SB959, Stop Signs on the W&OD Trail…

[DismalScientist]

Which roads had the accidents? Were they roads that deserved a stop sign, or low-traveled cross streets that deserve a yield, perhaps facing the cross street instead?

[consularrider]

The text if anyone is interested.

The language would seem to imply that the stop erected for trail users where the speed limit is lower than 35 are not authorized (as has already been discussed in other threads).

[bluerider]

Recently when I ride the W&OD trail, drivers stop for me before I reach the intersection (insert Happy Helperson jokes here). Obviously, I take extreme caution crossing but when drivers in both directions stop before I reach the intersection to stop myself, I usually ride through the interaction without stopping simply to not piss off the drivers that made the effort to stop even if no signage required them to do so. That being said, I wish drivers would just drive. I will stop and cross when I deem it safe. I don’t think I am asking for much.

[Tim Kelley]

Allen Muchnick, who occasionally posts on the forum here, wrote this up yesterday on the topic and posted it in the Bicycle Advisory Committee Google Group:

On Tuesday afternoon, I spoke with Sen. Favola’s legislative assistant, Arlene Spinelli, regarding SB 959, as well as Sen. Chap Petersen’s anti-dooring bill, SB 736.

SB 959 was requested by Loudoun County government, reportedly with the endorsement of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. I suspect that the Loudoun County Sheriff”s office, which has been harassing cycling enthusiasts in Loudoun for decades, is behind this bill, but Ms. Spinelli knew little about the laws, background, or rationale for this bill.

Sen. Favola has been discussing this bill with various parties, including the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (a quasi-govermental non-profit that owns and operates the W&OD Trail) and lobbyists and other staff from Loudoun, Fairfax, and Arlington Counties. As a result of those discussions, Sen. Favola plans to introduce a substantial amendment (substitute) for SB 959 when it’s introduced in the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

Some background: Two decades ago, the NVRPA installed miniature trail stop signs at the dozens of at-grade road crossings along the 45-mile W&OD Trail, to protect itself from potential liability for idiot cyclists and others who might try to ride across the crosswalks at speed and in disregard to closely approaching traffic. Those stop signs were recommended by local police departments but are neither highway agency signs nor legally enforceable. In an effort to make the public think that these stop signs are real, each trail stop sign has a cute matching subplaque stating “Required by Law”.

In response to the feedback received, Sen. Favola’s amendments would 1) reduce the maximum allowable fine from $250 to $100 (a step in the right direction but still too high IMO); 2) allow the signs at crossings of roads posted for 35 MPH or higher, rather than only at roads posted for 45 MPH or higher (could apply to many more road crossings), and 3) allow local agencies, such as the NVRPA, to post and maintain the signs (this may be meant to somehow address the confusion that would otherwise be created by having two types of trail stop signs [“real” and bogus] along the W&OD).

We need to see how the amendments read, but, regardless, this bill would promote police harassment and fining of cyclists who don’t execute foot-down stops at trail crosswalks without any approaching cross-traffic and would set a bad precedent by requiring pedestrians to obey stop signs and by eroding the current full-pedestrian status of path and sidewalk bicyclists in Virginia.

Also, I believe some W&OD trail stop signs are still installed at trail crossings controlled by traffic or pedestrian crossing signals, so bicyclists and other trail users could be required to execute foot-down stops when the traffic light or pedestrian head says they may (and should) go. Also, how would SB 959 address trail users crossing the two-way roads in two steps, either by first entering and waiting within the right lane of a two-lane road or by waiting in a wide median refuge after crossing half of the road?

SB 959 is unnecessary because Virginia’s existing pedestrian-crossing statutes (Secs. 46.2-923 and Secs. 46.2-924) already cover this matter adequately, although the W&OD trail stop signs are apparently not enforceable for fines in traffic court. Furthermore, the NVRPA has a long-standing policy to require all new and widened roads across the W&OD to be grade separated, so all the busier and faster roads (mostly in Loudoun County) will eventually become grade separated.

I fear this bill is going from bad to worse. Hopefully, it will fail to be reported by the Senate Transportation Committee tomorrow.

[Tim Kelley]

And here’s the update from the VBF last night:

http://www.vabike.org/sb939-stop-signs-on-the-wod-trail/

[krazygl00]

@bluerider 40844 wrote:

Recently when I ride the W&OD trail, drivers stop for me before reach the intersection (insert Happy Helperson jokes here). Obviously, I take extreme caution crossing but when drivers in both directions stop before I reach the intersection to stop myself, I usually ride through the interaction without stopping simply to not piss off the drivers that made the effort to stop even if no signage required them to do so. That being said, I wish drivers would just drive. I will stop and cross when I deem it safe. I don’t think I am asking for much.

This is exactly how I feel too, and it is why Helpy can be so annoying (and potentially dangerous).

So what now, are all W&OD intersections to be treated as four-way stops? Given the above scenario in which drivers from both directions have stopped in expectation of a cyclist who has not even reached the intersection yet, is the cyclist supposed to A. come to a complete stop and then proceed through the intersection, or 2. come to a complete stop and then wait (insistently) for the cars to go? In either scenario I predict a lot of annoyance and gnashing of teeth on both sides.

[mstone]

The cars are (currently) required to yield the right of way. In some cases the course of action chose can cause its own problem, but I think that anyone who encourages motorists to blow through crosswalks without yielding because they think it’s “annoying” when cars stops does all of us a grave disservice.

[mstone]

I will try to fight this, but I feel like it will inevitably pass. The result will be yet more erosion of the deference that motorists should give to more vulnerable road users, fostered by official state policy. The result will be to make all of us less safe so that car-lovers in Loudon never have to slow down.

[sjclaeys]

I have concerns about both how the bill is drafted (what is meant by “complete stop”) and the likelihood that it will be enforced in an abusive manner. However, I am also concerned that opposition from the cycling community will be viewed as hypocritical in light of us pushing for the bills against dooring and following too closely. I know that there are significant differences in the merits and implications between the W&OD stop sign bill and the dooring and following too closely bills, but your average legislator will see some balance in passing all three because they will think that they are creating both rights and responsibilities for cyclists. Overcoming this view will be challenging.

[mstone]

@bluerider 40844 wrote:

drivers that made the effort to stop even if no signage required them to do so

There is signage requiring them to yield the right of way, it’s those white lines on the road that some people think are there to keep us from getting lost between one side and the other. Stopping is one of the options they can take to meet their legal obligation to yield the right of way. I would certainly prefer that they proceed with an abundance of caution than with none at all.)

[lordofthemark]

@sjclaeys 40875 wrote:

I have concerns about both how the bill is drafted (what is meant by “complete stop”) and the likelihood that it will be enforced in an abusive manner. However, I am also concerned that opposition from the cycling community will be viewed as hypocritical in light of us pushing for the bills against dooring and following too closely. I know that there are significant differences in the merits and implications between the W&OD stop sign bill and the dooring and following too closely bills, but your average legislator will see some balance in passing all three because they will think that they are creating both rights and responsibilities for cyclists. Overcoming this view will be challenging.

I am confused. Is everyone in the cycling community agreed that that the appropriate cyclists behavior at these intersections is to yield, but not necessarily come to a complete stop? Would it be possible to ask NVRPA to replace the stop signs with yield signs (and to eliminate signs where a s signal controls trail users)? That way we would be encouraging the correct behavior. And it would still provide NVRPA with legal protection if someone failing to even yield was hurt.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 40879 wrote:

I am confused. Is everyone in the cycling community agreed that that the appropriate cyclists behavior at these intersections is to yield, but not necessarily come to a complete stop? Would it be possible to ask NVRPA to replace the stop signs with yield signs (and to eliminate signs where a s signal controls trail users)? That way we would be encouraging the correct behavior. And it would still provide NVRPA with legal protection if someone failing to even yield was hurt.

The legal protection thing is a crock. Putting in a yield sign wouldn’t satisfy the Loudon Sheriff’s desire to harass cyclists. The correct option (a yellow sign explaining why this intersection is different than any other intersection, if it is) doesn’t seem to be on the table.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 40883 wrote:

The legal protection thing is a crock. Putting in a yield sign wouldn’t satisfy the Loudon Sheriff’s desire to harass cyclists. The correct option (a yellow sign explaining why this intersection is different than any other intersection, if it is) doesn’t seem to be on the table.

I am assuming that NVRPA is more reasonable, and would switch to yield signs, and that this legislation does not allow local PDs to override NVRPA’s choice of signs. (it would still allow PDs to harrass some W&OD cyclists even if NVRPA switched to yield signs, – but is it worth giving up the dooring bill and the close following bill to stop that? Im troubled at the possibility that fighting this will endanger some really good legislation that will effect cyclists everywhere in the Commonwealth)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 40898 wrote:

Im troubled at the possibility that fighting this will endanger some really good legislation that will effect cyclists everywhere in the Commonwealth)

This will also affect cyclists everywhere, by making motorists ignoring crosswalks feel justified, because the state is telling them that they really are more important than that guy not in a car.

[oif_vet]

If the current measure of enforcement is motorists at stop signs, I don’t think we have much to worry about.

What I don’t understand is why the local PD can’t enforce the rules that already exist. At the very least, amend the current law from “yield to users IN crosswalk” to “yield to users AT crosswalk”

But I digress…

What I really want to know is, what constitutes a complete stop for horse riders?

I think we should require that they fully dismount before crossing. Its the only sensible thing to do.

If this thing passes, I guess I’ll just ride on the road more!

[Author]

Posts