Missed connection

[bobco85]

An idea for a potential solution:

• cyclist/pedestrian approaching the intersection on the Custis Trail, heading downhill
• passes a sensor (pressure/infrared beam/whatever – activated)
• lights appear on asphalt on either side of crosswalk to signal to drivers that someone is about to enter the intersection

While thinking about it, I found this which perfectly describes my idea (i.e., someone smarter already thought of it): http://www.tapconet.com/solar-led-division/in-road-warning-lights

An alternative could involve having the sensors detect vehicles illegally entering the crosswalk that would activate warning lights for trail-users as they approach the intersection.

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 136287 wrote:

What the trail has is not really a green light, but instead a converted walk signal with a shorter “flashing don’t walk phase.”

Then what is this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11170[/ATTACH]

[DismalScientist]

@Steve O 136289 wrote:

Then what is this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11170[/ATTACH]

A converted walk signal with a shorter “flashing don’t walk phase.”

If it truly was a green light indicating no potential traffic conflicts, then right turns from westbound Lee Hwy onto Oak Street would be prohibited during the cycle. (Westbound Lee has a green at this time.) Sorry, the Custis Trail is a glorified sidewalk and that signal is a glorified crosswalk signal.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 136287 wrote:

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.

But one has to wonder, if there is a lot of traffic on the trail that IS moving that quickly, why drivers do not expect it. I mean this (and the WOD intersections) are not some neighborhood sidewalk that has an occasional cyclist, usually a child (and where almost all adult cyclists are in the street). These are places with fairly steady streams of cyclists (I guess more on the Custis than the W&OD in South Arlington? Though the sight lines are better on the W&OD?) most of whom are going at a quick pace.

I am not addressing the particular infrastructure needs, or whether cyclists should slow despite the green light – I am concerned about making biking more visible generally, about critical mass, about raising driver awareness.

[consularrider]

Rather than trying to modify behavior of scofflaw drivers or angelic cyclists, a slight infrastructure improvement would probably work work where the is “No Right Turn on Red.”

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11171[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]11172[/ATTACH]

The Delta Barrier would go up or the drop arm would come down as the light turned yellow. This might have the addd benefit of discuraging drivers from gunning it as the light changes phase. :rolleyes:

[DismalScientist]

In general, drivers are accustomed to heavy bike traffic on the Custis. As a cyclist, I can’t be sure whether any particular driver knows there is a busy trail there and is paying attention. The Intersection of Doom is a problem even though it is obvious that there are cyclists. There is so much car and bike traffic that often both act as if they are trying to bull through the intersection. The sightlines are, in general, much better on the W&OD.

The biggest type of conflict is these situations is a right hook, particularly when a cyclist is approaching a car (often not signalling) making a right turn across the path. Personally, I would never expect a driver to see me if I were overtaking him on the right and I always “expect” a car to potentially make a right turn at any street.

On the Custis downhill, I would also worry about right turning cars that misjudge the speed of cyclists coming down the hill.

Lastly, cars often don’t respect the stop line and stop in the middle of crosswalks.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 136294 wrote:

In general, drivers are accustomed to heavy bike traffic on the Custis. As a cyclist, I can’t be sure whether any particular driver knows there is a busy trail there and is paying attention.

Em hmm. I guess what I am getting at is that having heavy bike usage on this one trail is not enough, in isolation. We need more cyclists visible (both in seg infra and outside it) across all the places a driver might be coming from, so they are more likely to expect cyclists in general. I am not suggesting not using caution at crossings.

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 136290 wrote:

A converted walk signal with a shorter “flashing don’t walk phase.”

If it truly were a green light indicating no potential traffic conflicts, then right turns from westbound Lee Hwy onto Oak Street would be prohibited during the cycle. (Westbound Lee has a green at this time.) Sorry, the Custis Trail is a glorified sidewalk and that signal is a glorified crosswalk signal.

It is a green light shaped like a bicycle. Just like this one in DC (except this one is showing red).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11173[/ATTACH]
The flashing “don’t walk” phase is not shortened at all. It’s the same as it has always been. Next to it is a bicycle traffic signal that shows red-yellow-green, just like a street traffic signal except a bit smaller with lights shaped like a bike. The county itself refers to this as a bicycle traffic signal.

The fact that the engineers have failed to account for traffic conflicts may make it function like a glorified walk signal, but it is, in fact, a green light. It is green, and it’s a light. The vast majority of people looking at it and asked the question, “what is that?” will respond, “it’s a green light.” dismalscientist can claim all day that it’s a goose, but it’s a duck.

Whatever one wants to call it, the point still remains: someone encountering this lighted object for the first time will almost certainly perceive it as a green light and is likely to behave accordingly, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place: not to debate the nomenclature, but to discuss ways to improve the intersection to make it safer.

[DismalScientist]

Fine. It’s a freaking green light. (The flashing walk indicator refers to the timing of the yellow light.) It shouldn’t be there because it falsely indicates no traffic conflicts by its very nature.

Traffic sognals and signs have meanings. By the way, why is there a wayfinding sign pointing up Lynnbrook, a one way street in the wrong direction? Why are the one way sections of the service road for Arlington Blvd that are part of the bike route not indicated on the county bike map? Why is the no right turn signal at the Intersection of Doom non-standard? Why are car-protected bike lanes advocated when they screw up sightlines? Personally, it causes me to not take some cycling advocates too seriously.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 136304 wrote:

Fine. It’s a freaking green light. It shouldn’t be there because it falsely indicates no traffic conflicts by its very nature.

Traffic sognals and signs have meanings. By the way, why is there a wayfinding sign pointing up Lynnbrook, a pne way street in the wrong direction? Why is the no right turn signal at the Intersection of Doom non-standard? Why are car-protected bike lanes advocated when they screw up sightlines? Personally, it causes me to not take some cycling advocates too seriously.

A proper car protected bike lane has the parking end short of the intersection, to preserve sightlines. If that is not done, it is because someone, generally not cycling advocates, wants to maximize parking spaces. In such a bike lane relatively slow speeds at intersections would be advised.

BTW you might prefer Alexandria. We have no car protected bike lanes (I believe ones were proposed for Prince and Cameron, but we will get conventional door zone bike lanes instead, because parking, I guess), we have no bike traffic signals AFAIK, and we have relatively few wayfinding signs, although that last is starting to change.

[annoyedindc]

@consularrider 136292 wrote:

Rather than trying to modify behavior of scofflaw drivers or angelic cyclists, a slight infrastructure improvement would probably work work where the is “No Right Turn on Red.”

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11171[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]11172[/ATTACH]

The Delta Barrier would go up or the drop arm would come down as the light turned yellow. This might have the addd benefit of discuraging drivers from gunning it as the light changes phase. :rolleyes:

Can we just put up these to function with the light?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11174[/ATTACH]

[rcannon100]

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 136305 wrote:

A proper car protected bike lane has the parking end short of the intersection, to preserve sightlines. If that is not done, it is because someone, generally not cycling advocates, wants to maximize parking spaces. In such a bike lane relatively slow speeds at intersections would be advised.

BTW you might prefer Alexandria. We have no car protected bike lanes (I believe ones were proposed for Prince and Cameron, but we will get conventional door zone bike lanes instead, because parking, I guess), we have no bike traffic signals AFAIK, and we have relatively few wayfinding signs, although that last is starting to change.

The amount of car parking that should be removed on a car-protected lane should be dependent on the speed of bicycle traffic. I get the impression that advocates think everyone should be riding like they are in Holland at 8 mph. I don’t ride at these speeds and do not want to be forced to choose between a slow bike lane and tbe narrow car lanes they create. Furthermore, being at the curb encourages inadequate merging between bikes and right turning cars. I never want to be to the right in these situations.

On the issue of door zone bike lanes, it’s a choice between being in the driver’s door zone or the passenger’s. At least on the driver’s side, there is the chance of evasive manuvers.

And I don’t have a problem with wayfinding signs, just those that advocate illegal actions.

[Steve O]

@DismalScientist 136304 wrote:

Personally, it causes me to not take some cycling advocates too seriously.

Are you blaming the advocates for the failures of the designers? That’s weird.

[DismalScientist]

Well, who are the designers that advocate non-standard designs and seemingly don’t know what traffic signals and signs mean?

[Author]

Posts