« Library of Congress Presents Special Display on History, Technology and Sociology of the Bicycle, Aug. 8 | Main | Bike commuting during the Africa Summit »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm confused by that last picture: "Bikers Dismount" with sharrows eight feet later?

I think the bikers dismount signs are some sort of legal CYO thing maybe where the trail goes through a parking lot? So if somebody gets hit by a car in a parking lot, MNCPP or the cities or the county can just say, "well we said to dismount, so we don't have any liability."

Everybody ignores them.

The bikers dismount sign looks illegal to me. It's not standard, and should be yellow and black because it's advisory. I'd complain.

Also in picture 7, they used a ridiculous road sign indicating that people need to move right for the median. Really? Is there no common sense?

I will admit, the bikers dismount sign was pretty lame, but I almost hit a car that was backing out the other week, so the sign is kind of warranted. Or you can just keep a keen eye out :)

"Really? Is there no common sense?"

Come on, you know there isn't.

In all seriousness though, if 1,000 cyclists go through there, a certain percentage are going to be confused and go the wrong way. Whether that's a big deal or whether the sign would make any difference are other matters.

@DE I mean common sense about the engineer who drew up that sign for that location. It is also a regulatory sign that has no meaning to pedestrians or cyclists.

Thanks for the updates. Last time I was there the trail was 90% finished and it's nice to see the finishing touches.

I have been wondering whether the Cafritz development will fill the gap or not either. The "trail" (right-of-way, which one can follow but is often muddy) is currently closed through the construction site, but that leaves at least 1/4 mile at the south end and a few hundred yards at the north end. The info on the project website does not really clear things up either.

@John: your experience could justify a useful sign like "caution: you are about to cross a poorly-designed parking lot" not a sign that suggests that for some reason cyclists should get off their bikes. (Maybe to do a little dance before getting back on?)

@DE: arrows on the trail would be the usual way to handle that.

Arrows would certainly be better. Seems like the design of these things is trial and error, much like road design was before they had decades of experience and research showing what worked and what turned out to be dangerous. Perhaps traffic engineers are better at research than...nah, I'm going to stop there.

It looks good! I might have to take a spin with the nice weather coming this weekend. I like the railroad turntables.

I've always been confused by "bikers dismount" signs. I have only seen a few instances (gravel, low-clearance) where the signs would make sense. In a parking lot, what's the difference between a cyclist or a pedestrian being struck? None. I'm much more nimble and aware on my bike than walking around dragging dead weight.
I vote for @Mike's idea for "Danger, cars and parking lot ahead, proceed with caution"

This probably stems from the same idea from awhile back that cyclists should get off their bikes to cross the roads in crosswalks. smh.

BTW, I wonder if they are going to put a barrier to keep cars from driving up the trail? I always love those skinny yellow poles.

As contrarian has said before, a "Bikers Dismount" sign is just a nice way of saying "No biking".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader