gallows road signal

[rpiretti]

This morning, the time between hitting the button and the light giving me the right of way was really quick. Maybe it wasn’t a fluke and they lowered the time!?

[mstone]

@Rando Guy 61632 wrote:

This morning, the time between hitting the button and the light giving me the right of way was really quick. Maybe it wasn’t a fluke and they lowered the time!?

Historically, that beg button is a no-op: the light changes every couple of minutes regardless of whether someone hits the button (and hitting the button doesn’t speed up the cycle). What makes it really stupid is that it isn’t synced to the traffic lights up and down the street, so you often are required to stand there facing an empty street, then the light changes just as the cars start to come from the next signal. Complete fail.

[jabberwocky]

I don’t ride down there often, but every time I’ve been there that light has taken forever to change. And as mstone says, its timed really weird, where you’re just looking at an empty road for minutes and then the light changes right as traffic starts arriving.

[rpiretti]

Yes, agreed.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 61640 wrote:

I don’t ride down there often, but every time I’ve been there that light has taken forever to change. And as mstone says, its timed really weird, where you’re just looking at an empty road for minutes and then the light changes right as traffic starts arriving.

It’s normally long, yesterday afternoon was insane (per my gps track, I gave up at 6 minutes). As far as the timing, if it were in Loudoun or Falls Church I would assume it was intended to entice cyclists into getting tickets. Since I’ve never seen any enforcement there I just assume it’s incompetence/apathy.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 61652 wrote:

It’s normally long, yesterday afternoon was insane (per my gps track, I gave up at 6 minutes). As far as the timing, if it were in Loudoun or Falls Church I would assume it was intended to entice cyclists into getting tickets. Since I’ve never seen any enforcement there I just assume it’s incompetence/apathy.

In Virginia, it’s legal to go after 2 minutes of red.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 61660 wrote:

In Virginia, it’s legal to go after 2 minutes of red.

For a red light; the code says nothing about a crosswalk. What I did was completely illegal, but I wasn’t going to stand there any longer–I’m no Socrates, to drink my hemlock like a good little citizen.

(For the record:

Quote:

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a driver of a motorcycle or moped or a bicycle rider approaches an intersection that is controlled by a traffic light, the driver or rider may proceed through the intersection on a steady red light only if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, (ii) exercises due care as provided by law, (iii) otherwise treats the traffic control device as a stop sign, (iv) determines that it is safe to proceed, and (v) yields the right of way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

This is in the traffic light section (46.2-833), and deals specifically with vehicles. Pedestrian control signals are in a different section of the code (46.2-295))

[dasgeh]

@mstone 61666 wrote:

For a red light; the code says nothing about a crosswalk. What I did was completely illegal, but I wasn’t going to stand there any longer–I’m no Socrates, to drink my hemlock like a good little citizen.

(For the record:

This is in the traffic light section (46.2-833), and deals specifically with vehicles. Pedestrian control signals are in a different section of the code (46.2-295))

Full disclosure: I don’t actually know the signal in question. Is it really just a hand/walking person?

If it’s a normal “red”, I think mstone’s interpretation of the law is incorrect. The section you quoted (46.2-833) is the one that applies. You need to look at the definition of intersection earlier in that chapter (46.2-100) (emphasis added):

“Intersection” means […] or (iii) for purposes only of authorizing installation of traffic-control devices, every crossing of a highway or street at grade by a pedestrian crosswalk.

Your second site to the VA Code is wrong (it doesn’t exist). I think you meant 46.2-925, which reads:

§ 46.2-925. Pedestrian control signals.

Whenever pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words, numbers, or symbols meaning “Walk” or “Don’t Walk” are in place such signals shall indicate and apply to pedestrians as follows:

Walk. – Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the highway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.

Don’t Walk. – No pedestrian shall start to cross the highway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the Walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island and remain there while the Don’t Walk signal is showing.

(1974, c. 347, § 46.1-231.1; 1989, c. 727; 2008, c. 451.)

If it is a hand/walking person, it would seem to apply here, but that’s super dumb.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 61669 wrote:

Full disclosure: I don’t actually know the signal in question.

Well, maybe that’s the confusion, then. It’s a pedestrian “don’t walk” for W&OD, and a red light for gallows. If you’re standing for 6 minutes at the “don’t walk” sign, there’s nothing in 46.2-833 that applies.

46.2-100 is irrelevant, as we’re not arguing about whether there’s an intersection, but about whether a section of the code (46.2-833B) addressing behavior of vehicles at a traffic control device can apply to pedestrians at a pedestrian control device (which is defined/governed in a separate section of the code, not in 46.2-833).

And yes, I typo’d the 925. The relevance of 46.2-925 is that if the legislature wanted to add an exemption to the definition of what is required at a “don’t walk” signal, that would be the place in the code to find such an exemption. But it only says “no pedestrian shall”, not “no pedestrian shall, unless he’s been standing there for more than two minutes”.

[bobco85]

A legal alternative to waiting for the light to change is to go left onto the sidewalk, turn right to enter Gallows Rd, and make a left turn from it onto the trail on the other side.

I think that crossing should be replaced with one that uses flashing yellow lights when the button is pushed so that drivers have to yield only if someone is crossing. I figure that would solve the problem of traffic getting clogged due to the mistiming of the stoplight with other Gallows Rd stoplights. Perhaps have the lights be timed to have a delay of 5 seconds so that there isn’t a constant stream of people crossing.

[mstone]

@bobco85 61676 wrote:

A legal alternative to waiting for the light to change is to go left onto the sidewalk, turn right to enter Gallows Rd, and make a left turn from it onto the trail on the other side.[/quote]

Screw legal, I’d rather just cross quickly and directly than dance around in the middle of that street longer than necessary, just to get a gold star.

Quote:

I think that crossing should be replaced with one that uses flashing yellow lights when the button is pushed so that drivers have to yield only if someone is crossing. I figure that would solve the problem of traffic getting clogged due to the mistiming of the stoplight with other Gallows Rd stoplights. Perhaps have the lights be timed to have a delay of 5 seconds so that there isn’t a constant stream of people crossing.

Oh god, no. If it weren’t a red, the cars would never stop; that road is a racetrack. A better solution would be to immediately change the thing to red if there’s a pedestrian standing there pushing the button (because, why shouldn’t pedestrians get some priority every once in a while?) Put some sensors in the road to increase the delay between red cycles if there are actually cars backed up.

Edit to add: part of the problem is the federal minimum walk cycle based on the speed of a little old lady crossing the street. There’s a good reason for that (and I don’t think the safety aspect should be discarded for expediency), but it does lead to a lot of empty crosswalk/wasted time if the crosser is on a bike. I think there was some consideration at one point about adding different buttons so people could indicate whether they needed a slow or fast cycle, but that seems impractical (what if there are multiple people, how to set expectations, etc.). Another possibility would be to use video detection to determine whether the crosswalk is clear, rather than relying on fixed time; don’t know how feasible that would be in real life.

[dasgeh]

@bobco85 61676 wrote:

A legal alternative to waiting for the light to change is to go left onto the sidewalk, turn right to enter Gallows Rd, and make a left turn from it onto the trail on the other side.

I think that crossing should be replaced with one that uses flashing yellow lights when the button is pushed so that drivers have to yield only if someone is crossing. I figure that would solve the problem of traffic getting clogged due to the mistiming of the stoplight with other Gallows Rd stoplights. Perhaps have the lights be timed to have a delay of 5 seconds so that there isn’t a constant stream of people crossing.

Or a regular old light. Then the Code would apply as intended. What’s there seems like dumb road design, for exactly this reason.

[bobco85]

Personally, I would like to see that stoplight be removed altogether with a better alternative:

How about a median/pedestrian refuge/island in the middle? Right now the road has 2 bike lanes, 2 northbound lanes, 2 southbound lanes, and a center turn lane, so they could replace the center turn lane with a median/pedestrian refuge/island (I’ll make this in Streetmix later today). Also, the W&OD has multiple other road crossings that have some sort of pedestrian refuge in the middle (Sunrise Valley Dr, Sunset Hills Rd, Wiehle Ave, to name a few). If they repurpose that center turn lane, I think they could use the flashing yellow lights or even do away with the stoplight altogether since (I’m not a traffic engineer) the timing doesn’t work for efficient car, cyclist, or pedestrian traffic flow.

[Tim Kelley]

@bobco85 61687 wrote:

Personally, I would like to see that stoplight be removed altogether with a better alternative:

Completely separated flyover bridge!

[mstone]

@dasgeh 61679 wrote:

Or a regular old light. Then the Code would apply as intended. What’s there seems like dumb road design, for exactly this reason.

A regular old light would be pointless, since the W&OD isn’t a road and the users are pedestrians…

[Author]

Posts