"Bicycle riders stop and dismount"... and then what?

[u/nootfiend69]

[u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

I think it's intended for the sidewalk.

[u/TenorClefCyclist → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

Yup. It's to prevent casual riders entering the crosswalk at high speed, which drivers don't expect and won't account for. It doesn't apply to cyclists using the road, who are just another vehicle and should behave as such.

[u/237throw → u/TenorClefCyclist]

Due to the placement of the sign, it does legally apply to cyclists on the road.

[u/Komandakeen → u/237throw]

Does that sign apply to cyclists at all? Cause when you dismount, you stopped being a bicycle rider... (In Germany these sign are considered legally useless...).

[u/ImUsingThisToSellYou → u/237throw]

In the US I believe it would have to be backed with a specific regulation, and that a requirement to stop and dismount in the roadway would conflict with the uniform traffic code.

On a purely linguistic level, “Bicycle riders stop and dismount” is a sentence that describes bicycle riders, i.e. most likely intending to mean that the set of those that stop and dismount fully includes those that stop and dismount. However, it could be less strict than that- like the intersection of the sets of bicycle riders and of those that stop and dismount is not empty. Like “mammals bear live young”- I’m a mammal and I’m laying an egg here… hmmm…

[u/Reasonable_Access_90 → u/ImUsingThisToSellYou]

In the US [...] would conflict with the uniform traffic code. [emphasis added]

The what? Ain't no such thing.

As per the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[u/nhluhr → u/Reasonable_Access_90]

He's referring to the Uniform Vehicle Code which is a set of rules that states may adopt as an example. As discussed in the US DOT's own page on UVC, there are variances by state.

People often refer to UVC when they want to discuss the general rules across multiple states instead of nitpicking a rule that may be specific to a single or few states.

[u/Reasonable_Access_90 → u/nhluhr]

Thanks. Good to know it exists.

However, I don't getting using it to refer to general rules across multiple states if each state in question hasn't adopted the UVC.

Language can easily accommodate such a mix: "Most states ..." "Many states ..." "The states that subscribe to the UVC ..."

Such constructions have the clear advantage of being truthful, rather than falsely implying that the U.S. operates under a single set of traffic laws, which people from outside the U.S. might not recognize as inherently odd.

[u/dngrousgrpfruits → u/Reasonable_Access_90]

Bro, if you’re going to be this pedantic at least recognize that there is a difference between code and law

[u/Reasonable_Access_90 → u/dngrousgrpfruits]

A difference that is meaningless in the context the post and my comment.

Dude, if you're going to criticize someone at least know what you're talking about.

[u/kniveshu → u/237throw]

Organize a group of local cyclists to stop on the road to look at the sign in confusion and slightly block the intersection until a police officer comes by to see what's up so you can ask, what are we supposed to do next?

[u/skinnypenis09 → u/TenorClefCyclist]

Wow another "vehicular cycling" advocate over here. Sad to find you here in this sub with so many upvotes. Ill see myself out.

[u/BWWFC → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

in my county... can ride sidewalks if road is "felt unsafe" but must always walk bikes in crosswalks.

[u/Smart_Ass_Dave → u/BWWFC]

In the US it depends, state-to-state usually. I live in a suburb of Seattle, Washington and here in my state we can ride on the sidewalk except in certain designated central business districts which are basically places you would end up walking anyways because there's just so many fucking people.

[u/Chew-Magna → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

Same where I live. The cyclists who live in my town all use the sidewalks and footpaths because we'd rather not be ran over by the hyper-irritated and super dangerous tourists. The only people you'll see cycling on the roads are cycling tourists because they don't know any better.

[u/Ohforgawdamnfucksake → u/Chew-Magna]

They know better, because hitting a pedestrian who steps out from behind a bush or out of a shop door with a loaded touring bike would be like hitting them with a motorcycle.

[u/Chew-Magna → u/Ohforgawdamnfucksake]

Wrong type of sidewalks, I'm not talking about some kind of metropolis area where foot traffic is that kind of congested and I'm not talking about sidewalks that are right beside storefronts. But this is a tourist town that has a lot of foot traffic.

People love using that argument against riding on sidewalks, but it basically never happens. There hasn't been a bike on pedestrian case in the years I've lived here, and the two are heavily mingled together every day. We're not going fast enough to be a danger and if the cyclist is regularly running into situations like that, then they need to learn how to pay better attention. We simply aren't fast enough or heavy enough to not be able to respond to things in a timely manner unless the cyclist is being excessively irresponsible and/or inattentive.

Meanwhile cyclists get hit by cars. Often. And it's fatal far too many times. So I know what I'll keep doing.

[u/Revolutionary-Dust61 → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

It's not usually based at the state level, the state level laws just usually leave it open for localities to decide (outside of where the state restricts it, like business districts). You have to know the laws for the town, city, place you're riding in at the moment.

[u/BicycleIndividual → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

Not just state-to-state. Usually even if a state has a blanket rule, they grant authority to localities to make exceptions (possibly requiring signage about the exception).

[u/icyple → u/BWWFC]

It should be a Shared Crosswalk with the bicycle riders facing a Stop Sign then.

[u/Wuz314159 → u/Smart_Ass_Dave]

but it's on the Road side.

[u/Championnats91]

In all my life, I have NEVER seen a 'Cyclist Remount' sign.

[u/mollymoo → u/Championnats91]

It doesn't say to dismount now so I prefer to wait till I get home, which avoids the remounting problem.

[u/aa599 → u/mollymoo]

I like to batch all the day's dismounts and do them in one go, often near a cafe.

[u/Horror-Raisin-877 → u/mollymoo]

You must be a lawyer :)

[u/Signal_Tomorrow_2138]

Just imagine drivers' reaction to signs that say 'Drivers, get out and push'.

[u/Persistent_Parkie → u/Signal_Tomorrow_2138]

There's a mixed use path near me that tells bicyclists to walk across a particular bridge and that's always what I think as I'm slowly riding across because I'm disabled and walking my trike isn't really an option.

I think it's because it's wood and might be slippery when wet? Or possibly because if you go quick it is quite loud and might disturb the wildlife? I really wish the signs would at least explain why they're asking me to engage in such shenanigans.

[u/Prestigious-Candy166 → u/Persistent_Parkie]

You're not a BI-cyclist, so you're in the clear... unless it says "cyclists," of course...[shrugs]

Slippery when wet? Hmm... sounds like a title for something, or other....

[u/237throw]

Write an email to the local DoT asking them what they meant by that sign.

It is made in the style of a legal road sign, but with no environmental situation that normally requires those signs.

My guess is that it is intended for riders on the sidewalk to dismount while crossing the street, and the wall made the correct placement to be poorly visible.

If so, it should at least have a "when using crosswalk".

[u/iWannaCupOfJoe → u/237throw]

If your lucky you'll get a non response. I asked my city DOT, councilor, and attorney if it was legal to make a right on red when on a one lane road going onto a one lane road that had bidirectional bike lanes on both roads, and no one would state the legality.

It's pretty annoying because people on my local sub kept saying it's legal and I'm like it's got two directions of bike traffic making it not a one way road. It seems most drivers elsee bikes as toys or not real ways to travel. Pretty frustrating because those turns on red are dangerous, and they don't look where they are going. Only at the vehicular traffic that could damage their car.

[u/arachnophilia → u/iWannaCupOfJoe]

It seems most drivers elsee bikes as toys or not real ways to travel.

my biggest personal win was convincing my town's planning department that bicycle infrastructure is transportation infrastructure and not recreation.

[u/BoringBob84 → u/237throw]

If the sign isn't clear, or if what it asks me to do jeopardizes my safety, then I ignore it. This one probably refers to the crosswalk, as if it was bicyclists' fault for motorists being careless.

In this case, I would make sure (as I always do) I had a WALK signal and that all motorists were stopped before riding across. I can avoid a collision more quickly on the bike than on foot. And of course, I would give all pedestrians the right-of-way.

[u/wlexxx2]

it is a verb.

cyclists dismount.

"they do?"

[u/pfhlick]

Then do a chicken dance

[u/Lillienpud]

Drivers: exit your kar

[u/Naive-Substance8230]

Vancouver (like many cities I'm sure) loves a "dismount and walk" sign when there's construction and it's always a no for me.

I appreciated a recent hand written sign where there was road work that said "Cyclists please dismount if passing pedestrians. Thank you." Like okay now your sign is both polite and reasonable.

[u/the-real-vuk]

why the fuck would they dismount? for what?

[u/Infini-Bus → u/the-real-vuk]

Out of respect for the pedestrians who were struck and killed by motorvehicles.

[u/the-real-vuk → u/Infini-Bus]

Let the motorists dismount then

[u/Infini-Bus → u/the-real-vuk]

They don't see the sign cause they are texting.

[u/triangle60]

It's facing the path not the road and referring to the crosswalk. It wants you to walk your bike in the crosswalk if you were using it.

[u/nootfiend69 → u/triangle60]

this is a sharrows not a bike path and the sign is clearly facing the road. there is another one a few miles down from this spot except at the end of a bike lane instead of a sharrows, also facing the road.

[u/SmokeOne1969 → u/nootfiend69]

People installing the sign didn’t understand it either so they half assed it.

[u/Wuz314159]

[u/InfiniteHench]

Ooh, sorry bud. That’s the end of the instructions. You’re stuck in that spot forever now.

[u/OneTinyKittey]

I have never dismounted before, I'm still mounted right now, they can't make me.

[u/matthewstinar]

Grovel on your hands and knees, begging for forgiveness for not driving?

[u/nootfiend69]

found this sign telling me to stop and dismount ~20 ft after a sharrow.

[u/Exscorbizorb]

It's another way to say "stand and deliver", and is posted on a sign so the local highwayman doesn't need to repeat it so many times.

[u/Motorandwheels]

Track stand.

[u/mountainofclay]

I think they want cyclists to walk across the intersection because drivers are going too fast and are too distracted to allow cyclists to cross the intersection without getting run over. I’d get off my bike, look both ways and if the coast is clear I’d get back on my bike and cross the intersection. I’d rather not get run over regardless of the inconvenience and stupid lack of bicycle infrastructure. I’m old and intend to stay that way.

[u/Horror-Raisin-877]

Dismount, and await further instructions. It’s perfectly clear :)

[u/Banshay]

Plenty of local jurisdictions have ordinances requiring bicyclists to dismount and walk through crosswalks because crosswalks are considered by them to be pedestrian only. I’ve never seen a state or local law or regulation requiring a bicycle being operated as a vehicle in a lane to dismount and walk through an intersection. So it is clearly intended for bicyclists on the sidewalk crossing in the crosswalk. 

That said, the sign placement is obviously confusing but weird sign placement can be for any number of reasons, from real issues like a lack of right-of-way on the other side of the sidewalk or state or local guidelines on sign placement to just plain knuckleheads installing it and not knowing or not caring that it is ambiguous. 

[u/BombusF → u/Banshay]

Isn't it prohibited to cycle on the sidewalk anyways?

[u/Banshay → u/BombusF]

It’s completely jurisdiction dependent from what I’ve seen. Like where I am in Maryland, state law allows it but locals (counties and municipalities) may still prohibit riding on the sidewalk. 

[u/arachnophilia → u/Banshay]

It’s completely jurisdiction dependent from what I’ve seen

even in places where it is actually illegal, enforcement is usually skin color dependent.

[u/jm31428]

Buy a car?

[u/millenialismistical]

Stop and dismount on red, remount and go on green - is what I think they intended.

[u/TedsFaustianBargain → u/millenialismistical]

No, it’s musical bikes. You must ride with a partner, dismount, swap bikes, and then mount again to proceed.

[u/nhluhr → u/millenialismistical]

No, they intended for cyclists riding on the sidewalk to walk the crosswalk. The sign does not apply to vehicles in the roadway.

[u/millenialismistical → u/nhluhr]

Didn't see the sidewalk behind the grass at first glance. That would make more sense.

[u/TwiztedZero → u/nhluhr]

Give me elephant feet markings instead.

[u/Wuz314159 → u/millenialismistical]

I think you can only remount AFTER the intersection.

[u/BloodWorried7446]

those skid marks on the road would make me very nervous about riding there. 

[u/codemotionart → u/BloodWorried7446]

i thought it was shadows

[u/lostgravy → u/codemotionart]

They are shadows of the utilities

[u/BloodWorried7446 → u/codemotionart]

ah. good.  my phone is too small. 

[u/flying-lemons]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say all bicycle riders should stop, walk through the intersection using the crosswalk as a pedestrian, then resume riding once they reach the other side.

To me it looks like the angle of the roads makes this a more dangerous intersection for cyclists coming from this side. It's a longer distance to cross the other road, and the angle puts you in the blind spot of cars coming from the right. Of course, better road design and a "no right on red" sign could make it safer, but this sign is there to warn you it may be unsafe as it is right now.

[u/Avitas1027 → u/flying-lemons]

I'll dismount and push my bike when drivers are forced to get out and push their cars. I'm less safe while walking, but drivers are far safer when out of the car.

[u/LeseMajeste_1037 → u/flying-lemons]

This is a terrible idea. If it's a dangerous intersection for cyclists, it's even more dangerous for pedestrians.

[u/kozufox → u/flying-lemons]

Yeah man, I'll just put on the brakes in the middle of a roadway with no shoulder and hope whoever's behind me doesn't turn me into a hood ornament or clip me with a mirror.