Biking through pedestrian crosswalks w/o stop signs or traffic lights

[DismalScientist]

If you shouldn’t accelerate through a crosswalk, how do you ever cross the crosswalk if you have stopped in front of it?

[Subby]

You don’t. You just get out of the car and walk home.

[bentbike33]

@Steve O 121327 wrote:

If you double your speed, to get back to your original speed you would half it, or go 1/2 as fast. I think calling that two times slower is wrong. Half as fast=two times slower? twice as slow?
But you see this sloppy usage all the time (“he makes 100 times less than the CEO”; “5 times thinner than a human hair”)

I find this whole discussion to be half-fast. But I don’t care.

Regarding who would be at fault if the cyclist were hit: I think we can agree that if the cyclist had shoaled other cyclists waiting to use the crosswalk, he would most definitely have been at fault.

[americancyclo]

I enjoy the poll questions since the implied subject answers it for us:

[h=2]Who would be at fault if this bicyclist was hit (by me)?[/h]
The ‘me’ asking the question is doing the hitting, so they are at fault!

[dkel]

@americancyclo 121352 wrote:

I enjoy the poll questions since the implied subject answers it for us:

[h=2]Who would be at fault if this bicyclist was hit (by me)?[/h]
The ‘me’ asking the question is doing the hitting, so they are at fault!

Experience has shown us that, though what you state seems obvious, many victims of this type of crash are blamed (and even cited, adding insult to injury).

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 121315 wrote:

Ah, the beg button crosswalk

A. Yes, there is a beg button, so technically when a cyclist or walker presses it, all traffic should stop.

No, there’s a button-operated flashing yellow. If VDOT wanted cars to stop, it would be a flashing red. In this case, if the pedestrian hits the button all traffic should enjoy the light show.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 121362 wrote:

No, there’s a button-operated flashing yellow. If VDOT wanted cars to stop, it would be a flashing red. In this case, if the pedestrian hits the button all traffic should enjoy the light show.

Pardon, the yellow light just calls attention to the fact that there is a cyclist or ped, to whom there is an obligation to yield, is about to enter the crosswalk. But yeah, they could go as fast as they want till the cyclist or ped has actually entered the crosswalk. But they would have less excuse for claiming the crosser “came out of nowhere” and at least some of them know that.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 121368 wrote:

Pardon, the yellow light just calls attention to the fact that there is a cyclist or ped, to whom there is an obligation to yield, is about to enter the crosswalk. But yeah, they could go as fast as they want till the cyclist or ped has actually entered the crosswalk. But they would have less excuse for claiming the crosser “came out of nowhere” and at least some of them know that.

They can actually go as fast as they want anyway, as yielding isn’t the same thing as stopping. I also don’t see that the yellow light changes the requirement not to enter in disregard of traffic, so that whole vague victim-blaming loophole is still there. The yellow flashy light improves outcomes for drivers who are trying to do the right thing and just were a little oblivious. It doesn’t change anything for people who are intentionally driving like maniacs or who are staring at their phone.

[lordofthemark]

Yield “from the DMV guide of the state of Va, listing of signs”

You must slow down as you come to the intersection. Be prepared to stop. Let any vehicles, pedestrians or bicyclists safely pass before you
proceed

Seems to me that a driver who failed to slow down, and to be prepared to stop, when there was a crosser visible in the intersection, would be guilty of failure to yield. The impact of the yellow light would be to make it harder to deny that the driver was aware someone was in the crosswalk. Of course the crosser could still be guilty of disregard, and as IANAL, I do not know how those would play out in a civil trial.

I do note that while the behavior I see at that intersection is often very far from what I would want (and includes blocking the crosswalk) I generally see better behavior there than that at other crosswalks nearby with high levels of automotive traffic (I am thinking of much worse behavior at King Street near Park Center Dr, though I believe the speed limit is higher there – and of course even upper King is not as bad as on many arterials in Fairfax)

[peterw_diy]

Iirc

[Terpfan]

I would be curious if the same cyclist were hear to offer his or her opinion. Perspective makes a big difference. Ultimately, I’m fairly certain the police would err on the side of a pedestrian or cyclist in the crosswalk than a driver unless there was a lot of evidence (witnesses, etc) to say the cyclist just flew into he intersection with cars clearly speeding by in both directions. And if you said I saw them and then began acclerating, well, yah, that about says it all.

[peterw_diy]

@Terpfan 121379 wrote:

Ultimately, I’m fairly certain the police would err on the side of a pedestrian or cyclist in the crosswalk than a driver unless there was a lot of evidence (witnesses, etc) to say the cyclist just flew into he intersection with cars clearly speeding by in both directions.

Oh, yeah?

[Author]

Posts