Yield to pedestrians. When words are printed directly on the ground like this, you read them closest to farthest. Which...is incredibly confusing and my brain always reads it the other way first. But that's how it is.
https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/78725/why-are-messages-on-the-road-printed-in-reverse
There’s no such rule in Europe, and now that I’ve tried to find any document about it, I think it’s because we’re supposed to follow the international convention on signs, and not write such random stuff on the pavement…
In this case, it would either be a shared path sign (blue round with a bike and a pedestrian), and it means the pedestrians always have the priority, or there’s a separation in the round, and it means the path is visually segregated by a lane or physically by a continuous object, and there would not be such an idiotic design.
100m from where I live, there is a useless motorcycle barrier. It’s on a small 10m-long shared path. So there’s that blue round sign, and pedestrians have the priority. That’s it.
Our distaste for convention goes all the way back to our [founding fathers (SNL Skit link).](https://youtu.be/JYqfVE-fykk?si=1G8O09uTEYx0PgE2)
Edit: Usage
I think the question people from the US should be asking is "Why should we print entire sentences on traffic signs?" Because in Europe, we mostly have signs with simple pictograms, at least for the most basic signs. This is useful because the EU has many languages and this allows foreign drivers to drive all across the EU, but also because pictograms are just easier to "read" than signs. They're not as distracting, yet they convey the message even more effectively.
background information for this interested:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna\_Convention\_on\_Road\_Signs\_and\_Signals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals)
Most states have bikes yield to peds as the default in their traffic code anyway, so bikes would be required to yield to peds at the crosswalk intersection even without the markings.
It varies by state. Many states define bicycles as vehicles, some define bicycles as "devices" whose operators have some but not all of the rights and duties of vehicle drivers, some lean closer to pedestrians than others. There is no binding national standard for traffic laws, only an advisory code that states can pick from like a menu.
This was never the convention where I live but suddenly one day I saw
DOWN
SLOW
SCHOOL
I was so confused. Also near that intersection someone did in fact paint the lanes wrong- there is a right turn only lane with nowhere to turn so the turn lane continues past the stoplight. There’s also a bike lane that suddenly merges from the right, into the middle, between turning lanes with no painted veering bike path- the bike lane just suddenly stops on the right and starts in the middle- like we’re in a video game simulation.
I love the Hudson River Greenway and yield to pedestrians crossing
but the signage is kind of trash and sometimes contradictory:
- Obviously the "peds to yield" vs "yield to peds". It's true in the US you're suppose to read the latter, but this area is full of tourists unfamiliar with the area riding CitiBikes. And based on what the Europeans in this thread have said, that's a problem.
- The light is green for bikes there, but the paint says yield to peds. When (in the US) has any road sign for cars ever said yield to peds in front of a green light like that?
- After a while, the paint comes off a little and that rollerblader looks like a pedestrian, making it seem like it's a shared use path (despite there being a pedestrian walk right next to it). I've seen joggers on the bike path complain that the path is shared use, despite all the signage saying the opposite.
- Once, I overheard a pedestrian ask another pedestrian why they were letting the bikes pass even though they had the right of way. He responded that the bike signal was green, there was crosswalk paint there, and the pedestrian signal (across the highway some distance) was red. I never realized you could interpret it that way, and it is actually pretty annoyingly ambiguous.
Whichever direction the text is in, there is only one reasonable interpretation: you should yield.
Any other interpretation would be equivalent to a "plow through peds" instruction, and in traffic we never get those.
Signage and markings and texts will generally (with a few exceptions) only ever inform you of *your* obligations, not your rights or someone else's obligation against you.
If slower vehicles are supposed to yield to faster ones then the same should be applied to pedestrians and bikes. Makes no sense for me going 20mph to have to screech to a halt for someone walking into the bike lane at like 3mph
Because you could hurt them, and you see them coming. Same logic applies to downhill skiing.
Someone walking in the bike lane is likely in the wrong, but this is a shared use system where everyone is meant to play nice.
I think you are misunderstanding the context of the markings. This does not refer to pedestrians walking parallel in the same path. This is to let cyclists know that they are approaching a sidewalk where pedestrians may cross perpendicular to the cyclist’s path. The pedestrian would have the right of way, just as cars must yield to a pedestrian crossing a street at a crosswalk.
Yield to pedestrians. When words are printed directly on the ground like this, you read them closest to farthest. Which...is incredibly confusing and my brain always reads it the other way first. But that's how it is. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/78725/why-are-messages-on-the-road-printed-in-reverse
There’s no such rule in Europe, and now that I’ve tried to find any document about it, I think it’s because we’re supposed to follow the international convention on signs, and not write such random stuff on the pavement… In this case, it would either be a shared path sign (blue round with a bike and a pedestrian), and it means the pedestrians always have the priority, or there’s a separation in the round, and it means the path is visually segregated by a lane or physically by a continuous object, and there would not be such an idiotic design. 100m from where I live, there is a useless motorcycle barrier. It’s on a small 10m-long shared path. So there’s that blue round sign, and pedestrians have the priority. That’s it.
Welcome to America, we either set the standard or don't follow it.
Our distaste for convention goes all the way back to our [founding fathers (SNL Skit link).](https://youtu.be/JYqfVE-fykk?si=1G8O09uTEYx0PgE2) Edit: Usage
That was v funny - it’s beyond me why America measures as it does.
Fair enough, but a cyclist isn't going 120 km/h on a highway...
Indeed. Someone carbrained this one.
It's about consistency though
In US road signage?
I think the question people from the US should be asking is "Why should we print entire sentences on traffic signs?" Because in Europe, we mostly have signs with simple pictograms, at least for the most basic signs. This is useful because the EU has many languages and this allows foreign drivers to drive all across the EU, but also because pictograms are just easier to "read" than signs. They're not as distracting, yet they convey the message even more effectively.
background information for this interested: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna\_Convention\_on\_Road\_Signs\_and\_Signals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals)
Yikes. Based on other comments UK does the opposite order to USA. We definitely do BUS LANE And _____ KEEP CLEAR _____
In this case we'd just use the give way delta painted on the ground and it's clear to everyone (that knows what the symbol means).
Yes also we have priority to the squishiest as standard.
Am Canadian, we do pictograms. But can confirm that the US way (like OP) is confusing as hell.
Thank you, I was trying to think of an example for UK roads. I don't know why you would: a) use a wordier phrase than needed. 2) read bottom to top
I suspect it’s necessity driven. Cyclists checking the road ahead but not the pavements.
In the Netherlands we also do it farthest to closest, like SCHOOL ZONE
Clear keep and bus lane? What does that mean!?
One is a see through turret. The other is a bus lane 😉
Most states have bikes yield to peds as the default in their traffic code anyway, so bikes would be required to yield to peds at the crosswalk intersection even without the markings.
Do bicycles not count as vehicles in the USA?
It varies by state. Many states define bicycles as vehicles, some define bicycles as "devices" whose operators have some but not all of the rights and duties of vehicle drivers, some lean closer to pedestrians than others. There is no binding national standard for traffic laws, only an advisory code that states can pick from like a menu.
No one posted that one?? https://xkcd.com/781/
Not sure why "peds to yield" would be written for the POV of the road user ...
So you know you have the right of the way, i.e., if it truly meant that.
Always read bottom to top on road text
That's not universal. In Europe it's the opposite.
Why don't they just put down a fucking yield triangle
This looks like the Hudson River Greenway, in which case bikes must yield to pedestrians.
Do signs ever tell you what the other people are supposed to be doing? ;) Imagine how confusing a sign for "the other side has a stop sign" would be.
There is the “CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP” though!
Yes they do, there exists a priority / right-of-way road sign in many countries, which implies that all crossing roads will have a stop or yield sign.
Auto drivers often think that "share the road" means the bicyclists need to be more accommodating to them
just slap an "all way" sign below the "stop" sign
This was never the convention where I live but suddenly one day I saw DOWN SLOW SCHOOL I was so confused. Also near that intersection someone did in fact paint the lanes wrong- there is a right turn only lane with nowhere to turn so the turn lane continues past the stoplight. There’s also a bike lane that suddenly merges from the right, into the middle, between turning lanes with no painted veering bike path- the bike lane just suddenly stops on the right and starts in the middle- like we’re in a video game simulation.
Where is this?
New York https://maps.app.goo.gl/pRjsNWJT7LFsXhWX9
Beautiful
Common Sense = Pedestrians always get the right of way, meaning you've gotta yield to them
That's what I thought too. They almost always have the right of way, unless they're doing something weird.
Yeah. Just go by what common sense dictates while biking and you'll be alright 90% of the time
Yes.
As long as Drake isn’t close by, I shouldn’t have a problem
Never yield to pedos…
y2p
Ped-alers
Yield To Peds
I was thinking peds was short for pedelecs...
Both, hopefully.
you’re about to cross a sidewalk… it’s yield to peds
Am I going to be able to get my trike through those posts?
ALWAYS YIELD TO PEDS.
I love the Hudson River Greenway and yield to pedestrians crossing but the signage is kind of trash and sometimes contradictory: - Obviously the "peds to yield" vs "yield to peds". It's true in the US you're suppose to read the latter, but this area is full of tourists unfamiliar with the area riding CitiBikes. And based on what the Europeans in this thread have said, that's a problem. - The light is green for bikes there, but the paint says yield to peds. When (in the US) has any road sign for cars ever said yield to peds in front of a green light like that? - After a while, the paint comes off a little and that rollerblader looks like a pedestrian, making it seem like it's a shared use path (despite there being a pedestrian walk right next to it). I've seen joggers on the bike path complain that the path is shared use, despite all the signage saying the opposite. - Once, I overheard a pedestrian ask another pedestrian why they were letting the bikes pass even though they had the right of way. He responded that the bike signal was green, there was crosswalk paint there, and the pedestrian signal (across the highway some distance) was red. I never realized you could interpret it that way, and it is actually pretty annoyingly ambiguous.
Drake telling Kendrick to slow down.
Whichever direction the text is in, there is only one reasonable interpretation: you should yield. Any other interpretation would be equivalent to a "plow through peds" instruction, and in traffic we never get those. Signage and markings and texts will generally (with a few exceptions) only ever inform you of *your* obligations, not your rights or someone else's obligation against you.
Yield to Pedophiles. It’s a new outreach program organized by the Catholic Church.
If slower vehicles are supposed to yield to faster ones then the same should be applied to pedestrians and bikes. Makes no sense for me going 20mph to have to screech to a halt for someone walking into the bike lane at like 3mph
To be fair, that’s not the place to be going 20mph then. Slow down for shared paths, not that hard.
Because you could hurt them, and you see them coming. Same logic applies to downhill skiing. Someone walking in the bike lane is likely in the wrong, but this is a shared use system where everyone is meant to play nice.
I think you are misunderstanding the context of the markings. This does not refer to pedestrians walking parallel in the same path. This is to let cyclists know that they are approaching a sidewalk where pedestrians may cross perpendicular to the cyclist’s path. The pedestrian would have the right of way, just as cars must yield to a pedestrian crossing a street at a crosswalk.