"Did you know?" Experiences with the ACPD and a run in with an aggressive motorist…

[PotomacCyclist]

Speaking of aggressive drivers, Montgomery County police had officers pose as ordinary pedestrians in a crosswalk last week to track and cite drivers who failed to yield to pedestrians. The officers wore bright yellow T-shirts and the program took place from 11 am to 1:30 pm. During that time, 72 drivers were cited for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

As each of those drivers was issued a citation, other drivers probably saw that activity and did not try to drive through pedestrians when they saw police were there. But then after the ticketed driver went on his/her way, subsequent drivers continued to fail to yield. It’s possible, even likely, that the vast majority of drivers who approached the crosswalk when others were not being ticketed tried to run the pedestrians off the road.

While not every driver behaves like this, enough of them do. Far too many. (Pedestrians and cyclists are not perfect either. But they aren’t threatening lives on an ongoing basis like many drivers are doing.)

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Failing-to-Yield-to-Pedestrians-in-Montgomery-Co-Could-Cost-You-206557651.html

http://www.mymcpnews.com/2013/05/08/pedestrian-enforcement-results/

[Terpfan]

A Fairfax cyclist-based officer is supposedly speaking to our civic association next month so I will try to remember to ask them his/her recommendation for what to do in FFX.

[dasgeh]

ACPD spoke to the MMTSSSC last week. Some gems:

– It is “not inconsistent” with ACPD policy to ignore speeding less than 10 MPH over the speed limit
– Arterials (Lee Hwy, 50, etc) and secondary streets (Quincy, etc) are last priority for traffic enforcement
– Except in rare cases and good weather, only auxiliary (i.e. volunteer) police officers use bikes
– The police interpret the pedestrian part of the ROW at crosswalks statute to change the drivers’ ROW

I don’t think these things are good.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 51871 wrote:

– The police interpret the pedestrian part of the ROW at crosswalks statute to change the drivers’ ROW

I’m not clear what you mean by this.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 51876 wrote:

I’m not clear what you mean by this.

The statute says that drivers shall yield ROW to peds in the crosswalk. Separately, it says a ped shall not enter the crosswalk in disregard of approaching traffic. Officer seem to say if the ped does enter the crosswalk “in disregard of approaching traffic” (whatever that means) that the driver doesn’t have to yield. The law is not written that way.

[Drewdane]

@dasgeh 51871 wrote:

ACPD spoke to the MMTSSSC last week. Some gems:

– It is “not inconsistent” with ACPD policy to ignore speeding less than 10 MPH over the speed limit
– Arterials (Lee Hwy, 50, etc) and secondary streets (Quincy, etc) are last priority for traffic enforcement
– Except in rare cases and good weather, only auxiliary (i.e. volunteer) police officers use bikes
– The police interpret the pedestrian part of the ROW at crosswalks statute to change the drivers’ ROW

I don’t think these things are good.

I agree on 3 out of 4. As someone who also uses a car, I can attest to the fact that speed limits are rarely appropriate to actual driving conditions.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 51879 wrote:

The statute says that drivers shall yield ROW to peds in the crosswalk. Separately, it says a ped shall not enter the crosswalk in disregard of approaching traffic. Officer seem to say if the ped does enter the crosswalk “in disregard of approaching traffic” (whatever that means) that the driver doesn’t have to yield. The law is not written that way.

What the hell does that mean? ACPD is saying that motorists have carte blanche to run over people in intersections if the motorist feels they exhibit insufficient “regard”? Someone is either expressing himself badly or just doesn’t understand what those words mean.

[KLizotte]

@mstone 51895 wrote:

What the hell does that mean? ACPD is saying that motorists have carte blanche to run over people in intersections if the motorist feels they exhibit insufficient “regard”? Someone is either expressing himself badly or just doesn’t understand what those words mean.

No, it means that you can’t suddenly decide to step into the crosswalk when a car is say, five feet, from the crosswalk. In other words, you can only step into the crosswalk if the approaching car has enough time to stop safely for all concerned. That is reasonable and we expect peds on MUPs to behave the same way. The problem arises when cars don’t anticipate or slow down when approaching crosswalks so as to give peds an opportunity to safely cross. It can also become a “she said, he said” situation in cases of conflict though I expect skid marks may provide evidence one way or the other.

What bothers me more about ACPD’s interpretation of the law is that cars can drive around peds in crosswalks “if it is safe to do so”. I think a full stop until the crosswalk is fully clear would be safest.

[mstone]

@KLizotte 51899 wrote:

No, it means that you can’t suddenly decide to step into the crosswalk when a car is say, five feet, from the crosswalk. In other words, you can only step into the crosswalk if the approaching car has enough time to stop safely for all concerned.[/quote]

That’s not what was related above. What was said was that the motorist doesn’t have to yield right of way. The only thing that can mean (incorrectly) is that the motorist has no responsibility to avoid a collision and can freely run down a pedestrian. THAT IS NOT TRUE. The only thing the “entering in disregard” is meant to convey is that the motorist may not be liable for a collision if it is determined that the pedestrian made the collision unavoidable. Regardless, the motorist still has a responsibility to at least try to avoid the collision–and having an officer encourage motorists to not worry about hitting people if the motorist decides that the pedestrians acting properly does not seem like it could possibly be good for safety.

Quote:

What bothers me more about ACPD’s interpretation of the law is that cars can drive around peds in crosswalks “if it is safe to do so”. I think a full stop until the crosswalk is fully clear would be safest

There is nothing in the virginia code that requires a stop; altering speed or course are also legal mechanisms for yielding the right of way. (Which, again, means that telling a motorist that they don’t have to yield the right of way is tantamount to saying that they can run someone down without so much as braking.) I agree that is suboptimal, and requiring a more definite action from motorists would improve pedestrian safety and comfort, but we’ll be lucky if the current legislature doesn’t make things worse–hoping that they’ll pass a bill to improve things for pedestrians seems incredible.

[KLizotte]

@mstone 51908 wrote:

That’s not what was related above. What was said was that the motorist doesn’t have to yield right of way. The only thing that can mean (incorrectly) is that the motorist has no responsibility to avoid a collision and can freely run down a pedestrian. THAT IS NOT TRUE. The only thing the “entering in disregard” is meant to convey is that the motorist may not be liable for a collision if it is determined that the pedestrian made the collision unavoidable. Regardless, the motorist still has a responsibility to at least try to avoid the collision–and having an officer encourage motorists to not worry about hitting people if the motorist decides that the pedestrians acting properly does not seem like it could possibly be good for safety.

There is nothing in the virginia code that requires a stop; altering speed or course are also legal mechanisms for yielding the right of way. (Which, again, means that telling a motorist that they don’t have to yield the right of way is tantamount to saying that they can run someone down without so much as braking.) I agree that is suboptimal, and requiring a more definite action from motorists would improve pedestrian safety and comfort, but we’ll be lucky if the current legislature doesn’t make things worse–hoping that they’ll pass a bill to improve things for pedestrians seems incredible.

I don’t know what the law text says; I am only repeating what the cops told us at the in person meeting we had a year or so ago at the intersection of doom. That is how the ACPD interprets the law according to the two cops present. That is when we were told that cars could drive through a crosswalk if pedestrians were in it “if it was safe to do so.” That elicited some gasps from the audience.

[Terpfan]

@mstone 51908 wrote:

That’s not what was related above. What was said was that the motorist doesn’t have to yield right of way. The only thing that can mean (incorrectly) is that the motorist has no responsibility to avoid a collision and can freely run down a pedestrian. THAT IS NOT TRUE. The only thing the “entering in disregard” is meant to convey is that the motorist may not be liable for a collision if it is determined that the pedestrian made the collision unavoidable. Regardless, the motorist still has a responsibility to at least try to avoid the collision–and having an officer encourage motorists to not worry about hitting people if the motorist decides that the pedestrians acting properly does not seem like it could possibly be good for safety.

There is nothing in the virginia code that requires a stop; altering speed or course are also legal mechanisms for yielding the right of way. (Which, again, means that telling a motorist that they don’t have to yield the right of way is tantamount to saying that they can run someone down without so much as braking.) I agree that is suboptimal, and requiring a more definite action from motorists would improve pedestrian safety and comfort, but we’ll be lucky if the current legislature doesn’t make things worse–hoping that they’ll pass a bill to improve things for pedestrians seems incredible.

Do some local jurisdictions have that law? I’ve seen signs saying State Law Must Stop for Pedestrians (I always chuckle since half the time we’re Commonwealth and other half state it seems). So I’m confused.

It’s all in § 46.2-924. But not easy reading as it does lend itself to two entirely different interpretations.

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

…
No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 51942 wrote:

Do some local jurisdictions have that law? I’ve seen signs saying State Law Must Stop for Pedestrians (I always chuckle since half the time we’re Commonwealth and other half state it seems). So I’m confused.[/quote]

could be like the w&od stop signs, and put up in a rogue fashion. (general guideline: if it’s an ity-bity sign like you can buy in a novelty store, it’s probably rogue.) could be like the “no turn on red when pedestrians are present” signs and fall into the general category of “signs that are have the force of law under the ability to add signs to control highway traffic rather than being specifically legislated”. I think I’ve mostly seen “yield to pedestrian in crosswalk” signs in VA, but will certainly not argue that there can’t be others.

Quote:

It’s all in § 46.2-924. But not easy reading as it does lend itself to two entirely different interpretations.

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

…
No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

You’d have to be more specific about your confusion. There’s a part that imposes a requirement on the pedestrian, but that part doesn’t say anything about the motorist (more specifically, it does not remove the requirement to yield). Again, that’s there to prevent the motorists from being (unfairly) held responsible for a collision if the pedestrian makes the collision unavoidable, not to relieve the motorist of responsibility to attempt to avoid the collision. (Which is all that “right of way” means–the person who does not have the right of way has the duty to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a collision.)

[Terpfan]

@mstone 51959 wrote:

could be like the w&od stop signs, and put up in a rogue fashion. (general guideline: if it’s an ity-bity sign like you can buy in a novelty store, it’s probably rogue.) could be like the “no turn on red when pedestrians are present” signs and fall into the general category of “signs that are have the force of law under the ability to add signs to control highway traffic rather than being specifically legislated”. I think I’ve mostly seen “yield to pedestrian in crosswalk” signs in VA, but will certainly not argue that there can’t be others.

You’d have to be more specific about your confusion. There’s a part that imposes a requirement on the pedestrian, but that part doesn’t say anything about the motorist (more specifically, it does not remove the requirement to yield). Again, that’s there to prevent the motorists from being (unfairly) held responsible for a collision if the pedestrian makes the collision unavoidable, not to relieve the motorist of responsibility to attempt to avoid the collision. (Which is all that “right of way” means–the person who does not have the right of way has the duty to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a collision.)

Re-reading it, I actually think it’s a yield to pedestrians in all cases, but in section B, it’s essentially saying pedestrians should not disregard approaching traffic, ie make a dumb jump in front of a car or potentially cross against signaling devices in cases with road speed limits above 35mph.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 51908 wrote:

That’s not what was related above. What was said was that the motorist doesn’t have to yield right of way. The only thing that can mean (incorrectly) is that the motorist has no responsibility to avoid a collision and can freely run down a pedestrian.

You’re right, that’s the wrong way to say it. The driver must ALWAYS yield, when possible, to a pedestrian in their path.

I think what the police are trying to say is that IF a motorist cannot avoid the collision because there isn’t enough stopping space or other way to avoid a collision, it’s not the motorist’s fault, which is consistent with the law. It’s only a question that must be answered after a collision. In other words, if the pedestrian jumped out in the road in disregard of traffic, and a driver made every effort to avoid the collision anyway (slammed on the brakes, swerved) but still hit the pedestrian, the driver shouldn’t be cited for failure to yield.

It sounds to me like the police are just using confusing language instead of misstating the law. I hope so.

[baiskeli]

@Terpfan 51972 wrote:

Re-reading it, I actually think it’s a yield to pedestrians in all cases, but in section B, it’s essentially saying pedestrians should not disregard approaching traffic, ie make a dumb jump in front of a car or potentially cross against signaling devices in cases with road speed limits above 35mph.

Yes. As I like to say, the laws of traffic follows the laws of physics. If you have safe space to walk, you walk. If you don’t, you don’t. If you still do, a car must try to stop anyway, but if it can’t, it can’t.

[Author]

Posts