Minor accident today

[WillStewart]

With a growing headache throughout the day, I decided to visit my doctor (an office full of doctors and RNs, really). I was told there were no more open appointments available, could I come in tomorrow? Then they would do an assessment and see if I needed to go to the emergency room. Dumbfounded, I asked the nurse “What would you do in my situation?” Her reply, “ … I don’t know”. So I went to the emergency room and had a cat scan – they saw no cats, so I’m ok. The doc said my headache will likely continue into today, and he has me on Tylenol.

I had continued biking to work after the accident, which I neglected to mention earlier. I left the bike U-locked in a locked bike parking cage in order to make it home and to the ER within a reasonable amount of time (an in case my headache became exacerbated by exertion or if I started getting dizzy from a delayed concussion). Will be working from home today, to recuperate.

[Arlingtonrider]

An urgent care center might be a good alternative. For those in or near Arlington, there’s a new one that I think is at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Glebe called “Simplicity”. Arlington TV did a feature on it, and it looked pretty good.

I was very sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you feel better soon!

[CCrew]

@WillStewart 9572 wrote:

I don’t believe I broke any rules, if that’s what you are suggesting. I was in the crosswalk with all cars fully stopped.

*Technically* you’re not a pedestrian and you had a stop sign and they didn’t which makes it your fault. So if you proceeded with stopped cars you didn’t wait for clear traffic.

Now that said, we all do it, and cars stop where there are no stop signs and many of us are guilty of proceeding. I know I do. But if you tried to file an insurance claim against the driver I wouldn’t be surprised if the carrier claims contributory negligence.

Regardless glad you’re ok and on the mend.

[txgoonie]

@Arlingtonrider 9610 wrote:

An urgent care center might be a good alternative. For those in or near Arlington, there’s a new one that I think is at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Glebe called “Simplicity”. Arlington TV did a feature on it, and it looked pretty good.

I went there after my bike accident. Long wait (even though I was the only one there) but good care once I got in there. You also leave with a good stack of paperwork, which is helpful for insurance/legal needs. Since they took my insurance, I only paid $15.

A friend who lives in N. Arlington and has had multiple cycling incidents has gone to Old Dominion Urgent Care and highly recommends them.

It’s super important, if you think that anything could possibly be wrong after a bike incident, to get yourself checked out as soon after as possible and have record of it. Urgent care is a great option.

[americancyclo]

@WillStewart 9572 wrote:

I don’t believe I broke any rules, if that’s what you are suggesting. I was in the crosswalk with all cars fully stopped.

I was trying to admonish the cars for trying to be ‘nice’. Sorry I wasn’t more specific. Also, what Zanna Said. I think WillStewart was completely in the right.

[americancyclo]

@CCrew 9611 wrote:

*Technically* you’re not a pedestrian

Technically, according to the Code of Virginia, he IS a pedestrian.

§ 46.2-904.
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

[CCrew]

@americancyclo 9616 wrote:

Technically, according to the Code of Virginia, he IS a pedestrian.

§ 46.2-904.
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Yeah, but even as a pedestrian he was required to wait for a walk light or clear traffic.. While the crosswalks are signed to tell cars that they need to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, it doesn’t mean that you can just arbitrarily enter one and claim that you had the right to be there and the world needs to stop.

And let’s not even go that he has the same rights yet still has to yield to peds … that’s an oxymoron

[dasgeh]

@CCrew 9624 wrote:

Yeah, but even as a pedestrian he was required to wait for a walk light or clear traffic..

CCrew, I’m afraid you’re incorrect on the law, and it’s important for cyclists to understand the law.

As shown below in bold, pedestrians (and cyclists) may not enter an intersection “in disregard of approaching traffic”. Sounds like WillStewart was appropriately regarding approaching traffic. (I admittedly don’t know the intersection, so don’t know if there was a light or other “traffic control device”).

WillStewart, glad you’re ok. Hope this all turns out ok.

§ 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.

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;

2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a 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.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.

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.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

C. The governing body of Arlington County, Fairfax County, the City of Fairfax, the County of Loudoun and any town therein, and the City of Alexandria, may by ordinance provide for the installation and maintenance of highway signs at marked crosswalks specifically requiring operators of motor vehicles, at the locations where such signs are installed, to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing or attempting to cross the highway. Any operator of a motor vehicle who fails at such locations to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians as required by such signs shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of no less than $100 or more than $500. The Commonwealth Transportation Board shall develop criteria for the design, location, and installation of such signs. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any limited access highway.

[MCL1981]

He followed the law to the letter. As stated, he has the rights of a pedestrian in that cross walk. And he did stop and wait for it to be clear before proceeding. The driver of the car started moving again while he was already in the crosswalk. A cut and dry accident that she clearly felt terrible about, but none the less, her fault 100% for not looking before she leaped.

In my other reply about lights and intersections, I said this and I’ll say it again here…

In my previous life before moving here when I was a firefighter/EMT, I was the O&M guy for the warning lights and sirens on the trucks so I know a thing or two about this concept. Front and rear facing warning lights won’t do jack at an intersection. You need lights that face sideways to accomplish anything. So either the light is on your helmet and you look left and right to make it happen, or you install side facing lights on the front of the bike. I’ll be doing the latter using actual fire truck type warning lights just for giggles, it is going to be ridiculous. And regardless of what you do, you still need to slow being prepared and able to stop at the intersection to positively acknowledge that there is no cross traffic or that traffic sees you and has granted you the right of way. If you blow through an intersection (cross walk or not) without slowing/stopping to confirm it is clear and someone runs your ass over, I have no sympathy for you.

In this case, he did everything right. Slowed, stopped, waited, traffic was confirmed stopped. Other people also did the same. Began crossing. Car abruptly moved forward from a stop while in the middle of crossing because she wasn’t paying attention. Other than attaching side facing warning lights, some things will always be unavoidable hazards.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9647 wrote:

He followed the law to the letter. As stated, he has the rights of a pedestrian in that cross walk. And he did stop and wait for it to be clear before proceeding. The driver of the car started moving again while he was already in the crosswalk. A cut and dry accident that she clearly felt terrible about, but none the less, her fault 100% for not looking before she leaped.

In this case, he did everything right. Slowed, stopped, waited, traffic was confirmed stopped. Other people also did the same. Began crossing. Car abruptly moved forward from a stop while in the middle of crossing because she wasn’t paying attention. Other than attaching side facing warning lights, some things will always be unavoidable hazards.

Cars had no traffic control device at that intersection. Trail has a stop sign. Entering the intersection because he was expecting that all the cars would STAY stopped was an oversight and from a culpability standpoint means that he DID enter the intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.. Cars stopping at these intersections are more of a safety hazard than cars actually maintaining speed as they are allowed because they give cyclists the impression that they are within their rights to cross when in reality they aren’t.

What I’ll bet happened here? A group went across and just as they cleared the intersection Will entered thinking that he had the right to cross. The cars saw the first group cross and didn’t look for additional ones. And apologizing was a mistake that any first year lawyer would slap her for.

The laws you cite are 100% valid for an approaching vehicle when a pedestrian is already in a crosswalk. It does not mean that there can then be an endless procession of people crossing and then claiming they are complying with the letter of the law.

[MCL1981]

@CCrew 9652 wrote:

Cars had no traffic control device at that intersection. Trail has a stop sign. Entering the intersection because he was expecting that all the cars would STAY stopped was an oversight and from a culpability standpoint means that he DID enter the intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

Incorrect. It was a crosswalk. Additional signs or traffic control devices are not required. See the above quoted laws. Traffic is required to yield to the crosswalk, period. And traffic did indeed actually do it. The ped/cycle traffic also did indeed obey their own stop sign and proceeded once vehicle traffic had indeed yielded. The accident happened when the driver didn’t see him still in the crosswalk and began to proceed through from their previous stop. Everyone did everything right. The driver just didn’t see him among the other people and though it was clear to proceed. 100% the drivers fault.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9653 wrote:

Incorrect. It was a crosswalk. Additional signs or traffic control devices are not required. See the above quoted laws. Traffic is required to yield to the crosswalk, period. And traffic did indeed actually do it.

Vehicles are required to stop for a ped in the crosswalk. That we agree on. The thing is, Ped #2-10 that enters the crosswalk does so in disobedience of the traffic control device (the stop sign). They’re only depending on the grace of god that the traffic remains stopped.

Now red lights and walk signals? You’re 100% correct. That wasn’t the case here.

Think about it. If what you say is true, then an endless succession of pedestrians spaced 20 feet apart can legally hold up traffic forever. That isn’t the spirit of the law. The spirit is that a vehicle has to stop for a ped in a crosswalk if the ped is there and the car is approaching. The car isn’t required to stop because someone *might* cross after them.

Now lets look at this in a different fashion.
Traffic was stopped. That means most likely that there was a previous pedestrian that crossed, and was afforded the right of way by law exactly as you’ve cited. But subsequent pedestrians are actually in disobediance of the traffic control device (the trail stop sign) if they subsequently enter the intersection. By all measure of the law, someone approaching the intersection as a ped should then wait for traffic to clear and then proceed. If a car then approaches, they indeed are afforded protection under the law and you are 100% correct. The problem is that peds see stopped traffic, and they think that they can simply proceed. Given the stop sign they cannot.

[elcee]

If the forum can’t agree what proper behavior is at this intersection, what chance do ordinary drivers and cyclists have?

This is a real problem with roads where explicit (“Stop” sign, crosswalk) and implicit (courtesy stop) signals conflict. Same case as Lee/Lynn – what exactly does a “Stop” sign mean for pedestrians and cyclists when there’s a traffic signal as well? Adding more signs isn’t the answer. Maybe taking them away is: witness the experiments in Europe where some intersections have no signs or lights at all, and drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians all have to negotiate who goes when.

Can’t work in America? Just look at Manhattan, where cars routinely make right turns through crosswalks filled with pedestrians. Everyone manages to make it through. I don’t have statistics, but I’ll bet the accident rate is pretty low.

Of course, this depends on cars slowing down to a pace where everyone can make eye contact. It would probably require some significant road re-engineering and major driver education.

[CCrew]

@elcee 9657 wrote:

If the forum can’t agree what proper behavior is at this intersection, what chance do ordinary drivers and cyclists have?

Can’t work in America? Just look at Manhattan, where cars routinely make right turns through crosswalks filled with pedestrians. Everyone manages to make it through. I don’t have statistics, but I’ll bet the accident rate is pretty low.

So very true. And your analogy is correct, Go into DC on any day and you see vehicles turning through the crosswalks. It somehow works.

[dasgeh]

CCrew – I believe you are incorrect in 2 important respects:

@CCrew 9654 wrote:

Vehicles are required to stop for a ped in the crosswalk. That we agree on. The thing is, Ped #2-10 that enters the crosswalk does so in disobedience of the traffic control device (the stop sign).

(Assuming there is a stop sign there, and it meets the definition of a “traffic control device in VA Code, which I haven’t researched) The stop sign requires that the cyclist stop. He did. He proceeded. He did not disregard approaching traffic as he proceeded, because traffic was stopped.

@CCrew 9654 wrote:

If what you say is true, then an endless succession of pedestrians spaced 20 feet apart can legally hold up traffic forever. […] The car isn’t required to stop because someone *might* cross after them.

The situation here and my interpretation of the law would not allow for an endless succession spaced 20 feet apart to hold up traffic. If peds were spaced so much apart, the first peds would completely pass the cars, making it safe and lawful for them to proceed, before the next peds would be in the intersection. On the other hand, if there are, say, 10 peds walking together, once the first enters the intersection, yes, the cars should remain stopped until all cross. Do you disagree that is the lawful result?

In this case, it seems that ped entered, cars stopped. While ped was still in the crosswalk, cyclist stopped and proceeded to enter the crosswalk. Some cars remained stopped. One did not. The one that did not was not yielding the right-of-way to the cyclist crossing such highway. The driver of that vehicle did not “stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously”.

The reason I think it’s important to discuss what the responsibility of drivers is here because we’re probably all drivers and we may be victims of or witnesses to accidents. As a cyclist, I don’t trust drivers to know and follow the law. But when I drive, I try to follow the law, so I like to know it. And I hope that if I have the bad fortune to be a victim or witness to drivers violating the law, I’ll be equipped to help law enforcement evaluate the situation in compliance with the law.

CCrew, I only hope that when you’re behind the steering wheel or a witness/victim to an accident, you don’t act on your incorrect interpretation of the law.

[Author]

Posts