gallows road signal

[mstone]

@hozn 61754 wrote:

I certainly would contribute to a bridge find there, though, regardless.

I’d spend the money at wiehle or sterling, or on basic maintenance for some of the side paths which are falling apart. This just ain’t that bad an intersection, and some tweaks could vastly improve it.

This could be a fun: if you had a million bucks for trail improvements, where would you spend it?

[hozn]

@mstone 61762 wrote:

I’d spend the money at wiehle or sterling, or on basic maintenance for some of the side paths which are falling apart. This just ain’t that bad an intersection, and some tweaks could vastly improve it.

Oh I “don’t care” about the safety of the intersection. I just don’t want to wait for that long light; that is where I wait the most, it feels. Whiele is a short light (though I usually choose to get off the W&OD at Hunter Mill to avoid the intersections through Reston) and I have never had to wait more than a minute at Sterling (usually much less).

I noticed the blinking lights out at Belmont last Friday. I pushed the button and the car that crested the hill stopped; I was amazed. That is my only data point and I suspect it is unusual, but I would imagine that those do at least get drivers’ attention. I don’t think that makes more sense than a stoplight, though, and definitely wouldn’t want to lose the light at Gallows (unless it was replaced with a bridge!).

[jabberwocky]

@hozn 61766 wrote:

Whiele is a short light…

Are you guys thinking of another intersection? There is no light at Whiele, just a crosswalk. Or do you mean the adjacent light at Sunset Hills stopping traffic so you can cross?

I ride across Whiele a lot and never really have an issue with traffic. When I commuted that way, most of my problems were motorists blocking the crosswalk while waiting for the light.

I’m in agreement that the light at Gallows just needs some tweaking. It would be nice if it switched a little more frequently, especially during off hours.

[bobco85]

@mstone 61762 wrote:

I’d spend the money at wiehle or sterling, or on basic maintenance for some of the side paths which are falling apart. This just ain’t that bad an intersection, and some tweaks could vastly improve it.

This could be a fun: if you had a million bucks for trail improvements, where would you spend it?

I’d use it to repaint all the lines with reflective paint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_surface_marking#Plastic or, if it’s available, glow-in-the-dark paint http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/glow-in-the-dark-highway-the-video/9635

On a more practical level, I’d buy as many snowplows and de-icers as possible.

[Dickie]

Well, reading that thread took so long it:

A) Was worse than waiting at Gallows for the light
Cost me a client
C) Made me realize I need a job where I can look up traffic laws all day
D) Inspired me to stock the Bike Vending Machine with Vallium

[chris_s]

@mstone 61678 wrote:

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.).

HAWK signals avoid this issue. When the pedestrian signal starts flashing don’t walk, the car light goes from solid red (stop and stay stopped) to flashing red (treat like a stop sign) so if the pedestrians/cyclists are no longer in the crosswalk cars can continue on through.

[mstone]

@chris_s 61789 wrote:

HAWK signals avoid this issue. When the pedestrian signal starts flashing don’t walk, the car light goes from solid red (stop and stay stopped) to flashing red (treat like a stop sign) so if the pedestrians/cyclists are no longer in the crosswalk cars can continue on through.

HAWKs are a potential future direction, but VDOT thus far doesn’t seem interested in them. IMO, they also need some enabling legislation, because the current code doesn’t talk about them at all and there are some ambiguities stemming from the language about treating an unlit signal as a four way stop.

@jabberwocky 61784 wrote:

Are you guys thinking of another intersection? There is no light at Whiele, just a crosswalk. Or do you mean the adjacent light at Sunset Hills stopping traffic so you can cross?

I ride across Whiele a lot and never really have an issue with traffic. When I commuted that way, most of my problems were motorists blocking the crosswalk while waiting for the light.

I brought it up as an example of the problems with multilane crosswalks with no signal control. It’s not uncommon for one car to stop while someone in another lane zooms by. The volume is low enough that it’s often not a problem at that particular spot (which just highlights that it’s overbuilt) but it’s a fundamentally dangerous design. Sunrise Valley is another example of the multilane problem. And I almost forgot Hunter Mill in the “holy crap people go too fast and don’t want to stop” category where some sort of signal is really needed, even though it’s only a two lane road.

[jabberwocky]

@mstone 61792 wrote:

I brought it up as an example of the problems with multilane crosswalks with no signal control. It’s not uncommon for one car to stop while someone in another lane zooms by. The volume is low enough that it’s often not a problem at that particular spot (which just highlights that it’s overbuilt) but it’s a fundamentally dangerous design. Sunrise Valley is another example of the multilane problem. And I almost forgot Hunter Mill in the “holy crap people go too fast and don’t want to stop” category where some sort of signal is really needed, even though it’s only a two lane road.

Agreed there. IMO, the issue with that intersection (and many others) is that a crosswalk adjacent to, but not actually at a major intersection is something that motorists have trouble paying attention to. They are looking at the light, looking at cross traffic, looking at cars slowing/speeding up/turning and basically everywhere but the crosswalk 100 feet before the light. This is the problem with almost every place the Fairfax County parkway trail crosses a road as well.

Hunter Mill can be problematic, but TBH I crossed it twice a day for several years and never really had an issue, and every near accident I’ve seen there has been a cyclist or runner trying to blow the stop sign. Motorists are almost always polite there IME; even at rush hour, if I pulled up to the intersection and stopped it would generally only take a few seconds for cars to stop and let me cross.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 61724 wrote:

But the language defining a traffic light (-833) specifies the behavior of traffic (i.e., vehicles) and has penalties that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles.

Ah, there’s the problem. You assume traffic means vehicles. I don’t see anything in the -100 (definitions) or -833 to support that. In fact, in -100, “traffic control device” includes devices that control pedestrians. I’ll admit that it’s an ambiguity, but given the entirety of the law, I think there’s a good argument that a regular ol’ light to guide bike traffic along the W&OD would be legally justified at that sight.

As to the question of flashing yellow v. regular crosswalk, you may be right that legally, they have the same effect. However, I doubt that’s entirely true: the law on crosswalks relies on a “reasonable” driver’s actions, and I think there’s a good argument that reasonable drivers react differently at those different types of infrastructure. Also (perhaps more) important is the practical effect. I believe there’s a flashing yellow on Columbia Pike — what do we know about that one? Are there accident statistics there? Have there been studies of drivers’ respect of the crosswalk there? I honestly don’t know, though my gut tells me flashing yellow is better in practice for pedestrians than just paint.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 61801 wrote:

Ah, there’s the problem. You assume traffic means vehicles. I don’t see anything in the -100 (definitions) or -833 to support that. In fact, in -100, “traffic control device” includes devices that control pedestrians. I’ll admit that it’s an ambiguity, but given the entirety of the law, I think there’s a good argument that a regular ol’ light to guide bike traffic along the W&OD would be legally justified at that sight.

I think one problem is that MUP’s aren’t considered roads and therefore not subject to legal traffic control devices. This contradicts the argument that stop signs on the trail regulating cyclists (not pedestrians) are unenforceable.

[Steve]

@mstone 61762 wrote:

This could be a fun: if you had a million bucks for trail improvements, where would you spend it?

Political bribes. Let’s be honest, a million bucks probably can’t buy you much construction. The best you could do with a million bucks is try to influence someone into giving you more than a million. I’d do it with bribes rather than advocacy, just because it sounds like more fun.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 61812 wrote:

I think one problem is that MUP’s aren’t considered roads and therefore not subject to legal traffic control devices. This contradicts the argument that stop signs on the trail regulating cyclists (not pedestrians) are unenforceable.

I don’t know if you didn’t see the earlier discussion or if you just disagree, but my reading of the definition of intersection in -100 is that lights on trail-meeting-road intersections are perfectly legal. Stop signs are not. (If you scroll up you can see the statutory language)

[mstone]

@dasgeh 61842 wrote:

I don’t know if you didn’t see the earlier discussion or if you just disagree, but my reading of the definition of intersection in -100 is that lights on trail-meeting-road intersections are perfectly legal. Stop signs are not. (If you scroll up you can see the statutory language)

The traffic light is legal, it just doesn’t apply to pedestrians (including bikes) on a trail and would thus only be implemented on the road. The stop sign is specifically allowed (and applicable to pedestrians) under the favola driver protection act (assuming local ordinance to that effect). http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?131+sum+SB959

[DismalScientist]

I’m not a lawyer and am probably wasting my time, but the definitions seem to say that you can install traffic control devices at trail crossings of roads. A stop sign appear to be a traffic control device which controls traffic. Since a trail is not a “road,” cyclists on the trail are not traffic and therefore the stop sign does not apply? But a traffic light facing the trail would control such traffic? Is there a difference if one faces a red light or a don’t walk signal?

My solution would be to redefine trails as roadways for the purposes to installing traffic control devices only. Appropriate placement of these traffic control devices should be a separate discussion.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 61859 wrote:

I’m not a lawyer and am probably wasting my time, but the definitions seem to say that you can install traffic control devices at trail crossings of roads. A stop sign appear to be a traffic control device which controls traffic. Since a trail is not a “road,” cyclists on the trail are not traffic and therefore the stop sign does not apply? But a traffic light facing the trail would control such traffic? Is there a difference if one faces a red light or a don’t walk signal?[/quote]

The stop sign may apply because the code allows pedestrian stop signs (with some conditions). The walk signal applies to pedestrians at all times. The traffic light does not apply to pedestrians. The question isn’t whether a TCD can be used on a trail, the issue is whether a specific TCD applies to pedestrians, for which you need to refer to the language defining each specific TCD.

[Author]

Posts