Minor accident today

[MCL1981]

Ditto. Vehicle traffic is required to yield to the crosswalk. The stop sign for peds/bikes is irrelevant to the vehicle traffic. If crosswalk peds/bikes are at the crosswalk, the traffic is required to yield to them. They are not required to yield only to one at a time. If there is a line of 20 peds and bikes with no gap for a vehicle to pass through safely, then yes, vehicle traffic will be waiting. 20ft is more than enough of a ped gap for a car to pass through. Your understanding and interpretation of crosswalks is quite flawed.

And regardless, Will DID stop. And he did proceed once vehicle traffic yielded. And the vehicle traffic started again while he was still in the crosswalk. It is 110% not his fault no matter how you try to misinterpret the law.

[CCrew]

We’ll agree to disagree. With a Ped AT the crosswalk the vehicles have no duty to stop. Pedestrian IN the crosswalk they do.

By both of your definitions I can ignore walk signals and stop signs and be in the right if I’m merely in the proximity of a crosswalk and vehicles simply have to wait for me to make a decision..

“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.”

And I’m sure that’s what happened here. Vehicles were stopped for another person, and Will assumed they were stopped for him and proceeded into the intersection.

[ronwalf]

@CCrew 9663 wrote:

By both of your definitions I can ignore walk signals and stop signs…

The definitions he gave were quoted from VA law. They do not let you ignore walk signals (that’s elsewhere), and stop signs on the trail do not change the duty of approaching drivers. I’m not sure why there’s such a difficulty in interpreting this clear section of law, other than that it so plainly contradicts the everyday behavior of drivers.

[MCL1981]

@CCrew 9663 wrote:

With a Ped AT the crosswalk the vehicles have no duty to stop. Pedestrian IN the crosswalk they do.[/quote]
I think you’re drawing a line where there isn’t one. Someone standing at the curb waiting is in the crosswalk. People are are not required to step out in front of cars to get them to yield.

@CCrew 9663 wrote:

By both of your definitions I can ignore walk signals and stop signs and be in the right if I’m merely in the proximity of a crosswalk and vehicles simply have to wait for me to make a decision..[/quote]
Walk / Don’t walk signals are a totally unrelated matter in a different section of the law.

@CCrew 9663 wrote:

And I’m sure that’s what happened here. Vehicles were stopped for another person, and Will assumed they were stopped for him and proceeded into the intersection.

That is not what happened here at all. He has detailed what happened twice and that isn’t even close. They both entered at the same time and passed eachother in the middle. This is so cut and dry, I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to make it his fault when the law in both spirit and text is so clear.

[americancyclo]

@CCrew 9652 wrote:

Cars had no traffic control device at that intersection.

The cars do have a traffic control device. It’s the yield sign found in the MUTCD Section 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a). the ones that are ay all the w&od crossings near falls church. The ones that were stolen last year. I’d love to get some clarification from a lawyer, cop, and judge about this. It’s almost as contentious as the GW Parkway crossing by memorial bridge.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9665 wrote:

I think you’re drawing a line where there isn’t one. Someone standing at the curb waiting is in the crosswalk. People are are not required to step out in front of cars to get them to yield..

Wrong. Crosswalks are in the roadway. They are not part of the sidewalk. Therefore your standing on the trail does not provide you the legal justification you seem to think you have.

Legal Definition of a Crosswalk | Pedestrian|
“That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.”

According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes:

“Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.”

[CCrew]

@americancyclo 9669 wrote:

The cars do have a traffic control device. It’s the yield sign found in the MUTCD Section 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a). the ones that are ay all the w&od crossings near falls church. The ones that were stolen last year. I’d love to get some clarification from a lawyer, cop, and judge about this. It’s almost as contentious as the GW Parkway crossing by memorial bridge.

The ones that say yield to peds IN the crosswalk?

I don’t recall them saying “and all the people after them”

[americancyclo]

@CCrew 9674 wrote:

Crosswalks are in the roadway.

CCrew is right about this one, but I think the confusion comes with the language in the VA Code. It says “at” crosswalks in all the language. I understand this as being on the side of the road, but not yet “in” the roadway, preparing to enter the crosswalk.

@CCrew 9674 wrote:

Therefore your standing on the trail does not provide you the legal justification you seem to think you have.

I’m curious about this one too, since I would assume that the trail is continuous. If you are in the crosswalk, you are still on the trail. How does that play in to the situation?

[MCL1981]

The MUTCD is irrelevant. It is not motor vehicle or pedetrian law. It is guidebook for road design and markings. It is no more applicable than book you buy in the bike shop on biker’s responsibility.

A person at the curb waiting to cross is at the crosswalk and requires traffic to yield. The law is written very clearly in that manner and there is enforcement action by the police to back it up. You’re still making up law and procedure that doesn’t exist.

[mstone]

@CCrew 9674 wrote:

Wrong. Crosswalks are in the roadway. They are not part of the sidewalk. Therefore your standing on the trail does not provide you the legal justification you seem to think you have.

Legal Definition of a Crosswalk | Pedestrian|
“That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.”

According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes:

“Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.”

Please also check relevant judicial precedent. I believe that the courts have found that there is a clear intent by the legislature to allow people to cross the street, and it is not the case that people have to risk their lives by stepping into the street before cars need to yield. That flies in the face of your argument that a stream of pedestrians can hold up traffic forever. The answer is: yes, they can. The other possible interpretation is that a stream of cars can keep pedestrians from crossing forever. The precedent is that pedestrians have a higher right (and in practice there is not generally a solid stream of pedestrians so this is not an undue burden on motorists).

Note also that regardless of that precedent, any argument that a car can start from a stop while a pedestrian is actually in an intersection and then run into the pedestrian is completely unsupported by the law.

[JeffC]

Will,
glad you are feeling better. I have only had two accidents, both of which involved me falling and were caused my own stupidity or recklessness but even those minor mishaps can shake and cut you up, you are just so unprotected on a bike.

I know the Falls Church City/Great Falls, W&OD intersection extremely well as I live about 1 mile from there. I don’t usually take it in the morning (take Park St and Little Falls) but do more often take it in the evening. I would actually prefer for the cars to just go through until it is clear. I usually do exactly what you do, wait to make eye contact with both drivers, usually one stops first. It does get more difficult with less daylight. I usually take it going west in the evening and then turn briefly onto Great Falls and then make a right turn a block later up Virginia Avenue. I have had a few close calls there.

For those of you who really hate the Falls Church City crossings, you could instead get off the W&OD at Little Falls St, make a right on Park, left on Virginia, cross Rte 7 and then wind your way down Virginia and Sherrow through some other side streets and pick up West St briefly before headed through another residential area and then picking up the trail on the other side of Rte 7 but before the Shreve crossing. It definitely does not save time but I think it has less of those crossings. I’m not doing justice to all the turns so study a map and you’ll see what I’m describing.

[americancyclo]

@JeffC 9688 wrote:

you could instead…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]435[/ATTACH]

I think that’s the route you’re trying to describe. I wouldn’t personally go that way, but I’m ok with the crossings. Ride them daily.

[JeffC]

Yes Americancyclo, that is the route, I’m not so great at attaching those maps with the specified routes. Not having to do the crossings in Falls Church, except the Great Falls one where I get off but only reading about accidents on them probably gives me a bad perspective on them. I’m sure most do fine with them. I have also found that taking the same route over and over again can get tedious so breaking it up with some deviations away from the trail can be nice.

[americancyclo]

@JeffC 9694 wrote:

I have also found that taking the same route over and over again can get tedious so breaking it up with some deviations away from the trail can be nice.

On my weekend errand rides, I tend to favor Park for that exact reason.

[WillStewart]

@mstone 9684 wrote:

…any argument that a car can start from a stop while a pedestrian is actually in an intersection and then run into the pedestrian is completely unsupported by the law.

That is what this all boils down to, and I’m surprised that there has been any debate on that point.

As mentioned previously I went into the ER Tuesday afternoon as I was experiencing a headache that was growing in intensity and pressure. A cat scan showed no cats , but the dr. said my headache would likely continue well into the next day. It did indeed, tapering off in the late afternoon, gone by bedtime. Telecommuting helped me to to take it easy and recuperate.

I am a bit sore and achy, but was ready to get back in the saddle today to ride the bike from the office to Bikes@Vienna (modest 8.5 mile ride) to make the necessary adjustments (recumbent with crooked seat and rack, plus shifter tweaks, and misc), except for the amount of rain forecast and my desire to keep my healing abrasions dry (plus I need to be at a 6pm community meeting in Loudoun and I work in Arlington, so timing would have been an issue).

Thanks to all for their support and encouragement

[Author]

Posts