Multi-Use Path (bike path)

Well, a speed limit for the path would remove the need for STOP AHEAD signs at every intersection with the path. Instead of 4 signs, we'd reduce that to two. The speed limit was actually a way of reducing signs. Apparently if people are going 20 mph, they need 35 ft to stop, so you have to put two signs to insure they have time to come to a complete stop. If you think about every crossing, those extra signs add up to a lot of signage.

The first phase of the Timpoochee Trail signs are safety signs and mile markers only -- 107 signs. I believe we were told that number would be around seventy if there was a speed limit.

As for the directionals, I personally think with maps so easily downloaded from the internet and GPS, the need for signs is reduced. I truly wish we could argue the necessity of each and every sign on 30A, and maybe float the idea of "scenic vistas" -- areas of special beauty (like the bridge over Camp Creek with the view of the gulf and one of the Watersound bridges) designated as sign clutter free zones...so that we don't have to Photoshop 30A to make it seem natural and beautiful.

The Timpoochee Trail is a something I think we need to do some thinking about as a community. Is it a glorified sidewalk, or a real multi-use path? If it's a true asset for tourism and a beloved feature of the community, then we should make it safer by straightening it, widening it, improving it's surface, not allowing developers to take it out for months on end while they dig underground parking -- not by throwing up signs to warn of curves that should be fixed, etc. IMHO.

The idea that the trail should be better taken care of is key. Why put a bunch of signs up when construction vehicles can block the path, golf-carts can take everyone out on the path & a pedestrian or cyclist has to watch out for so many of the potholes to keep from crashing.

BTW, the trail going over Western Lake scares me at how close the path is to 45-60mph traffic.

I understand the logic behind the speed limit signs, but don't think it's a reasonable solution for this area. Can we just say there's a speed limit and forego the signs? I doubt many people are exceeding it and if they are, (based on their posts) they are riding on the road, not the path.

I've been riding a bike for years and ride the 30-A/395 bike path weekly. I have no freaking idea how to measure my speed. I'm not buying a GPS for my bike - its contrary to the whole idea of riding the bike, plus I'd spill my coffee on it or go over someone's hood because I was looking at the GPS instead of for cars/traffic.

How do you think Susie & Tom touron will figure out how to use a GPS while on their bike when they can't even figure out a stop sign? We have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ugly blue signs because driving down 30A apparently confuses people!

Love the scenic vista idea and agree that we should "do it right" if we are going to improve the trail, but think we need to keep things VERY simple as far as rules and signage.

I think it is a multi-use path, as long as the bikers aren't Lance Armstrong wanna-bes and use it for weekend "training". It is a bike path for a recreational ride, not the Little 500. When sharing a path with pedestrians, any bike ride more than a "cruise around town" is down right dangerous, and signage, widening the path, striping the path, etc. won't make it safer if the Lance and Lancettes are roaring up and down the path.

But that is JMHO. However, I do bike (rather slowly), walk (rather briskly), and run (like an 80 yr old) on this bike path, and the only danger I ever feel is from people riding bikes too fast and carelessly.

I don't like riding my bike close to traffic - Western Lake and Alligator make me very nervous since I daily watch people have difficulty keeping it between the freshly painted lines or even on the road.

As the population and use continues to grow, I think things like widening/center striping will help improve the flow for the casual walker/jogger/biker.

IMO Lance and Lancette can take their spandex clad arses to a more appropriate locale if they can't behave on the path.

A s far as the mile markers, I can tell how far I've gone with what is around me, the markers would make no difference. What's the point?

I agree with JDarg that it's still a multi-use path, besides the "Lance & Lancette" cyclists that feel it's just a bike path. We had one blow by us today, with a windshield on his bike. If you're going fast enough to need a windshield, you don't need to be on a multi-use path.

Really, they had a WINDSHIELD on a BIKE?

Really, they had a WINDSHIELD on a BIKE?

A windshield is certainly preferable to the Paris Hilton clone that I saw riding her bike on the crowded Seaside bike path, carrying a freaking YORKIE under her arm.

I don't know which made me angrier- the endangerment of the dog and other people on the path, or the current trend of using dogs as fashion accessories.

I stand by my thoughts that most safety signs would be better seen by cyclists if they were written on the actual pavement, much like turning arrows are on the pavement in the turning lanes of the road. As a cyclist, I am in a downward facing position for the most part, with a glance up at the horizon. In addition, safety signage painted on the actual path would be much less clutter for the scenic beauty.

I stand by my thoughts that most safety signs would be better seen by cyclists if they were written on the actual pavement, much like turning arrows are on the pavement in the turning lanes of the road. As a cyclist, I am in a downward facing position for the most part, with a glance up at the horizon. In addition, safety signage painted on the actual path would be much less clutter for the scenic beauty.

I stand by my thoughts that most safety signs would be better seen by cyclists if they were written on the actual pavement, much like turning arrows are on the pavement in the turning lanes of the road. As a cyclist, I am in a downward facing position for the most part, with a glance up at the horizon. In addition, safety signage painted on the actual path would be much less clutter for the scenic beauty.

Can the wayfaring signage be painted on the pavement?

Can the wayfaring signage be painted on the pavement?

HELLS YEAH!

Let's see them get lost when it's painted on the road in several foot high letters!

HELLS YEAH!

Let's see them get lost when it's painted on the road in several foot high letters!

:funn::funn:

Where do you find your smilies? I love them!

Can the wayfaring signage be painted on the pavement?

I've thought that very question, too. The wayfinding sign for Grayton Beach used to be painted on Defuniak Street, not too long ago. The only problem was that you had to be in an airplane to see it.