bike paths were they cross busy streets and the
rule is stop and look for cars due to bushes in the line of sight.
If I have to get off the saddle and stop to be safe then that is what I
will do. What's the big deal about common sense?
Bill Baka

I took racing out of the headers.
I hate these damned multi-cross posts.