FBinNY 

As you pointed out, you posted your opinion. Likewise, I posted mine.

And, yes, i agree that it is a dumb sign. However, where you see a problem, I'm very happy to simply ignore it, and should an issue arise, assume the risk.

Hypno Toad

Like you, I ignored the sign and enjoyed riding over the ramp (the pic is a screen grab from my GoPro, I didn't even slow to take a pic)

But I also think of others, reference my friend that lives a few blocks from me, she was biking with her pre-teen child. The child wanted to obey the trail closed sign (long story about a long delayed commuter rail project and minor "systems" work closing the bike path). The child was clipped and knocked down by a car as they crossed a major county road. The person the clippers the child was speeding through a slip lane for a right turn, and the driver left the scene without stopping to check on the child.

Signs and their message matter, you and I are fine, but we are not the only ones out there.

FBinNY 

I hear you, but I'm not sure how.the story tracks. Ie. How does the closed trail relate to the hit and run? No need to give details since that's not the point.

Signs like the one cited err to the side of caution. Were I the parent to a child, I'd instruct the child to heed these signs, unless I was there and said otherwise, or we'd discussed whether a specific sign was an exception.

BTW if my child were to ride there and fall, I'd be properly sympathetic, but also remind them that the sign was there for a reason, and they made a cchoie to disregard it.

Hypno Toad

You see no need for details, but clearly my short story omitted a key detail: the trail has no justified reason to be closed. You and I (& the kid's mom) just ride around the dumb sign and laugh. But this child innocently believed they needed to obey the sign, therefore causing them to cross a busy/fast/dangerous road. I expect that helps explain my story better: stupid signs can (and do) have a negative impact.

FBinNY 

Sorry, but the dots don't connect.

We were talking about one specific sign, in one specific place.

The extension to a general argument about potential harm of stupid signs is at best a strawman, since nobody ever posited otherwise.

----------

FWIW I'm not a fan of CYA warning signs like this because they fail to properly qualify implications, and condition people to ignore warnings.

Case in point. I grew up in NYC, which has many bridge of various lengths. Most of these have signs instructing cyclists to use the sidewalk. Those of us used to sharing narrow lanes with traffic willingly disregard them.

So, back in the late sixties replaced the Broadway Bridge between Manhattan and the Bronx, close to where i grew up. This is a smallish lift bridge on a regular city street. Of course, it has the standard "bikes use sidewalk" sign which, of course, most ignore. Unfortunately, it also has expansion joints big enough to swallow a front wheel down to the axle, and has done so to hundreds if not thousands of cyclists over the years.

So, yes. Stupid signs are problematic.

livedarklions

I know of a couple of MUPs in MA with such signs permanently installed at a couple of street crossings. I see a lot of cyclists crossing at these places, and have yet to see a single one actually dismount and walk. I've always assumed that the signs were put up at the behest of some very local interest group.

livedarklions

Honestly, I think you made up problem to be advocating for. I'm pretty sure disabled people are fully aware that they will not be held liable for violating a rule that it would be physically impossible for them to comply with.

Hypno Toad

As the leader of a local advocacy group, I get many reports from folks using adaptive bikes and the issues they have with bad temporary trails. This example is not likely a problem since it's easy enough for any trail user to roll over. However, the signage shows that the city and project team have a narrow understanding of the trail users in the community and fail to see the needs of everyone on the trails. The project team is in good company, there's a lot of folks with a very narrow perspective and have a hard time thinking beyond their own needs.

livedarklions

In this particular instance, though, it does appear that the temporary fix was actually well thought-out for access equity, but that the signage wasn't. I do think the sign sucks as likely very close to no one will actually comply with it, it's just a matter of perspective as to why. I'm just not sure it's much of an issue of equity when the difference is that disabled people have two reasons to disregard the sign instead of just one.

Hypno Toad

We agree, the trail fix for the project is some of the best I've seen, I see nothing wrong with the ramp over the work area.

The sign is more like death by a thousand papercuts ... one sign is not the issue, it's years of seeing pointless/dumb signs. Of course 99.9% of us ignore the dumb signs, and aside for posting it here, that's what I've done.... BF like going to the bar to talk about annoying ***** with your friends over a beer, just get it off your chest and move on. Sadly, this post has been far less cathartic.

FBinNY 

You folks are overthinking the sign. It has no effect on equity, since that depends on the temporary repair itself, not the sign.

Also, the language matters. "Cyclists dismount and walk," doesn't speak to wheelchair and quadracycle users, since they're not cyclists. The few can't walk cyclists out there are surely smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

Let's not get into semantics, and worked up over signage wording. Practical considerations dictate a kind of sign shorthand, so things like "unless you can't" have to be inferred.

One is correct in demanding that makeshift detours consider all users, but once we have that we should accept non critical imperfection.

Possibly, a bit of excellent advice I was given as a young designer/manufacturer applies here.

Never sacrifice good on the alter of perfection.

Hypno Toad

I had to revisit the post that got this *****storm going ... I'm very impressed to find out that a parenthetic thought at the end of a one-sentence post is 'overthinking'. And a big thank you to everyone on BF for not overthinking your responses to this quick post

livedarklions

After post 110, this is just overkill.

FBinNY 

Maybe so, but this entire conversation has been over a CYA sign posted at what everyone, including the OP, seems to agree is a good temporary fix.

We may feel the sign is pointless, but I'm sure that anyone who's been sued for "failure to warn" understands why it's there.

I've yet to see a single, arguable objection, or positive suggestion for improvement.

I still have no idea why the OP felt moved enough to post about it, so maybe the overkill was at post #86.

Sometimes, as we advocate, we need to remind ourselves to focus on what actually matters.

Hypno Toad

Did you read the title for this thread you're posting in ... or read post #1? I'll help you out:

You can go to post #1 if you'd like to see the picture.

To be clear, post #86 was a quick post and I moved on, but oddly there seems to be some folks that really got their panties in a twist. I'm starting to think I used a word that trigger them (reference: inequity).

livedarklions

Think you might want to take a gander at the topic of this thread and the first post, which predates the one about this sign by several months.
TBH, "Construction Ride With Caution" would probably have been sufficient for the CYA purpose, and I'm generally not a fan of signs stating a rule that literally no one is likely to obey. I'm against them for the same reason I don't like declared "tornado watches", they don't actually tell you what you should do, and they just condition you to ignore real warnings.

Post 110 explains that it wasn't intended as a serious discussion of any kind of major complaint, but I think YOU escalated it by accusing him of whining, not having enough problems in life and overthinking.

It's not like he can't handle disagreement, I explained why I thought this really didn't have much to do with equity, and he was polite in discussing it with me. Friendly advice--maybe tone down the condescension a bit, we're allowed to think things are important even if you don't care about them.

jon c. 

We live in interesting times.

FBinNY 

Suggest you read post 86, and my immediate response in post 87.

After that was back and forth about it being an issue or not, until 110 when they said it wasn't.

It seems that part of the problem is that too many bike advocates believe in the right to opinions. except, of course for those they don't wish to hear.

I repeat. If you're serious a about bike advocacy, focus on what matters.

livedarklions

You went off the rails in post 98 when you personalized it. I like most of your posts and you'll notice that I really didn't disagree with your opinion about this sign or your right to express that opinion, but accusing people of "whining" is really more in the "you don't have a right to express your opinion" vein than anything I've posted.

I would prefer to continue liking most of your posts, if you don't mind. I'm still going to tell you if I disagree with how you're discussing an issue. Take it or don't.

livedarklions

Think we're allowed to disagree on what matters. Also think we can discuss those disagreements civilly.

BTW, you rewrote this post at least three times while I was responding to it. I ended up discarding my first response entirely.

FBinNY 

I don't remember, and don't care enough to check, but don't think I responded directly to any of your posts about the sign. As far as 98 being off the rails, I'll leave that judgement to individual readers. After that it was no longer about the sign but about posts themselves.

FWIW I really never cared, whether you liked my posts or not. I tend to focus on whatever point I'm trying to convey, and assume that those with opinions and who are willing to post about them on a public forum, are also willing to read things they may not like.

So, feel free to like or not like my posts either accross the board or case by case, but please understand that I neither need, want nor seek your approval, and will not tailor my posts to your tastes. If that's an issue please feel free not to like me any more.

livedarklions

Please understand that I really don't care whether you want me to criticize your posts or not. You took a nasty turn in this thread for no good reason, and you "don't care" so much that you need to keep repeating how much you don't care.

FBinNY 

I posted my opinion re. the sign, which was essentially that there was nothing objectionable about it.

After that it was mostly about your critiques of things like my "nasty turn". We've been here before, with you sometimes saying nice things about me and others like now not so.

As I said, I don't seek your approval, and while you're free to pretend to be a moderator, know that it only creates the acrimony you claim to object to.

Rather that criticize posts and start back and forth on side issues, you might let the stand, allowing the general audience to think whatever they will l.

livedarklions

Yes, you posted that you didn't see anything wrong with the sign (not much wrong with that), but then you very quickly went into a personal attack mode.

So when you post criticisms of other people posting stuff you don't consider relevant (which is literally all you have done here and on several other threads I've seen), you're just posting your opinion, and it's a-ok for you to do so in an insulting manner, but when I object that the insulting tone isn't necessary and that at this point, you're pretty obviously trolling for the argument to continue by telling us we're "overthinking", I'm pretending to be a moderator and I'm causing acrimony?

The only person you're fooling with this passive/aggressive nonsense is yourself.

FBinNY 

This BS has gone on too long, and can't br good for anyone. It might unfairly lead to the mods to close the thread.

Since it's obvious that neither of us has anything to add, I won't continue.