Crosswalks

[baiskeli]

Good idea.

[dasgeh]

So, Baiskeli’s assertion that it’s “easy” to walk out so it’s impossible for a car to stop got me thinking.

@baiskeli 44969 wrote:

Huh?

A pedestrian can easily walk out too close to a car to make it impossible by the laws of physics for the car to stop in time. At 25 mph, the distance required to come to a complete stop (reaction time plus time it takes for the brakes to work) is about 85 feet. So if someone walks in front of my car 85 feet or less ahead of me or less, I can’t possibly stop in time. Even if I had zero reaction time, it takes time for a large moving object to come to a stop. A driver can’t possibly be expected to stop in time in all cases. A pedestrian must wait until it is safe to cross by judging a car’s speed and stopping distance.

Maybe we’re just talking about different things.

So 85 feet (which seems to be on the long end of estimates for stopping distance, but fine) is around 5 car lengths. Cars around here typically leave around a car length between each other (less than safe, but something). So as you make it clear that you’re going to cross, you can expect the 3rd car back to be able to stop for you.

I’ve spent a lot of time in Europe (mostly UK and Germany) where the law, at least for zebra-striped crossings, is that cars MUST stop for pedestrians. It’s enforced. So they do. So if you, as a ped, approach a zebra stripe crossing, drivers slow. Usually, you’ll be able to cross without any cars passing through the crossing unless there’s already a car there. It is obviously possible for European drivers to stop cars for peds in the zebra stripes, because they look for peds, and because they slow if they think a ped might cross.

So what’s “impossible”? 85 feet from when you stick your toe in the crosswalk doesn’t make sense in the normal situation where a ped approaches a crosswalk with a clear intent to cross it (the crosswalk on the GWMP is probably the best place for it to be clear — there’s NOWHERE ELSE for a ped to go if they’re headed toward the crosswalk). I’d argue that, in DC, even at, say, an intersection where the ped could cross or turn or stop to check his/her phone, the responsibility of the driver who can see a ped approaching a crosswalk is to slow such that stopping is possible. So maybe cars that are within 100 ft of the crosswalk when they can see the ped are off the hook. But given that a driver can (generally – there are exceptions) see a ped before they’re on the curb, and that it takes time for the ped to walk up to the curb, it seems completely possible to expect that cars can stop for peds in crosswalks without peds breaking stride.

It happens all the time across the pond.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 45097 wrote:

So, Baiskeli’s assertion that it’s “easy” to walk out so it’s impossible for a car to stop got me thinking.

So 85 feet (which seems to be on the long end of estimates for stopping distance, but fine) is around 5 car lengths. Cars around here typically leave around a car length between each other (less than safe, but something). So as you make it clear that you’re going to cross, you can expect the 3rd car back to be able to stop for you.

I’ve spent a lot of time in Europe (mostly UK and Germany) where the law, at least for zebra-striped crossings, is that cars MUST stop for pedestrians. It’s enforced. So they do. So if you, as a ped, approach a zebra stripe crossing, drivers slow. Usually, you’ll be able to cross without any cars passing through the crossing unless there’s already a car there. It is obviously possible for European drivers to stop cars for peds in the zebra stripes, because they look for peds, and because they slow if they think a ped might cross.

So what’s “impossible”? 85 feet from when you stick your toe in the crosswalk doesn’t make sense in the normal situation where a ped approaches a crosswalk with a clear intent to cross it (the crosswalk on the GWMP is probably the best place for it to be clear — there’s NOWHERE ELSE for a ped to go if they’re headed toward the crosswalk). I’d argue that, in DC, even at, say, an intersection where the ped could cross or turn or stop to check his/her phone, the responsibility of the driver who can see a ped approaching a crosswalk is to slow such that stopping is possible. So maybe cars that are within 100 ft of the crosswalk when they can see the ped are off the hook. But given that a driver can (generally – there are exceptions) see a ped before they’re on the curb, and that it takes time for the ped to walk up to the curb, it seems completely possible to expect that cars can stop for peds in crosswalks without peds breaking stride.

It happens all the time across the pond.

No matter what the scenario, the basic laws of physics say that it’s possible for a pedestrian to go out in front of a car that can’t stop in time to hit him/her.

That’s true even if we assume that the intentions of a pedestrian to cross are always clear to a driver. A pedestrian might be stopping, or not easily seen, or whatever. Or they might not be visible until the car is within the stopping zone. This is the other part of the speed equation – the faster the car is going, the less time it has to see you, let alone to stop when it does.

The reason that pedestrians are rarely hit by cars is because pedestrians understand that, and most don’t cross when it’s not safe. They stop in their tracks if necessary, but they don’t just jump out in front of cars. It’s basic physics. It’s the same reason you don’t tailgate when driving.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 45101 wrote:

No matter what the scenario, the basic laws of physics say that it’s possible for a pedestrian to go out in front of a car that can’t stop in time to hit him/her.

That’s true even if we assume that the intentions of a pedestrian to cross are always clear to a driver. A pedestrian might be stopping, or not easily seen, or whatever. Or they might not be visible until the car is within the stopping zone. This is the other part of the speed equation – the faster the car is going, the less time it has to see you, let alone to stop when it does.

The reason that pedestrians are rarely hit by cars is because pedestrians understand that, and most don’t cross when it’s not safe. They stop in their tracks if necessary, but they don’t just jump out in front of cars. It’s basic physics. It’s the same reason you don’t tailgate when driving.

Of course peds should stop if the car isn’t stopping, because being hit by a car sucks. My point is that the driver who doesn’t slow to be able to stop breaking the law and should get a ticket, and that a ped walking normally up to, then crossing at a crosswalk, is not breaking the law and should not get a ticket. (Absent some obvious impediment to visibility, like, say, a big tree between a trail that has just had a 90 degree turn and now crosses a parking lot and a street with no traffic control).

[Steve]

@dasgeh 45097 wrote:

I’ve spent a lot of time in Europe (mostly UK and Germany) where the law, at least for zebra-striped crossings, is that cars MUST stop for pedestrians.

Those silly Europeans! They enforce a lot that we don’t. You know the one in Germany that I found most odd, was that folks go ballistic if someone crosses a road when they don’t have the cross signal. And this was while studying in Augsburg (not a very big city) and being on some fairly rural roads with really long sightlines. I get it in the city, but crossing one lane of rural traffic…. they wouldn’t have it! And don’t get me wrong, I love Germany, that one just always made me laugh.

Back to the topic at hand. Dasgeh, I don’t disagree with you that people *should* stop when peds are waiting on the side of a crosswalk. I even think in many cases, it’s fairly easy to spot them and stop in time. However, I do not believe the law requires this in most cases. Perhaps we just interpret it differently. I think by the law, a driver must yeild to someone crossing, not someone waiting to cross. The ped has the duty to cross only when sufficient time exists. Therefore, when a reasonable crossing can occur, a ped can enter the crosswalk. If a car approaches the crosswalk with a ped in it, they must yield. Now the question is, “when is there enough time, when can the ped enter the crosswalk?”

VA is a contributary negligence state, I believe. As a result, I think the law would not favor the ped in most accidents caused in the crosswalk. The ped would have to demonstrate that they began the crossing with plenty of room for an approaching car to see them (which probably means you can’t be hidden by others cars in a line of traffic), that they were in the crosswalk, and the car didn’t yield. If you can’t prove all of that, my guess is you would at least be found to have had some contribution in the accident and would not win a suit.

I’m glad we’re having this discussion. It’s interesting to see how we approach the laws a little differently. I don’t like the law the way it is written, as I think more right-of-way should be given to peds, in a VERY clear manner. And not being very good at knowing the ins and outs of the legal system much, I appreciate the information you’ve provided.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 45106 wrote:

Those silly Europeans! They enforce a lot that we don’t. You know the one in Germany that I found most odd, was that folks go ballistic if someone crosses a road when they don’t have the cross signal. And this was while studying in Augsburg (not a very big city) and being on some fairly rural roads with really long sightlines. I get it in the city, but crossing one lane of rural traffic…. they wouldn’t have it! And don’t get me wrong, I love Germany, that one just always made me laugh.

[…]
VA is a contributary negligence state,[…]

Yeah, I love Germany for that. I’ve lived there too and speak German. The first time I was there, I asked what the word was for “jaywalk”. There isn’t one. You don’t do that. Of course, I’ll take that if I also get drivers who instinctively look over their shoulder for cyclists as they turn right (it took me months to figure out what they were doing, but everyone I know does it — it’s drilled in traffic school).

But I digress. I should have been clear – I was talking about DC law, which says cars must STOP for peds in a crosswalk. Completely removed from the peds’ responsibility. If you don’t say cars *should* slow down pre-pedestrian in sidewalk, then you have a situation where peds would not be able to cross if cars were anywhere close. Basically it would mean the law is “cars must stop for peds in a crosswalks, but peds may not enter a crosswalk unless there is no car close enough that it would have to stop”.

FWIW, I pass by a zebra-striped crosswalk across VA Ave (near 22nd NW) every day. Even if there is a line of cars, peds step out onto the asphalt, and generally the third car back (if there’s a line, with the first being right at/on top of the crosswalk) slows to a stop to let the ped cross. The ped doesn’t have to break stride. That’s how I’d expect zebra stripe crosswalks to work.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 45103 wrote:

Of course peds should stop if the car isn’t stopping, because being hit by a car sucks. My point is that the driver who doesn’t slow to be able to stop breaking the law and should get a ticket, and that a ped walking normally up to, then crossing at a crosswalk, is not breaking the law and should not get a ticket.

Yes, unless that pedestrian walks out too close to an oncoming car that can’t possibly stop in time (“in disregard of traffic”).

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 45114 wrote:

But I digress. I should have been clear – I was talking about DC law, which says cars must STOP for peds in a crosswalk. Completely removed from the peds’ responsibility. If you don’t say cars *should* slow down pre-pedestrian in sidewalk, then you have a situation where peds would not be able to cross if cars were anywhere close. Basically it would mean the law is “cars must stop for peds in a crosswalks, but peds may not enter a crosswalk unless there is no car close enough that it would have to stop”.

If a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, cars in all states and DC must stop to avoid hitting them, assuming they can.

If a car is already too close to the crosswalk and moving at a speed that it couldn’t stop, the pedestrian must not enter the crosswalk in the first place.

Pedestrians can’t cross unless approaching cars have a safe distance to stop for them – which is, again, a law of physics, not just a law of traffic.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 45114 wrote:

FWIW, I pass by a zebra-striped crosswalk across VA Ave (near 22nd NW) every day. Even if there is a line of cars, peds step out onto the asphalt, and generally the third car back (if there’s a line, with the first being right at/on top of the crosswalk) slows to a stop to let the ped cross. The ped doesn’t have to break stride. That’s how I’d expect zebra stripe crosswalks to work.

My daily crossings (3) are the GWP. I’m not stepping out until either a car stops or there is a big enough break that I think an oncoming car can see me and slow. A lot of our disagreement probably starts there. My crossings are generally cars that are flying (we can save speeding issues on the GWP for another thread), and so maybe that’s why I think it’s hard in traffic to see me and stop, and why I usually wait for big breaks to cross.

[americancyclo]

@baiskeli 45101 wrote:

No matter what the scenario, the basic laws of physics say that it’s possible for a pedestrian to go out in front of a car that can’t stop in time to hit him/her.

The laws of physics don’t mandate the drivers speed though

@baiskeli 45101 wrote:

pedestrians are rarely hit by cars

according to Struck in DC there were 281 peds struck by cars in 2012 (appx 5 people per week) and 41 so far this year (just under 5 people per week)
https://twitter.com/struckdc

Percentage wise, it might not be that many, but I wouldn’t call it rare either.

@Steve 45106 wrote:

VA is a contributory negligence state, I believe. As a result, I think the law would not favor the ped in most accidents caused in the crosswalk.

You are right, VA is a contributory negligence state, and that sucks for me as a ped or cyclist.

[Tim Kelley]

@americancyclo 45119 wrote:

The laws of physics don’t mandate the drivers speed though.

That’s right. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

[baiskeli]

@americancyclo 45119 wrote:

The laws of physics don’t mandate the drivers speed though

Of course. But the law doesn’t say that if a car is speeding, a pedestrian can walk in front of it as if it weren’t.

Not that it really matters what the law says unless your heirs are suing the driver who killed you.

according to Struck in DC there were 281 peds struck by cars in 2012 (appx 5 people per week) and 41 so far this year (just under 5 people per week)
https://twitter.com/struckdc

That’s rare. There are millions and millions of successful pedestrian crossings each year.

But my point isn’t to say that DC roads are as safe as we should expect them to be. I’m saying that if we decided that walking out in front of cars that have little chance of stopping before hitting you was never a hazard, we’d have many more deaths. Which is, again, a law of physics anyway.

[Tim Kelley]

@Steve 45118 wrote:

I think it’s hard in traffic to see me and stop, and why I usually wait for big breaks to cross.

If I’m on my bike at a crosswalk without a signal and a long line of cars, I’ll do a quick dismount and stick the front wheel of the bike out into the street. That usually gets people’s attention.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@dasgeh 45114 wrote:

Yeah, I love Germany for that. I’ve lived there too and speak German. The first time I was there, I asked what the word was for “jaywalk”. There isn’t one. You don’t do that.

I find this hard to believe. Surely the Germans have a multi-compound word, probably ending in heit, that translates to Walkingacrossthestreetwhenyouarenotallowedbecauseyouareafatamericananddonotcare.

[baiskeli]

@Tim Kelley 45122 wrote:

That’s right. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

That couldn’t be more perfect!

[Author]

Posts