urbanknight

Yes, it seems logical to me. Instead of a static sign, it actually grabs your attention and only when there is actually a pedestrian, and you don't have to stop if nobody is there. Definitely looking forward to hearing what they determine from their study.

dedhed

treat every intersection as if it was loaded.

chaadster

Oh, yeah, the flashing light type of crossing is good, but I meant that the crossing lights are automatically activated for the pedestrians is what I didn’t realize was happening; I had assumed they were button activated, but if they have motion detectors, that seems particularly nice for groups like forgetful children and unaware elderly.

urbanknight

Ah yes, it’s probably my favorite feature of that crossing. If anything passes between the pair of bollards on either side, it senses it and activates the lights. Trying to think if I’ve seen it anywhere else. Most other crossing lights are button activated as you imagined.

freeranger

When I rode a motorcycle (25 years or so ago), I rode like stop signs didn't exist. Kept me from getting run over or plowing into a vehicle more than once. Use the same thinking on a bicycle. Don't like needing to, but...........

Maelochs

Any cyclist who blows through any intersection without looking is not going to last long. A stop sign is not going to stop a car ... nor will a red light. People who ride traffic for a long time automatically expect the other vehicles to act badly ..... and are prepared to bail in self-defense.

I have zero respect for traffic laws. I will run a light or a stop sign at will .... I try not to, if a lot of cars are waiting because I don't want even more frustration in my environment---angry drivers do stupid things---but I am not going to sit at an intersection, the only vehicle for a mile in any direction, waiting for a light to change, nor come to a stop for cars which are clearly not there.

My rules are basically, "Don't have accidents, don't cause accidents, try not to annoy fellow road users." I see all that sign and signal noise as good suggestions, but realize they no more control me than they do any other road user.

I have been wrecked by a driver running a 4-way .... he didn't hit the sign, so it didn't slow him down at all.

spclark 

^^^^^^ this!! ^^^^^^

[QUOTE=Maelochs;22976597]Any cyclist who blows through any intersection without looking is not going to last long....

My rules are basically, "Don't have accidents, don't cause accidents, try not to annoy fellow road users." I see all that sign and signal noise as good suggestions, but realize they no more control me than they do any other road user.[QUOTE]

Do Unto Others in other words.

I'm wary and alert coming upon yield and stop signs, will stop if I see traffic opposing my continuation. Red lights mean stop - most of the time - unless I can see both ways sufficiently far to discern there's no threat to my running the red.

Still, I do it infrequently. I don't like surprises.

My thoughts on bicycles having to follow the same Rules of the Road as motor vehicles is that such a rule is absurd.

Isn't it obvious that bicyclists are merely faster pedestrians, using their FEET to power their progress?

Drivers controlling motor vehicles have far more control over their means of transport as long as they're actually in control and maintaining an awareness of their surroundings.

A cyclist, having stopped then proceeding through an intersection, is vastly less capable of accelerating quickly if suddenly threatened than a motor vehicle operator in a similar circumstance. Motor vehicles have vastly more powerful brakes, vastly more contact with the road surface, are capable of vastly faster changes to both direction and velocity as long as their operators are fully aware of their capabilities and respectful of the safety of others around them.

To my way of thinking cyclists should be afforded the same Benefit of Doubt as pedestrians.

Fat chance that'll ever be recognized by The Authorities though.

BobbyG

Biking, driving or walking, I sometimes feel like I am part of some driver's Grand Theft Auto live action 'game'.

urbanknight

My life MO of "Make no victims" really likes your rules. I still at least make a cursory stop because I want to make sure I take a second to look around and make sure I didn't miss something... whether that something is a small vehicle or pedestrian entering the intersection from a hidden view, or a cop waiting to take my money. I was turning right on a green light once, and I tend to do that a little slower than some of the formula one drivers around here, and was glad I did because a teen on a BMX bike suddenly appeared from behind a bus stop at about 15mph hopping the curb to cross. With the walk sign on, I probably would have been placed at fault even!

spclark 

Coming back to work yesterday after lunch I watched a customer driving one of those UTV things (they're legal to drive around in on the streets in town where I live) pull forward out of a parking space between me and the spot where I lock up my bike. He'd pulled to the edge of the street, stopped, was looking around I guess for oncoming traffic before pulling out. Had his window rolled down so I shouted "DON'T BACK UP!" just as I'd made the decision to go behind him rather than in front....

'Course he started BACKING UP as my front wheel got behind his left rear.

(I'd left ample room for this but it was still rather unsettling despite the clearance as I swerved even farther to the right to clear his intended space.)

I don't think he ever looked at / saw me coming from his left before he reversed.

In hindsight I should have STOPPED when I saw him even though he'd been stopped at that point. In trying to guess whether he'd pull forward I'd discounted the possibility he just might back up.

I'll remember this little episode, I will.

shelbyfv

For those interested, there is quite a bit of similar content (stop signs, auto interaction, etc) in the A&S section.

seypat

This thread got me thinking about the 5 Man Electrical Band. Then I got to thinking about a wild cherry for some reason.

njkayaker

Nothing is perfect.

The thing you need to address is whether things are better (or worse) overall after the changes.

Your statement here is suggesting the people who made the change aren't already aware of the "knock on" effects.

The "traffic calming" measures aren't really "an effort to get more people on bikes and public transit" anyway.

They are more of trading one type of "risky driving", speeding (for example), which tends to have worse outcomes, for another, more complicated/slower driving that has less worse outcomes.

Put another way, it's more preferable having people crash at low speeds due to "traffic calming" measures than crash at high speeds.

chaadster

I wasn’t suggesting planners are unaware, because I have no idea idea if they are or not, nor whether even if they are, it should be a reason to change plans, so I wasn’t commenting on awareness, rather just making a statement of cause-and-effect. Anyone can go on a Facebook group like Ann Arbor Townies or check on the cuckoo Nextdoor app and hear the outrage-tinged complaints, so in fact, I’d assume planners are very aware. I went to one planning meeting about 20 years ago and heard the disapproval of citizens at that time— I was there advocating for more bike lanes as part of a school project— but admittedly don’t know what feedback to the coty has been in those forums since, but I’d bet money the sentiments are stronger and city planners have gotten the message a lot.

To that point, it is totally true that traffic calming measures are part of efforts to get people on bikes and public transit. It has been an expressly stated strategy of city development goals for decades. The linkage is simple to get: people will ride more if they feel safe, and high car-to-bike speed discrepancies make riders nervous, so reducing car traffic speeds is desirable for encouraging cycling.

mstateglfr 

After reading this thread, I am convinced some are complaining that cyclists arent obeying signs and lights, while others are complaining that drivers arent obeying signs and lights. Fun stuff.

SJX426 

The point is safety. My judgement calls are based on my safety and those that may be impacted by my actions. Every decision is a risk. I try to keep the score low.

I have long held that most stop signs should be Yield signs. It matches the behavior and if following the above statement, would work well.

I absolutely hate the "calming" bumps. Many are too sharp, and some are too high. I missed seeing one once and my hand slipped off the left hood when the front wheel hit it.. I did a face plant. A person who witnessed it gave me a ride home and suggested I get checked for concussion. Nasty bruises to my face and knocked me out of riding for a week. They are the inverse of potholes but intended by over controlling organizations that think treating the symptom is the answer.

If they had more breaks in the bump that you could ride your bike in, it would be more tolerable.

Oh and safety is NOT political as much as it is unresponsibly used to support political agendas.

Having been a volunteer firefighter, I wonder what the firemen think of trying to get to a fire in a residential area that has multiple "calming" bumps.
One neighborhood called them out as "Speed Humps," How distracting!

njkayaker

Your statement of "cause and effect" is seriously one sided.

The lack of traffic calming leads to "dangerous and risky driving" (sometimes) too.

What you wrote suggests that traffic calming makes "dangerous and risky driving: worse. Which is the exact opposite of its purpose. And, if it make it worse, it leads one to wonder why the planners are unaware of it.

The basic premise of traffic calming is to reduce "dangerous and risky driving" (it's in the name!),

Again, the thing you need to address is whether things are better (or worse) overall after the changes. (Not just point out the bad things about one side.)

That would be a secondary effect of traffic calming. And traffic calming might be worth doing even if it failed to get more people to ride.

chaadster

That’s all totally irrelevant to my point and irrelevant to stated goals of the city planners so I won’t comment on that stuff.

njkayaker

What you said misleads people. Your "point" wasn't clear at all.

This is suggesting that traffic calming makes "dangerous and risky driving" worse. That's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do (the direct effect)!

The only benefit you list for traffic calming (call "laudable") is "get more people on bikes and public transit is", which is a secondary effect.

And, if traffic calming fails to reduce "dangerous and risky driving", then the "laudable" goal would be the of deceiving people.

CAT7RDR

Cyclists in my estimation are fools for running any lights or stop signs in SoCal.
I've seen far too many drivers run lights and signs to ever believe they will stop if they see a cyclist approaching.
That would be a pretty gruesome way to die or be maimed beyond returning to a normal life.

chaadster

It’s unfortunate you feel that way. I didn’t make any comment on comparative (or relative) effects of traffic calming measures, and only stated that driver frustration was an outcome, not that it was the only outcome, nor did state it was an outcome contrary to the intent of the measures. Also, I assume that calming measures are intended to do a variety of things depending on the type of feature and where it’s employed. But, I will say that I’m not at all sure that reducing driver frustration is one of the things which traffic calming measures are intended to reduce. Anyway, I don’t think your line of discussion is either helpful or clarifying to my earlier comments since it keeps moving further afield from my point, so I’m just gonna leave it where it is.

urbanknight

I agree with you, but worry that if people currently treat stop signs like yield signs, how will they treat yield signs?

chaadster

We currently have yield signs, so it seems like there’s some pretty good precedent to answer the question with.

bruce19

When you're on your bike and encounter a stop sign, especially with no one else there, do you stop?

spclark 

Exactly like they treat both stop AND yield signs now!

Which is to say essentially as unwarranted intrusions into their personal preferences to do exactly as they choose to do.

Motorized vehicles are an extension of personal space, a 'suite of armor' if you will, protecting their occupants from harm as they go about their intended travels.

Anything that would negatively impinge upon that is something to be viewed by them with frustration if not actual contempt unless it happens to be a bigger, heavier, faster motor vehicle like a cement truck or semi they fail to yield to.

I have yet to see a horse-powered Amish wagon fail to stop at a stop sign. Maybe not a full-on, complete stop - much as how many cyclists (including myself) treat them - but invariably their drivers do slow down & look both ways as they approach an intersection. If cross-traffic is seen they stop, otherwise they proceed with due caution.