Missed connection

[huskerdont]

@bobco85 136261 wrote:

I remember that crash (if it’s the one you’re talking about): https://www.arlnow.com/2011/08/16/bike-accident-involving-police-car-along-custis-trail/

Could be the same. My memory is hazy, but I thought it was longer ago than that. But the point is the same either way. It’s an accident waiting to happen; has before and will again.

[scoot]

In addition to the signage, you’d think the position of the stop line would also communicate to drivers that they have to wait for a green to turn right. Perhaps the stop lines should be moved even further back from the intersection? That way, it would be even more obvious (both to trail users and to law enforcement) if a driver were planning to violating the sign.

These intersections along Lee are a large part of why I prefer taking streets rather than Custis Trail in the downhill direction through Rosslyn. Uphill, I usually take the trail. The sightlines (especially at Oak) are better uphill, plus it’s a lot easier to react to bad drivers turning through the intersections when you’re riding slowly.

[Tania]

@huskerdont 136255 wrote:

It’s such a dangerous intersection. I’ve had people turn *left* on red there in front of me before, and you know they know they’re not supposed to do that.

Since I go through every day, I’ve taken to slowing down there a bit, but then you risk a cyclist climbing up your rear.

Seriously. I see the speed at which others ride through there (~Scott to Monolith) and I’m amazed.

I’d already slowed way down approaching Oak because I’d just passed a runner and I don’t like to buzz people. Glad I did.

[Steve O]

I would love to see enforcement of the No Right on Red here like they did at Wakefield and Fairfax last year. It is constantly violated. Most drivers now dutifully wait at Wakefield (there are still some who don’t notice the signs, which I think are difficult to see at night).

I agree that caution is advised at Oak, but for criminies sake, people on bikes have a GREEN LIGHT at this intersection. In the car world, having a green light means I should be able to proceed without fear of some other driver just driving out in front of me. And, in fact, that is how it generally works. When I’m driving and a light is green, I drive on through at the posted speed limit. Those of us who ride every day learn about this intersection, but what about a brand new person riding through who sees a green light? What are they to think? And how are they to act? If they proceed through at a very reasonable 15mph they could get killed, because the sight lines are so short. If they’ve never been there before, why would they not treat a green light exactly the same way they do in their car? And more importantly, why shouldn’t they be able to?

In fact, I wonder if Arlington County could be held liable for installing that light and then failing to enforce the No Right on Red, thereby creating an easily foreseeable danger.

[Tania]

This is twice now in as many weeks that I have agreed completely with SteveO. (the other was on the “stop signs” thread I believe)

Should I be worried?

[Steve O]

@Tania 136270 wrote:

This is twice now in as many weeks that I have agreed completely with SteveO. (the other was on the “stop signs” thread I believe)

Should I be worried?

Or should I?

[huskerdont]

@Steve O 136269 wrote:

I would love to see enforcement of the No Right on Red here like they did at Wakefield and Fairfax last year. It is constantly violated. Most drivers now dutifully wait at Wakefield (there are still some who don’t notice the signs, which I think are difficult to see at night).

I agree that caution is advised at Oak, but for criminies sake, people on bikes have a GREEN LIGHT at this intersection. In the car world, having a green light means I should be able to proceed without fear of some other driver just driving out in front of me. And, in fact, that is how it generally works. When I’m driving and a light is green, I drive on through at the posted speed limit. Those of us who ride every day learn about this intersection, but what about a brand new person riding through who sees a green light? What are they to think? And how are they to act? If they proceed through at a very reasonable 15mph they could get killed, because the sight lines are so short. If they’ve never been there before, why would they not treat a green light exactly the same way they do in their car? And more importantly, why shouldn’t they be able to?

In fact, I wonder if Arlington County could be held liable for installing that light and then failing to enforce the No Right on Red, thereby creating an easily foreseeable danger.

They could paint “SLOW TRAFFIC VIOLATORS AHEAD” on the pavement on the uphill side.

(Ambiguity by intent.)

[rcannon100]

@Steve O 136269 wrote:

In the car world, having a green light means I should be able to proceed without fear of some other driver just driving out in front of me.

So that Tania feels better, I will disagree with History’s Greatest Monster.

This is NOT what a green light means. A green light means “Go WHEN CLEAR.” Teaching that to my family has saved our lives a couple of times – as oblivious drivers blew threw red lights (this was before the day of smart phones – I realize these days blowing through a red is normal behavior. You kiddies may not believe it but there was a day when blowing through a red light was close to a death wish)

A green light means “Do not go until it is clear” and “Do not go unless you can make it all the way through”

That’s what it means – your experience may differ – made with 100% recycled parts – you should adopt a dog.

[huskerdont]

I have considered writing Arlington about this intersection (and Ft. Meyer), but I’m afraid the solution they’d come up with is to put a stop sign there for cyclists no matter what the signal is. And if they did that, I’d be back commuting down Lee Highway, which I think of as “Just a Matter of Time Highway.”

[scoot]

@Steve O 136269 wrote:

I would love to see enforcement of the No Right on Red here like they did at Wakefield and Fairfax last year.

I agree with the sentiment, but I’m guessing this would be a tougher sell than Wakefield, since there is so much less traffic and therefore less revenue potential. Wakefield includes a lot of thru drivers jumping off southbound Glebe in hopes of reaching I-66W a few seconds earlier. Oak Street, on the other hand, is only local traffic, so there aren’t nearly as many people making that turn.

On the other hand, for the same reason, most Oak drivers should be extremely familiar with that intersection (more so than the average cyclist coming through on the Custis), so there is even less excuse for ignorance.

[dasgeh]

@huskerdont 136276 wrote:

I have considered writing Arlington about this intersection (and Ft. Meyer), but I’m afraid the solution they’d come up with is to put a stop sign there for cyclists no matter what the signal is. And if they did that, I’d be back commuting down Lee Highway, which I think of as “Just a Matter of Time Highway.”

I think you should write. It should also be helpful to report close calls to the ACPD nonemergency number. They tell us they look at these reports for infrastructure upgrades and enforcement.

@scoot 136279 wrote:

I agree with the sentiment, but I’m guessing this would be a tougher sell than Wakefield, since there is so much less traffic and therefore less revenue potential. Wakefield includes a lot of thru drivers jumping off southbound Glebe in hopes of reaching I-66W a few seconds earlier. Oak Street, on the other hand, is only local traffic, so there aren’t nearly as many people making that turn.

On the other hand, for the same reason, most Oak drivers should be extremely familiar with that intersection (more so than the average cyclist coming through on the Custis), so there is even less excuse for ignorance.

What gets me is when ACPD puts officers on Quinn to catch speeders, but those officers don’t turn around to ticket stop sign runners….

[Steve O]

@scoot 136279 wrote:

I agree with the sentiment, but I’m guessing this would be a tougher sell than Wakefield, since there is so much less traffic and therefore less revenue potential.

They enforced that intersection for a month only issuing warnings, so no revenue incentive.

[dbb]

@Tania 136270 wrote:

Should I be worried?

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

[Steve O]

@rcannon100 136273 wrote:

This is NOT what a green light means. A green light means “Go WHEN CLEAR.” Teaching that to my family has saved our lives a couple of times .. ..
A green light means “Do not go until it is clear” and “Do not go unless you can make it all the way through”

No doubt we would all be safer if we learned to drive from rcannon. However, if you learned from driversed.com, it would mean:

GREEN—A green light means GO, but you must first let any vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians remaining in the intersection get through before you move ahead.

Key word here is “remaining.” As Tania approached this intersection, there were no vehicles “remaining.”

OR from the VA DMV

Green light or arrow: At a green light, you may go if the way is clear.

When I approach this intersection “the way is clear” almost all the time. The “way was clear” as Tania approached, until it suddenly wasn’t.
I doubt one drives along Lee Highway and slows down to 10 mph at every green light just in case the “way is clear” suddenly isn’t. When I am driving at a safe and legal speed approaching a green light and the “way is clear”–no emergency vehicles, nothing in my path of travel–I continue along at that same safe and legal speed.

I am not disputing that treating this particular intersection with great caution is not wise; it is. What I am arguing is that those people on bikes who are unfamiliar with this intersection and see a green light and see that the “way is clear” in front of them, are potentially putting themselves in danger unknowingly. That is a design and enforcement problem.

---

I wonder if a red right-turn arrow would make the No Right on Red prohibition clearer? And/or one of these lighted signs:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11169[/ATTACH]

[DismalScientist]

@Steve O 136269 wrote:

I agree that caution is advised at Oak, but for criminies sake, people on bikes have a GREEN LIGHT at this intersection. In the car world, having a green light means I should be able to proceed without fear of some other driver just driving out in front of me. And, in fact, that is how it generally works. When I’m driving and a light is green, I drive on through at the posted speed limit. Those of us who ride every day learn about this intersection, but what about a brand new person riding through who sees a green light? What are they to think? And how are they to act? If they proceed through at a very reasonable 15mph they could get killed, because the sight lines are so short. If they’ve never been there before, why would they not treat a green light exactly the same way they do in their car? And more importantly, why shouldn’t they be able to?

What the trail has is not really a green light, but instead a converted walk signal with a shorter “flashing don’t walk phase.” The trail is a glorified sidewalk here. I learned at a young age not to ride bikes fast on a sidewalk because crossing driveways and crossing streets is dangerous at speed. Drivers simply do not expect sidewalk traffic to be moving that quickly. And sightlines suck. (Yes, bicyclists have the right of way, but I’m not going to risk an accident by asserting the ROW when in doubt.) Just to the west, downhill traffic has a caution sign recommending crossing Quinn at 5 mph.

This same sort of problem happens at the Intersection of Doom, the W&OD and Walter Reed, the W&OD and George Mason, the W&OD and Columbia Pike, at bike paths crossing entrance and exit ramps, and at driveways and cross streets on protected (by parked cars) bike lanes. If bike paths are designed this way, safely crossing intersections requires riding slowly. If you want to ride fast, and I do, it’s best to stick to the streets.

[Author]

Posts