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

[Mikey]

No need to discuss the finer points of the law, there is merely a typo on the sign. They meant to replace “Of Way” with “To Kill You”

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32061 wrote:

please quote the section of code regarding stop signs

This is from the DC Drivers Manual: (found at: http://dmv.dc.gov/info/forms/dcdmv_manual_pdf.shtm, page 61)

“The Stop sign is the only 8-sided sign you will see on the highway. When you come
to a stop sign, you must make a complete stop at the stop line. If there is no stop line,
stop at the crosswalk. If there is no crosswalk, stop before entering the intersection.
Before starting, you must yield the right-of-way to any vehicle or pedestrian.”

As such, stops signs regulate right of way.

On second thought, I just read the sign, which says “Vehicles have the right of way,” rather than “Cross traffic has the right of way.” This suggests that the yellow sign ham-handedly pertains to pedestrians instead of bicyclists, which are vehicles as well. This may have been placed because stop signs don’t mean anything for pedestrian traffic. I may just tell pedestrians not to walk out in front of cars. Why one needs a sign for this is unclear.

[dasgeh]

My issue isn’t about rudeness, but about legality. DC Council writes the laws that apply to this particular plot of land, and the law they chose to write, Dismal’s* assertions aside, is that a pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right of way, regardless of how the pedestrian got there. The use of signage is also governed by law, including the stop signs. The most convincing argument I’ve seen about those stop signs is that they also do not conform to DC law.

Were NPS to put up a sign that said something to the effect of “Caution: oncoming traffic may be traveling at high speeds”, I wouldn’t object. If a pedestrian or cyclist asks me how they should act at that crosswalk, I’d say to be VERY cautious — legal right of way doesn’t physically protect you from drivers disobeying the law. But, as I understand the law, once a persons foot/wheel is in that crosswalk, any driver driving through the crosswalk is breaking the law. Official signs erected by federal agencies should not state otherwise.

*DismalScientist: Right of way is a legal concept. If you don’t know the law, why would you assert you know who has the right of way?

[dasgeh]

@txgoonie 32050 wrote:

That stretch of road runs uninterrupted for over 4 miles – no stops, no lights, no crossings.

You’re on the wrong stretch of road. This is at the new crossing of the ramp Washington Blvd North to the GW Pkwy, not the Parkway itself.

@jabberwocky 32051 wrote:

The virginia law

You’re in the wrong jurisdiction. This island is in DC. VA law doesn’t apply.

@DismalScientist 32071 wrote:

This is from the DC Drivers Manual:

The manual isn’t law, but more importantly, it speaks of the sign you see on a “highway”. A MUP is not, by definition of a highway. That’s the crux of the argument I’ve seen against the stop signs on trails being legal. BTW, I believe there was a case in VA about a stop sign on a MUP, and based on VA law, the judge found that such a sign did not have the force of law (for the same reason — stop signs are legal on roads and highways).

Similarly, bikes are “vehicles” in the eyes of DC traffic law only when they are on roads. When bikes are on MUPs or in crosswalks, they are “pedestrians”.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32073 wrote:

My issue isn’t about rudeness, but about legality. DC Council writes the laws that apply to this particular plot of land, and the law they chose to write, Dismal’s* assertions aside, is that a pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right of way, regardless of how the pedestrian got there. The use of signage is also governed by law, including the stop signs. The most convincing argument I’ve seen about those stop signs is that they also do not conform to DC law.

*DismalScientist: Right of way is a legal concept. If you don’t know the law, why would you assert you know who has the right of way?

I stated that I could not cite a specific law, not that I did not know it. Right of way is more than a legal concept; it’s necessary to maintain traffic flow.

I have never asserted that a pedestrian in a crosswalk does not have the right of way. What I said is that a pedestrian must yield the right of way before entering a crosswalk.

What happens when a pedestrian jumps into the crosswalk just in front of a moving car? Perhaps the driver does violate the pedestrians right of way. The question is likely purely academic as the driver will not get ticketed, and it is highly doubtful that anyone would convict him/her.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32074 wrote:

You’re on the wrong stretch of road. This is at the new crossing of the ramp Washington Blvd North to the GW Pkwy, not the Parkway itself.

You’re in the wrong jurisdiction. This island is in DC. VA law doesn’t apply.

The manual isn’t law, but more importantly, it speaks of the sign you see on a “highway”. A MUP is not, by definition of a highway. That’s the crux of the argument I’ve seen against the stop signs on trails being legal. BTW, I believe there was a case in VA about a stop sign on a MUP, and based on VA law, the judge found that such a sign did not have the force of law (for the same reason — stop signs are legal on roads and highways).

Similarly, bikes are “vehicles” in the eyes of DC traffic law only when they are on roads. When bikes are on MUPs or in crosswalks, they are “pedestrians”.

Fine, how would you design a crossing between a MUP and a road where road traffic would have the priority?

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32078 wrote:

Fine, how would you design a crossing between a MUP and a road where road traffic would have the priority?

As pointed out above, you make it a signal-controlled crossing. You seem not to want to hear what other people are saying.

All this ridiculous hand-wringing about pedestrian safety boils down to a simple concept: do cars sometimes have to go slower than their drivers might prefer, or not. The law says that sometimes cars need to slow down, but much popular culture says no. I think that’s a particularly dangerous part of the culture and (despite what its members think) not universal. Obviously pedestrians need to protect their own safety, and nobody is claiming otherwise, but motorists absolutely should not just get a pass on driving like maniacs through crosswalks.

[Bilsko]

The language in the DC Mun. Regulations / DC Register is vague on just what happens when a vehicle approaches a pedestrian crossing: (This is from 2208.11 & 2208.12 )

2208.11 A driver of any vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian who has begun crossing on the “WALK” signal to continue to the opposite sidewalk or safety island, whichever is nearest.

2208.12 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.

What’s not explicit in 2208.12 is whether or not the pedestrian is already in the act of crossing (ie. in the street) or not. 2208.11 is clearer – if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk *and* the sign says WALK, then they must stop.
The intersection in question does not have a control signal for the vehicles, but there is a crosswalk…so vehicles must stop… but the difficulty comes in defining “crossing the roadway”. Does the act of crossing only begin when feet/tires are in the crosswalk? One might say, of course, you’re only crossing when you’re actually in the roadway, but then back up in 2208.11 they explicitly state a pedestrian who has “begun crossing”. Could the act of waiting to cross at the side of the roadway be included in the definition of “crossing”?

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32081 wrote:

As pointed out above, you make it a signal-controlled crossing. You seem not to want to hear what other people are saying.

All this ridiculous hand-wringing about pedestrian safety boils down to a simple concept: do cars sometimes have to go slower than their drivers might prefer, or not. The law says that sometimes cars need to slow down, but much popular culture says no. I think that’s a particularly dangerous part of the culture and (despite what its members think) not universal. Obviously pedestrians need to protect their own safety, and nobody is claiming otherwise, but motorists absolutely should not just get a pass on driving like maniacs through crosswalks.

I shall ignore the personal attack.

I’ve already stated that a signal is the best alternative, but it just won’t happen. Talk to NPS, not me. Putting a crosswalk in the middle of a 40 mph zone? The parkway sucks in terms of road design, speed enforcement. Again, talk to NPS and don’t expect much improvement. We are lucky to get this crosswalk so it only crosses one lane.

There are dozens of crossings of MUPs and roads. Do they all need signals? What I am hearing is that signs on MUPs have no meaning and thus there is no way of regulating traffic flow on them. As a bicycle commuter, this scares me. You get traffic lights up the Custis trail, and most people ignore them. You get situations like Lee and Lynn. Everyone takes a holier than thou attitude because bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers cannot agree to a consistent set of rules. This is why I take the streets rather than the MUPs.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32077 wrote:

I stated that I could not cite a specific law, not that I did not know it. Right of way is more than a legal concept; it’s necessary to maintain traffic flow.

But you’re dangerously rewording the statute here. The statute doesn’t say “pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk except when, in the opinion of the motorist, it would interfere with ‘traffic flow'”.

Here’s DDOTs handy quick-reference guide:

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/On%20Your%20Street/Bicycles%20and%20Pedestrians/bike-ped_traffic_reg_summary.pdf

“Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, 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.”

Note that it doesn’t mention a pedestrian duty to ensure “traffic flow” (because there is no such thing).

[GuyContinental]

Wow, just for a second I thought that I was reading ArlNow…

[DismalScientist]

@Bilsko 32082 wrote:

The language in the DC Mun. Regulations / DC Register is vague on just what happens when a vehicle approaches a pedestrian crossing: (This is from 2208.11 & 2208.12 )

What’s not explicit in 2208.12 is whether or not the pedestrian is already in the act of crossing (ie. in the street) or not. 2208.11 is clearer – if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk *and* the sign says WALK, then they must stop.
The intersection in question does not have a control signal for the vehicles, but there is a crosswalk…so vehicles must stop… but the difficulty comes in defining “crossing the roadway”. Does the act of crossing only begin when feet/tires are in the crosswalk?

Does “within” modify “crossing” or “pedestrian?”

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32083 wrote:

I’ve already stated that a signal is the best alternative, but it just won’t happen.[/quote]

Then their only other option is to lobby for a change to the governing legislation. You asked the question, you don’t like the answer. NPS has no other legal options, but they can make life worse by posting non-enforceable signage that confuses what are really quite simple rules.

Quote:

There are dozens of crossings of MUPs and roads. Do they all need signals?

No, they don’t–cars could start slowing down You act as though that is, for some reason, beyond the pale. I drive a lot, yet I somehow don’t have trouble with this.

[Bilsko]

@DismalScientist 32086 wrote:

Does “within” modify “crossing” or “pedestrian?”

I wondered the same thing as I read it – my take is that it modifies ‘crosswalk’ (to distinguish it from unmarked crosswalks at the end of the same sentence).
The qualifier question notwithstanding, I still thing the definition of “crossing” is open-ended (because they make a point of saying ‘begun crossing’ in the previous subsection.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 32073 wrote:

Were NPS to put up a sign that said something to the effect of “Caution: oncoming traffic may be traveling at high speeds”, I wouldn’t object. If a pedestrian or cyclist asks me how they should act at that crosswalk, I’d say to be VERY cautious — legal right of way doesn’t physically protect you from drivers disobeying the law. But, as I understand the law, once a persons foot/wheel is in that crosswalk, any driver driving through the crosswalk is breaking the law. Official signs erected by federal agencies should not state otherwise.

Exactly. It’s a dangerous intersection, and additional warnings may be appropriate. But the law is very clear, and this sign gets it wrong. The sign also doesn’t help warn at all to alert people to the dangers (it says something about right of way, which nobody would understand even if it were true, rather than saying something like “cars here go really fast and the drivers are jerks who are texting instead of watching the road”). Note that it’s yellow rather than white, so it’s not even trying to claim that it’s enforceable/regulatory. As others have said, it seems like it’s there solely to muddy the waters in a liability claim after failing to do anything to prevent an accident.

[Author]

Posts