Getting the Right of Way Right

[jabberwocky]

@Mark Blacknell 37924 wrote:

Quinn and Oak are two prime candidates for this treatment in Arlington. The WOD in Falls Church has a few, too. Thoughts?*

My only thoughts are that, traffic volume aside, the intersections are generally not designed for path users to have right of way (in that sightlines for cars down the path are terrible at many intersections). Its hard to demand that cars stop and yield right of way when they can’t see traffic on the path without putting their hood across it.

Could be mitigated with minor redesign, probably. Mostly just cutting bushes back and such.

[TwoWheelsDC]

The crossings at DCA on the MVT? The problematic one, at the GWMP NB on ramp, probably gets more bike traffic than car traffic. Just put the stop sign on the ramp and not the trail.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@TwoWheelsDC 37930 wrote:

The crossings at DCA on the MVT? The problematic one, at the GWMP NB on ramp, probably gets more bike traffic than car traffic. Just put the stop sign on the ramp and not the trail.

Yep. Same with the marina crossing, although that one gets so little vehicle traffic that it’s rarely an issue.

[vvill]

@jabberwocky 37927 wrote:

My only thoughts are that, traffic volume aside, the intersections are generally not designed for path users to have right of way (in that sightlines for cars down the path are terrible at many intersections). Its hard to demand that cars stop and yield right of way when they can’t see traffic on the path without putting their hood across it.

Could be mitigated with minor redesign, probably. Mostly just cutting bushes back and such.

Agreed. They’d have to make sure the bushes etc are permanently cut away, since overgrowth seems to happen easily.

Incidentally, the dedicated cycleways I’ve ridden in Sydney don’t have stop signs for cyclists. Instead the word “LOOK” with an arrow pointing right (the direction traffic would be immediately approaching from) is painted on the ground at every curb cut/road intersection. Obviously some crossings have ped/bike lights as well.

[DismalScientist]

@Mark Blacknell 37924 wrote:

Quinn and Oak are two prime candidates for this treatment in Arlington. The WOD in Falls Church has a few, too.

There are a few (or maybe one) cross streets on the W&OD where it parallels Four Mile Run Drive in South Arlington.

I agree with your proposal–flip the stop signs around.

Also, consider replacing some of the stop signs facing the trail with yield signs if the street traffic is light.

[jabberwocky]

Folks outta drive some of these intersections sometime. I’m not super familiar with the ones near DC, but I know a lot of the Reston ones well, both on a bike and in a car. You might think that cars can see you coming because you can see them, but it often isn’t the case.

Consider that a cyclist going 25mph covers nearly 200 feet every 5 seconds. If a car stops back from the trail, does it have that much visibility down the trail both directions? To be honest, there are very few intersections in Reston that do, and I bet a lot of the ones being discussed don’t either. Its possible that some mitigation can be done (pruning adjacent bushes way back, removing landscaping and such), but the fact is that for most of these intersections, the visibility won’t ever be there because of the orientation of the road and trail.

Theres more to this than just saying “theres more of us than there are of them, flip the signs”. Stop signs are just as much a function of road design as they are of traffic volume.

[Steve]

I agree with most of what has been said here in that the main issue is visibility. Particularly with the speed that you can carry downhill on the Custis in that area. The Quinn location, I believe, even has a big brick housing development sign that blocks nearly all the visibility up the trail.

I guess my question would be how do you regulate the right of way? If visibility is the problem, then stop signs don’t really help, because cars will still have to pull forward to make the eventual turn. If they can’t see up the trail from the stop sign (which they can’t), the only way is to pull into the trail. The only solution then is to have a signaled crossing (with no turn on red) that defaults to green for the path, and changes only when a car trips the light (by weight, I would assume).

[mstone]

@Steve 37994 wrote:

I guess my question would be how do you regulate the right of way? If visibility is the problem, then stop signs don’t really help, because cars will still have to pull forward to make the eventual turn.

That would be fine. Even if there were a collision, it would be a low-speed annoyance rather than a death-dealing blow by someone pushing a couple of tons of steel 40+ MPH. (Assuming police the stop for cars any better than they enforce the speed limit.)

[Terpfan]

@TwoWheelsDC 37930 wrote:

The crossings at DCA on the MVT? The problematic one, at the GWMP NB on ramp, probably gets more bike traffic than car traffic. Just put the stop sign on the ramp and not the trail.

Agreed. Plus the cars have to do a literal merge without a merge lane there, which is probably safer that they stop in terms of recognizing it. I also find half the cars are baffled by the crosswalk and decide to stop…even after I have slowed to a near stop so they can keep their right of ways.

[creadinger]

@Terpfan 38023 wrote:

Agreed. Plus the cars have to do a literal merge without a merge lane there, which is probably safer that they stop in terms of recognizing it. I also find half the cars are baffled by the crosswalk and decide to stop…even after I have slowed to a near stop so they can keep their right of ways.

Maybe they may get all confused at that crosswalk because within the confines of airports they tend to enforce rules in favor of pedestrians much more than anywhere else. There are crosswalks everywhere, many stop signs and other traffic slowing/calming things for drivers to navigate. Flipping the stop sign would make total sense at that crossing since they’re expecting it anyway.

[Steve]

@mstone 38001 wrote:

That would be fine. Even if there were a collision, it would be a low-speed annoyance rather than a death-dealing blow by someone pushing a couple of tons of steel 40+ MPH. (Assuming police the stop for cars any better than they enforce the speed limit.)

Not it wouldn’t. The crossings in question here are where low level traffic streets (residential) cross the Custis trail to get to Lee highway (like Quinn). The conflicts here are cars that are barely moving. The problem is that it is a steep downhill section of the Custis where riders are going fast and cars pull out in front of them to see if they can turn right on Lee.

[mstone]

@Steve 38035 wrote:

Not it wouldn’t. The crossings in question here are where low level traffic streets (residential) cross the Custis trail to get to Lee highway (like Quinn). The conflicts here are cars that are barely moving. The problem is that it is a steep downhill section of the Custis where riders are going fast and cars pull out in front of them to see if they can turn right on Lee.

My problems is generally cars going much faster than the posted speed limit and barreling through crosswalks, but I acknowledge that YMMV. If the car stops and then proceeds slowly through the crosswalk, the cyclist should have the opportunity to see that there is a car, and slow/stop/etc., as well as the car having the time to react when they do eventually notice the cyclist.

[Author]

Posts