Dismount Bikes Now

Dismount Bikes Now, originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen.

The photographer adds "What will it take to convince people these signs are stupid? It takes more space to walk a bike than to ride it, unless you expect folks to carry it over their heads. If you are worried about pedestrian collisions, and if you must have a sign, why not just remind folks to "yield to pedestrians?" Why not force car drivers to put their cars in neutral and push them through intersections; jeez."

Comments

[Fred]

But there ARE cyclists who refuse to be cautious in these situations and put others and themselves at risk.

[Just161]

Where is this? Heading north on MVT towards Humpback Bridge?

[washcycle]

yes

[darren]

"But there ARE cyclists who refuse to be cautious in these situations and put others and themselves at risk." Yep. But on the roads, engineers expect drivers to be selfish a-holes, and when they do work like this, they re-mark lanes, maintain a minimum workable lane width so traffic can continue to flow at a reasonable volume, and they don't put ridiculous unrealistic conditions on operator behavior. Everyone on GW Parkway (including workers) would be safer if they put the speed limit at 10mph through the work zone, but they don't do that, because that restriction would be so ridiculous that it would be wholly disregarded.

If the VMS provided some useful info to operators, like "Caution, blind narrow turns ahead, reduce speed", they might actually impact selfish a-hole bike operator behavior by providing actionable info. But telling riders to dismount doesn't work, because it makes no sense.

[John]

This is just an electronic version of the signs often seen on MUPs around here: Dismount before Crossing. This is traffic engineer speak for "We screwed up this design."

[RideTheWomble]

Here, here. This is beyond idiotic. On my bike, I'm one person wide. Next to my bike, I'm more than two people wide. This didn't make sense when the constriction was on the old trail, and it makes even less sense now.

It is much safer to stay mounted in this detour. ...unless you can't exercise judgement about your speed, and you don't have the ability to ride at walking speed. If that's the case, it's better to avoid it altogether.

[RideTheWomble]

Oops. It turns out the phrase is, "hear, hear." And to think I want to pierce my eardrums with a knitting needle when I hear someone want to "take a different tact," or say, "for all intensive purposes."

In spite of destroying my credibility with a grating phrase misuse, I still agree completely, and wish to add my voice to those saying this doesn't make sense.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

It's just empty CYA--no thought behind it beyond that. I guess the point is that even if you take up more space walking your bike, you're unlikely to collide (with any kind of speed, anyway) with anyone else. Not very convenient, but it is minimal CYA for the county.

Me, I just ignore it, since it carries no legal authority and what it suggests doing isn't the least bit helpful.

[Brendan]

The NPS tries to kill me on a daily basis.

[washcycle]

"The NPS tries to kill me on a daily basis."

That's the plot for a new FOX show, btw.

[contrarian]

But on the roads, engineers expect drivers to be selfish a-holes

Ah, a favorite peeve of mine: roads are designed with the presumption that most drivers won't follow most rules. However, all pedestrians and cyclists are expected to follow all rules.

[Chris]

That's a pet peeve of mine too, Contrarian. Whenever I get into a conversation with a non-cyclist, the conversation inevitably goes to some experience where a cyclist didn't properly follow a law. I usually respond by saying that nobody on the roads are following the law, so why should cyclists be any different from the general population. When challenged on that, I point out that, on my commute, I rarely see people using turn signals (for instance) at traffic circles.

[Dr Pangloss]

Ah, a favorite peeve of mine: roads are designed with the presumption that most drivers won't follow most rules. However, all pedestrians and cyclists are expected to follow all rules.

Even worse, the generalized rules of the road are, in every case, written for the maximum convenience of drivers, and with the behavior of drivers first and foremost in mind. And they *still* can't follow the laws.

Meanwhile, cyclists and pedestrians are forced to improvise around the margins, but every time that brings them into conflict with the strict letter of the law, some drivers use that as a rationale for denying them their rights.

[Froggie]

Just keep in mind, this is NPS territory...