This posting on Washcycle is very close to the tongue and cheek efforts of the Warrington Cycle Campaign Facility of the Month which is a very humorous look at “accommodating” cyclists in Britain.
It is very funny when this stuff happen to someone else but here in Maryland, I just want to cry. Indirectly directing cyclists to ride the wrong way on a one way road and then “cyclists press this crosswalk button if you have successfully gotten this far”, is well … WTF?
Other stuff includes stop signs AFTER the crosswalk and signs placed for cyclists on the trail facing crossing traffic and not the trail. And there are other circuitous routing issues noted in the article.
All this seems to be an over preoccupation with the concept that cyclists are pedestrians on wheels and must never ever cooperatively cross paths with motorists and if cyclists have to cross paths put all the onus on the cyclist and for their “safety” make them walk like a pedestrian in a state with the 4th highest pedestrian fatality rate and motorists noted for not stopping at crosswalks. … Ya, like that’s is going to work out real well,
Conclusion: We need better understanding that cyclists by law are vehicles and can/should operate totally and fully as a vehicle. Providing “accommodations” ONLY for pedestrian mode cyclists is wrong. Sure, some cyclists might feel more comfortable in pedestrian mode but other cyclists are more comfortable and safer in vehicle mode as the law is on their side when operating that way. I feel very strongly that on-road accommodation for bicyclists must be first and foremost be vehicular in nature (treated just like any other vehicle lane and if it helps, think of truck climbing lanes and how they end. Does anyone really go “OMG someone is going to die when a 70mph car hits a 10mph truck”? No, because cooperative merging works and is done all this time.)
If pedestrian mode accommodations can be provided at some of the more intimidating crossing areas, fine, but do not place regulatory signs (black on white) so now by law all cyclists have to go into pedestrian mode and have lost their original right-of-way rights, in particular the right to keep going straight and have turning traffic yield is now flipped (witness stop signs for pedestrian mode cyclists at signalized intersections.) How about advisory signs (white on green) if you want to help the timid cyclist and do no harm to the cyclists that can operate as any other vehicle on the roadway.
Seriously, take a case where a cyclist gets hit by a turning car, is giving the cyclist a green light plus a stop sign, must dismount sign and a crosswalk going to help prove the cyclists had the right-of-way? Wouldn’t be logical to assume in ALL cases that the crossing cyclist did not obey the stop sign so even a speeding non-signalling turning car would be perceived as having the legal right-of-way over a crossing cyclists, especially if the cyclist failed to dismount?
This kind of design does NOT appearer in AASHTO nor in NACTO recommendations for best practices in accommodating cyclists. I will assert that this is in violation of State law § 2-602. Public policy. which says in part: “The General Assembly finds that it is in the public interest for the State to include enhanced transportation facilities for pedestrians and bicycle riders as an essential component of the State’s transportation system, and declares that it is the policy of the State that:
(1) Access to and use of transportation facilities by pedestrians and bicycle riders shall be considered and best engineering practices regarding the needs of bicycle riders and pedestrians shall be employed in all phases of transportation planning, including highway design, construction, reconstruction, and repair…”
One of these days I really hope that someone sues to get some serious attention on this stuff . In the meantime it seems “Since cyclists go slow they will not mind going even slower. And cars need to go fast and should never be slowed down even by a few seconds.” is the modus operandi. Hey, I got an idea how about a return to “Motorist can easily make up any small delay experienced in accommodating vulnerable road users.” Todays thinking is too close to “There are two legitimate excuses for killing someone, in self defense and if they might slow your car down for two seconds.”
We need to start thinking differently!
If you have an interest in this stuff and did not click the link earlier The Washcycle article is worth the read and some investigation through Google Street View, crazy stuff! oldId.20110611134915492