Am I at fault if I get hit at this type of intersection?

[ImaCynic]

@scoot 188648 wrote:

Green arrow or green circle? If a circle, the driver certainly has no case. But an arrow would imply that the turning vehicles have ROW, and walk signals shouldn’t be directing pedestrians to cross in conflict. However I’m pretty sure I have seen some signals that do exactly this. I believe one example is in Georgetown at M and 33rd NW, where the ped signal on the north side of M comes on while eastbound M has both a green circle and an arrow. If nothing else, it seems like very dangerous engineering, but I have no idea how such a situation should be treated legally when the inevitable collision occurs.

No. The green arrow means a protected turn, this means opposing traffic has a red light. This is common for left turning lanes, however even with a green arrow, one must yield to any vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian still in the intersection. Opposing traffic turning right-on-red MUST yield to those turning left, unless there are multiple lanes, where those turning left MUST turn into the nearest lane. Bonus question: What is the difference between a green straight arrow and a circular green light?

[Steve O]

@ImaCynic 188632 wrote:

But if you cross traffic outside the crosswalk, then technically you are not doing a legal crossing…

But wait. Say the bike rider crosses “in the lane” rather than the crosswalk, essentially where a car would be driving were this a regular X intersection instead of a T. Is the bike rider now the equivalent of a car, and thus has the ROW over cross traffic that has a red light?

I actually think this is may be a safer strategy, because out in the middle you are both more visible to everyone and have more space and time to maneuver should a driver do something stupid. Then you continue straight in the lane as you were intending to do anyway.

[ImaCynic]

@Steve O 188659 wrote:

But wait. Say the bike rider crosses “in the lane” rather than the crosswalk, essentially where a car would be driving were this a regular X intersection instead of a T. Is the bike rider now the equivalent of a car, and thus has the ROW over cross traffic that has a red light?

I actually think this is may be a safer strategy, because out in the middle you are both more visible to everyone and have more space and time to maneuver should a driver do something stupid. Then you continue straight in the lane as you were intending to do anyway.

I don’t disagree it may be a safer way to cross. But in the eyes of the law, I’d say this would be no different than j-walking. If there is police presence, would it be wise to deliberately cross outside the crosswalk? If something bad does happen, not being in the crosswalk is a slam dunk contributory negligence ruling.

More often than not, what us cyclists think is safe is not legal. Unfortunately, many of these are frown up on by the county’s finest.

[ChristoB50]

@Emm 188635 wrote:

Possible, BUT then I’d have to cross Four Mile Road to go straight down it, which at that moment would be illegal since I’d have a do-not cross signal for crossing Four Mile Rd, and in all honesty, I’d be facing drivers at that moment leaving Four Mile Run Road turning right onto Mt Vernon Ave. And they’ll have a green light, so if I get hit there it might even be worse–there’s currently a court case going on in Alexandria where a driver’s insurance company is saying since they had a green light to turn, the walk signal shouldn’t have been on, therefor it’s not the driver’s fault they hit and injured a pedestrian. The lawyer defending the injured pedestrian is a member of Alexandria’s City Council, hence me hearing about it. Needless to say it’s pretty absurd.

Still pondering… What if you cross the first blue crosswalk in my revised drawing, and then continue down the sidewalk to the next intersection; which I have to imagine would be far less busy than Mount Vernon, and crossed over there?

[n18]

I divide intersections between ones that deserve respect, and ones that don’t, so when I approach one of these intersections, I don’t keep riding like a zombie and give it the proper attention.

If I cross that intersection, I would start crossing, then stop just before the last lane and put a foot on the ground, then proceed when clear, or even dismount; which allows me to move backward just in case. This is easier to do with platform pedals. I do dismount and walk my bike at one particular at-a-grade crossing with poor visibility(IoD of Fairfax).

However, I like what semperiden suggested in this post(Using the tunnel to avoid S Glebe Rd light, link to Google Maps).

Another suggestion is to use MOM’s parking lot and use a crosswalk that doesn’t have a signal(Link to Google Maps).

[ChristoB50]

@n18 188704 wrote:

However, I like what semperiden suggested in this post(Using the tunnel to avoid S Glebe Rd light, link to Google Maps).

I think western side of the bridge, sidewalk, is 100% obstructed/closed to any use. (The sidewalk that would need to be used in semperiden’s route.)
I’ll have to look more closely next time I go by, but I don’t think it is currently an option, due to some work going on there? (Though I never see anyone working on it.)
Of course, lane-riding on Mt. Vernon over the creek would be an option. Not sure if that makes it any better for Emm than tackling right-turn traffic at the crossing?

[chuxtr]

@ImaCynic 188691 wrote:

I don’t disagree it may be a safer way to cross. But in the eyes of the law, I’d say this would be no different than j-walking. If there is police presence, would it be wise to deliberately cross outside the crosswalk? If something bad does happen, not being in the crosswalk is a slam dunk contributory negligence ruling.

More often than not, what us cyclists think is safe is not legal. Unfortunately, many of these are frown up on by the county’s finest.

How is it like J-walking if the cars on Mount Vernon have a red light in both directions? But even if it is, that’s how I’d ride it.

FWIW, I prefer to ride safe(ly) even if it’s not legal. And (as a former bike courier and someone who is comfortable riding on the road with cars and sometimes thinks the bike lanes/trails aren’t always that safe), my idea of safe may be different than everyone else’s.

[semperiden]

@n18 188704 wrote:

However, I like what semperiden suggested in this post(Using the tunnel to avoid S Glebe Rd light, link to Google Maps).

I actually meant this. Using her regular route to ParkFairfax instead.

[ImaCynic]

Looking at sharevaroads.org’s brochures (https://sharevaroads.org/download-brochure/)

Specifically:
https://sharevaroads.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2-ENG-Share-VA-Roads-FINAL-single.pdf#page=5

Few interesting tidbits regarding crosswalk:
What is a crosswalk?
Crosswalks might not be marked or painted on the highway.
Wherever sidewalks meet the street and where streets intersect,
a crosswalk exists, whether painted on the road or not.
–Code of Virginia § 46.2-924

Did not know a crosswalk doesn’t have to be marked, so this confirms those are crosswalks at the intersection of Elberts and Four Mile Rd in my previous post. Motorists will have to yield there.

From the “Crosswalk” section:
Experienced bicyclists stay on the road
Confident riders can ride on the road as vehicles when using intersections.
Do not ride in crosswalks or alternate between the sidewalk
and road by hopping the curb or using driveway cuts. Ride with
consistency and predictability. Bicyclists who feel more comfortable riding on sidewalks
must follow pedestrian rules at crosswalks. When riding on the sidewalk,
bicycles must maintain a lower speed and yield to pedestrians.

This may be what the other cyclist was referring to as far as switching between road/crosswalk/sidewalk.

Lastly, based on law cited below, I do not see how a cyclist can be found at fault when doing a legal crossing at a crosswalk:
§ 46.2-904 If you are riding your bike on a sidewalk, shared use path, or across a roadway in the crosswalk, you have the same rights and duties as a pedestrian.

[dasgeh]

I would think the only legal vagueness would arise if you biked out of the crosswalk. I think, on the legal technicality, you should stay in the crosswalk up onto the sidewalk, then enter the street from the where the yellow triangle (arrow head) is on ChristoB50’s drawing. But the law is 100% unclear on when it’s legal to do that. Plus, that makes you much harder for turning cars to see. So practically, don’t do that. I think if you stay in the crosswalk until you’re almost to the street, then the only place where you’d be in the legal gray zone would be the last few feet of the move. (Hope that makes sense)

@Emm 188635 wrote:

Pthere’s currently a court case going on in Alexandria where a driver’s insurance company is saying since they had a green light to turn, the walk signal shouldn’t have been on, therefor it’s not the driver’s fault they hit and injured a pedestrian. The lawyer defending the injured pedestrian is a member of Alexandria’s City Council, hence me hearing about it. Needless to say it’s pretty absurd.

WHA?

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 188659 wrote:

But wait. Say the bike rider crosses “in the lane” rather than the crosswalk, essentially where a car would be driving were this a regular X intersection instead of a T. Is the bike rider now the equivalent of a car, and thus has the ROW over cross traffic that has a red light?

I actually think this is may be a safer strategy, because out in the middle you are both more visible to everyone and have more space and time to maneuver should a driver do something stupid. Then you continue straight in the lane as you were intending to do anyway.

Safer, probably. But assuming there’s no green for someone to cross the intersection in “lanes” going on the FMR, not more legal.

[Author]

Posts