Jeffbeerman2

I'm beginning to see this a lot. A couple cities around here (S Hutch and Wichita) have built wide MUPs along busy roads. Just recently they have begun putting stop signs at every intersection (every block) for users of the path. The path is just like any sidewalk. The legal stop line for cars is still behind the path, and that is where the cross street stop sign is located. Cars are supposed to stop for the path, just like any path. IMHO, cars are ignoring the law so they are just making path intersections all-way stops. Cars never stop behind the crosswalk here, and it is never enforced. When I used to be a runner I was nearly run over by local cops because one failed to yeild the crosswalk on red. Are other cities making sidewalks and bike paths legally stop for cars who fail to stop where legal?

Personally, I think enforcement of the stop line should be the first step. The second step should be adding a warning-sign to the car's stop sign that they must stop behind crosswalk (which should be a given). A sign on the car's stop sign is more reasonable than putting up twice as many extra stop signs for the path.

I'm not advocating that cyclists and runners should be unaware of drivers who fail to stop, it just steams me that the paths are nearly unusable with a legal full-stop 6 to 10 times every mile.

kstang

All the bike paths on my campus are that way. I find its more dangerous, slower, and takes more work for me. So I use the road. All of campus is 20mph limit any way So I am not slowing any one down who is following the law!

Jeffbeerman2

I agree, and I also usually just use the road (depending on the road). What angers me about it is that they were installed because the crosswalk stops are never enforced.

ax0n

You, of course, realize that motorists are running the crosswalks because they find the road nearly unusable with a legal full-stop 6-10 times every mile, right?

chipcom 

and of course cyclists riding on the same road or on the paths prolly don't feel the need to stop either

ItsJustMe

Ride on the road. That MUP is too dangerous.

thdave

The MUP I ride on is in a metropark and is littered with STOP signs. These are at every driveway to every parking lot and even at interesections that have traffic lights. They are illegal, imo, and no one pays attention to them.

My biggest worry is the driver of the car who enters a driveway, going to a ball field or parking lot. He won't stop, so you have to be on the look out to the road side of the MUP. Sometimes your vision is blocked by trees.

The other frustration is that some cyclists ride in the middle of the MUP. Get on your frickin' side!!!

If I had a road bike, I'd be on the road. But the MUP isn't too bad. There aren't too many driveways. Also, lots of the MUP follows the river and there are many areas that go deep into the woods, away from the road. That part is a lot of fun.

cooker

Are you saying you want the cross traffic to stop behind the MUP so the MUP bike traffic can blow through the intersection at speed? That sounds disastrous. You make an analogy to sidewalks, but pedestrians approach intersections much more slowly than bikes, and still get hit by right turners and some left turners who failed to look for them. Even if the cars on the cross street stop, they won't necessarily expect a bike to shoot out in front of them as they start to proceed. As well, car drivers turning off the main road into the side street won't always expect a bike to enter the intersection at that offset position.

EDIT. Traffic coming in any direction is likely to collide with bikes using that MUP, if the cyclists don't have to stop - see diagram

DCCommuter

Check your local codes. In many states, stop signs on MUP's have no legal enforceability. For instance, in many states, cyclists using sidewalks and crosswalks have the "rights and duties" of pedestrians. Pedestrians have no duty to stop for a stop sign at a crosswalk, so neither do cyclists.

The statute for some states regarding stop signs says that operators of vehicles must stop for a stop sign "on a roadway." But a MUP is not a roadway.

Around here, the local authorities have responded to these objections by adding signs below the stop signs on MUP's that say "Required by Law." Even though it isn't.

That's the legal perspective. It's a tough problem. What do you do if you're a public official charged with protecting public safety, and people just won't obey the law?

Little Darwin

While I am sure it would be handy for a cyclist to never have to slow down on a MUP, which state do you live in that you think it is illegal to make cyclists stop for an intersection just because they are on a MUP? Do they also get a free pass if they are on another sidewalk?

CliftonGK1

Check the legality of the signs. There's a constant battle up here between some persnicketty residents of Lake Forest Park (LFP) and the users of the Burke-Gilman Trail (BGT) which runs through their neighbourhood. The argument goes like this:

-LFP passes city ordinance and places stop signs on BGT at all road crossings.

-Cascade Bike Club (CBC) works with King County and wins court case overturning LFP ordinance, because BGT is ruled a county thoroughfare, while LFP roads are private. City property trumps private road.

- LFP passes new ordinance one year later, and presents council with plan to place traffic bollards at all trail intersections. "Nyah. It's not a stop sign, so it's not illegal."

- CBC and King County Dep't of Transportation step in and say "You're kidding, right? You realize we're just going to overturn this one, too."

- Current situation sits as win for cyclists; no traffic calming measures on BGT through LFP private roads. Stop signs face residential streets. No bollard construction has started.

thdave

I see what your saying, and but you're only partly right.

The cyclist has stop signs for every driveway he encounters while riding the MUP. They are a joke!

The road only has a traffic light or two. There are few intersecting roads, as this metropark is in a valley and the cars that cross it travel above it via bridges. The cars that enter the driveways (note--these aren't driveways going to houses, but driveways going to parking lots in the park, that service a ball field, hiking trail, a golf course, or stables) from the metropark road have the right of way, and I yield to them. But those that are leaving the driveway don't have the right of way over the MUP!

Also, cars that come from atop the valley down to the metropark on the intersecting roads, which mostly dead end at the metropark road, have a stop sign. So does the MUP. That's stupid--I've got the right of way since I'm on the MUP minding my business. The car needs to stop for me, and then again for the road, which is a bit further down.

zeytoun

A MUP is pretty useless if it has intersections at intervals that small. It's just a pretty sidewalk.

cooker

Sorry thdave, I really commenting on the OP's post. I guess you posted while I was composing mine so it looked like I was responding to you.

cooker

Re the legality of stop signs: legality is one thing, safety is another. In the situation described by the OP I can't see how crashes can be avoided if cyclists are under the impression that it's ok to ride through that intersection without regard for car traffic.

bizzz111

hmm, interesting. I should email king county or the cascade bicycle club about some of the very annoying stop signs on the interurban trail through tukwila. And my annoying I mean the cross street basically is a "T" street and the cars are required to stop pretty much right in the bike path.

CliftonGK1

Are those intersections on the Interurban with city maintained streets, or private residential roads? It could just be a matter of going to a city council meeting to discuss the placement of the signs relative to the trail. In the case of LFP, those are not city maintained roads. They're all private roads, so that's why the city stepped in and said "your city ordinance doesn't trump King County laws." If it's all city maintained property, city council might be the place to start... or King County Parks and Rec Dep't since they maintain the King County trail network.

noisebeam

The bottom line is there is no way to patch a seriously flawed MUP design by band-aiding it with traffic controls that can not and will never guarantee fully compliance.

The only safe or appropriate way to deal with this is to have bridges/tunnels for where the side streets and MUP cross or to remove the MUP designation and call it what it is: a sidewalk.

Al

DataJunkie

Sounds like a glorified sidewalk to me. In my mind a MUP should have minimal encounters with streets.

noisebeam

Exactly.

Well planned and placed MUPs can be and in cases are an effective part of the bicycle transport and/or recreation options.

Poorly designed and placed MUPs like this one only worsen the cycling experience, degrade the good name of MUPs overall and are a set-back for improving roadway cycling conditions.

Al

powerhouse

Depending upon where you are, there is some sense for posting stop signs on bike paths and MUPs.

* For example, some bicyclists riding at speed tend to blow through intersections without stopping. They are only just crossing a road and continuing further on the trail, right? They are often able to do this many times without incident. However, there is a greater tendency that they would get clipped by motorists who don't pay attention or think they don't have to and blow through the intersection in their 2000 pound vehicles on the road.

* Not all bike paths and MUPs are the same. For instance, I've ridden for miles on many MUPs or bike paths before coming to an intersection where the path ends at or crosses a road. I've also ridden on paths with stop signs at shorter distances (i.e. urban areas).

So posting the stop signs do serve a good purpose. They are there for our safety, even if it does involve having to not ride at the ideal speed we get up to. Signs to warn motorists that they are coming to a bike path/MUP and that cyclists are approaching would also help.

markhr

Unusable MUPs - no way On a more serious note either campaign for better ones or just stop using them.

https://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/ - see facility of the month Sept. '07

crhilton

These aren't MUP's. They just vaguely look like them. No matter what the city calls it, it's actually just a wide sidewalk.

aley

All of this begs the question, what distinguishes a MUP parallel to a road from a sidewalk? For that matter, in places where it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk, what's to keep some overzealous cop from ticketing cyclists on the MUP?

tsl

Out on the west side there are stop signs at grade highway crossings every mile or so.

But our claim to fame is a baby, MUP-sized railroad crossing, complete with gate and flashing lights.

Ain't it cute?