June 2014 Trail Conditions
- This topic has 93 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
@dasgeh 88909 wrote:
Both of you make valid points. Neither of you is a judge deciding a case argued properly in front of a court. kcb is right that the _intersection_ is control by a traffic light. As such, I believe there is ambiguity there for the reasonable interpretation that this should apply to a context like a trail context. In my opinion, context makes it a better argument that it does, in fact, apply to this sort of intersection. mstone, none of your arguments have convinced me that it absolutely cannot apply. Your condensing tone, however, has convinced me that you are not open to reasonable discussion of this matter, which I find disappointing.
I’m open to reasonable discussion, but saying that one part of the code applies to another part of the code when there’s nothing connecting the two is, in my own opinion, unreasonable. Context is absolutely important, and context demands that you not pull out 46.2-833(
without acknowledging 46.2-833 and acknowledging that 46.2-833( mentions a couple of modes which aren’t allowed on trails and does not mention the one mode (pedestrian) relevant to pedestrian control signals. I get that you really want this to be work, but I’m just not seeing it. Nor have you actually addressed anything that I wrote, other than to repeat the original argument. If you’re aware of an actual precedent I’ll certainly defer to it. As I said before, though, I’d be amazed if this ever got to the point of being tested in a court because so many unlikely events would need to converge. I really think this is a case where the actual law is fairly irrelevant to either behavior or consequences. (Basically, the only way this would be relevant is if someone sat at the light for 2 minutes (using an actual watch to check), with a gopro or somesuch running for evidence, then found an enormous gap in traffic (so as to not have to argue about “due care” and what is “safe”), did all this in front of a cop, then got a ticket, and then took it to court. If you actually get hit doing this you’re probably still going to end up just as liable as if you run the light in the first place because of the “due care” and “safe” and “yield” provisions; this is purely a potential ticket-avoidance mechanism, and I’m not aware of a ticketing blitz at the gallows crossing.)@dasgeh 88910 wrote:
Oh, and whether the new code language strictly applies to this intersection or not doesn’t change the fact that the new code language can be useful in making an argument to VDOT that planning to make cyclists/peds wait 3 minutes is longer than the legislature (ie. VDOT’s boss) would want them to.
You can certainly try to fight the good fight, but when I look at then recent intent of the legislature I see no sign whatsoever that they want VDOT to show more concern for pedestrians. They have had plenty of opportunities to mandate multi-modal level-of-service metrics, add an explicit timing requirement to 46.2-925, increase penalties for failure to yield to pedestrians, etc., and haven’t done anything to address the status quo. I’m pretty sure VDOT has noticed that, and also noticed what percentage of VDOTs funding the commonwealth has dedicated to pedestrian accommodations, and will weigh that more heavily than the argument that 46.2-833(
is an implicit direction that pedestrians shouldn’t have to wait too long even though pedestrians aren’t mentioned.@mstone 88920 wrote:
I’m open to reasonable discussion, but saying that one part of the code applies to another part of the code when there’s nothing connecting the two is, in my own opinion, unreasonable.
In statutory interpretation of federal and NY law, which I know a fair amount about, “technicals” such as titles and where a particular code section is located are not primarily operative on the substance of the law. They can be used as secondary aides in interpreting substance when the primary language is unclear, but they would not be dispositive. In other words, Congress could pass a law adding a new section title 49 (transportation) to allow banks to be clown colleges (banking is title 12), and banks would allowed to be clown colleges, despite the fact that the legislative text is not in the “right place” (title 12) in the code. I admit that I am not barred in Virginia. If statutory interpretation in Virginia has different tenants, that would surprise me.
@mstone 88920 wrote:
You can certainly try to fight the good fight, but when I look at then recent intent of the legislature I see no sign whatsoever that they want VDOT to show more concern for pedestrians. They have had plenty of opportunities to mandate multi-modal level-of-service metrics, add an explicit timing requirement to 46.2-925, increase penalties for failure to yield to pedestrians, etc., and haven’t done anything to address the status quo. I’m pretty sure VDOT has noticed that, and also noticed what percentage of VDOTs funding the commonwealth has dedicated to pedestrian accommodations, and will weigh that more heavily than the argument that 46.2-833(
is an implicit direction that pedestrians shouldn’t have to wait too long even though pedestrians aren’t mentioned. You’re right. I shouldn’t have said peds. I should have stuck with cyclists, which are the subject of the new language.
@dasgeh 88922 wrote:
In statutory interpretation of federal and NY law, which I know a fair amount about, “technicals” such as titles and where a particular code section is located are not primarily operative on the substance of the law. They can be used as secondary aides in interpreting substance when the primary language is unclear, but they would not be dispositive.
You’re right that the location itself is immaterial. What I was trying to say is that the 46.2-833 refers in each part to traffic lights, including (A) which is as close to the definition of “traffic light” as the code comes. There’s a separate section which defines what people are supposed to do at a pedestrian control signal, and (
does not ever refer to pedestrian control signals. That’s the part that bothers me, that there’s this concept of “pedestrian control signals” which ( doesn’t reference (including the specific states which apply to pedestrian signals, “walk” and “don’t walk”), nor does ( talk about pedestrians. I suspect that this is the result of a sloppily written/edited bill, and I’m honestly not entirely sure what the House intended to cover, or even if they were entirely sure what they intended to cover. The history of the language is at https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+sum+HB1981 and the original text is much less ambiguous. The confounding reference to a “traffic control device” was introduced when merging in HB1991, which was confusing to begin with (it talks about “the traffic control devices” without being at all clear which of multiple devices the language refers to). The edit pulls in the traffic control device language (but makes it singular) as well as the 2 minute rule (original text of 1981 only mentioned 2 light cycles). So did the edit mean to expand the rule to cover TCDs, or was that an unintentional side effect of pulling in the 2 minute rule? If Virginia had public transcripts of committee hearings this might all be more clear. Basically it comes down to whether “the traffic control device” refers to “a traffic light” earlier in the sentence or whether “the traffic control device” refers to some unspecified TCD which could be either a traffic light or a pedestrian control signal. What’s really curious is that “traffic control device” doesn’t appear to have been defined until 2013, so who knows what they thought they were doing in 2011 when ( was added (or why they decided to throw in an undefined term).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.