Missed connection

[baiskeli]

@Steve 44899 wrote:

I figured that. I wasn’t trying to correct you. More just I saw it as a green light complain about the stupid stop sign law.

I know, I was just confirming your diagnosis.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 44900 wrote:

In the District, the law says something like car drivers must STOP at crosswalks. No responsibility of pedestrians.

can’t be – that’s not physically possible. It would either mean cars must stop at every crosswalk, as if there’s a stop sign everywhere, or that they have to stop even if a pedestrian is crossing just inches in front of them, regardless of the car’s speed. Pedestrians have a responsibility not to jump out into oncoming traffic too close for a car to stop. And a smart pedestrian will do that anyway.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 44902 wrote:

can’t be – that’s not physically possible. It would either mean cars must stop at every crosswalk, as if there’s a stop sign everywhere, or that they have to stop even if a pedestrian is crossing just inches in front of them, regardless of the car’s speed. Pedestrians have a responsibility not to jump out into oncoming traffic too close for a car to stop. And a smart pedestrian will do that anyway.

http://www.bklawllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DC-%C2%A7-50-2201.28-DC-Pedestrian-Right-of-Way-Law.pdf

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness Division VIII. General Laws. Title 50. Motor and Non-Motor Vehicles and Traffic. Subtitle VII. Traffic. Chapter 22. Regulation of Traffic. Subchapter I. General Provisions. Part B. Miscellaneous. § 50-2201.28. Right-of-way at crosswalks.
(a) When official traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
(b) A pedestrian who has begun crossing on the “WALK” signal shall be given the right-of-way by the driver of any vehicle to continue to the opposite sidewalk or safety island, whichever is nearest.
(c) Any person convicted of failure to stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian or of colliding with a pedestrian shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. Any person convicted of a violation of this section may be sentenced to perform community service as an alternative to, but not in addition to, any term of imprisonment authorized by this section.
(c-1) Civil fines, penalties, and fees may be imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles as alternative sanctions for any infraction of the provisions of this section, or rules or regulations issued under the authority of this section, pursuant to Chapter 23 of this title. Adjudication of any infraction shall be pursuant to Chapter 23 of this title.
(d) The Mayor of the District of Columbia (“Mayor”) shall submit to the Council of the District of Columbia (“Council”) a proposed plan for an extensive public information program on the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and drivers. This proposed plan shall include proposals for increasing police enforcement of pedestrian right-of-way laws. The proposed plan shall be submitted to the Council within 90 days of October 9, 1987, for a 45-day period of review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess. If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed plan, in whole or in part, by resolution within this 45-day review period, the proposed plan shall be deemed approved.
(e) Prosecution for violations under this section shall be conducted in the name of the District of Columbia by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, or his or her assistants, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

I never said the law is well written, just that it is. In practice, there is a bit of “reasonableness” here, but yes, as a driver in DC, you should be driving in such a way that you can stop if a pedestrian starts crossing in a crosswalk. It’s not impossible. I do it all the time.

[Drewdane]

Me: Commuting home from DC on the Custis/WOD on an unseasonably warm January evening.

You: Ninja drafter (*sigh*)

Me: Slowing down on the approach to the I-66 underpass to safely pick through the plethora of pedestrians, dog-walkers, moms with strollers, small children, etc. taking advantage of said warm evening

You: While passing me shortly afterwards, calling back “there’s such a thing as being too careful!”

Me: SMH/Facepalm combo…

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 44904 wrote:

I never said the law is well written, just that it is.

@dasgeh 44904 wrote:

I never said the law is well written, just that it is.

Apparently it’s in a different part of the law. I found it:

18-2303.2

No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform, or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/ChapterHome.aspx?ChapterNumber=18-23

In practice, there is a bit of “reasonableness” here, but yes, as a driver in DC, you should be driving in such a way that you can stop if a pedestrian starts crossing in a crosswalk. It’s not impossible. I do it all the time.

It’s not possible to be sure you won’t hit a pedestrian who suddenly walks in front of you unless you go, say, less than 2 or 3 miles per hour.

The reason most cars have no problem stopping for pedestrians is because most pedestrians aren’t dumb enough to risk their lives. (Unfortunately, some are).

[Steve]

@dasgeh 44900 wrote:

In Virginia, the car driver’s duty is not fuzzy: it’s clearly to yield the right of way to pedestrians “crossing” at a crosswalk. There is a separate responsibility on pedestrians to not cross “in disregard” of traffic. That is pretty fuzzy, but I don’t see how, given the car driver’s clear duty, that requires waiting until no cars are coming.

In the District, the law says something like car drivers must STOP at crosswalks. No responsibility of pedestrians.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that “crossing” mean’t physically in the crosswalk. So if a car approaches a crosswalk in which a pedestrian is already present, the car must yield. That part is clear. However, a pedestrian cannot cross in disregard of traffic. Meaning that a pedestrian cannot enter the crosswalk until there is ample clearing. So, if a line of moving traffic is going thru a crosswalk, with no breaks in traffic, even if a pedestrian is waiting to enter the crosswalk, the cars do not have to stop and allow the crossing. They only have to yield if the pedestrian is already present in the crosswalk.

The place I see this in practice the most is GW Pkwy crossings. I believe that as long as traffic is a steady stream, a car does not have to stop if I am waiting to enter the crosswalk. A car must only stop and yield if I begin crossing at a reasonable clearing and am already present as it approaches.

[dasgeh]

@Steve 44909 wrote:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that “crossing” mean’t physically in the crosswalk. So if a car approaches a crosswalk in which a pedestrian is already present, the car must yield. That part is clear. However, a pedestrian cannot cross in disregard of traffic. Meaning that a pedestrian cannot enter the crosswalk until there is ample clearing. So, if a line of moving traffic is going thru a crosswalk, with no breaks in traffic, even if a pedestrian is waiting to enter the crosswalk, the cars do not have to stop and allow the crossing. They only have to yield if the pedestrian is already present in the crosswalk.

The place I see this in practice the most is GW Pkwy crossings. I believe that as long as traffic is a steady stream, a car does not have to stop if I am waiting to enter the crosswalk. A car must only stop and yield if I begin crossing at a reasonable clearing and am already present as it approaches.

In the VA statute, there’s nothing that says “the car must yield right of way to pedestrians crossing ONLY IF they have entered the crosswalk legally”, just that cars must yield. In other words, if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk “illegally”, they may have violated traffic law. But any car that doesn’t yield to them as their crossing is ALSO violating traffic law.

As far as your second point, I disagree strongly with that reading. Let’s say is a line of cars approaching a crosswalk as I step up to the curb. I understand that if the first, and even the second may be traveling at a speed such that they would have to slam on breaks for me to cross. Crossing in front of them would be in “disregard” of them. But the cars that are farther back would have plenty of time to stop (I’ve done it).

It doesn’t make sense to say that the only way to not cross “in disregard” of traffic is to wait until there are no cars — then there would be no reason for the statute to say cars must yield the right of way.

[baiskeli]

@Steve 44909 wrote:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that “crossing” mean’t physically in the crosswalk. So if a car approaches a crosswalk in which a pedestrian is already present, the car must yield. That part is clear. However, a pedestrian cannot cross in disregard of traffic. Meaning that a pedestrian cannot enter the crosswalk until there is ample clearing. So, if a line of moving traffic is going thru a crosswalk, with no breaks in traffic, even if a pedestrian is waiting to enter the crosswalk, the cars do not have to stop and allow the crossing. They only have to yield if the pedestrian is already present in the crosswalk.

The place I see this in practice the most is GW Pkwy crossings. I believe that as long as traffic is a steady stream, a car does not have to stop if I am waiting to enter the crosswalk. A car must only stop and yield if I begin crossing at a reasonable clearing and am already present as it approaches.

I think the laws pretty much follow the law of physics. Pedestrians can’t start crossing if a car is coming too close and too fast to avoid smashing them to a bloody mess. If they are already crossing, though, cars must try to avoid smashing them into a bloody mess.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 44910 wrote:

As far as your second point, I disagree strongly with that reading. Let’s say is a line of cars approaching a crosswalk as I step up to the curb. I understand that if the first, and even the second may be traveling at a speed such that they would have to slam on breaks for me to cross. Crossing in front of them would be in “disregard” of them. But the cars that are farther back would have plenty of time to stop (I’ve done it).

It doesn’t make sense to say that the only way to not cross “in disregard” of traffic is to wait until there are no cars — then there would be no reason for the statute to say cars must yield the right of way.

I agree, and I think Steve probably does too. You don’t have to wait until a car would experience absolutely no inconvenience, just until it’s safe for a car to slow or stop for you if necessary. On the GW, though, that means giving plenty of room.

[consularrider]

@Steve 44909 wrote:

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that “crossing” mean’t physically in the crosswalk. So if a car approaches a crosswalk in which a pedestrian is already present, the car must yield. That part is clear. However, a pedestrian cannot cross in disregard of traffic. Meaning that a pedestrian cannot enter the crosswalk until there is ample clearing. So, if a line of moving traffic is going thru a crosswalk, with no breaks in traffic, even if a pedestrian is waiting to enter the crosswalk, the cars do not have to stop and allow the crossing. They only have to yield if the pedestrian is already present in the crosswalk.

The place I see this in practice the most is GW Pkwy crossings. I believe that as long as traffic is a steady stream, a car does not have to stop if I am waiting to enter the crosswalk. A car must only stop and yield if I begin crossing at a reasonable clearing and am already present as it approaches.

Just remember that those GW Pkwy crossings on Columbia Island are not in Virginia, but in DC.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 44911 wrote:

I think the laws pretty much follow the law of physics. Pedestrians can’t start crossing if a car is coming too close and too fast to avoid smashing them to a bloody mess. If they are already crossing, though, cars must try to avoid smashing them into a bloody mess.

The laws don’t follow the laws of physics, but I agree that avoiding becoming a bloody mess is more important that who gets a ticket if you do become a bloody mess.

That said, I think the important case to discuss is not either extreme (a car coming too close, or no cars close enough to need brakes to avoid said bloody mess). The case that’s important is when a car is a couple car lengths back as a pedestrian approaches. I read the law to require that that car step on it’s brakes to yield the right-of-way and let the ped cross. The alternative is to say that when a car is close enough to need to use it’s brakes* to avoid bloody mess, the ped can’t cross. But that would make the “yield the right of way” language meaningless.

*note I don’t mean slam on the brakes, just use the brakes in a reasonable manner

@consularrider 44913 wrote:

Just remember that those GW Pkwy crossings on Columbia Island are not in Virginia, but in DC.

And there’s this. So no the GW Pkwy, no responsibility for peds, but you still don’t want to be a bloody mess. It would be nice if they ever enforced this law short of a bloody mess…

Anyway, this horse has been beaten in plenty of other threads.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 44915 wrote:

So no the GW Pkwy, no responsibility for peds, but you still don’t want to be a bloody mess.

Just checking – did you see my earlier post? DC does have a pedestrian requirement for crossing.

[Steve]

@baiskeli 44912 wrote:

I agree, and I think Steve probably does too. You don’t have to wait until a car would experience absolutely no inconvenience, just until it’s safe for a car to slow or stop for you if necessary. On the GW, though, that means giving plenty of room.

I stand by my position that in a steady stream of cars, the cars are not required to stop at the crosswalk. I’m not saying they never do (I almost always do when driving), but I do not think they are required to. “Crossing” to me means in the crosswalk, not next to it. I believe you must wait until there is sufficient room and sightlines to enter a crosswalk, ones that would allow a car to clearly see that you are in the crosswalk and slow to yield. If there is a steady stream of cars, you would never be able to safely enter the crosswalk to begin the process. That is of course unless a car slows enough for you to enter, which often happens.

I’m aware that the crossings are in DC, gotta love the confusion that that creates! Curious if you happen to know the answer, but do the road laws fall under NPS juristiction, or DC? If so, who’s traffic laws apply? Federal or DC? Just curious on that one.

[baiskeli]

@Steve 44921 wrote:

I stand by my position that in a steady stream of cars, the cars are not required to stop at the crosswalk.

I’m saying that I think we all agree on that. I think.

I’m aware that the crossings are in DC, gotta love the confusion that that creates! Curious if you happen to know the answer, but do the road laws fall under NPS juristiction, or DC? If so, who’s traffic laws apply? Federal or DC? Just curious on that one.

Best to never have to know (by going to court after an accident, or worse, your insurance company suing for you).

[consularrider]

@Steve 44921 wrote:

… I’m aware that the crossings are in DC, gotta love the confusion that that creates! Curious if you happen to know the answer, but do the road laws fall under NPS juristiction, or DC? If so, who’s traffic laws apply? Federal or DC? Just curious on that one.

Don’t know the answer, but I do know that if the NPS officer writes a cyclist a ticket in East Potomac Park, you file your appeal (or pay it) with the DC DMV (the officer used a DC Notice of Infraction BTA Form 51 to write the ticket).

[Author]

Posts