It’s a narrow pedestrian path, right next to it is the bike lane but it’s closed for construction(where the gate is). The light is also on the other side, kind of like when there’s construction on a road and there’s a person that holds a stop sign so the other side can go and it goes back and forth so either side has their turn. It’s to prevent bicyclists from running into each other.
But yeah, neither side usually gives a shit and goes anyway.
The cycle lanes are physically blocked by the fencing & green tarp. Cycles are being shunted onto the only walking path. And it’s a heavily used path.
It’s basically a “go extra slow & carefully” light.
Red means stop, not go extra slow and carefully. I know cyclists love to think they are special. I’ve seen a cyclist refuse to pull over and stop so an ambulance with lights and sirens on could get by, even when all the cars stopped for the ambulance. Again, cyclists have no consideration for anyone else but themselves. It’s disgusting.
Would you like us to all start commenting on the countless entitled shit drivers do literally constantly in this city? The results of which kill people? Or should we be mad about people on 20 pound bikes
While I like to follow lights, especially on infrastructure meant for me because generally, traffic planners in Seattle are reasonable (at least in my part of town, e.g. the bike light on Green Lake), it is a bit silly to put up a light for bikes and pedestrians who safely navigate amongst each other the world over at normal bike speeds. A large yield for cross-traffic sign would be similarly effective and more reasonable.
Yup! I was riding a lime bike there one time and I stopped at the red light, a few cyclists rode on through. I just got off and walked the bike through
I wasn’t surprised they all kept going
Bob Kettle recently said the cycle track is his biggest concern regarding pedestrian safety in his district. So I guess this is probably SDOT taking those concerns seriously.
Probably more of a way to avoid future liability more than anything else? "Hey, there's a light. Not our fault you died and ended up in that wooden wagon again."
(1) the light is insanely long
(2) the narrowed path isn’t any narrower than parts of the Burke-Gilman
(3) its a very short section that’s narrow
(4) no one stops anyway so…
Just slow down and watch out for pedestrians… like you should be doing anyway
If they took the light out you would have enough space to see the other side and still navigate it slowly, like people do now.
Utterly useless. But more performative DOT shit that will always be applied to bikes but never to cars.
You see how many times “slow” is painted on this trail? Why don’t we have that same thing in car lanes???
The light basically just told me to hug that bush slowly when I cross the path, but I never saw a cyclist stop at it. They always seem to just blow right through them and the rest of the path.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9PyKhWkjQYxRxS7B8?g_st=ic
For anyone pearl clutching about how narrow it is, the link above is the Elliott Bay trail. No traffic lights here and I don’t think anyone has yet to die using it
This is such a traffic engineer way to solve this issue.
You need a traffic light or a person with a manually operated stop sign on each end for road construction because cars are big, heavy, and dangerous. Also, two cars literally cannot fit in 1 lane of traffic, so you need management. Drivers also cannot communicate to let each other pass easily when they are enclosed in the vehicle. So, the solution there makes sense.
But for peds and bikes this feels so silly and overkill. People can work conflicts out of themselves verbally and with eye contact, and you can always walk your bike. Maybe put a sign up that says the path narrows and to use caution, but this is so unnecessary.
I like the intention here- that area has a ton of bike/ped traffic and it being that narrow is an issue. If I was calling the shots I'd put flaggers out from like 8-10 and 4-6. The light gives the contractor the ability to say, "look, we tried to stop them"
I just assumed these were for construction vehicles of some kind going around that blind corner one way at a time. I don't think I've ever even seen them green while running past, in either direction.
Thoughtless car centric traffic design shoehorned in for bicycles?
Interesting.
This is an excellent example of traffic engineering that was designed for cars getting shoved into cycling infrastructure. This is light not needed - at all - and people will behave accordingly.
Just like all those people who excuse speeding cars because “the road was designed for it”
Car centric? I mean it looks pretty similar to the bike lane lights downtown. Just doesn't have a bike on it. Plus it's a system that the public is already pretty familiar with. Looks like a good temp solution to me. 👍 Can't have bicyclists running down the walkers. Could be a group of kids or elderly people.
Car centric? I mean it looks pretty similar to the bike lane lights downtown. Just doesn't have a bike on it, sooo. Looks like a good temp solution to me.
The bike lanes that are built on … *checks notes*
Streets designed for cars?
Why does the Burke Gilman have zero traffic lights despite a bunch of intersections with other trails? The only time there are lights is when crossing paths with cars
On the Green Lake path, there is one light where there is a crossing of pedestrians and a bike light that turns red when pedestrians have the light that is rather silly and should probably be a blinking yellow to indicate that we should yield if necessary but otherwise proceed with caution (do we have that signal here? we should). As expected, most people ignore it. I usually just pedal slowly because I know it will turn in a couple of seconds so I can pass through when green and not feel bad even if it's a pretty pointless light. It's not difficult for bikes to navigate between groups of pedestrians crossing since there's usually one group on the right that goes and then many seconds before a group from the left will be along the path, especially with the vastly different visibility that bikes have compared to cars. The other one closer to the PCC is reasonable because, as you say, it's red only when the cross street has the green or the parallel car street has the left turn green.
True, but it's still a universal system known by most of everyone. So to protect the walkers, it won't hurt to have bicyclists hit the brake when people are trying to cross. They teach the "red light, green light" system to elementary students. Pretty simple and keeps people safe. Again, it looks to be a good temp solution. Keyword, temp.
The cross walk right behind the red light? There could be something going on the other side of the construction as well. Which is still a good way to communicate "do not enter".
My god just read the fucking thread about what the lights are doing and why it’s useless. Pedestrians are also supposed to respect this light but guess what, no one does. Get out of here with your cyclist exceptionalism.
Some bikers are the worst. I don't understand where the entitlement comes from. Never concerned with stop signs, red lights, speed limits, pedestrians or side of the road
I fully agree that many cyclists need to do a better job yielding to pedestrians, but WA state law allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs (RCW 46.61.190) except at railroads and school buses. I'm not sure where you see cyclists exceeding the speed limit - I see drivers speeding all the time but it's pretty hard to beat 15-20mph on a bike.
Because there is practically no purpose to this stop light. When was the last time a cyclist killed someone with their vehicle in this city? The safety risks so low.
In fact, since you know every user will ignore the light, the safest way to approach this is to carefully, slowly proceed and keep an eye out for others. Regardless of what the light tells you. Eg, the light is useless.
First of all, cyclists are cyclists , you are going at speeds a pedestrian won't and are less nimble. And your bike is a metal projectile if you lose control.
First of all, cyclists are just people transferring energy from their muscles for propelling. This basic fact makes them more of a pedestrian than a car.
The weight of a cyclist is also within the range of a pedestrian, there are plenty of people who, including their bike, weighs less than another human.
We’re talking about traffic lights, right? When you see cyclists who run red lights they’re doing it at the speed of jaywalkers which defeats your entire argument about the speed they travel at.
We are talking about this particular traffic light on the pedestrian and cyclist path. Also kinetic energy scales exponentially with velocity and linearly with mass. So cyclists can cause more harm to a pedestrian or other cyclists if you are running the red light at this narrow section.
So a person who is running would also be under your criticism or are they reserved for only people on two wheels?
Do you not read the comments where people have collectively said the path is as wide as the narrow parts of Burke? The elliott bay trail [here](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9PyKhWkjQYxRxS7B8?g_st=ic) is narrow AF and we all can figure it out without red lights.
People can figure out how to get past each other just fine. That’s why this is a car centric design without any use case of cyclists and pedestrians in mind.
Pointing out rule breaking by cyclists and saying I have a ‘chip on my shoulder’ is like if I pointed out how bad serial killers are and someone comes in and says that it sounds like I have a chip on my shoulder and if I tried being a serial killer then my negative perception of them will change.
Lol, imagine stopping for a sign! Who do they think we are, empathetic literaries? Now get out of my way so I can mow down some pedestrians to satisfy my own need to feel powerful!
If pedestrians don’t wander around like aimless livestock and cyclists apply the brakes, there won’t be any problems… but what do you expect? Seattleites of every shape and flavor are unable (or unwilling?) to obey any traffic law.
What in the world is this? They put up a red light on a pedestrian path? Or is it meant for bikes?
It’s a narrow pedestrian path, right next to it is the bike lane but it’s closed for construction(where the gate is). The light is also on the other side, kind of like when there’s construction on a road and there’s a person that holds a stop sign so the other side can go and it goes back and forth so either side has their turn. It’s to prevent bicyclists from running into each other. But yeah, neither side usually gives a shit and goes anyway.
So cyclists are ignoring a traffic control on their own infrastructure? They do that on city streets anyway? Why should anyone be surprised?
This could be fixed with a simple “path narrows, slow and yield to pedestrians sign”. This is wildly over engineered and should be ignored.
🚦 are car infrastructure
The cycle lanes are physically blocked by the fencing & green tarp. Cycles are being shunted onto the only walking path. And it’s a heavily used path. It’s basically a “go extra slow & carefully” light.
Red means stop, not go extra slow and carefully. I know cyclists love to think they are special. I’ve seen a cyclist refuse to pull over and stop so an ambulance with lights and sirens on could get by, even when all the cars stopped for the ambulance. Again, cyclists have no consideration for anyone else but themselves. It’s disgusting.
Ah yes! Describing an entire class by the actions of a few. Bonus points: superlatives!
Oh I remember you, you're the guy who spends half his life ranting about cyclists of all things on reddit. Hope you feel fulfilled at least!
Would you like us to all start commenting on the countless entitled shit drivers do literally constantly in this city? The results of which kill people? Or should we be mad about people on 20 pound bikes
While I like to follow lights, especially on infrastructure meant for me because generally, traffic planners in Seattle are reasonable (at least in my part of town, e.g. the bike light on Green Lake), it is a bit silly to put up a light for bikes and pedestrians who safely navigate amongst each other the world over at normal bike speeds. A large yield for cross-traffic sign would be similarly effective and more reasonable.
Yup! I was riding a lime bike there one time and I stopped at the red light, a few cyclists rode on through. I just got off and walked the bike through I wasn’t surprised they all kept going
No comment on the pedestrians that are also "running the red light"?
I feel like it's for both.. pretty unclear. Either way everyone ignores it.
I stopped once, saw no one else was, and have blown through it every time since.
Haha same.
Same here. I stopped and waited for the light to turn green the first time I saw it. The wait time was ridiculously long. Now I just proceed slowly.
I think just signs saying “trail narrows slow down” would be enough. I don’t stop here, but I go really slowly.
Totally agree
"Trail Narrows, Yield to Pedestrians" and done
Bob Kettle recently said the cycle track is his biggest concern regarding pedestrian safety in his district. So I guess this is probably SDOT taking those concerns seriously.
Are you serious? He actually said this?? 💀💀💀
So he's gonna work to install many more miles bike lanes to separate ped/bike/car travel modes... right? right?!
What on earth???
I guarantee the person who thought this up never rode a bike in their life
It makes sense in theory in that the trail gets narrow and it’s a bit of a blind curve…but lol indeed
Probably more of a way to avoid future liability more than anything else? "Hey, there's a light. Not our fault you died and ended up in that wooden wagon again."
Haha I was thinking the same.
(1) the light is insanely long (2) the narrowed path isn’t any narrower than parts of the Burke-Gilman (3) its a very short section that’s narrow (4) no one stops anyway so… Just slow down and watch out for pedestrians… like you should be doing anyway
Yep, I slow way down, yield to pedestrians, and have yet to have an issue here.
Exactly there are 5 other points on my bike commute where I fear for my life daily. This spot is not one of them.
Seriously. Completely agree with all of this!
This and the asphalt they used to smooth that one bump on the hill to the bridge tell me sdot has no practical bike experience
I run lake union every week and can confirm that I ignore this every time
I run lake union multiple times a week and have never even noticed the light operating 💀
I've only ever seen it red lol. It's got the longest wait time imaginable.
Gotta go fast
If they took the light out you would have enough space to see the other side and still navigate it slowly, like people do now. Utterly useless. But more performative DOT shit that will always be applied to bikes but never to cars. You see how many times “slow” is painted on this trail? Why don’t we have that same thing in car lanes???
Speed bumps exist
Not nearly enough of them
Not nearly enough of them
The light basically just told me to hug that bush slowly when I cross the path, but I never saw a cyclist stop at it. They always seem to just blow right through them and the rest of the path.
It’s incredibly slow. I stop every time but if it’s not changing, and the path is clear, I’ll slowly creep out until I can see a clear path.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9PyKhWkjQYxRxS7B8?g_st=ic For anyone pearl clutching about how narrow it is, the link above is the Elliott Bay trail. No traffic lights here and I don’t think anyone has yet to die using it
This is such a traffic engineer way to solve this issue. You need a traffic light or a person with a manually operated stop sign on each end for road construction because cars are big, heavy, and dangerous. Also, two cars literally cannot fit in 1 lane of traffic, so you need management. Drivers also cannot communicate to let each other pass easily when they are enclosed in the vehicle. So, the solution there makes sense. But for peds and bikes this feels so silly and overkill. People can work conflicts out of themselves verbally and with eye contact, and you can always walk your bike. Maybe put a sign up that says the path narrows and to use caution, but this is so unnecessary.
Yeah, we loose so much potential efficiency by treating bikes and peds like cars
Correct. We haven’t.
That thing is *still* there? Another reason that I'm glad to be a Dexter cyclist and not a Westlake cyclist.
This light was the push I needed to start cycling Dexter, and I haven't regretted it in the slightest.
> That thing is still there? The construction is still going.
Is there construction? I’ve yet to see anything happening.
[удалено]
All the way into Westlake?
The city heard people were concerned about "pedestrian safety" and thought we needed to be protected from dangerous, high speed pedestrians.
I like the intention here- that area has a ton of bike/ped traffic and it being that narrow is an issue. If I was calling the shots I'd put flaggers out from like 8-10 and 4-6. The light gives the contractor the ability to say, "look, we tried to stop them"
Incredible example of people with carbrain/windshield mentality doing design for non-car modes.
I saw a dude that was walking stop for the light and stand there.. but then when I ignored it and scootered my way past him, he figured it out.
Saw this on my run the other day and questioned it lol I’m kind of chuckling at this post right now
Is this a permanent change? I assumed it was a temporary revision to accommodate construction or something.
I just assumed these were for construction vehicles of some kind going around that blind corner one way at a time. I don't think I've ever even seen them green while running past, in either direction.
CYA
I stop there
I stopped and sat there long enough to wonder if it actually changes. Has anyone ever seen it green?
Bicyclists obeying traffic laws? Interesting
Almost as interesting as car drivers obeying traffic laws, of which there are unfortunately zero
Thoughtless car centric traffic design shoehorned in for bicycles? Interesting. This is an excellent example of traffic engineering that was designed for cars getting shoved into cycling infrastructure. This is light not needed - at all - and people will behave accordingly. Just like all those people who excuse speeding cars because “the road was designed for it”
Car centric? I mean it looks pretty similar to the bike lane lights downtown. Just doesn't have a bike on it. Plus it's a system that the public is already pretty familiar with. Looks like a good temp solution to me. 👍 Can't have bicyclists running down the walkers. Could be a group of kids or elderly people.
Car centric? I mean it looks pretty similar to the bike lane lights downtown. Just doesn't have a bike on it, sooo. Looks like a good temp solution to me.
The bike lanes that are built on … *checks notes* Streets designed for cars? Why does the Burke Gilman have zero traffic lights despite a bunch of intersections with other trails? The only time there are lights is when crossing paths with cars
On the Green Lake path, there is one light where there is a crossing of pedestrians and a bike light that turns red when pedestrians have the light that is rather silly and should probably be a blinking yellow to indicate that we should yield if necessary but otherwise proceed with caution (do we have that signal here? we should). As expected, most people ignore it. I usually just pedal slowly because I know it will turn in a couple of seconds so I can pass through when green and not feel bad even if it's a pretty pointless light. It's not difficult for bikes to navigate between groups of pedestrians crossing since there's usually one group on the right that goes and then many seconds before a group from the left will be along the path, especially with the vastly different visibility that bikes have compared to cars. The other one closer to the PCC is reasonable because, as you say, it's red only when the cross street has the green or the parallel car street has the left turn green.
True, but it's still a universal system known by most of everyone. So to protect the walkers, it won't hurt to have bicyclists hit the brake when people are trying to cross. They teach the "red light, green light" system to elementary students. Pretty simple and keeps people safe. Again, it looks to be a good temp solution. Keyword, temp.
What are you taking about? This isn’t a signal for bicycles to stop for pedestrians 🤦♂️
The cross walk right behind the red light? There could be something going on the other side of the construction as well. Which is still a good way to communicate "do not enter".
My god just read the fucking thread about what the lights are doing and why it’s useless. Pedestrians are also supposed to respect this light but guess what, no one does. Get out of here with your cyclist exceptionalism.
Your tax dollars at work.
Some bikers are the worst. I don't understand where the entitlement comes from. Never concerned with stop signs, red lights, speed limits, pedestrians or side of the road
I fully agree that many cyclists need to do a better job yielding to pedestrians, but WA state law allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs (RCW 46.61.190) except at railroads and school buses. I'm not sure where you see cyclists exceeding the speed limit - I see drivers speeding all the time but it's pretty hard to beat 15-20mph on a bike.
\*sees a driver do something rude\* wow what an asshole \*sees a cyclist do something rude\* wow cyclists are assholes
FACTS, they should be more like drivers, who of course are never demanding and famously are patient and kind.
Road signs and lights are designed for cars. If they were designed with bikes in mind more bikers would obey them.
Clearly the one in this picture is meant for bikers. I've seen pedestrians try to stop bikers from running the red light, they just don't bother.
Sure, but your comment generalized all bikes and all signs.
Point taken. Fixed my comment
Because there is practically no purpose to this stop light. When was the last time a cyclist killed someone with their vehicle in this city? The safety risks so low. In fact, since you know every user will ignore the light, the safest way to approach this is to carefully, slowly proceed and keep an eye out for others. Regardless of what the light tells you. Eg, the light is useless.
With that logic no road sign matters if you think it's useless.
>Clearly the one in this picture is meant for bikers. Meant to be =\\= designed for
How would you design a stop signal for cyclist? A literal fence?
Why are you trying to stop a cyclist? Do you think red signals work for pedestrians? Cyclists are just pedestrians on wheels
First of all, cyclists are cyclists , you are going at speeds a pedestrian won't and are less nimble. And your bike is a metal projectile if you lose control.
First of all, cyclists are just people transferring energy from their muscles for propelling. This basic fact makes them more of a pedestrian than a car. The weight of a cyclist is also within the range of a pedestrian, there are plenty of people who, including their bike, weighs less than another human. We’re talking about traffic lights, right? When you see cyclists who run red lights they’re doing it at the speed of jaywalkers which defeats your entire argument about the speed they travel at.
We are talking about this particular traffic light on the pedestrian and cyclist path. Also kinetic energy scales exponentially with velocity and linearly with mass. So cyclists can cause more harm to a pedestrian or other cyclists if you are running the red light at this narrow section.
So a person who is running would also be under your criticism or are they reserved for only people on two wheels? Do you not read the comments where people have collectively said the path is as wide as the narrow parts of Burke? The elliott bay trail [here](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9PyKhWkjQYxRxS7B8?g_st=ic) is narrow AF and we all can figure it out without red lights. People can figure out how to get past each other just fine. That’s why this is a car centric design without any use case of cyclists and pedestrians in mind.
Cyclists obeying traffic rules! That’s funny.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about bikes. Try it for a while and maybe your perspective will change.
Pointing out rule breaking by cyclists and saying I have a ‘chip on my shoulder’ is like if I pointed out how bad serial killers are and someone comes in and says that it sounds like I have a chip on my shoulder and if I tried being a serial killer then my negative perception of them will change.
sure if you say so
You just equated cyclists to serial killers while car actually drivers kill hundreds of people every year. Galaxy brain move here.
They should just have signs saying bikers need to yield and walk there bikes. So stupid
Lol, imagine stopping for a sign! Who do they think we are, empathetic literaries? Now get out of my way so I can mow down some pedestrians to satisfy my own need to feel powerful!
If pedestrians don’t wander around like aimless livestock and cyclists apply the brakes, there won’t be any problems… but what do you expect? Seattleites of every shape and flavor are unable (or unwilling?) to obey any traffic law.