We appreciate your email.

You can find more information about understanding the law as it applies to bicycling at the following web link: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/bicycles/bicycling101/bicycles_understandingthelaw .

You can also to the following web link to use the precinct finder, and then request more patrols for a specific area by contacting the appropriate precinct. The MPD precinct web link is located at: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/index.htm .

If there is anything else we can help you with please contact us. Thank you for emailing the City of Minneapolis.

John

Minneapolis 311
Office 612-673-3000 Hours: 7 am - 7 pm (Monday - Friday)
Email minneapolis311@minneapolismn.gov
www.minneapolismn.gov

Actually, stop signs in this situation are quite hazy. Bicyclists on a sidewalk (and a bike path meets the definition of one) are legally pedestrians -- see MN 169.222, subd. 4(f): "A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances." So -- in fact -- a cyclist is not obligated to make a complete stop at this particular placement of stop sign. They certainly *should* slow down to an appropriate speed for drivers to react -- but a bicyclist on a sidewalk or crosswalk is a legal pedestrian.

A stop sign means stop. No exceptions.

Well, yes, Longfellow, if you're a vehicle, a stop means stop. On the road, a bicycle is a vehicle and has the same obligation to stop as a car. But "stop" does mean anything (legally) if you're a pedestrian; you still have right-of-way in a crosswalk. And a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk is a pedestrian -- see my citation.

The location in question is not a sidewalk, it is a designated bike trail. MN bike law 169.222, subd. 1 says "On trails and bikepaths that cross roadways, obey all stop signs and warning devices."

Here's a good quick reference http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/pdfs/MN-BIKE-LAW-CARD.pdf

We need signs like this one from the Cedar Lake trail.

Do you also deny that the crosswalk is a crosswalk? Check out the definitions: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.011. The critical difference between the Cedar Lake Trail and the River Parkway trail is that Cedar Lake runs within its own right-of-way; the River Parkway trail runs within the right-of-way of another roadway. Sidewalk is defined as "that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines intended for the use of pedestrians." 169.222 does not use the language your cite; I suspect the MnDOT brochure is referring to totally separate trails, like the Cedar Lake Trail.

If we're going to really nitpick, we could argue that the bike portion of the path is a separate thing from the pedestrian portion of the path, and that only the pedestrian portion is a sidewalk. (Though there's no indication that the law intended to be that specific.) Nevertheless, a bicyclist STILL has right of way in any marked crosswalk, because a crosswalk is " (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface." Even if a bicyclist were required to stop (something, again, I believe is advisable), vehicles on the roadway to be crossed must still stop and yield the right-of-way to the cyclist as they would a pedestrian.

It looks like the text I quoted is MnDOT's summary of the law. But in any case it doesn't say "totally separate trails," it says trails and bikepaths.

Regardless of ones personal interpretation of whether or not it's a sidewalk, the city placed the stop signs there on purpose--to make people stop. Bike riders approaching the crossing cannot be expected to contemplate the legal definition of a sidewalk while determining whether they must obey the sign.

I've provided a solution that would clarify who is expected to stop. You've provided more proof that the crossing is a problem, but no suggestions to help fix it. If you have a solution that would improve the safety of the crossing, please provide it. Arguing over legal definitions won't help.

Fair enough. And you're right, the intention (legally enforceable or not) is to get bikers to stop and probably make sure there are no cars approaching so close that it would be impossible for them to stop. But a stop sign, as the original complaint notes, is not a very effective solution to achieve this. I would:

1. Remove the stop signs, because they simply confuse the situation and give drivers cause to believe that cyclists do not have right-of-way in the crosswalk. The signs like you mention from Cedar Lake are also perhaps clearer to cyclists, but also confusing to drivers -- I've ridden the SW LRT trail, where they use those. Some drivers stop still, some don't.

2. Create a physical way to force a bicycle to cross at a pedestrian speed. The real *danger* here is not that a bicyclist is not making a complete stop, but rather that they're taking on a pedestrian role with a higher-than-pedestrian speed. On the actual River Parkway trail, there are really large curb ramps, with enough of a dip to keep speed in check. I'd provide speed humps (with appropriate warning signage) on the descent from the Greenway. Getting bicyclists to slow to 5 mph or so would be a reasonable goal.

Sean Hayford Oleary's arguments and suggestions are preposterous. Like it or not, somebody installed stops signs for the bikes on the bike path. Bikes are not pedestrians - and the bike path is not a sidewalk. If that's your argument, then I'll lobby against any increased funding in the creation of bike-specific paths. As it is, I'm an advocate of even more bike paths in the Twin Cities BUT ONLY if bikers behave respectfully toward others. It isn't okay to act like a pedestrian when it's more convenient and act like a car when it's more convenient. I can't even begin to scream about the number of bicyclists I see whizzing down the shoulder of the road and then flying right through stops signs without care or concern. But these same riders will greet me with horrified disdain if I do so much as honk my objection to their ignoring the law. If local bikers want my continued support for tax-supported bike paths, they've got to rally around a sense of self-policing responsibility rather than self-righteous indignation. It isn't okay to try to somersault around the law with an interpretation that means bikes do not need to stop at stop signs that were specifically installed for them to observe.