Seriously? NPS doesn’t bother to learn the law?

[DismalScientist]

Cars on the parkway have the right of way if you are not yet in the crosswalk. Attempting to cross when a car is approaching and you cannot cross safely is violating their right of way.

Once you are in the crosswalk, you have the right of way.

The sign is yellow, therefore is purely a warning sign. On could potentially interpret the sign as merely restating the law.

I don’t see why folks in the biking community are getting upset about this.

[KelOnWheels]

@DismalScientist 32018 wrote:

I don’t see why folks in the biking community are getting upset about this.

I dunno, I was running yesterday and found it rather annoying…

[mstone]

The car does not have the right of way. The pedestrian has a duty not to begin crossing if it is impossible for the car to stop safely. That does not mean the car should speed up to intimidate the pedestrian into standing still. I don’t understand why motorists don’t get that.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 32018 wrote:

Attempting to cross when a car is approaching and you cannot cross safely is violating their right of way.

I actually don’t think this is true in DC. Can you site the law? (There is a law in VA that says something similar).

Even if you are correct, the sign doesn’t say “Cars have right of way unless you are in the crosswalk.”

The problem I have is that in misstating the law, the sign may be cited by an unlawful driver. We all know how ill-informed NPP officers are, and how hard it is to get tickets changed after the fact.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32026 wrote:

The car does not have the right of way. The pedestrian has a duty not to begin crossing if it is impossible for the car to stop safely. That does not mean the car should speed up to intimidate the pedestrian into standing still. I don’t understand why motorists don’t get that.

I am to take from this is it is possible for an approaching car to stop safely that a pedestrian/bicyclist can cross? I find this not only rude, but incredibly stupid. I would only cross if I could without causing a car to slow down. I would never trust a driver, cyclist or pedestrian not to be oblivious if I didn’t have to.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32030 wrote:

I actually don’t think this is true in DC. Can you site the law? (There is a law in VA that says something similar).

Even if you are correct, the sign doesn’t say “Cars have right of way unless you are in the crosswalk.”

The problem I have is that in misstating the law, the sign may be cited by an unlawful driver. We all know how ill-informed NPP officers are, and how hard it is to get tickets changed after the fact.

I am not a lawyer and cannot cite any particular law. The stop sign basically says cross traffic has the right of way. Perhaps the sign should be replace by a yield sign to better indicate the situation.

I am sure someone will make some comment about that such signage is inappropriate for trails (i.e. stop signs don’t apply to pedestrians, etc.)
Since the other sign is yellow, it is a warning only and shouldn’t matter in terms of a traffic ticket. If a cyclist gets a ticket, the only question should be whether the cyclist entered the crosswalk when he/she was not violating a driver’s right of way.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32032 wrote:

I am to take from this is it is possible for an approaching car to stop safely that a pedestrian/bicyclist can cross? I find this not only rude, but incredibly stupid. I would only cross if I could without causing a car to slow down. I would never trust a driver, cyclist or pedestrian not to be oblivious if I didn’t have to.

Well, I think it would be incredibly rude for a line of cars to make a pedestrian wait indefinitely, when it would only take a small movement of the driver’s foot to allow the crossing. Which is why I seem to have no problem yielding to pedestrians when I’m driving. I guess you have other priorities? Note that NPS could make this a signal controlled crossing, which would actually remove the right if way from pedestrians at certain times, but for some reason they seem to not want to admit that a car should slow down, ever.

And of course you don’t step in front of a car that’s not slowing down/stopping as they should to yield to the pedestrian.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32036 wrote:

Well, I think it would be incredibly rude for a line of cars to make a pedestrian wait indefinitely, when it would only take a small movement of the driver’s foot to allow the crossing. Which is why I seem to have no problem yielding to pedestrians when I’m driving. I guess you have other priorities? Note that NPS could make this a signal controlled crossing, which would actually remove the right if way from pedestrians at certain times, but for some reason they seem to not want to admit that a car should slow down, ever.

And of course you don’t step in front of a car that’s not slowing down/stopping as they should to yield to the pedestrian.

Well, I find it incredibly rude for a line of cars to not let me cross a busy rural road when I have a stop sign whether I am driving, on a bike or a pedestrian. Well, sometime life just sucks…

The location is a glorified freeway. When traffic is traveling at speed, cars stopping for people to cross have caused numerous rear end collisions at this location.

If there is stop and go traffic at the time you want to cross, just establish eye contact and drivers will likely let you cross.

The new crossing is a great improvement as the number of lanes is narrowed to one. Now cyclists only have to worry about one lane of traffic. Perhaps a signal would be a better solution, but it is just not going to happen.

[paulg]

A while ago the Park Police issued tickets to vehicle drivers who actually stopped to let pedestrians cross the road, I haven’t read any more about this practice. I’m confused now when I drive up to these crossings as the signs for vehicles drivers are large and yellow and point out the crossing but I know I shouldn’t stop as that is likely to cause yet another rear end collision. At least the site lines and single lane deal have made this particular crossing a little safer. I think from reading these posts I will only stop if someone is already in the cross walk, otherwise I’ll keep goingl, even though it seems rude, (safe but rude)

A dedicated trail user controlled stop light would solve a lot of problems at these crossings and I bet would save lives, but I guess it would ruin the view.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32042 wrote:

Well, I find it incredibly rude for a line of cars to not let me cross a busy rural road when I have a stop sign whether I am driving, on a bike or a pedestrian. Well, sometime life just sucks…[/quote]

Luckily one of us has the law on his side, and the other only has an illegal yellow sign.

Quote:

The location is a glorified freeway. When traffic is traveling at speed, cars stopping for people to cross have caused numerous rear end collisions at this location.

Right. NPS needs to slow down the traffic. They’re not going to do that, so the rear end collisions will continue to happen. Muddying the waters about who has the right of way will not fix that problem, only slowing the traffic and enforcing the law (in regard to speed limits, following distances, distracted driving, etc) will correct that problem. I am always happier to hear that there was a rear-end collision (which should increase the insurance bill for the idiot who wasn’t paying attention and rear ended someone, even if the police don’t bother responding) rather than hearing that the idiot who wasn’t paying attention killed someone. For those who have been rear-ended by the idiots: thank you for helping to save a life.

Quote:

If there is stop and go traffic at the time you want to cross, just establish eye contact and drivers will likely let you cross.

So, basically, they’re following the law, and you should ignore the pointless yellow sign and exercise your right of way, instead of waiting on the curb for an occasion when there are no cars within sight.

[txgoonie]

I don’t think you can blame rear-end collisions completely on driver inattention there. That stretch of road runs uninterrupted for over 4 miles – no stops, no lights, no crossings. Then suddenly there’s a crosswalk on it? I know people need to cross there, but it just seem unsafe to put the onus on drivers — who are driving in “highway mode” at that point, not particularly primed for stops or things on the sides of the road, forget the fact that that area is strangely labeled with the signs and arrows and people routinely suddenly cut from the right lane to take the left exit and are probably completely discombobulated and lost — to have the situational awareness to also slow for trail traffic (and make sure the person behind them is also paying attention and isn’t following too close to slow down in time). I pity people driving on the Parkway who don’t know exactly where they’re going.

[jabberwocky]

The virginia law is § 46.2-924:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-924

The relevant bit is:

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

Basically, pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks, as long as its clear and safe when they enter it. You cannot enter a crosswalk in disregard of existing vehicle traffic and claim right of way (at least, thats my reading of it). Yes, theres a crosswalk, but you have a stop sign and they do not.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32048 wrote:

Luckily one of us has the law on his side, and the other only has an illegal yellow sign.

Muddying the waters about who has the right of way will not fix that problem, only slowing the traffic and enforcing the law (in regard to speed limits, following distances, distracted driving, etc) will correct that problem.

I, as the cyclist, have a stop sign and a redundant little yellow sign. I yield the right of way.

I am not the one muddying the waters on who has the right of way.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32056 wrote:

I, as the cyclist, have a stop sign and a redundant little yellow sign. I yield the right of way.

I am not the one muddying the waters on who has the right of way.

please quote the section of code regarding stop signs

[mstone]

@txgoonie 32050 wrote:

I don’t think you can blame rear-end collisions completely on driver inattention there.

Baloney. As a driver I need to be aware that I could need to stop at any time, and set a speed a following distance that is appropriate. I have very little tolerance of this, because I have been rear-ended several times when a car ahead of me stops, I stop, and the guy behind me is an inattentive idiot. (e.g., the guy who got out of his car covered with the beverage he’d been drinking from instead of watching the road.) Unfortunately, the police/courts in this area do not sufficiently enforce the laws and have encouraged a care-free attitude of inattentive driving.

[Author]

Posts