 |
| People on bicycles using traffic signals in Portland, OR |
Section 9D of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices states:
Section 9D.01 Application
Support:
Part 4 contains information regarding signal warrants and other requirements relating to signal
installations.
Option:
For purposes of signal warrant evaluation, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.
Support:
Also refer Part 4 of this Manual for highway traffic signals, in particular:
• Section 4C.102(CA) – Bicycle signal warrants.
• Section 4D.104(CA) – Bicycle Signals.
• Section 4D.105(CA) – Bicycle Detectors.
Section 9D.02 Signal Operations for Bicycles
Standard:
At installations where visibility-limited signal faces are used, signal faces shall be adjusted so
bicyclists for whom the indications are intended can see the signal indications. If the visibility-limited
signal faces cannot be aimed to serve the bicyclist, then separate signal faces shall be provided for the
bicyclist.
On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of
bicyclists.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf
2 comments:
The California enactments have the force of law and require local governments to install bicycle sensitive devices to activate traffic signals. However, the major loophole is that this requirement is not implemented unless the "loop detector" is replaced. This will only occur if the street or intersection is torn up, modified, or changed in some way.
At my locale in Irvine, CA, there is major construction of the roadway going on, and the local city asserts that it is placing "video detectors" at the signals to see bicycles and motorcycles. This will probably be one of the very few intersections in the city to have these.
Dav
We've been conservative with video detection and have it at one intersection in the City. We find it hard to pick up people on bikes in the dark if their front lights aren't significant and the lighting isn't great.
Post a Comment