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

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32251 wrote:

The motorist has no obligation to do anything.

Then that means the motorist, at that point, has the ROW.

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 asked.

You’re back to waving a straw man that nobody is arguing in favor of.

It’s not a straw man when I have actually seen people DOING it.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32255 wrote:

Then that means the motorist, at that point, has the ROW.[/quote]

Correct, they have the right of way until the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, then the motorist has a duty to avoid the collision. Perhaps your confusion is that you think “right of way” just means “stop”?

Quote:

It’s not a straw man when I have actually seen people DOING it.

It’s a straw man because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, perhaps because you believe right of way simply means “stop”. You’re arguing against a behavior that nobody is advocating, and in the process dreadfully confusing an unrelated topic.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32257 wrote:

Correct, they have the right of way until the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, then the motorist has a duty to avoid the collision.

Well, yeah, that’s all I’ve been saying this entire time, including the bolded part. Glad we finally have clarity.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32263 wrote:

Well, yeah, that’s all I’ve been saying this entire time, including the bolded part. Glad we finally have clarity.

But you seem to think that somehow means the pedestrian can’t enter the crosswalk and take the right of way (which is incorrect). The car has the right of way only because nobody with a superior right is present.

[Amalitza]

@baiskeli 32228 wrote:

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?

I am not 100% sure of this answer, either, but I always thought it was “yes”, cars are required to stop and allow the waiting ped to cross. I was under the impression that basically crosswalks are the equivalent of a yield sign. If you have a yield at an intersection, you don’t have to stop so long as there is no cross traffic, but if there *IS* cross traffic, you have to slow or stop as necessary to allow them to go in precedence to yourself. Similarly, if you are driving through a crosswalk and there is no ped traffic, you do not have to stop, but if there are peds, you are supposed to stop and let them cross.

Otherwise, I am not really sure of the point of a crosswalk, or of having laws that apply to crosswalks. If the ped is not supposed to step into the road until they can do so and completely cross the road without causing any car to so much as have to slow down, that’s the same way you cross a street *without* crosswalks, with no laws giving peds right of ways (cars are still obligated to not hit a ped if possible, even if the ped is crossing with no crosswalk, so you don’t need a special right of way in crosswalks to account for that). The point of the crosswalk, I thought, was to force cars to slow, and stop if necessary, to allow peds to cross in roads where otherwise a ped might not find a “safe” break in traffic to do so.

Now, 95% of drivers do not do this, so I would never assume a car was going to stop and step out in front of it, until they have actually stopped, but it’s what I’ve always thought the law says, and if it’s not, then I don’t know the point of the law.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32265 wrote:

But you seem to think that somehow means the pedestrian can’t enter the crosswalk and take the right of way (which is incorrect).

How could I think that? That’s meaningless. Of course the pedestrian can enter the roadway. If he couldn’t, he could never cross.

He can’t enter it when there isn’t a safe gap in traffic. And that, as I mentioned, is the same thing as saying cars have the right of way at that moment.

The car has the right of way only because nobody with a superior right is present.

That’s almost a contradictory statement. Cars have the right of way over a pedestrian waiting to cross, as you said.

[baiskeli]

@acl 32269 wrote:

I am not 100% sure of this answer, either, but I always thought it was “yes”, cars are required to stop and allow the waiting ped to cross. I was under the impression that basically crosswalks are the equivalent of a yield sign. If you have a yield at an intersection, you don’t have to stop so long as there is no cross traffic, but if there *IS* cross traffic, you have to slow or stop as necessary to allow them to go in precedence to yourself. Similarly, if you are driving through a crosswalk and there is no ped traffic, you do not have to stop, but if there are peds, you are supposed to stop and let them cross.

I think alot of people, on bikes or in cars, think that. I am fairly certain (not 100%) that it’s not true, after reading alot on the subject. I wish the law were more clear.

Otherwise, I am not really sure of the point of a crosswalk, or of having laws that apply to crosswalks. If the ped is not supposed to step into the road until they can do so and completely cross the road without causing any car to so much as have to slow down, that’s the same way you cross a street *without* crosswalks, with no laws giving peds right of ways (cars are still obligated to not hit a ped if possible, even if the ped is crossing with no crosswalk, so you don’t need a special right of way in crosswalks to account for that). The point of the crosswalk, I thought, was to force cars to slow, and stop if necessary, to allow peds to cross in roads where otherwise a ped might not find a “safe” break in traffic to do so.

I do know that a crosswalk legally exists at every corner where roads cross – even when not painted on the roadway. I think a painted crossing is just to warn cars and encourage pedestrians to use them instead of jaywalking, without special legal status.

Now, 95% of drivers do not do this, so I would never assume a car was going to stop and step out in front of it, until they have actually stopped, but it’s what I’ve always thought the law says, and if it’s not, then I don’t know the point of the law.

As I see it, the law is written this way to encourage people to follow the laws of physics instead of trying to violate them (which never works out well). Walkers, don’t jump out in front of traffic – leave plenty of room for cars to yield to you once you start. Drivers, don’t run over a pedestrian or come too close to him. If you are a pedestrian and you are in an unsafe situation in the road where a car can’t yield, even though he is required to, then you probably broke the first rule.

[Bilsko]

@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? 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”?

Since there continues to be a question as to what a car should do at a crosswalk, I’ll revive my earlier comment. 2208.12 covers it:
” 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.”

If there’s a crosswalk and a pedestrian is crossing, the car must stop and give “Right of way” – that’s the black letter law. The difficult question at hand is how we define “crossing” – is it only once you’re in the crosswalk or does waiting to cross at the side of the road also constitute “crossing”. The language in 2208.11 (specifically the use of the phrase: “begun crossing”) suggests to me that the answer is the latter – that is, someone on the side of the road who is getting ready to cross at a crosswalk is considered to be “crossing”.

[baiskeli]

@Bilsko 32276 wrote:

Since there continues to be a question as to what a car should do at a crosswalk, I’ll revive my earlier comment. 2208.12 covers it:
” 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.”

If there’s a crosswalk and a pedestrian is crossing, the car must stop and give “Right of way” – that’s the black letter law. The difficult question at hand is how we define “crossing” – is it only once you’re in the crosswalk or does waiting to cross at the side of the road also constitute “crossing”.

Yes.

The language in 2208.11 (specifically the use of the phrase: “begun crossing”) suggests to me that the answer is the latter – that is, someone on the side of the road who is getting ready to cross at a crosswalk is considered to be “crossing”.

I see it as exactly opposite. “Begun crossing” means you are already in the roadway. Someone who is just standing, waiting to cross, has not begun crossing.

We need some stupid lawyer to come tell us the answer.

[Amalitza]

@baiskeli 32281 wrote:

We need some stupid lawyer to come tell us the answer.

And this is the real problem. If we can’t figure out what the answer is without a lawyer, and safety relies on the person in the car and the person on foot agreeing on what they are each supposed to do, you now have an unsafe situation. Regardless of who is right about what the law actually says– it’s not so much important *what* the law says, as that the pedestrian and driver both understand and agree about what they’re supposed to do in that situation.

[dasgeh]

Looking at the DC Code here (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28NDC79394037-5711E1A335F-D1A8C7A07E0%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT68924535113269&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.07&service=Find&spa=DCC-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0), it looks like the current cite should be to section 50-2201.28(a). “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.”

I can’t find any part of the current code that 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.” I see another website that attributes that language to DC Code 2303.2, but looking at that provision in the current code, it’s totally different. If someone can point to where that is in the Code, please do. (baiskeli?)

I agree that a lot hinges on the definition of “crossing”. But I think asking whether someone clearly stopped on the sidewalk is “crossing” misses the point. What happens naturally is that someone is actively walking towards a crosswalk. So at what point are they “crossing”? When they pick up a foot to enter the crosswalk? When they plant their first toe in the crosswalk? At this particular crosswalk, there’s nowhere else a pedestrian would go — if they’re walking toward the crosswalk, they’re in all probability wanting to cross it.

Regardless, the sign is wrong, unless no one is crossing. If no one is crossing, who would be reading the sign? The DC Code is written so that a pedestrian shouldn’t have to wait at a crosswalk, because if they’re crossing, cars should be stopping and giving right of way.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32289 wrote:

Looking at the DC Code here (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28NDC79394037-5711E1A335F-D1A8C7A07E0%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT68924535113269&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.07&service=Find&spa=DCC-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0), it looks like the current cite should be to section 50-2201.28(a). “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.”

I can’t find any part of the current code that 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.” I see another website that attributes that language to DC Code 2303.2, but looking at that provision in the current code, it’s totally different. If someone can point to where that is in the Code, please do. (baiskeli?)

http://dmv.washingtondc.gov/info/title-18/chap23_pdf.shtm

For some reason this is a little different from the other source. One is probably out of date.

I agree that a lot hinges on the definition of “crossing”. But I think asking whether someone clearly stopped on the sidewalk is “crossing” misses the point. What happens naturally is that someone is actively walking towards a crosswalk. So at what point are they “crossing”? When they pick up a foot to enter the crosswalk? When they plant their first toe in the crosswalk? At this particular crosswalk, there’s nowhere else a pedestrian would go — if they’re walking toward the crosswalk, they’re in all probability wanting to cross it.

But when must a car stop then? Two feet before the pedestrian reaches the road? Ten feet?

So much uncertainty.

This is how the law should be, and I think is now: pedestrians must stop and wait for a gap in traffic that is safe to cross in. That’s a wise policy regardless of the law.

[OneEighth]

The geese scoff at all of you.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 32293 wrote:

http://dmv.washingtondc.gov/info/title-18/chap23_pdf.shtm

Thanks. The Westlaw source says it’s current as of July 2012, and the dmv source doesn’t have a date. Looks like the suddenly jump of the curb thing was repealed, which doesn’t bode well for the “peds should wait” arguments.

@baiskeli 32293 wrote:

But when must a car stop then? Two feet before the pedestrian reaches the road? Ten feet?

So much uncertainty.

This is how the law should be, and I think is now: pedestrians must stop and wait for a gap in traffic that is safe to cross in. That’s a wise policy regardless of the law.

I would say a car must stop once it’s clear the ped is crossing, which is probably when their first toe hits the asphalt. But in order to be physically able to stop, they should be slowing, just as in the rear-ending example.

Even if the law is as stated in your dmv link, that still doesn’t support the “pedestrians must stop and wait for a gap in traffic that is safe to cross in” argument. Even if the first car or two is so close to the crosswalk that it would be physically impossible for them to stop, there’s some point in a line of cars that’s far enough from the crosswalk that the driver could stop and therefore would have the obligation to stop (and face it, there is space on the asphalt for a person to be standing in the crosswalk and cars to still pass). Otherwise, the law would encourage cars to stay in lines very close to each other, with isn’t good for anyone…

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32302 wrote:

Thanks. The Westlaw source says it’s current as of July 2012, and the dmv source doesn’t have a date. Looks like the suddenly jump of the curb thing was repealed, which doesn’t bode well for the “peds should wait” arguments.

I don’t think it matters. That’s not really about that – it’s simply saying that cars aren’t liable if they hit a pedestrian who jumps right out in front of them. Which should be a no-brainer.

I would say a car must stop once it’s clear the ped is crossing, which is probably when their first toe hits the asphalt. But in order to be physically able to stop, they should be slowing, just as in the rear-ending example.

Well, then, that’s also what I’m saying.

(Although a car shouldn’t really have to slow much if it’s not already speeding, like most cars on the GW).

Even if the law is as stated in your dmv link, that still doesn’t support the “pedestrians must stop and wait for a gap in traffic that is safe to cross in” argument.

That’s not an argument, that’s an undeniable fact!

Unless you think cars are obligated to STOP at crossing to allow someone to begin to cross, then a pedestrian must wait for a safe gap to cross – if he values his life.

Even if the first car or two is so close to the crosswalk that it would be physically impossible for them to stop, there’s some point in a line of cars that’s far enough from the crosswalk that the driver could stop and therefore would have the obligation to stop

Well, yeah, that’s what waiting for a gap means.

Otherwise, the law would encourage cars to stay in lines very close to each other, with isn’t good for anyone…

I don’t think cars would to that just to avoid having to yield to a pedestrian, especially since it’s not safe anyway.

BTW, thanks to everyone who is as much of a tedious nerd about this as I am and discussing it with me. And screw you, geese.

[Author]

Posts