OPINION: How Could Someone Steal the Yield Signs?
By STEPHANIE J. OPPENHEIMER
Falls Church Times Staff
August 11, 2010
Almost 10 years ago to the day, my father decided to take a bike ride to Leesburg via the W&OD Trail. It was a trip he had taken countless times, so when he didn’t return home after a few hours, we weren’t terribly worried; we figured he had just decided to ride a little further than originally planned.
But when afternoon turned to dusk, and dusk turned to night, we got scared. We called every hospital in the region, we filed a police report, we drove repeatedly to the parking lot where he had left his car. Finally, at 10 p.m., we found out that there was a “John Doe” in Fairfax Hospital’s ICU, who had been medevacked that afternoon from Sterling. He had been hit by a minivan as he crossed one of the many roads the W&OD intersects, and he was in bad shape.
John Doe was my dad. He spent two weeks in a coma, nine months in the hospital, and four more months in rehab and physical therapy as a nearly severed leg and a damaged brain healed. He ultimately returned to work, returned to golf, returned to the gym. In my eyes, it’s a miracle he survived at all.
Ever since then, I’ve treated W&OD road crossings as if the railroad were still operating — without crossing gates or ringing bells. I slow and look both ways before continuing through a crossing. I stop whenever I see a walker, jogger or cyclist approaching. Yet even with such caution, I’ve been amazed by the number of times another driver has zoomed around me and nearly hit the very person I was letting cross in front of me.
So imagine my delight last week, when six “Yield to Pedestrian” signs were erected at each of Falls Church City’s six W&OD road crossings. I was happy to see a post on the City’s Facebook page, reminding motorists “to slow down when approaching a crosswalk and stop if a bicyclist or pedestrian is in the walkway, because they have the right of way.” It continued, “Bicyclists must also observe the Stop sign before entering the crosswalk, and everyone is reminded to look both ways before crossing the road!”
There were lots of positive, thumbs up comments in reaction to the Facebook post — and although a few people pointed out that there are plenty of kamikaze cyclists out there who also need to heed their stop signs, most of the comments applauded the City for erecting the signs. Many shared their own stories of frightening encounters between bicycles and cars. It was a feel good story about slowing down, being kind, and staying safe.
Two days later, five of the signs were gone. A follow up note from the City indicated that five of the six signs had apparently been stolen, and it would cost $2,600 to replace them. In the meantime, orange cones have been placed on each street crossing, in order to mark the former location of the signs and help cover the bolts that remain in the street. As of now, the City hasn’t made a decision on whether to replace the stolen signs, and it doesn’t have the money in the budget to do so. Suddenly, a feel good story has gone bad.
And I, for one, am at a loss. Why would anyone feel compelled to rip up five signs that were securely bolted into the roadways? Sure, there are drivers who are annoyed with cyclists who don’t stop. There are cyclists who are annoyed with drivers who don’t give them the right of way. There’s road rage, traffic, long commutes. I get that. But no matter who is right and who is wrong, one thing is clear: if a car and bike collide, the car wins. Why steal the very thing that might help mediate that one-sided argument?
(Anyone with information regarding the stolen signs is encouraged to contact the Police Department at 703-241-5050.)
By Stephanie Oppenheimer
August 11, 2010
Falls Church in the News
I’d love to see stop signs wherever roads cross the bike path. Ten years ago my mom, sister and I were in the Boston suburbs. We rode our bikes into Cambridge from further out and never had to stop, despite crossing numerous streets, since all the streets had stop signs and the cars actually yielded to bikes. It was great and made for a lovely ride.
I hope the City can replace the signs.
-sd
I saw the cones yesterday and wondered what was up. I hope bikers will observe their stop signs too. I still have bikers breeze through their stop signs and across the intersection where I am driving. Scares me to death.
I yield to pedestrians, BUT pedestrians should not step into the crosswalk when I am 5 feet from the crossing and expect me to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting them. This has happened on more than one occassion. Even in the eyes of the law, common sense is necessary.
I hope this doesn’t devolve into a car vs. bike vs. pedestrian discussion. I see all three parties making ridiculous and dangerous decisions.
It’s really disappointing that someone in our communtiy has such a reckless disregard for the safety of people on this trail. Maybe the city should opt for something a little more permanent this time. Perhaps speed bumps leading up to each crossing?
This is the first I heard of the signs and hadn’t seen them yet. It is surely ridiculous perhaps notice of this will enable a parent to find them in their basement – a summer frolic by kids. I sent a note regarding right of way to the News Press last winter and suggested they check with the police regarding right of way. They did – they confirmed that cars have the right of way if it is a bicycle and the pedestrian always have the right of way. The result is a strange array of stopping and going at the bike trail crossing. I was happier stopping for all – many of the bicyclists don’t stop any way.
Instead of a bike vs car thread, how’s about a pledge thread to pay for the replacements? Stephanie, I’ll put in $20… anyone else?
Following up on Rob’s suggestion…I pledge $100 for sign replacement. Shall we send our checks to City Hall marked “for yield sign replacement”? As a frequent cyclist I was very happy to see the new signs.
I’d be willing to put in some money for new signs – but I guess I’d want to know how they’d be installed differently to help prevent them from being swiped again. I’m also hopeful that the signs will find their way back to the City (going on Cathy’s theory that this is the work of kids goofing off).
When driving, I always slow down and try to make eye contact with pedestrians and cyclists because even if I might “win” a collision I don’t want to have any part of a victory like that. However, I do sometimes cringe when a car yields to a cyclist who isn’t stoping (as required) because what if a car coming the other way is obeying the law – the cyclist would have a false sense of security when they see the first car yielding. I have this same problem when cars improperly yield to other cars – when these interactions start going against the predefined rules they get dangerous.
So, efforts to educate everyone on the rules and then trying to stick to them makes the most sense to me.
I went by a spot where the cone had slid?? That’s some mean looking hardware under there….bad news for a motorcycle or a car tire.
Good points made by everyone, especially Andy, who notes the increased risk of yielding when there is oncoming traffic that may not. In those situations, I stick my arm and hand out the window and signal FULL STOP to the oncoming driver.
In general, everyone should remember a variation of the “golden rule.” In other words, you may be a driver one minute and then, when you get out of your car, you become a pedestrian, or in some cases, a biker, and vice versa. It is not “us” and “them.” You are the same person; you have not changed, but your role has. If everyone would actually think at the time the situation arises of what it is like to be in one of the other “roles,” I believe there would be fewer collisions.
> . I stop whenever I see a walker, jogger or cyclist approaching.
Which is quite inappropriate, as it is THEY who have a stop sign,
NOT you! Can you understand this problem?
> … they confirmed that cars have the right of way if it is a bicycle
> and the pedestrian always have the right of way.
This doesn’t sound right; a pedestrian should not be able to just
walk out and expect road traffic to stop; as you point out, it’s a
chaotic system. (Btw, it’s not a “bike path” as such things are
often called, but a multiuser trail, which in parts to the west at
least can see equine users — might check on THEIR status,
but maybe some poop law can be cited within the city? They
are present west of Vienna, anyway. (And deer are trail crossers!)
I’m amazed at the responses here! Really, you folks are asking for
a stupid, signed chaos. It’s a good thing that those signs are gone,
and whoever thought to erect them in the first place should be strung
up and flogged.
— speaking as a cyclist.
> “to slow down when approaching a crosswalk
> and stop if a bicyclist or pedestrian is in the walkway, because …
it’s better than hitting them, yes.
But look at it from the perspective of that cross-walk user who is
at a stop sign: whaTHEck were they just doing, to be out in the
walk w/o right-of-way?
(Last year there was a multi-car bumper-bang-up on Great Falls,
where we can imagine the seemingly unexpected -at least- if
not sudden stop of the lead vehicle for a trail user and bam-bam-bam.
Right of way needs to be clear and not subject to individual whims.)
> It continued, “Bicyclists must also observe the Stop sign …
Yes, and more than just glance over at it and admire the hue, too.
> … before entering the crosswalk, …
Which, if they did, there’d not be much issue of needing to stop
for a cyclist in the road. Those signs often say “complete stop”
and in some jurisdictions the interpretation has demanded
placing a foot down -not a trivial act for cyclists with cleated shoes
engaged in the pedals. Some of my friends in fact were among a
few ticketed by Loudoun Sheriffs in Lovettsville, doing a (big) MS
ride; and, to match the stupidity of the arrest, there was a lessening
of the charges to avoid points off a license by being found guilty of
an impossible violation — not having lights (which isn’t a violation
during daylight hours when they were charged) ! *Justice* !
The use of such trails as the W&OD is sadly frought with these kinds
of problems, so many darn crossings. Years ago I recall learning from
some fellow cyclists going to/from a training ride out of Vienna that the
crossings were eschewed in favor of the run out West St-Fairfax-Lincoln?
and back at Washington St, with just one or two lights, and a 4-way SS,
typically ignored. Cyclists are better off on the road in common use with
other road users. But then “cyclists” can cover a range of abilities
not all of which could get a driver’s license (i.e., children), and that
adds to the rub.
It is a problem even out in the vanishing rural reaches of the W&OD
(before Loudoun sprawls it all with ugly McMansions), where the
W&OD unfortunately dips to cross (w/SS to trail) Rt.706 (IIRC),
a quite seldom-trafficked road, but nevertheless with right-of-way
over the well-traveled W&OD: but sightlines from one to the other
are terrible; I recall (have heard others report) a car just laying on
the horn as it drove across the trail — slowing and looking really
is too much inconvenience.
So, to my mind, again -and largely from a cyclist’s POView-,
those signs are a Bad Thing, and would only encourage the
sort of blast-through-w/o-slowing behavior that too many cyclists
seem to have. West St.’s crossing is the busiest, and often
does get crossing effected by cooperative actions and some
gathered clump of trail users. Shreve Rd’s crossing got
straightened a bit, to give better sight lines; yet it gives
greater speed too, and it was after the straightening that
a colleague was clobbered there, sadly. Hunter Mill Rd.
is often busy enough that similar circumstances arise,
some one, & then the driver opposite, coming to stop,
and clump of users hurry across.
It’s equally amazing how the concrete curb-openings are so badly
made: as though by some damn rule they just MUST be one size,
even though the trail is wider and … . At the crossing by the back
of the fire house, there was a crash & injury some decade ago,
likely from the EB cyclist looking both ways for traffic and being
a little too far on a side of the trail and hitting the bloody in-the-way
concrete curb, which has since been widened.
As a cyclist, esp., I know that in the past decade and more VDoT
has deforested considerable acreage in erecting gratuitous stop
signs; it’s a lousy means of getting good road conduct, garnering
too much wasteful stop’n’go, or the increased (somewhat justified)
disdain & disregard for stop signs. (Try designing a suburban bike ride!)
As we overpopulate …
-dl*
====
While I do not condone the stealing of these yield signs, I feel they were a waste of money for the city to begin with in a time when there are many money-issues already happening.
I do think cars need to better watch out for pedestrians and bikers at all crossings of the bike trail, but the yellow yield signs (and now the cones) are a hazard to the cars- I have seen many cars (and have myself) cut it a bit too close to these signs when already going below the speed limit because there simply isn’t enough space in the street, especially when the road curves such as near the American Legion Post. We’re replacing one hazard with another.
I’m all for encouraging cars to slow down at those spots (as I always do), but Andy’s right — when cars and/or bikes don’t follow the rules (even when they’re trying to be nice) it’s dangerous all around. Last week I was almost hit (in my car) by a speeding biker who flew through the intersection without slowing and barely looking. Clearly the bikers get the worst of those collisions, but I hope they are also penalized for breaking the law — it couldn’t be more clear on the trail that bikers are supposed to stop, not the cars.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue as to who has the right of way. People on foot on the trail do not have to stop at the stop signs. They always have the right of way. If they are there, cars are required to stop.
Bicyclists have to stop, but if they are there and have stopped, cars are required to stop for them and let them pass.
This was all detailed in a Times story earlier this year:
http://fallschurchtimes.com/15218/woman-dog-hit-by-car-while-walking-on-wod-trail/
Also, somebody appears to have stolen the replacement orange cones.
I have also seen some confusion from drivers who see the crosswalk and bike path and don’t know if they are supposed to stop or not….then decide to stop unexpectedly. Yikes. I have also been traveling behind cars that decide to stop and allow peds or bikes to cross the road when the “pathers” were just waiting for a traffic break…also yikes. If cones are gone avoid driving over the mounting hardware.
I was wondering how long the cones would last since I assume they were secured with gravity.
Thanks for the clarification on the right of way. Cathy’s earlier comment didn’t cover whether a stopped bicycle had the right of way at a crossing. Of course, all hell will break loose if VA ever passes a “rolling stop” law for bicycles.
I guess no one would be interested in traffic calming measures near the crossings?
You’re welcome, EMB. I like your idea of traffic calming near the crossings. Low speed humps like they have on Little Falls would be perfect; they work, but are relatively unobtrusive for cars.
EMB and Stephen Siegel, I also like the idea of traffic calming near these crossings. I wonder if there’s such a thing for the bike paths, to remind cyclists to stop at the stop signs-maybe rumble strips?
I do hope the speed humps are not of the sharp-angled parking-lot variety that are up on Cherry Street, though. Those are overkill and I fear for my suspension no matter how slowly I go over them! Here’s another vote for speed bumps (anywhere in the city, for that matter) like the ones on Little Falls Street and NOT like the ones on Cherry!
I agree about the speed bumps. I drive a very low slung car and I creep over them. I scraped the front valance on my car coming off one at a very low speed…yuck
I’ve seen some of the bicyclists in our fair city who appear to have a burning desire to become one with the road. I think everyone has to assume responsibility for his or her own actions, and if a bicyclist thinks he’s going to blow through the stop signs and count on a driver’s quick reflexes or the car’s good brakes, maybe the bicyclist should apply for the Darwin Awards.
How’s about fewer options to reduce confusion? Turn Spring into a one-way between Park and Lincoln (it’s already one-way between Rt 7 and Park); Oak would be one-way in the other direction between 7 and Lincoln. Don’t think this logic extends to the busier crossings, but it could improve safety for all at these two crossings – pedestrians/bikes are more likely to see oncoming traffic when they only have to look one way; not having opposing traffic would create more room for emergency maneuvers for motorized vehicles…
How many people heard of the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Project undertaken by the City, and / or participated? This provides / provided a forum for residents to submit observations and suggestions.
There is / was a link on the City’s website; according to the Project website, it was supposed to be active until July 31, 2010.
Hmmm, last night I took time to write a long comment on this troubling issue;
but I see it nowhere?!
To my mind -as a cyclist, pedestrian, & driver- , whoever put up those signs
should be strung up and flogged (at least verbally). What in incredibly bone-headed
idea to place nasty traffic impediments smack in the middle of an already
narrow travel lane for cyclists — who might hit them on their sharp edges!
Elsewhere it was posted:
> Falls Church Police Chief Harry Reitzie told the Times that walkers
> and runners do not have to stop, no matter what the signs may say.
> He added that walkers and runners also have the right of way in the
> crosswalk, and that it is drivers who must stop at the crossings.
> However, the chief said, bicyclists are required to stop.
Is this clear as mud — and chaotic? A walker, who can EASILY “stop on a dime”,
doesn’t have to, yet a cyclist, who might even be required to UNclip and then
of course will have to try to re-clip (cycling-shoe cleat to “clipless” pedal),
is supposed to. And the car, least efficient in stopping, is supposed to stop
for both of them, sometimes,
with a runner even purportedly having right-of-way to just barrel across the
road (which otherwise carries no indication of loss of right-of-way, just some
here’s-a-trail-indicating signs) ?!!
> Falls Church Police have even pulled over bicyclists
> for failing to stop at the trail stop signs.
And it would be insightful to see what might have constituted a “failure to stop”
— some nonsense about “complete stop”, which is really a letter-of-law
absurdity, impractical and needless; or something more reasonable.
(I have a friend who got ticketed for making a quick left turn from Lincoln
onto Great Falls on the new green, on the basis that he ought to have
yeilded to the (yet to accelerate) vehicle opposite, nevermind the simple
advantage in the turn that he had.)
Someone mentioned the risk of some car suddenly stopping, and following
vehicles piling into it: that happened on 2010-01-19 at approx. 17:17,
southbound at Great Falls -x- W&OD. When I got there, there was no
apparent trail user whom I could see, just 4 smashed vehicles, bumper
into bumper, with varying amounts of damage (curiously, it seems that the
rearmost & largest -an Escalade?- suffered the most, w/airbag deploye).
Above someone says that bikes must yield to cars must yield to peds:
my reading of that other-event-commented report of rules is different,
that cyclists have all the rights of ped.s at such cases, and cars must
yield to both.
But, frankly, I find that terribly impractical. Cars are the fastest traveling
and least efficient entity to stop, and should be given right-of-way.
Pedestrians are the most efficient at stopping, and have the best
visibility of others; they should be able to navigate the crossings w/o
much trouble. Cyclists are the most likely to be uncareful, and they
need no signed help in continuing this unhelpful behavior; but they
also shouldn’t be expected to come to a complete stop where the
conditions allow a slowed pause, and then surge to cross with clear travel
(this speaks to some dubious law enforcement practices).
Another sad aspect of these crossings, for cyclists, is the often
dangerous construction of the concrete curb opening: too often it has
been made as though from a one-size-only mold, and does not cover
the full width of the trail — actually, it should be a foot wider on each side.
A cyclist, coming to the crossing, is looking left & right for clearance,
and ahead also, for opposite-bound interferences, and then if over
on the right side of the trail line, rides into a curb. Just such an injury
occurred at the Little Falls crossing, gaining the emergency attention
of the fire & rescue staff nearby. That dangerous curb has since been
widened; but none of them should’ve been built so dangerously,
to begin with.
Think of KISS : right-of-way belongs to ONE of the roads,
the other stops/yields — not some crazy hierarchy which no one will want
to have to think about and discern (“ah, good, the biker’s stopping; oh,
wait, the jogger’s not … !”).
PROS: I too was delighted to see the signs installed – they were excellent ‘traffic calming’ devices, forcing drivers to slow down and take notice. I was surprised when they disappeared almost as fast as they appeared and then shocked when I saw the bolts removed.
Is there any way we can convince the City to reinstall these? Can we obtain insurance for replacement? We wouldn’t remove stop signs if they were vandalized.
CONS: Some of the negative comments above are valid. I was looking at the signs primarily as a driver, not bike rider (I never got the chance to ride on the W&OD before the thefts); however, the point that the signs are narrow (from the biker’s approach) is valid as is the on-going point of confusion that bikers must stop, but pedestrians do not.
Suggestions: Make the ‘yield’ signs smaller and narrower rubber “sticks” with “Y I E L D” printed on all the sides facing traffic and “C A U T I O N” printed on the sides facing the bike trail. I’m talking about the inexpensive-looking rubber sticks like those installed at the corner of Constitution and Pennslyvania downtown DC as part of the creation of the bike trail integrated in the roadway. They must be significantly less expensive than the more elaborate signs that were stolen, but would accomplish nearly the same goal.
Another idea: install flashing lights that would deploy as pedestrians/bikers approach….though my rubber stick idea would certainly be much less expensive!
CLARIFICATION TO POSTING ABOVE: as I read my post, it looked like I had only addressed PROs & CONs. My “Suggestion” was lost. To clarify (and with apologies for the double-posting):
PROS: I too was delighted to see the signs installed – they were excellent ‘traffic calming’ devices, forcing drivers to slow down and take notice. I was surprised when they disappeared almost as fast as they appeared and then shocked when I saw the bolts removed.
Is there any way we can convince the City to reinstall these? Can we obtain insurance for replacement? We wouldn’t remove stop signs if they were vandalized.
CONS: Some of the negative comments above are valid. I was looking at the signs primarily as a driver, not bike rider (I never got the chance to ride on the W&OD before the thefts); however, the point that the signs are narrow (from the biker’s approach) is valid as is the on-going point of confusion that bikers must stop, but pedestrians do not.
SUGGESTION: Make the ‘yield’ signs smaller and narrower rubber “sticks” with “Y I E L D” printed on all the sides facing traffic and “C A U T I O N” printed on the sides facing the bike trail. I’m talking about the inexpensive-looking rubber sticks like those installed at the corner of Constitution and Pennslyvania downtown DC as part of the creation of the bike trail integrated in the roadway. They must be significantly less expensive than the more elaborate signs that were stolen, but would accomplish nearly the same goal.
Another idea: install flashing lights that would deploy as pedestrians/bikers approach….though my rubber stick idea would certainly be much less expensive!
Sorry, Dan, your earlier comment was captured in our SPAM filter. It’s now been released. — Editor
I am fascinated with the responses and glad to see that so many people care.
Since as long as I can remember, the pedestrian has always had the right of way at marked crossings. I am for sticking with that. However that thought of the 4 car pile ups is frightening.
Let’s just follow the rules – they aren’t going to change without a state wided committee and many years of haggling. Who wants that?
Stop for the pedestrian. Observe caution but don’t stop for approaching bicyclists or stopped ones with their feet on the ground – UNLESS they are IN the intersection all ready.
We also do not have to stop for pedestrians who are approaching but not yet at the crossing. (Picture a parent trying to gather the children before they get to the crossing)
I did have a funny thought as I was reading these. Can you imagine the days of old (and present in some areas) when the bells start clanging and the red lights flashing and the arm comes down across the street as a train approached at a prescribed distance? Picture that as a car approaches the bike trail – the arm going across the trail and letting the bigger vehicle – the car – go through. : )
I also came on the scene of the accident on GF within a minute and it points out many of the engineering issues. Several cars flying through the intersection (or accelerating from the light) and one car stops, and then a chain reaction ensues with two cars pretty heavily damaged.
These little signs might be helpful, but I would like to see more permanent solutions:
(1) The bike path should only cross streets at a right angle (esp GF & WOD);
(2) We need to consider lighting;
(3) We need to consider line of sight improvements (whether street parking limits, trimming shrubs etc.;
(4) At Grove and West, the intersection should be reconfigured to provide better pedestrian and bike safety (maybe even a traffic circle?)
I know #1 would require funds to be spent by the NVRPA, but there is plenty of right of way there and it could be a really nice gateway feature for a relatively small joint expenditure. I hope our task force will look at the several W&OD crossings and propose a range of smaller to larger improvements because there are funds in the grant to allow some construction after the plan is finalized.
EKT, as far as I know that link is still active on the city’s website. I think the new deadline to submit comments is today.
I would suggest that a big part of the overall problem is that cars are not driving the posted speed limit, which is 25.
Even going 25, I can’t stop my car on a dime.
I also asked the Falls Church Police about the law regarding these crossings last year. Pedestrians are not required to yield to anyone, but cyclists are required to stop at the stop signs and yield to cars. Of course pedestrians should be careful when crossing the street, and cyclists probably don’t need to fear a traffic ticket for failure to stop as long as they’re not carelessly zooming into the intersection. I enjoy riding on the trail, and I would very much like to see an inconsiderate Lance Armstrong wannabe get his comeuppance for dangerous riding.
EMB,
Thank you! I wasn’t aware that the deadline had been extended, although given the comments, it is clear that this is a sensitive, and timely, issue.
ALL –
Below are some links to information that may be helpful to this discussion. It may be a good refresher for all of us…
http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/programs/bk-laws.asp
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe/?000+COD+TOC46020000008000000000000
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/fe8a740424d609e185255fda0075d156/$FILE/HD32_1990.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/98-r34.pdf
I also draw attention to a recent article in washingtonpost.com/drgridlock titled ‘Signals for cyclists.’
I went out to the area of issue yesterday. West St. crossing is simply a problem
any way you look at it. An added danger not mentioned above is that vehicles
accelerating Right/north from Park Ave (say, after a wait, just getting an opening
in traffic w/oncoming car turning into Park, with others behind) has a scant two
long-car lengths before it is into the W&OD crossing! Neither the driver, likely,
nor any west-bound trail user will have seen the other.
The Shreve Rd crossing is quite dangerous for cyclists WESTbound : this is a
case of a badly placed curb gap — a straight line from the right side of the trail
will send a cyclist into a curb, not the opening (as cyclist is looking for cars).
This crossing could conceivably be shifted 10′ or so to the SW, to give that
much more space to traffic coming out of Falls Church, which might be the
hardest to see and for them to see.
While I was at any crossing, I was impressed by the readiness of drivers to
stop and let trail users cross.
[a correction: the Great Falls domino-crash was on 2010-01-18 (not 19th)]
Concisely, I’ll reiterate:
– The many-crossings situation of the W&OD at issue is a problem with no
easy, happy solution; one should rely on courtesy to help, patience on the
part of trail users, otherwise;
– Signs in the center of the road & trail are dangerous obstacles esp. for cyclists!
– Cars should be given a clear right-of-way; there really isn’t a concern
about hitting folks IN the crosswalk crossing — people have sense enough
to stop (accidents can happen, and signage won’t stop that)- , stopping for
someone just AT the crossing should be left as a driver-&-circumstance
driver consideration (e.g., having just got a green on GF, do NOT stop)
– This need for car movement is greater since at West & Great Falls there
are already traffic stops for those streets nearby (near-ish on both sides
for West, and the light on the north for Great Falls) — i.e., please don’t
add another maybe-stop a few car-lengths away from (and unsynchronized
with) the lights; esp. at Great Falls northbound, drivers’ attention might be
drawn to the impending light at Lincoln.
– The suggestion to make Spring & Oak 1-way streets is not so good, really:
these streets have scant traffic as is, and if anything changing to 1-way would
lead to some confusion & need for added signage, for dubious benefit: better
that trail users always look both ways, not having some further set of varied
conditions to consider.
– As for making the W&OD crossing a right angle to the roadways,
except for West St. I don’t see this as a great help, as the other crossings are
close enough to that that it’s not impressed me (i.p. Great Falls; but Shreve is
perhaps worst?); AND…
actually, re sightlines, West is actually somewhat beneficial in that one has
sighting -given the “X” vs “+” orientation- leftwards into West traffic, and
needs only “turning” ones head to see right, the *2nd half* of traffic to regard;
EB traffic, however, doesn’t have much of a sight line in looking hard Right
back on West towards Rt.7.
ps: Add skiers to the mixture, for winter use — not sure how they manage
to X the asphalt, but it can’t be other than duck-awkward!
I walked to West St. again; I can see one thing that might help:
>>> narrow << the street !
West is currently 2-lanes wide south-bound, it seems, though w/o such
lanes defined; they are defined after it bends at Park, to the light at Rt.7.
Putting up one of those "traffic-calming" narrowings would make the
traffic a bit tamer AND the distance for trail users to traverse shorter.