Hypno Toad

This is a very good article about the conflict with trail crossing and how difference (neighboring) cities manager crossings.

Who has the right of way where trails meet roads? It depends | MinnPost

Here is a link to the St. Louis Park Facebook page with the video: https://www.facebook.com/stlouispark

I find this video very insulting. Additionally, I use the crossings in the video many times a week and each one is uniquely challenging, St Louis Park has done nothing to help make it more clear, except this video. If you follow this same route (SWLRT/Midtown Greenway) from St Louis Park to Minneapolis, within 2.5 miles it changes from the bike has no rights at the crossing to the bike has right-of-way and cars must stop and yield.

kickstart

That's goofy, in Washington trail crossings are either cross walks or signaled crossings.

mozad655

In Copenhagen, main roads with cars always have right of way over cyclists on trails. Unless its an extremely trafficated trail and underused road, which I have never seen here. Seems to work fine for us.

genec

In the USA major roads have priority over minor roads... thus the users of the path should "give way" to the users of the road... it's that simple.

The only way this changes is if signs, or traffic lights exist.

Hypno Toad

Actually, the issue is that St Louis Park (and some other suburbs) is not using that logic, the bike route has more traffic (at least one of these crossings) than the road. St Louis Park is treating bike routes as 'recreational' routes; however, they are heavily used commuter routes. The same bike route in Minneapolis has crossing with priority on the bike route. In the Strava heat map, the red east-west route is the one in this article, the two highligher marks on the left are St Louis Park crossings and the two on the right are the Minneapolis crossings.



The truth is, the Minneapolis crossing on this map have less car traffic than the crossing in St Louis Park.

In another suburb, Minnetonka Beach, there is a stop sign where the trail crosses single-family driveways. It's just dumb.

genec

Yup, therein lies the problem of bikes in America... they are seen as toys, not transportation... their "roads" are relegated to parks departments for recreation, vice given the same standings as other roads, those paths often poorly designed and are not well signed, and tend to violate common laws of ROW in layout and design.

I suggest you point out these issues in a city meeting... be sure to mention the commuter route issue, and then suggest that proper signs be put up before the city garners a lawsuit from an accident at one of these crossings. The signs will be far cheaper than a lawsuit. Emphasize consistency in the signs with respect to their crossings, AND the fact that professionals are commuting on these routes. (so often clueless people have the notion that only "kiddos" are using bikes and paths... )

AlmostTrick

Who ever goes first...

indyfabz

Or crosswalk striping.

Hypno Toad

And this is one of the "bike-hate" things St Louis Park did, they REMOVED crossing strips at these crossings.

To be honest, these things are "normal" in most US cities. But here, we go from Minneapolis (always at the top of US bike cities), to the neighboring city, and you enter any-town USA. The contrast makes this so much more frustrating.

FBinNY 

Maybe some common sense should apply. You're on foot or on a bicycle. If we forget about the rules we have a very simple situation. While the law may be that drivers should stop (and let's assume that it is, even if it isn't) you have no way of knowing that he will, so it's a consequence based decision. If you proceed and he fails to stop, you're SOL. OTOH, you can carefully probe by starting out and seeing how the driver responds before committing yourself. Or you can simply wait for an opening, especially if traffic is light anyway.

So as a practical matter the law doesn't matter at all until/unless someone fails to use common sense and elevates this to a matter for a judge and jury.

B. Carfree

That's not the case in all of the USA. In Oregon, bike paths are legally defined as roads. Where two roads cross without any traffic controls, it's an uncontrolled intersection where it's first-come, first-served and ties go to the vehicle on the right.

genec

That first come first served or tie goes to the right only applies if the roads are of equal standing... so a path meeting a higher speed 2 lane road gives way to that road... a path meeting a 4 land road gives way to that 4 lane road and so on... that pretty much puts a path at the low end of the ROW stack.

And yes, Oregon does do somethings differently when it comes to bikes... BL for instance, are to be crossed, not merged into. But since they are the only state to do this... visitors from other states don't know this, and thus confusion reigns.

mr_bill

Speed might kill - but it doesn't uniformly simple mindedly trump who yields.

For example, I live next to a low speed but high volume state road. It's a through road, so it wins. Where it doesn't the intersections are actively controlled with traffic signals, where it still mostly wins.

Another 30 mph low volume local street intersects with 25 mph low volume local street at a t intersection. It's so clear who yields to who that there is not even a yield sign let alone a stop sign at the intersection. (Hint, it's not based on speed.)

The number of lanes aren't a "rule" either.

-mr. bill

Hypno Toad

I hear this 'logic' for bikes all the time: your small and cars will kill you, so yield to all cars at all times, regardless of the laws. On the other hand, I don't hear that advice for driving a car around semis, but the same physics applies (bigger vehicle will seriously damage smaller vehicle). The truth is, you should be defensive in all situations (on bike, in car, or semi), always expect the unexpected. That said, using a bike should not cause you to be second-class on the roads, by law or by behavior. As the Strava heat map (above) shows, this is not a lightly traveled bike route. In fact it is one of the busiest in the metro area.

And it should be noted, I'm very tire and sore after CX last night, so a little whining and crabbiness might be showing.

genec

So give us your "rules" then mr bill... or do you only naysay?

There is a document called the Uniform Vehicle Code... but the problem is that the states adopt the bits and pieces they like... so there is no real set of blanket rules for everyone. Oregon and bike lanes are an example. The UVC results in a manual of traffic control devices... Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) - FHWA But again some bits get ignored by some states... AND some states try new ideas that are not in the document.

mr_bill

Not my rules. These rules - 2B.04 You can find your own UVC, but 11-401 is where you'll want to look.

So, where did you find your rules?

-mr. bill

Chris516

That is messed up.

B. Carfree

The last I looked, Arizona was with Oregon in the weird right turn across bike lanes thing. You're almost surrounded; just wait until we infect Nevada.

So, where is that equal standing thing? I've never heard of that nor do I recall reading it. Then, I don't recall nearly as much as I should.

Saving Hawaii

That's like saying "aircraft carrier yields to yacht". It should be the case, legally it's often the case. But I live a couple blocks from the Ballard Bridge and I guarantee you that nobody on four wheels gives a flying **** about the "yield to bikes" signs at the terminus of the bridge. Nor a flying **** at a donut. Not even a flying **** at the moon. No ****s at all. Welcome to Washington.

genec

You always give way where a residential type street meets a feeder street, the feeder street gives way where it meets an arterial road, the arterial road gives way where it meets a highway.

When two cars meet at an intersection of the same types of roads... such as two residential streets or two feeder streets... the first to arrive goes first, or to a tie, the one to the right goes first.

For a quick answer:
The state assumes that all crossing intersections are signed... but in some residential and rural locations this is not true... and where the minor road meets a major road, the traffic on the minor road gives way to the traffic on the major road... as if it is a T intersection as described above. Try to imagine a rural road meeting a state highway... does all the traffic on said state highway come to a halt for the car on the rural road... no, that driver has to wait.
But when two rural or residential roads meet... well who got there first, or if you got there at the same time... the driver on the right goes first. Thus roads of "equal standing."

Yeah Yeah, I know you want me to quote chapter and verse... go look it up in you own state vehicle code.

genec

I don't believe AZ requires the same crossing situations of BL as does Oregon...

AZ law doesn't specifically mention how motorists deal with BL (nice job AZ... at least not that I could find)
Do you have a source of data regarding turning instead of merging into bike lanes in AZ? I could not find one.

The Oregon driver handbook spells out exactly how a driver should deal with a Bike Lane...



BTW this is from the CA handbook...

MNBikeCommuter

On a tangent about differing philosophies in the Twin Cities regarding bikes, Roseville (St. Paul suburb) reconstructed a mile long stretch of Victoria St. this year. What had been a nice street with shoulders is now one with no southbound shoulder, and a parking lane northbound. They put in a trail alongside the road, which I'm sure we're supposed to be using. Who has right-of-way where the trail crosses driveways and side street intersections? (rhetorical question, and many more rants left untyped)

rydabent

The idiot law in Nebr says that where a bike trail and sidewalk cross a street, the cyclist should dismount and walk the bike across the street. A walker is protected, but not a person on a bike. We are trying to get that changed.

kickstart

Yeah, know that area well, but in all fairness its simply a terrible location that's challenging for all modes.

B. Carfree

Arizona doesn't define the bike lane as part of the roadway. In AZ, bicycles are explicitly not vehicles and the roadway is the portion of the road maintained for and used by vehicles. (I'm too lazy to go chase down the exact statute). Since vehicles are prohibited from operating in the bike lane (generally), it follows that the far right of the roadway is just to the left of the bike lane.

It's not explicit on this issue like Oregon's. On the bright side, someone had to think through what they were doing in OR and they still got it wrong. In AZ, it's clearly just an oversight that may eventually be corrected.