That happens here. There is rail line just across the street from the entrance to the town. It carries commercial, commuter, and passenger, rail traffic. Unless the rails are the easiest form suicide for someone. The gated crossing just outside of town, and the next one, only two miles north. Have a history of bad 'situations' https://www.google.com/#q=train+acci...rg+md&start=10

Not because any fault of the company that owns the track. But because, motorists' and pedestrians alike. Want to get to their destination, yesterday. By going around the gates.

There's a thread about "Why I don't stop at stop signs" here in A&S. Unfortunately many bicyclists will ride past a STOP sign without even slowing down. There's a rail-trail nearby where on any given weekend I can watch numerous bicyclist riding along the rail-trail cross the cross street even though the sightlines are not that good and traffic can be coming off a busy highway.

Cheers

Sometimes (short of often) there's a vagueness of language here on BF. Someone may be arguing the Idaho Law concept and saying they don't stop at STOP signs. But that doesn't mean they don't yield or use some common sense.

I see the same thing with the phrase "running a red light" with some meaning going through without slowing or stopping, and others meaning slowing or stopping then proceeding if it's safe.

I sometimes get friendly grief from local police if I stop and wait next to them at a red light. They know I don't wait out lights, and I have to explain that it doesn't feel right rubbing their noses in it.


BTW - Thesaurus help. Is there a word that describes a frequency between occasionally or sometimes and often? I could say half the time, but that sounds too specific to my German mind.

lights? stop signs? not there. that place needs a tunnel or overpass

Possibly, but if an overpass is built for the trail, they'll also need a fence. More than a few will want to avoid the climb and take the shortcut across the road.

I wonder if this spot can benefit from a simple solution that's common in Mexico.

Mexicans are well aware of how hard it is to control people, so they use the cheap and effective method of speed bumps and humps before busy intersections, especially busy pedestrian crossings. These effectively slow traffic without stopping it, so drivers are better prepared to stop, and pedestrians have greater margin of error when crossing. It also greatly lowers the consequences when folks miscalculate.

To many opinions to quote, so I will just offer mine.

We have many similar crossings on a local trail. Most of them are not controlled, but there are 2 that have signal lights for the trail and 2 others that require the cyclists to use the pedestrian cross walk (these are at very busy intersections). There are also 2, soon to be 3, crossings where the trail user can push a button to actuate flashing yellows. While the signals at the busy intersections seem to work; cars are used to stopping for the traffic on the intersecting street. The ones just for the trail are iffy. Yes you get a crossing signal, but you are stupid to take it as a sign that it's safe to stop. Also, the actuating buttons are placed in a location where it is very inconvenient to press. Most of the time, I will gauge traffic and blow across if safe. If not, I will just wait till it is. The un-controlled crossings work well because trail users are not lulled into assuming traffic will stop.

4 way stops are absolutely useless, since most users will assume that the other users will stop.

Thus proving that the trail built with mostly transportation dollars is really an limited access exclusive recreational trail.

Well they build limited access highways with transportation funds too.

The link I originally posted, to the local news story. Does have a stop sign. But only for cyclists'/pedestrians. None for motorists'.

The road in question is major 4-lane arterial in the southern end of the county. They should have an overpass. Motorists' drive like maniacs on that road. My parents' lived only a couple blocks from there in the mid-to-late 1980's, around the time my younger brother n' I graduated from high school.

That area in the county has been battling with speeders for thirty or more years. Where it happened, is where it is four lanes. Speed bumps were suggested a long time ago, there and where Massachusetts Ave. meets Little Falls Parkway at the other end. But that area is full of $1,000,000 homes. The homeowners have vehicles like the H2 Hummer, Cadillac, Porsche, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Mercedes. When speed bumps were first proposed by in the 1980's. They whined about the speeders, but didn't want to be slowed down themselves.
The link I originally posted, to the local news story. Does have a stop sign. But only for cyclists'/pedestrians. None for motorists'.

The road in question is major 4-lane arterial in the southern end of the county. They should have an overpass. Motorists' drive like maniacs on that road. My parents' lived only a couple blocks from there in the mid-to-late 1980's, around the time my younger brother n' I graduated from high school.

Really, imagine that, actually building a transportation facility with transportation funds. Maybe they could try building recreational facilities with recreational funds. That would be interesting.

Yep. There are four of them on my normal MUP ride. Only one allows a straight-thru, the other three require two 90 degree turns to get into and out of. Had the misfortune of crossing one a few days back following someone I had caught, as a group ride was hitting it in the other direction, it was a mess trying to get the bikes moving opposite directions through it. Thankfully most of the other group realized this and just rode around it.

Also doesn't help when someone slams on the brakes in one lane to let you through, and are sitting there with mad people behind them as the other lane continues streaming past.

Meh, I routinely ignore the STOP signs on trails intersecting roads. What I never do is to ignore evaluating traffic before choosing to ignore the sign. There are a few intersections crossing roads with horribly timed traffic, that if I stop instead of taking a safe gap without stopping, I'll be standing for three minutes waiting for the next one during rush hour.

What I imagine from your comments is that you object to transportation facilities for one population group (cyclists, horses, and pedestrians) being built with transportation money, and while facilities built for another group ( motor vehicles) using transportation dollars are OK.

However to some extent I am messing with you. The massive spending on transportation that incudes anything that can even remotely be related to anything to moving something is offensive to me. The attitude of the federal government is going to spend it anyway so we better get ours is equally irritating to me. But that's way too far into politics to continue here.

My objection is politicians telling lies on funding grants that a facility is for transportational purposes to get the money, then spending it on a recreational facility. Then they tell cyclist they can only travel at 10 mph on the supposed transportational facility or the try to ban cyclist altogether.

I find that repaved roads with wide outside lanes to be outstanding cycling facilities honestly built with transportational funds for transportation purposes.


Maybe funding appropriated for bike lanes should be spent on surf racks. I am sure no cyclist would be upset by that.

Perhaps the lowness would make you think a bent was less visible; however drivers will normally scan that low to see other road hazards. It seems that since bent trikes are a bit unusual, they tend to be more apparent to drivers. In the sequence of scanning, anything that is out of the ordinary tends to get more attention.

I have a recumbent trike and can say, a bit subjectively I know, that this is the case. Motorists who would not blink at a bike seem to give me a lot of attention. I like the smiles and thumbs up. Of course, they have to have attention to give.

That isn't good.

I pretty much agree here.

https://www.bikeforums.net/19173316-post12.html
TheWashCycle: Fatality