Lynn/Lee Intersection of Doom Medium-Term Fixes
Our Community › Forums › General Discussion › Lynn/Lee Intersection of Doom Medium-Term Fixes
- This topic has 120 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
Steve O.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 27, 2015 at 1:59 pm #1026928
kcb203
Participant@rcannon100 112477 wrote:
They didnt say it was legitimate. They said they would not remove it. Not the same thing. Pretty sure the sign is utterly unenforceable – in fact, I believe its not even a sign (it does not meet the requirements of an official stop sign). There were other stop signs in this track that Arlco did in fact remove (after a cyclists got hit and then ticketed for running a non-legal stop sign)
What makes it completely asinine is the fact that there’s only an eastbound sign and no westbound sign. That defies all common sense.
March 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm #1026933DismalScientist
ParticipantWhile the sign is illegitimate, the reason that there is only a eastbound sign is because that is where the limited visibility issue comes from. Cars exiting the parking lot cannot fast moving bicycles eastbound because of the pedestrian bridge pillars.
March 27, 2015 at 2:30 pm #1026941Tim Kelley
ParticipantIsn’t this where “Enabler” would tell you how to remove the stop sign yourself? 😮
March 27, 2015 at 2:39 pm #1026948Enabler
Participant@Tim Kelley 112495 wrote:
Isn’t this where “Enabler” would tell you how to remove the stop sign yourself? 😮
I mean, it’s not like screwdrivers are difficult to get your hands on…
March 27, 2015 at 2:40 pm #1026949chris_s
Participant@rcannon100 112477 wrote:
They didnt say it was legitimate. They said they would not remove it. Not the same thing. Pretty sure the sign is utterly unenforceable – in fact, I believe its not even a sign (it does not meet the requirements of an official stop sign). There were other stop signs in this track that Arlco did in fact remove (after a cyclists got hit and then ticketed for running a non-legal stop sign)
Requirements for stop signs on shared-use paths.
Which part(s) doesn’t it meet?
March 27, 2015 at 2:46 pm #1026950rcannon100
ParticipantWell for one thing, that’s a manual, not the law. And this is not a federal highway. In fact, it would be interesting to determine what jurisdiction a sidewalk along a state highway falls under for determining compliant signage.
This is based on a discussion we had a long time ago, but I believe the problem is the size. VA regs probably specify what a stop sign is, and what this sign would not comply with is size. Again, based on memory.
Oh, actually, if this manual were/is binding, this would be the provision that it is non-compliant with
Standard:
01 If the sign or plaque applies to motorists and bicyclists, then the size shall be as shown for conventional roads in Tables 2B-1, 2C-2, or 2D-1.Stop R1-1 2B.05 30 x 30* 36 x 36 36 x 36 — 30 x 30* 48 x 48
I am pretty sure (not positive) that the sign is too small.
Another question is who placed the sign. Did Arlco or someone with proper authority – or did the Marriott?
March 27, 2015 at 2:47 pm #1026951runbike
Participantchris_s;112503 wrote:which part(s) doesn’t it meet?[mic drop]
March 27, 2015 at 3:01 pm #1026954DismalScientist
Participant@chris_s 112503 wrote:
Which part(s) doesn’t it meet?
STOP (R1-1) signs (see Figure 9B-2) shall be installed on shared-use paths at points where bicyclists are required to stop.
Is there any ordinance or legislation that states that cyclist on a sidewalk and/or shared use path is required to stop at a driveway?
March 27, 2015 at 3:20 pm #1026958baiskeli
Participant@DismalScientist 112508 wrote:
STOP (R1-1) signs (see Figure 9B-2) shall be installed on shared-use paths at points where bicyclists are required to stop.
Is there any ordinance or legislation that states that cyclist on a sidewalk and/or shared use path is required to stop at a driveway?
On the other hand, it’s possible there’s an ordinance or law that says a cyclist is required to stop wherever there’s a stop sign. So that leads us back to whether this sign is legit.
The law is a fuzzy-assed thing sometimes. Keeps lawyers employed.
March 27, 2015 at 3:28 pm #1026963consularrider
Participant@rcannon100 112504 wrote:
… And this is not a federal highway. In fact, it would be interesting to determine what jurisdiction a sidewalk along a state highway falls under for determining compliant signage …
But Lee Highway is US 29?
March 27, 2015 at 6:04 pm #1026990Birdstrike
ParticipantBraced for the Lynn/Lee crossing eastbound yesterday while descending the Custis, saw an Arlington motorcycle cop parked on the sidewalk adjacent Lynn St just observing things. Never saw such well-mannered drivers in all my life, especially the ones coming off I-66W waiting to make that right turn. I even started my crossing with the red countdown showing, only about :07 left, but was able to take my time, driver just sat there and waited on me, wasn’t even creeping forward with their usual irritated impatience. Ah, if only every day could be like that…
March 29, 2015 at 3:28 am #1027050oldbikechick
Participant@dasgeh 112375 wrote:
You’ve cited the correct section of law, but your interpretation is not settled law. It all depends on whether the blinking-hand-with-countdown means “Don’t Walk” or something else. This section of code was written before the existence of the blinking-hand-with-countdown light. VDOT documents make it unclear what the blinking-hand-with-countdown means. And Arlington engineers think that it’s legal to enter the crosswalk with the blinking-hand-with-countdown, and have designed the intersection assuming such. At least some in ACPD think that it’s not legal to enter the crosswalk with the blinking-hand-with-countdown.
In other words, there is no clear answer on this one. We really, really, really need a bike signal here. I believe it’s part of the plan for the “Lee Hwy Esplanade, etc etc” project, but it couldn’t hurt to write in to advocate for putting a bike signal in sooner than later.
Yes! A bike signal would be nice and unambiguous.
March 30, 2015 at 1:14 pm #1027067chris_s
Participant@rcannon100 112504 wrote:
I am pretty sure (not positive) that the sign is too small.
My read is that as a sign that only applies to bicycles and not cars, it can be 18×18.
Also just to muddy the waters a bit more, here is Virginia’s Supplement to the MUTCD
April 2, 2015 at 1:12 pm #1027278baiskeli
Participant@oldbikechick 112607 wrote:
Yes! A bike signal would be nice and unambiguous.
Yes, I agree.
(I saw a cyclist ride into the IofD this morning with 1 second left on the countdown.)
April 2, 2015 at 1:16 pm #1027279Terpfan
ParticipantWhile we’re fixing this intersection, at least hypothetically in our minds, can we do something about the utility pole and sign posts right there by the MVT turn-on? Everyone planning to cross there just seems to hover at the very junction those few of us going down the trail or coming off of it need. It’s not too bad now, but come summertime it’s literally a bottleneck.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.