rydabent

riskdr +1 Yup the nanny state types always know what is good for you.

asmac

Turbo1889: great posts with ideas I completely support. I especially like the idea of adding explanations to the signs to promote buy-in and a common understanding of the goal.

Keith99

It could be just a harmonic convergence. But I find that doubtful.

Someone is going faster than they should on a bike near pedestrians.

Since you said it is normally not a problem I'm going to guess it was not you. Save for the one taking pictures I'm thinking perhaps it was you were not too far behind someone not slowing. From time to time I have found the kind of rider who never slows, but really isn't all that fast. A fairly decent rider who does go fast where it is safe to do so and slows where it is appropriate can easily stay a more or less constant distance behind such. (Unless you get very unlucky and keep playing leapfrog).

Altair 4

There's a park near my office with a sign very much like this. At the bottom, in black sharpie ink, someone wrote in NO FUN in big block letters.

Doohickie

I think *you* are the creator of conflict. If you don't want to abide by the rules of the MUP, get off the MUP.


The center of our trail system is Trinity Park, across the river from downtown. The trail from north end of the park through the south end and beyond (about a mile) has been marked as a Slow Zone. I don't think there's a specific speed limit; the idea is to alert cyclists to the fact that in the park and several areas south of it (a food truck park, a trailhead and a restaurant), there are likely to be clueless pedestrians, children, etc., and that cyclists need to take that into account when riding through that area. During off peak times, riders still fly through and nobody cares, but when there are people on foot on or near the trail, well, you know.... use common sense.

FBinNY 

I agree with the OP that these signs are more likely to create conflict than solve anything. They won't get a rude cyclist off his bike, but they will add to the sense of entitlement that some pedestrians may have.

I say this so often here, that I apologize for repeating it.

We, here in the USA, have too many "rights" and entitlements, and no sense of how to live in a world of trivial conflicts. I suspect that too many grew up in small families, or were overly coddled in their childhood and so have no innate sense of sharing or getting along.

Yeah, the signs are dumb. So feel free to ignore them. And also feel free to ignore busy bodies or obnoxious pedestrians. But at the same time understand that MUPs are for everybody, and as the fasted kid on the block, most of the obligation for courtesy falls on you. As with the roads, and law of the sea the passing vehicle has the least right of way, and must yield to whatever he's passing.

If you don't like the burden of being the fastest kid on the block, ride the open road, where the motorists are doing the passing and must yield.

njkayaker

That is a bit odd. (The first sign is on an entrance ramp that leads to 2 lanes without any shoulder. The second sign is on the 2 lanes without any shoulder.)

I suspect it's the metal grating at the middle that is the concern. "Dismount" signs are common for bridges with metal grates.

It's so common that I went looking for the metal grate:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0317...lTC_FlGJzQ!2e0

Dave Cutter

Back in the day when the term "busybody" was actually used... it was considered a demeaning or insulting term. In common use the term busybody was replaced with advocate or "activist" which currently enjoys more popularity than in years past.

But it was common knowledge in the years of the busybody that the same busybodies that bring us progress are also the ones that tear down what they built. Todays MUP activist appear to be leading cities to rules and regulations that will [sooner or later] shut down the MUPs. Something's... never change.

FBinNY 

It might be an expansion joint disclaimer as you say, or simply boilerplate to spare the city from possible suit. If it's a shared path, that may be another reason, especially if the bridge is arched, and cyclists have a history of descending too fast at the far end.

OTOH- having almost been blow off the GW bridge when a tractor trailer interrupted a strong crosswind, I can appreciate how planners want bicycles walked. Here in NYC it isn't all that rare for the "high winds-no motorcycles" signs to go up, and I've even seen trailers banned.

I suspect that most of these signs are more of the "don't say we didn't warn you" type than anything else.

BTW- I still ride across the GW bridge in high winds, just watch my position and for passing trucks more carefully.

njkayaker

I wasn't taking about an expansion joint. In the middle of that bridge is a "long" section of metal grating (look at the link to see what I mean). It's a drawbridge and the metal grate is the part that is moved.

It could be other things. But such a sign is a fairly reliable indicator of the kind of metal grating shown in the link.

There could be a standard that requires the sign with a metal grate. This is an odd case because the lead-in to the grating is so long. (Like Joeybiker, I'd prefer riding than walking that distance. There's a crossing over the Delaware river that one is supposed to walk but it's ridiculously long. I won't walk that the next time.)

"Shared path"? It looks like it's a roadway (used by cars too).

For that, it would be more reasonable to put the sign at the top of the bridge. The only place that I know of that restricts bicycle riding for "descending too fast" is riding north-bound through Torrey Pines State Park in California. (It's not the explicit reason but it seems obvious.)

Almost certainly, that's the case. The motivation isn't that it's "enforced" or "the law" but that due-diligence has been done by warning the rider.

You and everybody else in Manhattan!

asmac

As is often the case, Mr. Doohickie assumes much and knows little. In fact, for what it's worth, the old lady accosted my wife and me while we were standing astride our bikes discussing the route. She was concerned that we might ride off and she was right. We are not particularly fast riders and are cautious around pedestrians. It's common sense as others have said.

BTW, the fact that slower users such as pedestrians on paths or bikes on streets may have certain rights when being passed does not give them the right to intentionally block others or to act recklessly. We all have an obligation to act reasonably, do we not?

squirtdad

How do you know these are not legal? Fact or opinion?

Are the boardwalks/bridges more narrow that the main MUP? narrow with closed/no where to go sides makes people nervous

This seems to be the outcome of a poorly designed MUP, if there are that many intersections with roads etc. IMHO a bad MUP is worse than no MUP...and even decently designed MUP's are a pain to ride when busy

Based on observations of behavior of behavior on MUPs by cyclists, my guess is that a lot other people don't slow down like the OP does, which is probably why the signs went up. Someone gong fast on a MUP and blowing across a road is creating a dangerous situation.


the busybodies sound over the top, but despite everyone trying to deny that other cyclist's behavior shouldn't reflect on cyclist as a whole, the reality is does. Maybe those people had a bad experience previously (or they could just be busybodies)

As an example...am I busybody for telling a dog walker to pick his pet's poop, when I have stepped in same multiple times? or for calling out an owner for an unleased dog that just destroyed a bunch of workout cones? I don't think so, I an asserting my right to enjoy the park free from discourteous self centered behavior.


A simple answer is just ride in the street.

a more complex answer is that people need to think about whether or not desired infrastructure will really be a benefit if it creates conflicts like this

Squeeze

Solution: Put a couple adjustable wrenches in your pocket and remove the signs the next time you ride by, assuming the neighborhood nannies aren't at their posts.

asmac

..

njkayaker

Are all rules for MUPS in the "provicial (i.e. state) Highway Traffic Act?

In the US, rules for parks aren't in the traffic code. And, I suspect that park administrators are allowed to make rules. And the rules don't have to prohibit illegal behavior.

asmac

I don't think so. Parks are municipal property and subject to municipal bylaws.

JoeyBike

I agree. Put the sign up top and make it read "Walk Bike Across Grate". I MIGHT actually do that (not really) because it make some sense.

What does not show up in the Google photo is the light weight concrete that they filled the grating up with, at least on the Eastbound side. I almost never ride the Westbound side as this bridge is part of a loop ride we do. Anyway, even wet the grating is not an issue even on skinny road tires. Years ago they welded steel plates to cover up and gaps where the drawbridge pieces meet.

Doohickie

Absolutely.


That's one of the things I like about Ft Worth - with the exception of times when events are happening that attract clueless "tourists" to the trails, cyclists and pedestrians are generally cool to each other. Everyone acts reasonably most of the time. The one area that's the worst is the one they made a Slow Zone, and I don't really have a problem with that.

FBinNY 

Yes and no. Unlike roads and streets that have regulated traffic patterns and rules, sidewalks and park paths don't. There's no such rule as obstructing traffic on them, no rule about keep right/pass left, no yield or stop when entering a wider or more major "avenue".

So while courtesy dictates that we move in such a way as to make room for others, there's no enforceable rule. As anyone who's lived in a large city, or walked through a train station, airport, shopping mall, or stadium area can tell you, pedestrian traffic is a free for all.

As a cyclist, you have a free choice to share in the chaos and maneuver around it as best as you can, or to leave it for the more ordered streets and roads. It's your choice, and while you may not like folks in your way it's one cost of your decision to share with pedestrians. This is one reason that I describe segregated bike infrastructure (especially MUPs) as separate but NOT equal.

xenologer

+1
if you're getting pushed around by the elderly and family men, maybe you need to be more aggressive

Rollfast

Qualifies as creating a traffic hazard, theft or vandalism of government properties, whichever one that may be (or all).

Just because it's confusing to you doesn't mean that it is to others. Bring the issue up and reach a consensus.

Rollfast

Maybe you just need to get out of their way. Picking back when picked ON isn't particularly peachy.

Rollfast

Ah, there's the miscreant, Officer Callahan!

keyven

Has anyone ever been accosted by an officer when riding past a sign that denotes a "walk with bike" zone?

I guess it's just to advise people to use caution on that stretch - it could be due to a cyclist-ped accident before or many near-misses.

DNP

I did once on my college campus. However, the sign was a "no bikes" pictogram in front of a bike rack. I was rolling at 3 mph when dudley do right physically put his hand against my chest to stop me and then proceeded to lecture me about some lady getting smashed into by a speeding cyclist years prior. Being a smarmy college kid I testified to the very literal expression of the sign and it's obvious poor placement. Non-smarmy interpretation is that admin probably didn't want the local skater and bmx kids jumping and grinding on all the fun-looking concrete forms that colleges love to put up. It probably had little to do with college commuters getting to and from the covered bike rack. But, that sign gave someone with a chip on their shoulder the green light to literally push someone around.

Apparently, once a bicycle is in motion its speed is irrelevant. It has just become an unwieldy projectile. Lowest common denominator mindless knee jerk "thinking".