Observations at Lynn St. & the Custis

[Steve O]

Yesterday morning I volunteered to count cyclists and peds for the annual count. It was actually relatively enjoyable, particularly since the weather was so nice.
My assigned point was the Custis Trail sidewalk between Lynn St. and Ft. Myer Drive. I sat across the street where I could also easily observe the Lynn St. intersection.

A couple of observations:
Females accounted for only 17% of the eastbound (inbound) riders. I think this is a bit lower than the usual percentage of cyclists around the area. My theory is that the intersection of Lynn Street is perceived as too dangerous and many of those who have tried it either quit riding or are going a different way (Memorial Bridge perhaps). I’d be curious what the female percentage is, say, on the 14th St. Bridge for instance.

More than once I have heard remarks like “There’s a lot of misbehavior at that intersection from all users.” However, in two hours of observing that intersection I saw not a single instance of what I would characterize as “bad behavior” by cyclists. Some were more assertive than others, but only in the sense that they were attempting to establish their right to the sliver of right of way that was not being accorded to them by the motorists. Most were not even doing that, but ceding right of way that was legitimately theirs. I did not see a single cyclist rush into the intersection. 100% of them approached it with caution, varying based on their level of experience from best I could tell. Not a single cyclist took any actions that I would characterize as against the law. No one even tried entering the intersection late–after the walk signal had turned steady.

Motorists, on the other hand, consistently blocked the right of way and not infrequently cut ahead of cyclists who were already crossing. At least two turned right from the 3rd lane over. Lynn St. traffic consistently blocked the box–not clearing the intersection prior to the light changing. The advance walk signal is helpful for cyclists who are queued up at the time the light changes. Although when the Lynn St. traffic is still sitting on the trail it doesn’t help as much. It’s later in the cycle that problems get most acute.

If what I saw was typical, which I think it is, then if any enforcement for safety reasons is to be done there, it needs to be focused virtually entirely on the motorists. Perhaps it’s different at other times of the day, but for morning commuters, the cyclists clearly have learned to deal with this intersection carefully and to be aware that the motorists are going to misbehave. The cyclists are not the problem.

Steve

Topic

[mstone]

@dasgeh 64354 wrote:

I never said it means “walk”. There are signs that mean other than “walk” and “don’t walk”. The VA Code could have been written to preclude such possibilities, but wasn’t. There also is no instruction manual printed on the side of that signal.

There’s at least one state where blinking red means you can enter the crosswalk, but it’s strictly illegal to be in the crosswalk on steady red. So if you start on blinking red and don’t make it across by steady red, you are violating the law. That’s not “don’t walk”. That’s not even “don’t start”.

In the places where I have seen instructional signs, they indicate that walking person = “walk”; blinking hand = “don’t start”; steady hand = “don’t walk”. Even in that case, blinking hand is different than “don’t walk”. I don’t know the authority for those signs, but as we all know, it’s perfectly possible for municipalities to put up signs that have no legal authority.

Note that the code’s definition of don’t walk says that people already starting can complete, so there’s no conflict between that and the blinking hand. We’re only talking about VA.

You’re basically arguing that there should be something else because you don’t want there to be just two states. I think the fact that assembly has chosen not to add additional states (the last revision was in 2008, so they obviously knew the possibility existed) shows clear legislative intent. The record of the work at the federal level which resulted in the decision not to recommend model legislation recognizing special rules for countdown timers can also arguably show some intent (the issue was raised and discarded with reason).

For what it’s worth, I think the entire concept of a blinking red is idiotic. It should be walk right up until it’s “don’t walk” and there shouldn’t be a blink. There should be a countdown timer so people know how much time they have and can make an informed judgment. All the hand-wringing about needing a blinking red so that people don’t get run down in intersections is absurd; instead, we could just make it clear that drivers aren’t allowed to run down people in crosswalks and simplify things immensely. Simple thought exercise: if someone is slower than average and can’t make it across the road during the cycle, is it ok to run them down? If “no”, the blinking red cycle is a waste of our time.

[oldbikechick]

I have no idea about the code and whatnot, but for what it’s worth, after reading this thread, I’ve now decided not to cross if it’s blinking. I’ll probably get rear-ended by a cyclist now. This morning I decided not to push through with about 5 seconds left and as it happened, no cars turned right since the drivers apparently thought that I would cross. They waited until I put my foot down.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 64454 wrote:

Well, I think everyone else was talking about the right turners. I rarely have any idea what you’re taking about but sometimes I forget to drop it.

I thought I was pretty clear. And I don’t think everyone else was talking about turns either. And I think you’re still not clear about what I’m talking about.

Miscommunication happens. I don’t mind that. I’ll work to clarify. Please don’t place all the blame for it at my feet though.

[Author]

Replies