Legitimacy of Stop Sign on Custis outside Marriott?

[napes]

By the way, these SLOW signs are only in part-jest. The STOP signs really should go, but some sort of warning sign is probably appropriate. STOP signs simply confuse drivers on who has right of way, frustrate driver-bicyclist interactions when drivers see our “scofflaw” compatriots roll through them (despite probably knowing how many drivers roll through regular stop signs), and confuse some trail users as well on actual right-of-way. On the other hand, drivers of motor vehicles pose real danger at crosswalks, and vulnerable users ought to be warned of that real-world danger.

One VDOT survey reported vast uncertainty on who has right of way at WO&D style crossings. Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.” (pg 61 of http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r9.pdf) Those numbers are almost unbelievable, but in light of Northern Virginia crosswalk experiences, those numbers may reflect the chasm of misunderstanding and lack of law enforcement support.

The graphic below shows the lesser, more marginal candidates for part-serious part-jest SLOW signs. Anyone who wants to generate alternates, can easily develop the graphics from http://www.safetysign.com/products/p34941/custom-slow-down-sign

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3326[/ATTACH]

[DismalScientist]

@napes 58409 wrote:

Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.

And that survey just consisted of forum members…

BTW, the stop sign is posted on the column and the drivers cannot see it.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

Removal of political signs is a free speech issue. An illegitimate stop sign is probably more comparable to a garage sale or open house sign. In Arlington, those are allowed on weekends, but outside of that they’re illegitimate and anyone is allowed to remove them.

[rcannon100]

Um, no. The removal of road side signs has caused a bit of a controversy in Arlington. People believe that since the signs are illegal, they can be removed. Arlco believes differently and charged a citizen with a felony for doing so.

http://donaldsonrun.blogspot.com/2011/12/illegal-signs-in-arlington-remove-em-or.html

ArlCo Board member Christopher Zimmerman has reportedly advised against citizens taking down illegal signs. On the other hand, Civic Associations have considered a motion to make it legal for citizens to remove trash, er, I mean illegal signs.

Seriously, my solution is this: I take down the illegal signs, and then lay them flat on the ground. They no longer work as signs, but I also have not damaged or destroyed private property. If you remove signs, you do so at your own risk. Admittedly, Arlco is pretty good about sweeping thru and taking down illegal signs.

[baiskeli]

@Brendan von Buckingham 58397 wrote:

The answer was mentioned before, but if the sign is not legitimate why can’t it just be taken down by anybody. If it went up illegitimately, take it down illegitimately. That “anybody” just better be completly sure it in fact is illegitimate, becuase I bet the penalties for taking down a legitimate sign are pretty steep.

Depends on who put it up, probably. If a private citizen did, that’s one thing. I don’t think it’s legal to go talking down signs the county puts up though, even if it’s legal to ignore them.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 58413 wrote:

BTW, the stop sign is posted on the column and the drivers cannot see it.

For trail users headed west, the “STOP” painted on the sidewalk is clearly visible to drivers turning right into the parking lot. That needs to go too.

[KLizotte]

I used the Custis heading east yesterday and I think the stop sign is a really good idea irrespective of whether it is legal or not. Riders are going at speed downhill and the parking lot exit is obscured by the concrete wall. Anyone who is unfamiliar with the area is gonna blast through that intersection even though there is now a warning sign about a driveway coming up. Even for those of us who know the area, it is very easy to forget the danger at that spot.

I would have blown through that intersection if the stop sign hadn’t been there yesterday. I was way overheated, tired and just wanted to get home. The stop sign triggered the unconcious “slow the heck down” mechanism in my fried brain. It’s easy to forget that cars may come flying out of that driveway especially when dealing with lots of other trail users. Given that almost everyone coming out of that driveway is a tourist, the trail is poorly marked, and you have high speed cyclists, I think a stop sign is a good idea. I find it quite useful and keeps me safer, especially since I don’t use that trail often. I would hate to see a cyclist get hit because the sign was taking down on a legal technicality.

[baiskeli]

@napes 58409 wrote:

One VDOT survey reported vast uncertainty on who has right of way at WO&D style crossings. Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.” (pg 61 of http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r9.pdf) Those numbers are almost unbelievable, but in light of Northern Virginia crosswalk experiences, those numbers may reflect the chasm of misunderstanding and lack of law enforcement support.

So…who does have the right-of-way in that situation (where there is no sign or light)?

Anyone?

(The reason there’s confusion, in this survey and probably even on this board, is using the term “right-of-way.” That term isn’t in the law. The law is more nuanced than that.)

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 58521 wrote:

So…who does have the right-of-way in that situation (where there is no sign or light)?

Sidewalk users always have the right-of-way when crossing a driveway entrance.

Perhaps a big yellow sign saying “Not only is there a lot of pedestrian traffic, but this is also a freaking bike trail” would be appropriate for this driveway exit.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 58526 wrote:

Sidewalk users always have the right-of-way when crossing a driveway entrance.

I was asking about the “W&OD style” crossing mentioned in the survey.

You’ve revealed another layer of confusion over this situation – the Marriott intersection is an entrance, not a crossing.

Perhaps a big yellow sign saying “Not only is there a lot of pedestrian traffic, but this is also a freaking bike trail” would be appropriate for this driveway exit.

I agree with every word of that.

[KLizotte]

Yeah, but look at how many drivers fly through the crosswalk at the intersection of doom even though it is very well marked and peds/cyclists are clearly going through the area. Drivers will not pay attention to signs at the Marriott driveway any more than they do at any of the other intersections in that area. Drivers are impatient, oblivious, and will take every opportunity they can to keep moving. Also, most people coming out of the garage at the Marriott are fooling arund with their GPSs and not really paying attention to what is going on around them. A big speed bump or two coming out of the driveway would be useful.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 58521 wrote:

“One VDOT survey reported vast uncertainty on who has right of way at WO&D style crossings. Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.

So…who does have the right-of-way in that situation (where there is no sign or light)?

So you weren’t asking about the driveway entrance…:rolleyes:

I think there are very few crossings where there is no light or sign.
Where there is only a sign (or no sign), once in the crosswalk, the pedestrian or bicyclist has the right-of-way.
In Virginia, the pedestrian or cyclist can only enter the crosswalk with “due regard of traffic.” Whether this effectively gives street traffic the right-of-way before the pedestrian or cyclist enters the crosswalk is what the disagreement is about.
The stop sign has no meaning in general as the trail is not a roadway and cannot have these regulatory signs on it.
The new W&OD law provides exceptions where one can have enforceable stop signs on the trail.

[dasgeh]

@KLizotte 58513 wrote:

I would have blown through that intersection if the stop sign hadn’t been there yesterday. I was way overheated, tired and just wanted to get home. The stop sign triggered the unconcious “slow the heck down” mechanism in my fried brain. It’s easy to forget that cars may come flying out of that driveway especially when dealing with lots of other trail users. Given that almost everyone coming out of that driveway is a tourist, the trail is poorly marked, and you have high speed cyclists, I think a stop sign is a good idea. I find it quite useful and keeps me safer, especially since I don’t use that trail often. I would hate to see a cyclist get hit because the sign was taking down on a legal technicality.

I know there’s been a lot of discussion, but it’s landed on “take down the illegal stop sign and put up a legal CAUTION/WARNING sign”. Are you really saying that you would not have slowed down but for an undersized, not seen anywhere else, stop sign?

Honestly, I think the stop sign is worse for the trail users than a caution sign because there are no others, and it’s very random. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a prank.

On the other hand a yellow diamond with “HIDDEN DRIVEWAY” would be completely appropriately, and would get people’s attention. IMHO

Really? You would have blown through that in

[baiskeli]

I think part of the problem at the intersection of doom is that even when cars turning right to get on the Key Bridge have a green, they must wait for pedestrians and bikes to clear through, giving them very little time to get through.

I believe that the law requires pedestrians and bikes to NOT enter the intersection when the crossing light is red, even when the countdown is still above zero. Too many bikes fly through there just before the countdown, something pedestrians can’t really do, because bikes are so fast. The countdown was designed to tell pedestrians already in the crosswalk how much time they have to cross, but pedestrians often use the countdown to decide they have time to enter the crosswalk, even when the light is flashing red. Since bikes can make it across much faster, they do that right up to the end of that cycle. Also, the green for the cars turning right goes on as soon as the pedestrian light turns red. At most intersections it’s not a big deal, but this one’s bad.

They changed the cycle so that it’s hard for bikes to do that after crossing the previous intersection, so that part has improved.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 58537 wrote:

So you weren’t asking about the driveway entrance…:rolleyes:

I think there are very few crossings where there is no light or sign.
Where there is only a sign (or no sign), once in the crosswalk, the pedestrian or bicyclist has the right-of-way.
In Virginia, the pedestrian or cyclist can only enter the crosswalk with “due regard of traffic.” Whether this effectively gives street traffic the right-of-way before the pedestrian or cyclist enters the crosswalk is what the disagreement is about.
The stop sign has no meaning in general as the trail is not a roadway and cannot have these regulatory signs on it.
The new W&OD law provides exceptions where one can have enforceable stop signs on the trail.

Just to pile on: we’ve discussed this at length. Any pedestrian (including bikes) in a crosswalk should be yielded the right-of-way.

There are other parts of the law that deal with the pedestrian’s responsibility on entering the crosswalk (due regard, stop signs), but those parts don’t alter the main language of the statute: the pedestrian in the crosswalk has right-of-way.

@baiskeli 58521 wrote:

(The reason there’s confusion, in this survey and probably even on this board, is using the term “right-of-way.” That term isn’t in the law. The law is more nuanced than that.)

Huh? The law uses exactly the term “right-of- way”. It’s all over Virginia Code relating to streets and sidewalks. For example:

§ 46.2-924
A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;

3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

[Author]

Posts