06-16-2017, 01:00 PM
(06-16-2017, 12:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-16-2017, 11:06 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree cyclists generally disregard "stop" signs on trails (as they do on streets)....I certainly slow down when I cross a road, but I also cycle pretty fast, but I rarely stop.
We complain about motorists who do not stop at "stop" signs, but most people slow down to walking speed at least (and some do stop). Many cyclists do not slow down at all for "stop" signs. Admittedly it's only their own lives at stake, but even so it's not a good thing in my view. So then you get cattle gates and dismount signs as the traffic planners try to get cyclists to slow down ...
I actually don't complain about that much, only in two cases, in the context of objecting to drivers whining about cyclists breaking the rules, and where drivers have clearly endangered other people by either going too fast, or by not yielding to pedestrians. In general, I think we have far too many stop signs, and would be better served by slower speed limits and default priority/yield signs. Sadly that doesn't seem to work here.
As for slowing down for stop signs, which ones? All way stops? You're right, they don't, but a cyclist "blowing through" might only be going as fast as a rolling stop driver. In any case, visibility is much better for cyclists, and at an all way stop they can usually see who will have priority when they arrive. This is why the Idaho stop exists.
As for two way stop signs at a busy intersection, I think cyclists generally slow down as much as any car driver does.
None of that justifies cattle gates which have no good reason for existing. (Usually they're actually to keep motor vehicles off trails).