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

[Mark Blacknell]

Putting aside the flashbacks to 1L Thursday Thursdays this thread just induced, I’m going to suggest a different tack for this thread: please hammer out a right of way law that solves for the ambiguities you’re arguing about above.

(I’m quite serious. How do you resolve the conflicts?)

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32270 wrote:

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.

This keeps going around in circles because you still seem to not grasp “right of way”. You’re trying to interpret “right of way” to figure out “who has to stop”, and it simply doesn’t work like that. So you keep arguing straw men and missing the point of what other people are saying, because it doesn’t fit into your model of “who has to stop”. Let’s look at some scenarios.

1) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car goes through the crosswalk, coming close to the pedestrian. The pedestrian does not alter their speed, nor does the car. There is no right of way violation. It would be incredibly stupid and unsafe for either the car or the pedestrian to do this, but the concept of right of way is intended to govern who has the liability for avoiding a collision, not to enumerate safe and sensible behaviors. In real world terms, the sensible thing would be for the car to slow down, and for the pedestrian to wait to see the car slow down, even though neither has that requirement.

2) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car slams on its brakes to avoid a collision, leaving skid marks. No right of way violation has occurred. It would be incredibly stupid for either the pedestrian or the car to let the situation reach that point, but see above about stupid.

3) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car runs over the pedestrian without attempting to stop. A right of way violation has occurred (the car was responsible for avoiding the collision). The driver is liable.

4) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car hits the pedestrian, leaving skid marks as they desperately attempted to stop. A right of way violation has occurred (the car was responsible for avoiding the collision). The motorist is not liable because the pedestrian was negligent in not allowing an opportunity for the motorist to yield the right of way.

5) A pedestrian is in the street, not at a crosswalk. A car hits the pedestrian. A right of way violation has occurred (the pedestrian was responsible for avoiding the collision). The pedestrian is liable.

(Note that in any case with an actual collision, it’s going to be a lot more complicated than the simplistic example, and a jury will need to examine the facts and determine whether things actually happened as described in the scenario or whether there was evidence to suggest a different allocation of responsibility, like distracted driving or distracted walking or somesuch. In 3 the jury would probably find it significant that there was no attempt to avoid the collision, and would try to sort out if the inevitable “I didn’t see him” excuse is credible. In 4 there are other possibilities like the presence or absence of sidewalks and crosswalks. Bottom line is that our legal system depends quite often on a jury determining what is reasonable in a particular situation; we do not have a legal system that prescribes all of our actions.)

This is what right of way is about. It’s not some simplistic “somebody has to stop” formula. It’s explained that way to new drivers and children for practical reasons, but it’s inherently a more complicated concept. (Which is why if NPS feels there needs to be a sign, it really needs to 1) explain the problem and/or 2) suggest a course of action, not babble about something that the person who wrote the sign and the person reading the sign probably doesn’t fully understand. I will candidly acknowledge that I don’t fully understand right-of-way either, but it’s closer to the above than “it means you stop”.) Note that there is sometimes additional language in the code when discussing right of way, like “stop and yield the right of way” or other complexities–but the sign only talked about right of way, and I’m only talking about right of way.

In practical terms, “who has to stop” doesn’t matter–everyone has a responsibility to be safe, and an argument about “who has to stop” only matters if you’re trying to win the internet. And, again, this is why I’m so worked up over this: changing the right of way does not enhance the safety that you say is your goal, it doesn’t clarify who should stop when, it doesn’t change anything in terms of practical pedestrian behavior–all it does is remove liability from the motorist in the event of a collision in a crosswalk. The pedestrian already has a big incentive to behave in a sane manner (beyond the minimum required by law), they could die if they don’t; shouldn’t the motorists also have some kind of incentive to behave in a sane manner (beyond the minimum required by law)?

To head off the “well, this one time there was a guy who ran into a crosswalk without looking” argument–let’s focus on the law as applied to reasonable people exercising due care, and not try to twist it to add additional penalties for people whose behavior we dislike, in disregard of the ramifications for the rest of us.

[DismalScientist]

@Mark Blacknell 32335 wrote:

Putting aside the flashbacks to 1L Thursday Thursdays this thread just induced, I’m going to suggest a different tack for this thread: please hammer out a right of way law that solves for the ambiguities you’re arguing about above.

(I’m quite serious. How do you resolve the conflicts?)

Obliterate the crosswalk marking and paint the trail across the road green. Replace the signs on the parkway showing a bicycle in a crosswalk with just a bicycle or bicycle and pedestrian. Voila… A non-crosswalk crosswalk, but with appropriate visual clues for drivers.

Do I think it will change behavior of anyone? No.

Of course, a traffic light would be better.

[DismalScientist]

And also…

Get MUPs treated as roadways for bicyclists under the law so that regulatory signs matter and right of way rules matter. Replace stop signs on MUPs with yield signs on low traffic street crossings (or put the stop or yield signs facing the roadway when relative traffic volumes dictate). Leave stop signs or use signals on MUPs when crossing high volume roads.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 32306 wrote:

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.

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

I think I’ve figured out the basis of our misunderstanding/disagreement: back up the tape about 10 seconds. Imagine a ped walking up to a crosswalk, and a driver approaching the crosswalk. Both are at a speed where they’re going to reach the middle of the crosswalk in 10 seconds. Who’s legally required to do what? Is the ped required to stop at the edge of the asphalt to allow the driver to maintain their speed? Or is the driver required to slow/stop to allow the ped to keep walking?

I would argue that, by the letter of DC law, the driver is legally required to slow down. Otherwise, drivers will always have the right of way, and language in the Code about a requirement to stop would be worthless.

In practice, the whole “line of cars not stopping for the pedestrian” is what happens at this crosswalk all the time. I guess it comes down to whether you think peds have to wait for a “naturally occuring” gap, or whether you think drivers are required to stop and make one. I would argue the latter.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32341 wrote:

I think I’ve figured out the basis of our misunderstanding/disagreement: back up the tape about 10 seconds. Imagine a ped walking up to a crosswalk, and a driver approaching the crosswalk. Both are at a speed where they’re going to reach the middle of the crosswalk in 10 seconds. Who’s legally required to do what? Is the ped required to stop at the edge of the asphalt to allow the driver to maintain their speed? Or is the driver required to slow/stop to allow the ped to keep walking?

Yeah, I think that describes it.

I would argue that, by the letter of DC law, the driver is legally required to slow down. Otherwise, drivers will always have the right of way, and language in the Code about a requirement to stop would be worthless.

Is there a requirement to stop in the code?

In practice, the whole “line of cars not stopping for the pedestrian” is what happens at this crosswalk all the time. I guess it comes down to whether you think peds have to wait for a “naturally occuring” gap, or whether you think drivers are required to stop and make one. I would argue the latter.

I walked to the bus this morning through my neighborhood. I crossed several streets without lights or walk signs. I didn’t expect cars to stop and let me cross at every street. I waited. It’s what we teach our kids to do – look both ways and wait until there is room to cross. I never see cars stopping at every block to let people cross. I don’t see how that would work, let alone that it’s the law. But if you’re right, nobody knows it.

Thanks for the post.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32336 wrote:

This is what right of way is about. It’s not some simplistic “somebody has to stop” formula.

Fine. This entire discussion isn’t about right of way then. It’s about who must stop and wait to cross an intersection after yielding to someone else who wants to cross.

In practical terms, “who has to stop” doesn’t matter–everyone has a responsibility to be safe, and an argument about “who has to stop” only matters if you’re trying to win the internet.

Well, no. When you are trying to cross an intersection, who has to stop (more properly, who has to yield) is absolutely essential. It’s all that matters. It matters legally, and it matters to safety. The law is designed to help keep us safe and assign blame when an accident occurs.

I need to know one thing – what am I obligated to do when I get to that intersection? That – plus any additional actions that may be necessary to keep me and others safe – are all that matter.

So just tell me – when I get to the intersection, what should I do? Stop? Stop only if cars are coming and don’t have time to yield if I proceed? Or not stop and expect the cars to stop? Wait until cars stop to let me go? What am I legally required to do?

[Amalitza]

@Mark Blacknell 32335 wrote:

Putting aside the flashbacks to 1L Thursday Thursdays this thread just induced, I’m going to suggest a different tack for this thread: please hammer out a right of way law that solves for the ambiguities you’re arguing about above.

(I’m quite serious. How do you resolve the conflicts?)

What we’re debating is basically two things: whether language like “in disregard of traffic” means “causing any vehicle to have to alter its speed or course in any way” or “causing any vehicle to have to react (stop, slow, swerve, whatever) in a sudden and unsafe manner” and whether “crossing” means “already has feet in the crosswalk” or “is waiting at or approaching the crosswalk clearly intending to cross the road”. How hard could it be to define those two things in the law? They seem pretty basic to me (though i admit i am not a lawyer).

Of course people in accidents or getting tickets will argue about how far away the car needs to be before they have to alter their speed or stop in an unsafe manner or whether or not the pedestrian standing at the curb is trying to cross the road or just standing there; there is judgment involved just as there is in all kinds of driving, like changing lanes at highway speed– you are *always* expected to anticipate the other person’s ability to accommodate your action and not cause them to swerve or slam on their brakes or otherwise create an unsafe situation, this is no different, there is no way around expecting people to use reasonable judgment, but it helps to know what you’re supposed to be judging.

[Amalitza]

When I’m queen of the world, I’ll require drivers to stop to allow peds waiting at crosswalks to cross (but not stop in anticipation of approaching peds). If the road/crossing in question is busy enough that this unacceptably impedes traffic, then install a dang light, just as you do for drivers trying to cross a busy street. But until then I’d settle for knowing exactly what my responsibilities as a driver or pedestrian are, and being reasonably certain the people I’m interacting with on the road agree with that.

[baiskeli]

@Mark Blacknell 32335 wrote:

Putting aside the flashbacks to 1L Thursday Thursdays this thread just induced, I’m going to suggest a different tack for this thread: please hammer out a right of way law that solves for the ambiguities you’re arguing about above.

(I’m quite serious. How do you resolve the conflicts?)

A clear requirement that one party to STOP.

Which, by the way, is what NPS has done anyway, having posted stop signs for pedestrians at both crossing.

[dasgeh]

The DC Code (see last page) does say cars are required to stop. Most jurisdictions, including VA, don’t say “stop”. But it’s kinda academic, because if the car slows enough that the wheels don’t get to the edge of the crosswalk, there’s probably no requirement to stop, so really the requirement is to slow down enough not to have your car enter the crosswalk, and if that means stop, so be it.

Here’s my interpretation of the law (essentially the same in DC and VA, but let’s stick with DC):
As a pedestrian, my responsibility as I approach a crosswalk is to make clear my intention to cross in the crosswalk. Until that intention is clear to drivers (and they have a reasonable chance to act on it), it’s my responsibility to not cause an accident. E.g. if I’m headed east on a sidewalk, and want to cross the street to my north, when I get to the crosswalk and make my 90 degree turn, it’s my responsibility not to jump out in front of cars who couldn’t have known I was going to go north. But once I’ve made my intent clear (generally by stepping on to the asphalt), I should have legal right of way – e.g. I can keep moving through the crosswalk, and if I get hit, it’s the car’s fault.

As a driver, it’s my responsibility to be on the lookout for things like crosswalks. As I approach one, it’s my responsibility to look for pedestrians who intend to cross (sometimes that means they’re standing right there, e.g. having just made that 90 degree turn, sometimes that means they’re walking up to a crosswalk and have nowhere else to go but through it, like this one south of Memorial Bridge). If I see a pedestrian intending to cross, it’s my responsibility to slow/stop to let the ped cross, unless doing so would be unreasonably dangerous (e.g. I’d have to slam on brakes). Because it’s my responsibility to be looking ahead, it should be rare for me to see a ped wanting to cross, and have to slam on brakes to allow it.

I do know of one instance of the Arlington Police agreeing with me on this one. My husband and daughter (in stroller) were walking to Whole Foods on Clarendon/Wilson. They approached the crosswalk across Clarendon, and stopped with wheels of the stroller in the road (there’s room for this). A police car was approaching in the right lane and had plenty of room to slow and stop. There was a second car that drove past the slowing police car and proceeded through the crosswalk. The whole time my husband stayed on the side of the road (being super conservative, pushing a baby). The police officer made eye contact with my husband, turned on his siren and pulled over the crosswalk-offender. We’re pretty sure there was no speeding or other infraction.

That day made me proud to be an Arlingtonian. The day I saw an Arlington police car drive through the crosswalk on Lee Highway by the safeway while a person in a wheelchair was stuck in the too-small-for-a-wheelchair island, not so much.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32399 wrote:

The DC Code (see last page) does say cars are required to stop.

When are they required to stop? Can you show me the actual language?

Do they have to stop when they see someone waiting to cross the road, but who hasn’t begun to cross yet?

(Obviously they must slow or stop to avoid hitting someone, or to avoid making the person crossing stop again).

Here’s my interpretation of the law (essentially the same in DC and VA, but let’s stick with DC):
As a pedestrian, my responsibility as I approach a crosswalk is to make clear my intention to cross in the crosswalk. Until that intention is clear to drivers (and they have a reasonable chance to act on it), it’s my responsibility to not cause an accident. E.g. if I’m headed east on a sidewalk, and want to cross the street to my north, when I get to the crosswalk and make my 90 degree turn, it’s my responsibility not to jump out in front of cars who couldn’t have known I was going to go north. But once I’ve made my intent clear (generally by stepping on to the asphalt), I should have legal right of way – e.g. I can keep moving through the crosswalk, and if I get hit, it’s the car’s fault.

Okay, with the caveat that you can’t step out when there wouldn’t be enough stopping distance for a car to stop once you got in front of it, right?

So that obligates you to stop and wait until it is safe to cross. This is not only the law of traffic, it’s the law of physics. You simply can’t expect a car to stop on a dime, so you stop first if necessary, and wait until there is room enough to cross. Then and only then do you have the right of way – but your right of way shouldn’t really be a problem if you waited with enough room. A car may need to slow a little, but not slam on the brakes.

As a driver…If I see a pedestrian intending to cross, it’s my responsibility to slow/stop to let the ped cross, unless doing so would be unreasonably dangerous (e.g. I’d have to slam on brakes). Because it’s my responsibility to be looking ahead, it should be rare for me to see a ped wanting to cross, and have to slam on brakes to allow it.

That’s the part I don’t see in the law. Even you said that someone needs to show their intention to cross…by starting to cross. At that point, it’s not an intention any more.

Your interpretation requires drivers to constantly guess whether a pedestrian standing there wants to cross, and slow or stop. In some places, that would require stopping at nearly every intersection.

I wish it were more clear.

I do know of one instance of the Arlington Police agreeing with me on this one. My husband and daughter (in stroller) were walking to Whole Foods on Clarendon/Wilson. They approached the crosswalk across Clarendon, and stopped with wheels of the stroller in the road (there’s room for this). A police car was approaching in the right lane and had plenty of room to slow and stop. There was a second car that drove past the slowing police car and proceeded through the crosswalk. The whole time my husband stayed on the side of the road (being super conservative, pushing a baby). The police officer made eye contact with my husband, turned on his siren and pulled over the crosswalk-offender. We’re pretty sure there was no speeding or other infraction.

That day made me proud to be an Arlingtonian. The day I saw an Arlington police car drive through the crosswalk on Lee Highway by the safeway while a person in a wheelchair was stuck in the too-small-for-a-wheelchair island, not so much.

Careful – your second story demonstrates that even the police don’t always know the law well, which could negate your first one. If I were a scheming devious debater, I’d use that to my advantage. But of course I’m not.

[DismalScientist]

From the City of Alexandria:

“Drivers in the Commonwealth of Virginia must yield to pedestrians that are legally in a crosswalk. However, the existance of a crosswalk does not require motorists to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street.”

at http://alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=11528

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 32402 wrote:

So that obligates you to stop and wait until it is safe to cross. This is not only the law of traffic, it’s the law of physics. You simply can’t expect a car to stop on a dime, so you stop first if necessary, and wait until there is room enough to cross. Then and only then do you have the right of way – but your right of way shouldn’t really be a problem if you waited with enough room. A car may need to slow a little, but not slam on the brakes.

The way DC law is written, it is OK for you to step out in front of a car even if he does have to slam on the brakes. If he slams on the brakes and stops before hitting you, it was obviously possible for him to yield the right of way, hence no foul on the pedestrian.

See this cite on stopping distances: http://www.racemath.info/motionandenergy/stop_distance.htm

This say that a car going 40 mph can stop in 36 meters or about 120 feet, including reaction time. The way DC law is written means that it is OK for a pedestrian to cross the intersection in question if a car going the speed limit is more than 120 feet away. I think this is nuts.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 32415 wrote:

From the City of Alexandria:

“Drivers in the Commonwealth of Virginia must yield to pedestrians that are legally in a crosswalk. However, the existance of a crosswalk does not require motorists to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street.”

at http://alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=11528

Yeah, I found this too:

“Drivers are required to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are within a marked crosswalk but they are also required to yield at locations where no crosswalk (or sign) is present. Conversely, a driver is not required to stop and yield to a pedestrian who is on a sidewalk waiting to cross the street.”

It’s from an “Ask a Cop” column on the Leesburg Patch.

http://leesburg.patch.com/articles/ask-the-cop-pedestrian-vs-vehicle-right-of-way

Again, in Virginia, not DC though.

[Author]

Posts