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

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32084 wrote:

But you’re dangerously rewording the statute here.

“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.”

My opinion is that that statute is dangerously worded. What is the standard for “impossible” to yield? In whose opinion? What are we to assume of the driver’s reaction time, condition of car, etc?

I prefer Virginia’s language: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.”

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32090 wrote:

My opinion is that that statute is dangerously worded. What is the standard for “impossible” to yield? In whose opinion? What are we to assume of the driver’s reaction time, condition of car, etc?

I prefer Virginia’s language: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.”

Why do you consider Virginia’s any clearer? You can ask the very same questions, just replace “impossible to yield” with “regard”. In Virginia, I can look around, see (regard) that the car has enough room to stop, and legally cross the street. The car is required to stop for me. In practice I’m not going to get in front of the car until I’m sure he’s stopping, but that’s immaterial.

In both cases the language is there so that a judge can find that the driver is not liable because the pedestrian did something stupid and/or deliberate. It’s unfortunate that so many people consider that crossing the road as a pedestrian is inherently stupid because they should be in a car instead.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32092 wrote:

Why do you consider Virginia’s any clearer? .

The Virginia law isn’t clearer. It’s a more reasonable standard for pedestrians (bicyclists, whoever) to follow. I don’t think it is safe to cross up to a point just before it become impossible for a driver to yield.

Why is it conceptually not possible for both parties to be ticketed?

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 32090 wrote:

My opinion is that that statute is dangerously worded. What is the standard for “impossible” to yield? In whose opinion? What are we to assume of the driver’s reaction time, condition of car, etc?

mstone didn’t reference a statute, and I don’t think the “impossible for the driver to yield” language is in DC Code. Even if it were, it would be open to interpretation, just like every other phrase in the DC Code. Statutory interpretation keeps lots of lawyers and judges employed.

And you may personally prefer another jurisdiction’s language. I prefer Idaho’s language on stop signs. That doesn’t make an “Idaho stop” legal in DC or VA.

My original point wasn’t that one jurisdictions laws are better/worse than another’s. My point is that there is a law that governs that particular crossing (DC’s) and that the sign installed by NPS misstates that law. It is inappropriate, in my opinion, for an agency to try to rewrite the law through signage, yellow, white or otherwise. The sign should be taken down or changed. How can we do that?

BTW, this isn’t on the GW Parkway, and I believe the speed limit is 25 mph at that point. Of course, if you don’t have right of way, you legally have to stop, regardless of what the speed limit is. See, e.g. yielding when merging.

[Certifried]

Not to inject any reality or anything foolish like that, but all the stop signs in the world aren’t going to save your life if you decide to cross and expect that distracted driver to not kill you. Signs or not, I never assume I’m going to win the right of way from a driver that’s obvious to the world around them, and your chances of coming across one of those is pretty damn high these days.

I know you’re all discussing the legal statutes and wording and all that neat stuff, but I hope no one loses sight of how to not get smashed to pieces.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32096 wrote:

My point is that there is a law that governs that particular crossing (DC’s) and that the sign installed by NPS misstates that law.

BTW, this isn’t on the GW Parkway, and I believe the speed limit is 25 mph at that point. Of course, if you don’t have right of way, you legally have to stop, regardless of what the speed limit is. See, e.g. yielding when merging.

What I was saying is that I don’t think the signage misstates the law, except, of course, that there shouldn’t be any regulatory signage on a MUP. Maybe a yield sign would be appropriate, but that too would be a regulatory sign with no authority on a MUP.

It is the northbound exit to the GWP from Washington Blvd. Washington Blvd is basically a substandard freeway with a speed limit of 40. Checking Google street view, there are no signs indicating a reduction in the speed limit. The ramp does not have an advisory speed limit either.

In you last sentence, I don’t understand who you mean by “you.” Do you mean a driver on Washington Blvd, or a cyclist on the MUP? In general, you don’t have to stop if you don’t have the right of way. You just must not interfere with the right of way of the person who does have the right of way. In practice, this may mean that drivers must stop for pedestrian in a crosswalk, or synchronize speed and location to merge safely.

If I understand what should be the practice here, it would be a yield sign for the MUP and bicycle crossing (and pedestrian crossing) signs for the road. Idahoing the stop sign shouldn’t be a problem as long as a cyclist appropriately yields to any traffic on the road.

I ask again, if regulatory signs on an MUP don’t carry any weight, how should the crossing be designed?

[mstone]

@Certifried 32101 wrote:

Not to inject any reality or anything foolish like that, but all the stop signs in the world aren’t going to save your life if you decide to cross and expect that distracted driver to not kill you. Signs or not, I never assume I’m going to win the right of way from a driver that’s obvious to the world around them, and your chances of coming across one of those is pretty damn high these days.

I know you’re all discussing the legal statutes and wording and all that neat stuff, but I hope no one loses sight of how to not get smashed to pieces.

As already stated, people should take care of their own safety. But unless you’re interested only in yourself, you should have an interest in making sure that motorists accept their role in ensuring the safety of other, more vulnerable, road users. An important part of that is ensuring that those motorists understand that society expects them to slow down and be cautious around crosswalks. In no case should we simply accept that cars should blow through crosswalks without worrying about the consequences. I’d like to think that they’d be concerned about the consequence of killing someone, but I’m willing to settle for them being afraid of loading money or going to jail. So the reality is that I get really pissed when people downplay the role of the motorist and pin all the responsibility on everyone but the motorist. Nobody can be perfect in dodging cars all the time, and one mistake shouldn’t guarantee death. I hope nobody looses sight of the fact that this discussion isn’t all that abstract.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32105 wrote:

I ask again, if regulatory signs on an MUP don’t carry any weight, how should the crossing be designed?

With a signal. The only reason this is any issue at all is that NPS refuses to put one in.

Beyond that, I’ve long given up on understanding what your point is. You seem to be arguing very passionately that people shouldn’t jump in front of cars. No duh; thank you Captain Obvious. Now, what about people who think they’re clear but misjudged? Should cars be slowing down when they see pedestrians, or assuming that NPS won’t hold them responsible for hitting the gas and plowing on through? The people who have been killed weren’t trying to die by intentionally jumping in front of cars, and the accidents would have been avoidable if the cars had been operated in a more responsible manner. I really don’t get why you’re arguing in favor of promulgating a policy that attempts to absolve motorists of any responsibility for driving in a manner appropriate for the conditions, which include a crosswalk that one should expect to be populated.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 32111 wrote:

thank you Captain Obvious.

Now that that has been established, I will bid adieu to this thread. Beyond advocating that cars run over every bicyclist, I have other obligations to which I must attend. I shall be selling my children on craigslist to fun my great adventure to the North. I am off to club baby harp seals, but not for the profit of selling the skins. Oh no… I go to see the expression on their faces.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32026 wrote:

The pedestrian has a duty not to begin crossing if it is impossible for the car to stop safely.

That’s the same thing as the car having the right of way though.

The laws generally follow the laws of physics. When a car is coming and doesn’t have sufficient distance to stop safely, don’t go out in front of it. When a pedestrian or bike has begun to cross, though, cars need to avoid running them over. That’s how the laws read, in a roundabout way.

The sign is correct, but incomplete. Vehicles have the right of way, UNTIL the pedestrian/cyclist starts to cross. Of course, if you jump right out in front of a fast-moving car and he hits you, you are still going to be at fault because you didn’t yield first.

[jabberwocky]

The grey area is “what is considered a reasonable distance where its ok to step into a crosswalk in front of a moving car”? If they would have to brake at all does that mean they have the right of way over the pedestrian? Is it ok to step in front of a moving car as long as its theoretically possible for them to stop if they have good reflexes and slam on their brakes? I would say somewhere in the middle, but I’ve talked to quite a few cyclists who seem to believe that riding into a crosswalk means all the cars should slam their brakes on and let them cross.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32111 wrote:

With a signal. The only reason this is any issue at all is that NPS refuses to put one in.

Beyond that, I’ve long given up on understanding what your point is. You seem to be arguing very passionately that people shouldn’t jump in front of cars. No duh; thank you Captain Obvious. Now, what about people who think they’re clear but misjudged?

The law would probably handle this like any other traffic situation. Probably whoever misjudged is at fault.

And the added caveat is that being right isn’t much help when you’re dead. Cyclists should err on the side of caution.

The people who have been killed weren’t trying to die by intentionally jumping in front of cars,

Exactly.

and the accidents would have been avoidable if the cars had been operated in a more responsible manner.

Why do you assume that? Perhaps the car was going the speed limit and someone used terrible judgement and jumped out in front of them.

I really don’t get why you’re arguing in favor of promulgating a policy that attempts to absolve motorists of any responsibility for driving in a manner appropriate for the conditions, which include a crosswalk that one should expect to be populated.

Not sure how that’s being argued. Both parties have responsibilities. Essentially, a crosswalk is like crossing streets with stop signs on one of them.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32121 wrote:

Why do you assume that? Perhaps the car was going the speed limit and someone used terrible judgement and jumped out in front of them.[/quote]

Because most of the incidents have involved things like one car speeding around another car stopped at the crossing. And because NPS refuses to enforce the speed limit.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32124 wrote:

Because most of the incidents have involved things like one car speeding around another car stopped at the crossing.

Well, that’s possibly a matter of that car not seeing the pedestrian, because he/she is in front of the other car. That’s a really really good reason to give extra room.

And because NPS refuses to enforce the speed limit.

That doesn’t mean every single car on the GW is speeding.

But you hit on the problem here – speeding. We wouldn’t have as many conflicts if cars were going slower. It wouldn’t matter so much. There would be ample margin for safety and convenience and arguments about the minute details of right of way wouldn’t be necessary.

My solution for the 2-lane crossing is to reduce it to one lane. That would slow traffic and eliminate the problem with cars in one lane yielding while the others don’t, and the risk that they don’t even see you in the second lane. It’s kind of what NPS did by moving the crossing with this sign over so it crosses where there’s only one lane. But my solution will never happen because it will inconvenience cars.

[baiskeli]

@jabberwocky 32119 wrote:

I’ve talked to quite a few cyclists who seem to believe that riding into a crosswalk means all the cars should slam their brakes on and let them cross.

I have seen that too, and I see it with joggers as well.

I think that’s the unfortunate byproduct of the old, misleading “pedestrians always have the right of way” claim. Of course they can’t expect to just jump into traffic any time they want to. The laws of physics supersede traffic laws.

[Author]

Posts