Intersection of Doom Upgrades…

[bobco85]

Just curious because I do not know legalese, could litigation be used against the County/Fed/NPS/VDOT/etc. in the event of an accident?

To be frank, the treatment of the Intersection of Doom seems to be negligence on their part, even with the piecemeal solutions (sometimes having a cop stationed there isn’t going to do it). At some point (I think it’s past already), it will be shown that the inaction to fix this dangerous intersection after years upon years of the issue being brought up at county board meetings, formal requests, and even on-site meetings was a willful inaction. Purposely keeping an intersection dangerous by not fixing it seems to be willful negligence.

Obviously, I would hate if this was the only way to get this intersection safer, but considering the evidence would it be even possible?

[dasgeh]

I don’t know the entire history of what has been said about and what has be done at the IoD over the decades, though I would be interested in reading it if someone wanted to compile.

I do know that the last few weeks have seen more changes there then I’ve seen since I moved to Arlington in 2008. All of those changes haven’t been for the good, but the fact that things keep changing makes me think that County staff is actively making changes, evaluating those changes, and making further changes. I see that as a good thing.

Do I think they could be doing better? Of course. I’m not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. I will keep asking for more (I even have a meeting set up next week), but I’m not willing to condemn ArlCo for the recent efforts.

If we have a vision for what success looks like, let’s talk about that. If we have ideas for realistic timelines, let’s talk about those as well. Asking for specific changes made be helpful at this point in time (the BAC asked specifically for a change to signal timing earlier this year — that’s what’s being done). Asking for specific dates will help hold people accountable.

[arlrider]

@bobco85 96770 wrote:

Just curious because I do not know legalese, could litigation be used against the County/Fed/NPS/VDOT/etc. in the event of an accident?

To be frank, the treatment of the Intersection of Doom seems to be negligence on their part, even with the piecemeal solutions (sometimes having a cop stationed there isn’t going to do it). At some point (I think it’s past already), it will be shown that the inaction to fix this dangerous intersection after years upon years of the issue being brought up at county board meetings, formal requests, and even on-site meetings was a willful inaction. Purposely keeping an intersection dangerous by not fixing it seems to be willful negligence.

Obviously, I would hate if this was the only way to get this intersection safer, but considering the evidence would it be even possible?

Great post. I have wondered this same thing over and over. Given the long history of issues at this specific location, and the admission by the County and others that it’s the design of the intersection itself that’s the problem (which is obvious, because you’re not seeing the very same drivers and cyclists getting into incidents at other locations), then isn’t a lack of action indeed negligence? Should the next victim of an incident bring a large suit against the County?

@bobco85 96770 wrote:

Obviously, I would hate if this was the only way to get this intersection safer, but considering the evidence would it be even possible?

I wouldn’t hate it at all. It’s the reason why this country has a civil justice system. I’d love to hear an attorney’s perspective on this.

[baiskeli]

I’m not an attorney but I play one on this forum.

I think the answer is no, you probably can’t sue because: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity

[dasgeh]

@bobco85 96770 wrote:

Just curious because I do not know legalese, could litigation be used against the County/Fed/NPS/VDOT/etc. in the event of an accident?

I don’t know the law in Virginia, but generally in the US “sovereign immunity” means you can’t sue the government unless the government has allowed themselves to be sued. NY has in situations like this, but I doubt Virginia has. It’s probably an easy thing to Google.

[cyclingfool]

Maybe I’m misreading this, and maybe [gasp] Wikipedia is not 100% clear or accurate, BUT…

cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they “exercise a ‘slice of state power.'” Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979).

[mstone]

Note that if this becomes a real possibility, they’ll probably just ban bikes.

[rcannon100]

Note also that a huge portion of the land at Doom is NPS (federal) land. And the rest is VDOT. Very little is Arlco. Some is even DC.

State Sovereign Immunity and Tort Liability

For most of American history, sovereign immunity almost universally protected federal and state governments and their employees from being sued without their consent. Starting in the mid-1900s, however, a trend toward government accountability began to erode sovereign immunity. In 1946, the federal government passed the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.§2674), waiving immunity to suit and liability for some actions. Many state legislatures followed by enacting statutes to define the limits of immunity for state governmental entities and employees.

Today, state tort claims acts modeled after the FTCA are the most prevalent statutory waiver allowing tort claims against the state. These acts either provide a general waiver of immunity with certain exceptions, or reenact immunity with limited waivers that apply only to certain types of claims.

State claims acts (as opposed to tort claims acts) are another kind of statute that limit immunity and establish a procedure for claims against the state. These acts establish a special court of claims, board or commission to determine such claims, and may also limit damages or provide for certain exceptions to liability. Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio use this approach.

. . . . .

Va. Code §§8.01-195.1 et seq.: Virginia Tort Claims Act.

[arlrider]

So does anybody know if these lights have a “holiday schedule”? Either way, today was a big step backwards. Leading interval of maybe 3 seconds for pedestrians, then about 20 seconds total of walk/countdown, then at least 20 seconds of cars only, in both directions. Looks like the drivers are winning this one.

[bobco85]

Thanks, everyone, for the legal explanantions. I must admit, I wrote my question in a somewhat pessimistic mood because with all the effort being put into improving this intersection by cycling advocates (thank you all, by the way, for your hard work), there does not seem to have been a net increase in safety at the Intersection of Doom which is discouraging to think about. I figured at some point, someone would consider the litigation route.

*snark* I propose they add a counter next to the Bikeometer listing the number of close calls, red light runners, turning right on red from the middle/left lanes, and collisions at the IoD. */snark*

Anyways, I did some nice biking around the area this weekend, even passing through the IoD at one point (during the leading crosswalk interval, I stared down a right turner so much that I almost believed I had psychokinetic powers). I look forward to the day one can be stress-free when crossing that intersection.

[dasgeh]

News you can use: this intersection is a work in progress, and ArlCo is adjusting and monitoring very often (daily-weekly). They are listening to our concerns, so posting observations and stories is very helpful. This is a great place to post, as is the BAC google group.

The no-turn-on-red is coming, but in a matter of weeks/months, not days. Quick poll: do people think a sign, such as the digital traffic sign below, instructing drivers to look for peds/bikes would be helpful in the interim? Click “Like” for yes or “Elite” for no. Any suggestions on what it should say? (reply)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6813[/ATTACH]

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96931 wrote:

Quick poll: do people think a sign, such as the digital traffic sign below, instructing drivers to look for peds/bikes would be helpful in the interim? Click “Like” for yes or “Elite” for no. Any suggestions on what it should say? (reply)

No, because the last thing that that intersection needs is more distractions. Driver: “Hmm, a big orange sign! Let me look up from texting and try to see what it says.” *Squint*…*Crunch*…*Screaming from beneath car*…”Gosh, what’s that squishy thing under my car?”

[Anonymous]

@dasgeh 96931 wrote:

News you can use: this intersection is a work in progress, and ArlCo is adjusting and monitoring very often (daily-weekly). They are listening to our concerns, so posting observations and stories is very helpful. This is a great place to post, as is the BAC google group.

The no-turn-on-red is coming, but in a matter of weeks/months, not days. Quick poll: do people think a sign, such as the digital traffic sign below, instructing drivers to look for peds/bikes would be helpful in the interim? Click “Like” for yes or “Elite” for no. Any suggestions on what it should say? (reply)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6813[/ATTACH]

I drive (yes, drive :o) through an intersection daily which is not as bad as the IoD and with much much less ped/bike traffic, but does have a “lots of cars turning right on red during morning rush hour across a bike/ped sidepath” configuration. For a month or so earlier this summer, they had one of those signs up which said something along the lines of “right turning traffic must obey red light. stop at light, then turn if clear.” I noticed significantly fewer (though not zero) cars simply rolling through the crosswalk and turning right without stopping or barely slowing down, and significantly more cars actually stopping in front of the crosswalk before making the turn.

Sadly, the effect only lasted a couple weeks after the sign was removed. Not a permanent solution, but it did make a difference while it was there.

[dasgeh]

@acl 96934 wrote:

I drive (yes, drive :o) through an intersection daily which is not as bad as the IoD and with much much less ped/bike traffic, but does have a “lots of cars turning right on red during morning rush hour across a bike/ped sidepath” configuration.

Which intersection? (This would be HUGELY helpful, especially if it happens to be in Arlington)

[cyclingfool]

@acl 96934 wrote:

I drive (yes, drive :o) through an intersection daily[…]

Blasphemer!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6814[/ATTACH]

[Author]

Posts