Legitimacy of Stop Sign on Custis outside Marriott?

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 58537 wrote:

I think there are very few crossings where there is no light or sign.

There are probably more than you might notice, especially since a cyclist might not see a stop sign facing traffic.

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.

Exactly.

I would say the cars have the right-of-way at such an intersection. But that’s too simplistic too. A cyclist approaching the intersection must yield to cars. Once the cyclist is in the intersection, though, the car must yield. To me, that’s right-of-way going to the car. It works just like a yield sign. The key is the difference between entering the intersection and crossing it.

I think the survey shouldn’t talk about “right-of-way” and neither should we. It’s confusing. To say bikes have the right-of-way at crossings implies that a bike approaching the intersection, that hasn’t entered it yet, on a course to meet a car can just ride right through without slowing down, and the car must see the cyclist, judge his speed, and slow down or stop to avoid a collision., But that would violate the “disregard of traffic” part of the law.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 58540 wrote:

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

But that’s the problem – we’re not just talking about IN a crosswalk. We’re talking about approaching one.

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.

But those parts of the law are just as important. A bike must yield to cars if it hasn’t entered the crosswalk yet and a collision would happen if it did. That’s just as much “right-of-way.”

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

“to any pedestrian crossing such highway”

Yes – this is about a pedestrian “crossing” a highway.

It also says a pedestrian must not enter “in disregard of approaching traffic.” That’s the same thing as saying cars have the right-of-way when both are approaching the intersection. If it were two cars on crossing roads instead of a car and bike, the term “right-of-way” would clearly apply to whoever must yield and not cross in disregard of approaching traffic.

If you’re on a bike trail and you get to an intersection and a car is coming and it’s not safe to cross because it could hit you, you must slow or stop, not the car. If it’s safe, you start to cross, then the car can see you and slow or stop if necessary. Just saying one or the other has the right-of-way is confusing in that situation. If you told a newbie “on the trail, you have the right-of-way at road crossings” that would not tell the whole story.

But you’re right, the law does mention “right of way” after all. It just makes it even more confusing!

[KLizotte]

@dasgeh 58538 wrote:

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?

Yes, absolutely.

[Tim Kelley]

Coming into this thread late. Have you guys worked everything out?

Is everyone aware that this area is slated for some upgrades in the next year or two? I think it’s been presented at the BAC meetings so someone who has attended those might be able to fill in details.

[runbike]

Really old thread, but new info from the county regarding the Marriott stop sign on the Custis Trail. Awhile back I created a “see, click, fix” report on this issue – http://seeclickfix.com/issues/638919, because Arlington does monitor the site and I hoped they would address it. Well it only took 2 years but they finally responded regarding its legitimacy. Long story short, it will stay for now but will be taken down upon completion of the esplanade project.

[Author]

Posts