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

[dasgeh]

For me the question is “should drivers be looking to see whether pedestrians are coming, and if so, slow down/stop to allow them to cross”. Generally, the legislature answers this question. In DC, they’ve answered it in a way that is more pedestrian friendly than in most places — when a pedestrian is crossing, a driver must stop. I don’t see any exception for when the pedestrian jumps out in front of a car in DC Code. It’s not unfair to cars, especially at this crossing, because drivers can clearly see pedestrians coming, and should be slowing as pedestrians approach.

So is WABA or some other group looking at this? It seems like we fight hard to get the law to be ped/bike friendly, but if we don’t continue to hold police and agencies accountable for proper signage/enforcement, then what have we won?

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32154 wrote:

For me the question is “should drivers be looking to see whether pedestrians are coming, and if so, slow down/stop to allow them to cross”. Generally, the legislature answers this question. In DC, they’ve answered it in a way that is more pedestrian friendly than in most places — when a pedestrian is crossing, a driver must stop.

Of course! Cars can’t deliberately hit you.

That’s different from slowing down.

I don’t see any exception for when the pedestrian jumps out in front of a car in DC Code.

It’s right there, in the part where it says a pedestrian can’t cross in disregard of traffic.

If a pedestrian jumps out in front of a car, and the car doesn’t stop because he CAN’T (not even stopping distance), then clearly it’s not the driver’s fault, but the pedestrian’s. That’s why the pedestrian must yield, and the car has the right of way, in that situation.

It’s not unfair to cars, especially at this crossing, because drivers can clearly see pedestrians coming, and should be slowing as pedestrians approach.

But they aren’t required to slow. It’s nice, but it’s not required. Cars can go the speed limit. Unless there’s a pedestrian actually in the crossing, they aren’t obligated to do anything different.

And it’s not wise to either. It’s best for both parties to know how fast the other is moving and what they are about to do. Look at how many times one car stops in that 2-lane crossing of the GW, but the cars in the other lane don’t. That’s even more dangerous. Uncertainty is dangerous.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 32158 wrote:

It’s right there, in the part where it says a pedestrian can’t cross in disregard of traffic.

If a pedestrian jumps out in front of a car, and the car doesn’t stop because he CAN’T (not even stopping distance), then clearly it’s not the driver’s fault, but the pedestrian’s. That’s why the pedestrian must yield, and the car has the right of way, in that situation.

When you say “right there”, what do you mean? There is such language in the VA Code, but that doesn’t apply here, because the crossing is in DC. Someone else pointed to a reference in the drivers handbook, but that’s not the law. I’m open to be wrong on the law here, but not by conjecture. If you know a part of the law that says pedestrians have this requirement, please point to it.

As far as the hypothetical, thinking about one car rear ending another. In many places, the law is such that the driver who rear ends another driver is at fault. Period. If the driver was going so fast/following so close as to make it IMPOSSIBLE to stop when the car in front slows/stops, then that driver is still at fault. Same idea here.

I completely agree that uncertainty is dangerous. But who’s creating the uncertainty with respect to this sign? The DC Code says one thing. NPS puts up a sign that says something else. Again, if they’d like to put up a sign saying “be careful: drivers are idiots”, I’d be all for it. But no one elected these people, and they didn’t even go through a public review process for this sign. I think that the DC Code should be controlling here, and I believe the law is on my side.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 32167 wrote:

I completely agree that uncertainty is dangerous. But who’s creating the uncertainty with respect to this sign? The DC Code says one thing. NPS puts up a sign that says something else. Again, if they’d like to put up a sign saying “be careful: drivers are idiots”, I’d be all for it. But no one elected these people, and they didn’t even go through a public review process for this sign. I think that the DC Code should be controlling here, and I believe the law is on my side.

Honestly, the uncertainty is being created by the design of the road. Its designed as a limited access multi-lane highway (no matter what the park service and speed limits signs proclaim). Putting an at-grade pedestrian crossing on such a road is a recipe for disaster. We can argue about the finer points of law and right-of-way all day long, but it isn’t going to make those crossings any smarter.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32158 wrote:

It’s right there, in the part where it says a pedestrian can’t cross in disregard of traffic.

You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

It’s like when MPD tickets lone cyclists for “riding abreast”.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32167 wrote:

When you say “right there”, what do you mean? There is such language in the VA Code, but that doesn’t apply here, because the crossing is in DC. Someone else pointed to a reference in the drivers handbook, but that’s not the law. I’m open to be wrong on the law here, but not by conjecture. If you know a part of the law that says pedestrians have this requirement, please point to it.

In DC, the law I see that I think applies says: “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.”

As far as the hypothetical, thinking about one car rear ending another. In many places, the law is such that the driver who rear ends another driver is at fault. Period. If the driver was going so fast/following so close as to make it IMPOSSIBLE to stop when the car in front slows/stops, then that driver is still at fault. Same idea here.

But I don’t think the law says that about pedestrians. Pedestrians can step out in front of a car so fast that were this the law, it would require all cars to pass by all pedestrians – even those not yet in the road – at less than 5 miles per hour or so, because at any higher speed, the car couldn’t avoid hitting the pedestrian. That makes no sense.

This would only work if cars are required to STOP at all crosswalks to let pedestrians pass. And I see nothing in the law about that.

I completely agree that uncertainty is dangerous. But who’s creating the uncertainty with respect to this sign? The DC Code says one thing. NPS puts up a sign that says something else. Again, if they’d like to put up a sign saying “be careful: drivers are idiots”, I’d be all for it. But no one elected these people, and they didn’t even go through a public review process for this sign. I think that the DC Code should be controlling here, and I believe the law is on my side.

I think the law is on NPS’ side. But it’s really a moot point anyway because NPS put stop signs at the crossing to control pedestrians. I would think they can do that, and that this overrules all the other laws. Those stop signs say pedestrians/bikes must yield, regardless of the laws that control un-signaled or un-signed crossings.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32170 wrote:

You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

What do you think it means?

We all agree, I think, that pedestrians don’t have the right to jump out in front of cars and cause them to slam on the brakes. The question is, and I’m not 100% sure I know the answer – are cars required to stop when they see a pedestrian waiting to cross, who hasn’t yet begun to cross?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32228 wrote:

What do you think it means?

We all agree, I think, that pedestrians don’t have the right to jump out in front of cars and cause them to slam on the brakes. The question is, and I’m not 100% sure I know the answer – are cars required to stop when they see a pedestrian waiting to cross, who hasn’t yet begun to cross?

It means, quite simply, that cars are required to yield, but pedestrians are not supposed to create a situation in which the car cannot possibly yield in time to prevent an collision. It doesn’t prevent a pedestrian from leaving the curb if there is plenty of time for the motorist to avoid a collision by slowing down or stopping, regardless of whether that inconveniences the motorist.

But, for some reason, some people keep quoting the part about disregard, creating a straw man about jumping in front of cars, and using that whole artificial structure to claim that the pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk does not exist. That confuses and astounds me.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32227 wrote:

But I don’t think the law says that about pedestrians. Pedestrians can step out in front of a car so fast that were this the law, it would require all cars to pass by all pedestrians – even those not yet in the road – at less than 5 miles per hour or so, because at any higher speed, the car couldn’t avoid hitting the pedestrian. That makes no sense.[/quote]

Yes OF COURSE the cars should slow down and exercise care if they see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk, rather than hitting the gas and barreling through. That’s the entire point of the crosswalk. If your interpretation were actually correct, we wouldn’t have crosswalks, we’d just tell pedestrians to huddle on the curbs until no cars were anywhere in sight, then scurry across before a superior road user like a car comes in sight again. Instead, we paint all these big lines on the road and put up signs telling cars that pedestrians are crossing, so they SLOW DOWN and EXERCISE DUE CAUTION. The car doesn’t have to stop, it can also slow down or otherwise avoid a collision. But yes, if you don’t slow down and exercise due caution and hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk (where they have the right of way) you’d better be able to convince a jury that the pedestrian left you no possibility of avoiding that collision.

Quote:

But it’s really a moot point anyway because NPS put stop signs at the crossing to control pedestrians. I would think they can do that, and that this overrules all the other laws.

You’d be wrong; stop signs do not apply to pedestrians on a sidewalk. Please stop randomly speculating on what you think the law should be.

More fundamentally, I think you don’t understand what “right of way” means. It has nothing to do with who has permission to jump out in front of someone else. What it does is establish liability in a collision. If a pedestrian is struck on a roadway where they do not have right-of-way, as a matter of law the driver is not liable. If a pedestrian is struck at a crosswalk where they do have right-of-way, a jury has to determine the very subjective question of whether the pedestrian acted in such a way as to make the collision unavoidable, and (if not) the driver is liable. THAT IS IT, THAT’S ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY DOES. This ridiculous, continuing, strawman argument over jumping in front of cars is pointless, because you are arguing against a point nobody is making. The entire question here is whether motorists should have potential liability for hitting a pedestrian in that crosswalk. (Not “will they be liable”, but “may they be liable”–it would be up to a jury to determine the extent of liability.) NPS (and, apparently, some posters) feel that the public interest is best served in absolving motorists of any responsibility to exercise care at the crosswalk, by removing the pedestrian right of way. I think that is incredibly detrimental to the public good, and that there must be a deterrent effect by clearly communicating to motorists that are legally liable if they run over a pedestrian in the crosswalk in an avoidable collision. My fear is that this stupid, pointless, illegal sign will be covered by the examiner or fox news or some other such outlet, and motorists will think to themselves, “I’m just gonna floor it and barrel through there, because I have the right of way anyway, and those darn pedestrians shouldn’t be there and it’s their own fault if they get run over”. If you can explain any public good that comes from that sign, versus one that communicates actual information and suggests a course of action (like “high-speed crossing, assure increased distance from oncoming cars”) I would love to hear it.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@mstone 32239 wrote:

It means, quite simply, that cars are required to yield, but pedestrians are not supposed to create a situation in which the car cannot possibly yield in time to prevent an collision. It does prevent a pedestrian from leaving the curb if there is plenty of time for the motorist to avoid a collision by slowing down or stopping, regardless of whether that inconveniences the motorist.

But, for some reason, some people keep quoting the part about disregard, creating a straw man about jumping in front of cars, and using that whole artificial structure to claim that the pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk does not exist. That confuses and astounds me.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that pedestrian right of way does not exist IN a crosswalk. I think they are saying pedestrians don’t have right of way before they are in the crosswalk, which is consistent with the sign.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32239 wrote:

It means, quite simply, that cars are required to yield, but pedestrians are not supposed to create a situation in which the car cannot possibly yield in time to prevent an collision.

But that doesn’t clarify things.

If a pedestrian must wait until there’s a big enough gap in traffic that a car doesn’t have to unsafely slow down, that’s essentially saying the cars have the right of way at that moment. The cars don’t have to stop and wait for the pedestrian to being the crossing. It’s essentially the same thing as a stop sign for the pedestrians. They must wait until there is room in oncoming traffic to begin to cross. The oncoming traffic doesn’t have to stop for them, nor even slow down, to let them begin to cross.

It does prevent a pedestrian from leaving the curb if there is plenty of time for the motorist to avoid a collision by slowing down or stopping, regardless of whether that inconveniences the motorist.

I think you meant “doesn’t” right?

Yes, but that still implies that a pedestrian is responsible for yielding. The cars don’t have to stop and wait for a pedestrian to begin to cross.

But, for some reason, some people keep quoting the part about disregard, creating a straw man about jumping in front of cars, and using that whole artificial structure to claim that the pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk does not exist. That confuses and astounds me.

The term “right of way” isn’t in the law. So we have to figure it out from what we’ve got.

If a car isn’t obligated to stop and wait for a pedestrian to cross when he hasn’t started crossing, to me, that means the car has the ROW, which of course changes when the crossing has begun (safely).

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32241 wrote:

Yes OF COURSE the cars should slow down and exercise care if they see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk, rather than hitting the gas and barreling through. That’s the entire point of the crosswalk. If your interpretation were actually correct, we wouldn’t have crosswalks, we’d just tell pedestrians to huddle on the curbs until no cars were anywhere in sight, then scurry across before a superior road user like a car comes in sight again. Instead, we paint all these big lines on the road and put up signs telling cars that pedestrians are crossing, so they SLOW DOWN and EXERCISE DUE CAUTION. The car doesn’t have to stop, it can also slow down or otherwise avoid a collision. But yes, if you don’t slow down and exercise due caution and hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk (where they have the right of way) you’d better be able to convince a jury that the pedestrian left you no possibility of avoiding that collision.

Yes, we agreed on that a long time ago.

What if the pedestrian hasn’t begun to cross yet? THAT is the issue.

You’d be wrong; stop signs do not apply to pedestrians on a sidewalk. Please stop randomly speculating on what you think the law should be.

So you’re saying that stop signs placed at crosswalks to control pedestrians are null and void? The law doesn’t recognize them and so they can be ignored?

More fundamentally, I think you don’t understand what “right of way” means. It has nothing to do with who has permission to jump out in front of someone else. What it does is establish liability in a collision.

Yes, I understand that completely.

If a pedestrian is struck on a roadway where they do not have right-of-way, as a matter of law the driver is not liable. If a pedestrian is struck at a crosswalk where they do have right-of-way, a jury has to determine the very subjective question of whether the pedestrian acted in such a way as to make the collision unavoidable, and (if not) the driver is liable. THAT IS IT, THAT’S ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY DOES. This ridiculous, continuing, strawman argument over jumping in front of cars is pointless, because you are arguing against a point nobody is making. The entire question here is whether motorists should have potential liability for hitting a pedestrian in that crosswalk. (Not “will they be liable”, but “may they be liable”–it would be up to a jury to determine the extent of liability.)

Fine. So tell me – if a pedestrian is standing at a crossing, and waiting to cross, what is the obligation of a car that is approaching at that moment? Must he slow down? Stop? Remember, no pedestrian is in the roadway at that moment. We all agree that the pedestrian can’t jump in front of the car unsafely, and we all agree that the car must avoid a pedestrian who is in the roadway already. But the pedestrian is waiting to cross in this instance.

What is the obligation of the car at that moment?

NPS (and, apparently, some posters) feel that the public interest is best served in absolving motorists of any responsibility to exercise care at the crosswalk, by removing the pedestrian right of way.

No, it put up a sign that is too simple (as most signs are). I don’t think anyone thinks that this sign gives cars the right not to “exercise care” at a crosswalk.

I think that is incredibly detrimental to the public good, and that there must be a deterrent effect by clearly communicating to motorists that are legally liable if they run over a pedestrian in the crosswalk in an avoidable collision. My fear is that this stupid, pointless, illegal sign will be covered by the examiner or fox news or some other such outlet, and motorists will think to themselves, “I’m just gonna floor it and barrel through there, because I have the right of way anyway, and those darn pedestrians shouldn’t be there and it’s their own fault if they get run over”.

I would imagine any such report would cover all sides of the issue, including explaining what we’re discussing here.

If you can explain any public good that comes from that sign, versus one that communicates actual information and suggests a course of action (like “high-speed crossing, assure increased distance from oncoming cars”) I would love to hear it.

I see enormous public good in reminding joggers and cyclists that they can’t just run out in front of traffic. And yes, I have seen both do actually do that.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32247 wrote:

But that doesn’t clarify things.[/quote]

It does unless you’re being obtuse. Are you suggesting that the law should, instead, state that cars must stop if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk in a manner which makes it impossible for the car to stop in time to avoid a collision? (That is the situation the clause you’re arguing about applies to.) The standard is that the car must yield, but the pedestrian cannot force a collision. There’s no fixed law about how close, how fast, etc., the standard is what a reasonable person would consider ample opportunity to avoid the collision, and a jury decides whether that standard was met.

Quote:

I think you meant “doesn’t” right?

Yes, but that still implies that a pedestrian is responsible for yielding. The cars don’t have to stop and wait for a pedestrian to begin to cross.

Yes, I meant “doesn’t”. No, the cars don’t have to stop. Yes, the cars have to slow down, stop, swerve, perform some magic, etc., to avoid colliding with a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Doesn’t matter how they avoid the collision, they just have to do it.

Quote:

The term “right of way” isn’t in the law. So we have to figure it out from what we’ve got.

Are you serious or am I being trolled? The precedents on this aren’t particularly hard to find.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32249 wrote:

Fine. So tell me – if a pedestrian is standing at a crossing, and waiting to cross, what is the obligation of a car that is approaching at that moment? Must he slow down? Stop? Remember, no pedestrian is in the roadway at that moment. We all agree that the pedestrian can’t jump in front of the car unsafely, and we all agree that the car must avoid a pedestrian who is in the roadway already. But the pedestrian is waiting to cross in this instance.

What is the obligation of the car at that moment?
[/quote]

The motorist has no obligation to do anything. As soon as the pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, the motorist is obliged to act to avoid a collision. The pedestrian has an obligation not to do that stepping in such a way that makes a collision unavoidable, but otherwise has the right of way and can obligate the motorist to act in such a way as to avoid a collision. A sensible motorist will slow down if he sees pedestrians near a crosswalk, just as a sensible pedestrian will allow ample room to make sure the motorist can exercise his duty to avoid the collision.

Quote:

No, it put up a sign that is too simple (as most signs are). I don’t think anyone thinks that this sign gives cars the right not to “exercise care” at a crosswalk.

No, it doesn’t give cars that right because it can’t alter the law; it’s a completely meaningless sign. The question is how it will be misused.

Quote:

I would imagine any such report would cover all sides of the issue, including explaining what we’re discussing here.

Have you ever even seen an anti-bicycling article? The “news reports” are bad enough, without even getting to where the commenters start egging each other on.

Quote:

I see enormous public good in reminding joggers and cyclists that they can’t just run out in front of traffic. And yes, I have seen both do actually do that.

Whether people do that or not has nothing to do with the sign and nothing to do with the doctrine of right of way in a crosswalk. You’re back to waving a straw man that nobody is arguing in favor of.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32250 wrote:

It does unless you’re being obtuse.

I just added to my post to make this point more clear.

Are you suggesting that the law should, instead, state that cars must stop if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk in a manner which makes it impossible for the car to stop in time to avoid a collision?

Well, obviously no. That would violate the laws of physics.

The fact that the pedestrian must wait until it is safe for a car to slow down means the car doesn’t have to stop and wait for the pedestrian to begin to cross. That’s about the same thing as the car having the ROW.

The standard is that the car must yield, but the pedestrian cannot force a collision. There’s no fixed law about how close, how fast, etc., the standard is what a reasonable person would consider ample opportunity to avoid the collision, and a jury decides whether that standard was met.

Right. So the pedestrian must wait until it is safe to cross. Sounds like ROW at that point.

No, the cars don’t have to stop.

Okay, then. Cars have the ROW in that situation.

Yes, the cars have to slow down, stop, swerve, perform some magic, etc., to avoid colliding with a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Doesn’t matter how they avoid the collision, they just have to do it.

Okay then. Pedestrians have the ROW in that situation.

A. When waiting to cross, pedestrians must yield to cars when cars don’t have a reasonable chance to yield to pedestrians.

B. When crossing, cars must yield – and if the pedestrian did his job in A, that shouldn’t be a problem.

The real problem is that we have a shared ROW situation here, one that can’t be easily summed up on a sign, or in a thread.

Are you serious or am I being trolled? The precedents on this aren’t particularly hard to find.

[Author]

Posts