Advocacy & Safety - Bicycles stop on Green (traffic sign)

After years of thinking Momma hadn't raised any fools, the above sign may be my undoing. I couldn't figure out what I was allowed to do at this intersection; in fact, I wound up turning around and going several miles to avoid dealing with the issue. I suspect that it should have read "bicycles yield on Green" as I am fairly sure it doesn't mean "bicycles proceed on Red" The sign was near the Wellesley-Newton line in Massachusetts, the state renowned for it's confusing signs, when it bothers to post any. At any rate, am I the only one that feels this sign is the thin end of the "bicycles prohibited" wedge?

Yikes. This isn't only confusing; it's downright bizzarre, and possibly illegal. I'd be writing to the authority in question seeking clarification/getting the stupid thing removed. Can anyone think of ANY situation where it'd be safer to stop at a green light rather than proceed with the normal traffic? The only thing I can think of is that this intersection gets an unusually high number of red light runners. If this is so, this is an insane solution.

Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
"BICYCLES STOP ON GREEN." ...am I the only one that feels this sign is the thin end of the "bicycles prohibited" wedge?
Mrs. Beetham-Smith, this is one of those tests, right? You know, the ones that don't have any right answers but just test your emotional reactions?

C'mon, tell the truth, dear!

:confused:

(I would sneak up in the middle of the night and do something unspeakable to that freak of nature, just to put it out of its misery...)

:)

This has got to be the best post I've read in a long time.

I'm just sorry you had to be the one to do it!

Please tell me this was a troll. If not, I'm going to lose faith in some of these council officials (something I hadn't thought possible this morning). If it was me I'd be contacting whoever was responsible and demanding clarification. Of course, another potential solution might be to turn up at 3am with a hacksaw....

It's a Zen Koan

Originally posted by MichaelW
It's a Zen Koan
:)

Originally posted by Chris L
Please tell me this was a troll. If not, I'm going to lose faith in some of these council officials (something I hadn't thought possible this morning).

I believe Jean has been a member for almost two years, and I have always been impressed by her thoughtful posts.

And Chris, you actually had faith in Council officials? Shame on you. Get over it.

Perhaps there is a green spot on the pavement where one is supposed to wait while yielding? ("Yield on green") :D

I would love to hear the interpretations and opinions of Massachusetts-based cycling advocates John S. Allen (www.bikexprt.com) and Sheldon Brown (sheldonbrown.com).

Originally posted by DnvrFox
I believe Jean has been a member for almost two years, and I have always been impressed by her thoughtful posts.


I know. I just wanted to believe this was a troll because it would be more desirable than the other situation.


Originally posted by DnvrFox

And Chris, you actually had faith in Council officials? Shame on you. Get over it.

Not really. But is there such a thing as "negative faith"? I think I'm starting to feel something like that at the moment.

Hole up, hole up.

If cyclists stop on green, when do they "go?"

:confused reader smiley:

I suppose I should point this out, although I think everyone knows already.

The sign means on a bike you have to stop, give way, and then proceed. If it was 'bicycles yield on green', then you wouldn't have to actually bring the bike to a complete stop, only give way to traffic, and stop if there was traffic actually there.

I fail to see why this would be necessary on a green light though.

Jean, if you do contact the "authorities" about this and find out the real scoop, please immediately find the nearest Internet connection and let us know.

This is the most baffling thing I've come across in ages. It just doesn't make any sense either to stop or to yield on green. Either action is far more apt to provoke an accident or frayed tempers than just considering the bike like any other vehicle, which is just what the law does in most jurisdictions, when it comes to movement on the streets.

I'd love a picture of this insane signage. It reminds me of the sign we have here that has a bike path marker and a great big "No Exit" Sign beneath.

Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
At any rate, am I the only one that feels this sign is the thin end of the "bicycles prohibited" wedge?

Wedgy?

This is truley bizzare.

I know where there's a Bicycles Prohibited sign. It's in some rich-guy suburb on a wide four lane street. It never bothered me because there's smooth side streets running parallel to the verboten street. That sign must have been up 20 years.

In the State of Illinois, the courts have defined cyclists as "permitted users" of the road rather than "intended users". This bit of semantic gymniatics was dreamed up to avoid liabilities in a personal injury case involving a cyclist who was injured on a bridge that was under construction without warning signs. I think we're the only state that diminishes the rights of cyclists in this way.