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

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 32419 wrote:

“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.”

A big exception to this is that intersections with unmarked crosswalks are treated as marked crosswalks, where the pedestrian does have the right of way.

[consularrider]

Back to the sign that started all this, is it still there? Looking obliquely from the MVT to the new crossing, I don’t see a yellow sign under the stop sign. Can anyone confirm, ’cause I’m not going to go out of my way to check.

[baiskeli]

@consularrider 32421 wrote:

Back to the sign that started all this, is it still there? Looking obliquely from the MVT to the new crossing, I don’t see a yellow sign under the stop sign. Can anyone confirm, ’cause I’m not going to go out of my way to check.

Well, of course you’re not – it’s not safe to cross!

[consularrider]

@baiskeli 32423 wrote:

Well, of course you’re not – it’s not safe to cross!

You got it in one since cars have the right of way.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32399 wrote:

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.

This brings up an interesting question: Do all lanes of traffic have to stop or does yielding the right of way means not obstructing the forward movement of the pedestrian?

If the answer is the former, it suggests that many of us cyclists are scofflaws. When turning a corner at a traffic light in the city, who does not pick a hole (at about 2 mph) through the pedestrians crossing the street onto which we are turning? If this is the standard, it means no one can turn until the crosswalk is completely clear of pedestrians.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32380 wrote:

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.[/quote]

Any discussion is easier when everybody uses the terms properly. It’s unfortunate it’s gone on this long clouding the issues.

Quote:

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.

As I see it, you’re still arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The law as written requires people to be reasonable. There is no way to write a law for this situation that would work in the absence of reasonable parties. There is no way to put tape measures and radar cameras by every crosswalk so cars and pedestrians know that within X feet or X mph a crossing is legal and otherwise not. No prescriptive formula will work in practice or be enforceable. If you think otherwise, propose your scheme, and then we can blow holes in it to show why it won’t work.

The current mechanisms work fine as long as the pedestrian has a reasonable concern for their own safety and doesn’t act like an idiot, and as long as the motorist isn’t an asshat trying to intimidate the pedestrian so they don’t have to slow down a little. In practice there are examples of both idiots and asshats, but the law simply can’t prevent that.

Note that if speed limit laws were actually enforced, the safety of crosswalks would improve dramatically without any hand-wringing over the realities of how law requires judgement. A lot of the ambiguity that I have to deal with involves cars at wildly different speeds and closing rates, some of which are going far enough over the speed limit that their ability to stop is impaired and the probability of a collision killing me is quite high.

Quote:

So just tell me – when I get to the intersection, what should I do? [1] Stop? [2] Stop only if cars are coming and don’t have time to yield if I proceed? [3] Or not stop and expect the cars to stop? [4] Wait until cars stop to let me go? What am I legally required to do?

you can do any of those, unless in [3] you’re certain to cause a collision. you’re only legally required to do [2], but you’d be an idiot to not in some way assure yourself that the traffic will actually stop (e.g., make eye contact with slowing car).

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32431 wrote:

Any discussion is easier when everybody uses the terms properly. It’s unfortunate it’s gone on this long clouding the issues.

I agree. Let’s not let terms cloud the issue.

As I see it, you’re still arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The law as written requires people to be reasonable. There is no way to write a law for this situation that would work in the absence of reasonable parties. There is no way to put tape measures and radar cameras by every crosswalk so cars and pedestrians know that within X feet or X mph a crossing is legal and otherwise not. No prescriptive formula will work in practice or be enforceable. If you think otherwise, propose your scheme, and then we can blow holes in it to show why it won’t work.

I don’t disagree with that. But other people have claimed that there is such a scheme now, it seems to me. I’m arguing against it, not you.

The current mechanisms work fine as long as the pedestrian has a reasonable concern for their own safety and doesn’t act like an idiot, and as long as the motorist isn’t an asshat trying to intimidate the pedestrian so they don’t have to slow down a little. In practice there are examples of both idiots and asshats, but the law simply can’t prevent that.

I agree.

However, there are also safety concerns with people trying to be too nice, or too safe. For instance, when cars stop at the GW crossing to let someone begin to cross, I think that’s not safe. It creates uncertainty, especially when there are two lanes, and you don’t know if the other lane will stop, or if the other lane can see the person crossing. I think it’s important for cars to know that they are not required to stop in that case, and probably shouldn’t try to be courteous either.

And that’s what we keep debating – whether cars must stop to let someone begin to cross.

I wonder if you are willing to say what you think of that question. Do you agree that they aren’t required to stop?

Note that if speed limit laws were actually enforced, the safety of crosswalks would improve dramatically without any hand-wringing over the realities of how law requires judgement. A lot of the ambiguity that I have to deal with involves cars at wildly different speeds and closing rates, some of which are going far enough over the speed limit that their ability to stop is impaired and the probability of a collision killing me is quite high.

Definitely.

you can do any of those, unless in [3] you’re certain to cause a collision. you’re only legally required to do [2], but you’d be an idiot to not in some way assure yourself that the traffic will actually stop (e.g., make eye contact with slowing car).

Okay.

To me, that’s the same thing as saying cars have the right of way, at that moment at least – but whatever, let’s not let legal terms cloud the issue. This means that cars have no obligation to stop or even slow down when they see me waiting to cross. I must yield, and I must wait until it reasonably safe, i.e. a driver has a reasonable ability by the laws of physics to live up to his/her responsibility to yield, before I begin to cross.

What I’ve been saying all along.

Now, the yellow sign may be confusing or simplistic, but if you are standing somewhere where you can read it, it’s right. Once you pass the sign and can no longer read it (by crossing) then you have the right of way.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32432 wrote:

However, there are also safety concerns with people trying to be too nice, or too safe. For instance, when cars stop at the GW crossing to let someone begin to cross, I think that’s not safe. It creates uncertainty, especially when there are two lanes, and you don’t know if the other lane will stop, or if the other lane can see the person crossing. I think it’s important for cars to know that they are not required to stop in that case, and probably shouldn’t try to be courteous either.

And that’s what we keep debating – whether cars must stop to let someone begin to cross.

I wonder if you are willing to say what you think of that question. Do you agree that they aren’t required to stop?[/quote]

I agree that they are not required to stop any more than the pedestrian is. I think it is reasonable for the car to stop or slow down to let give the pedestrian a positive acknowledgement that it is safe to cross. I agree that the current situation of one car speeding around another at a crosswalk is dangerous, but I think it is colossally stupid to attempt to address that by encouraging cars to further disregard pedestrians at crosswalks. I think the cars should be encouraged to slow down and stop (though they are only required not to hit the pedestrian) with “speed of traffic flow” a much less important priority than pedestrian safety. If the traffic truly cannot be slowed down for some real reason, then a signal should be added with big blinking lights to alert everyone to the dangerous and aberrant crossing, or a non-grade crossing should be implemented. The argument I’m hearing is that it is too expensive to implement a technical solution, and slowing down the traffic is too inconvenient. Either come up with the money or slow down the traffic for free. We should in no way encourage this mis-prioritization of convenience over human lives. Since you asked.

Quote:

To me, that’s the same thing as saying cars have the right of way, at that moment at least – but whatever, let’s not let legal terms cloud the issue. This means that cars have no obligation to stop or even slow down when they see me waiting to cross. I must yield, and I must wait until it reasonably safe, i.e. a driver has a reasonable ability by the laws of physics to live up to his/her responsibility to yield, before I begin to cross.

What I find bizarre about your continuing argument is that you only focus on what responsibilities the pedestrian has and what rights the car has, and who has to “stop”. You seem to consistently ignore that the pedestrian has every right to enter that intersection if it is reasonably possible for the car to avoid a collision, just as the car has every right not to stop, because he can meet his obligation to yield the right of way by slowing or changing course as alternatives to stopping. Again, the right of way doesn’t say “stop”, it says “avoid a collision”. The sensible pedestrian doesn’t test his assessment of the laws of physics by proceeding in the assumption that a car can stop without some positive sign that a motorist is going to act to avoid a collision (just as I wouldn’t assume a gun is unloaded or that a stove isn’t hot), but that doesn’t mean that pedestrian is obligated to let the motorist get away with asshat behavior. Bottom line, you are comparing what the pedestrian should do to what the motorist must do, and calling that right of way. That’s not “right of way”, that’s “might makes right”. On a personal level the sensible pedestrian will be cognizant of that, but on a societal level we must not condone that attitude, because it erodes the sense of responsibility (and fear of liability) which is, in the end, all that protects the pedestrian from the motorist.

Quote:

Now, the yellow sign may be confusing or simplistic, but if you are standing somewhere where you can read it, it’s right. Once you pass the sign and can no longer read it (by crossing) then you have the right of way.

Please, stop using your personal definition of right of way to justify the sign. Note that you have never responded to the substance of any of my posts on why that is important.

[dasgeh]

Here’s the site in the DC Code that I believe is the most current, emphasis added (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/d…0&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.”

Again, I think that means when it’s clear the ped intends to cross, the car is required to slow/stop to allow the ped to cross. That clarity could be because the ped is in the crosswalk already or because the ped is walking in a line that will necessarily take them into the crosswalk.

And yes, I think that means all lanes of traffic are required to stop when there’s a ped in the crosswalk, and yes, I agree that’s not the best policy. But it’s the law, and there are plenty of laws in DC that I think are not the best policy.

@baiskeli 32432 wrote:

However, there are also safety concerns with people trying to be too nice, or too safe. For instance, when cars stop at the GW crossing to let someone begin to cross, I think that’s not safe. It creates uncertainty, especially when there are two lanes, and you don’t know if the other lane will stop, or if the other lane can see the person crossing. I think it’s important for cars to know that they are not required to stop in that case, and probably shouldn’t try to be courteous either.

And that’s what we keep debating – whether cars must stop to let someone begin to cross.

I wonder if you are willing to say what you think of that question. Do you agree that they aren’t required to stop?

No. DC Code applies to the crossing of the GWP as well, and therefore both lanes are legally required to stop if a ped is crossing.

DC Code doesn’t have an exception for this crossing. So legally, it’s the same rule. You may think it’s bad policy, but it’s not up to you, or the sign makers at NPS, to singlehandedly change the law to your/their liking. There is a process for changing the law.

Personally, I don’t think it’s completely unsafe for cars to stop here. I’ve driven this section of the GWP. The sightlines aren’t so bad. If you slow down and drive the speed limit, then you have time to see peds approaching/waiting and you have time to slowly slow down. Cars behind you slow down when you slow down — or become total a**hats and pull around aggressively. Aggressive driving is illegal. I don’t think it would be unsafe if there were proper signage.

@baiskeli 32432 wrote:

Now, the yellow sign may be confusing or simplistic, but if you are standing somewhere where you can read it, it’s right. Once you pass the sign and can no longer read it (by crossing) then you have the right of way.

This just isn’t true. I think “crossing” includes a step or two before you hit asphalt. But even if you don’t, a ped with, a stroller, a bike, a friend, or any other “extension” that enters the crosswalk before them would be able to read the sign at a time when the cars do not have right of way.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 32441 wrote:

Personally, I don’t think it’s completely unsafe for cars to stop here. I’ve driven this section of the GWP. The sightlines aren’t so bad. If you slow down and drive the speed limit, then you have time to see peds approaching/waiting and you have time to slowly slow down.

Exactly. This focusing on “stop” ignores that there’s the option “slow”. I think the incidents where people are rear-ended largely involve motorists that didn’t slow down when they could have, because they were hoping the pedestrian would give up and not inconvenience the motorist.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32440 wrote:

I agree that they are not required to stop any more than the pedestrian is.

But that tells us absolutely nothing.

I think it is colossally stupid to attempt to address that by encouraging cars to further disregard pedestrians at crosswalks.

I don’t think anyone’s doing that.

The argument I’m hearing is that it is too expensive to implement a technical solution, and slowing down the traffic is too inconvenient. Either come up with the money or slow down the traffic for free. We should in no way encourage this mis-prioritization of convenience over human lives. Since you asked.

I agree. Slow traffic down. Put in a signal if necessary. My solution is to narrow the 2-lane part to one lane (as if that would happen).

What I find bizarre about your continuing argument is that you only focus on what responsibilities the pedestrian has and what rights the car has, and who has to “stop”. You seem to consistently ignore that the pedestrian has every right to enter that intersection if it is reasonably possible for the car to avoid a collision,

Well, no, I’ve said that from the very beginning. You keep complaining about it, and that’s why I keep asking about stopping. But we’ve cleared that up now.

that doesn’t mean that pedestrian is obligated to let the motorist get away with asshat behavior.

What does THAT mean? What rights does this give a pedestrian? If he’s protesting asshat behavior, he’s not at fault if he steps in front of a speeding car? What?

Bottom line, you are comparing what the pedestrian should do to what the motorist must do, and calling that right of way.

No, I am not.

I am simply saying that it’s easy to remember and understand the law when you realize that it is designed to keep everyone safe. Do what is safe and usually you’re also following the law.

That’s not “right of way”, that’s “might makes right”.

No, it’s simply the laws of physics.

On a personal level the sensible pedestrian will be cognizant of that, but on a societal level we must not condone that attitude, because it erodes the sense of responsibility (and fear of liability) which is, in the end, all that protects the pedestrian from the motorist.

Well, no, fear of liability is not everything that protects the pedestrian from the motorist. I’m sure as hell not depending on that alone to keep me safe.

Please, stop using your personal definition of right of way to justify the sign. Note that you have never responded to the substance of any of my posts on why that is important.

It’s not my personal definition, it’s how I read the law. I’ve responded to this.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32441 wrote:

Here’s the site in the DC Code that I believe is the most current, emphasis added (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/d…0&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.”

Again, I think that means when it’s clear the ped intends to cross, the car is required to slow/stop to allow the ped to cross. That clarity could be because the ped is in the crosswalk already or because the ped is walking in a line that will necessarily take them into the crosswalk.

We already talked about this – it says they must stop when a pedestrian is already crossing. It isn’t clear that this means they must stop BEFORE the pedestrian begins to cross. That’s what I’m talking about.

No. DC Code applies to the crossing of the GWP as well, and therefore both lanes are legally required to stop if a ped is crossing.

Again, I’m talking about when nobody is crossing yet, but are waiting to cross.

DC Code doesn’t have an exception for this crossing. So legally, it’s the same rule. You may think it’s bad policy, but it’s not up to you, or the sign makers at NPS, to singlehandedly change the law to your/their liking. There is a process for changing the law.

The sign is consistent with how I read the law.

Personally, I don’t think it’s completely unsafe for cars to stop here. I’ve driven this section of the GWP. The sightlines aren’t so bad. If you slow down and drive the speed limit, then you have time to see peds approaching/waiting and you have time to slowly slow down. Cars behind you slow down when you slow down — or become total a**hats and pull around aggressively. Aggressive driving is illegal. I don’t think it would be unsafe if there were proper signage.

Yes, if speed weren’t an issue, it would be safe. But even if you are going a safe speed, others who aren’t might not see a crossing pedestrian around you and simply think you’re stopped by traffic – and quickly change lanes to go around you, possibly smacking right into the crossing pedestrian who they don’t see because your car blocks the view.

That’s why I never cross there if someone stops, unless and until both lanes have made a complete stop and I see everyone behind them slowing to stop too.

This just isn’t true. I think “crossing” includes a step or two before you hit asphalt.

That’s not supported by the law, nor does it really make sense. It’s arbitrary.

But even if you don’t, a ped with, a stroller, a bike, a friend, or any other “extension” that enters the crosswalk before them would be able to read the sign at a time when the cars do not have right of way.

My illustration was just to make a point about how I read the law.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32442 wrote:

Exactly. This focusing on “stop” ignores that there’s the option “slow”. I think the incidents where people are rear-ended largely involve motorists that didn’t slow down when they could have, because they were hoping the pedestrian would give up and not inconvenience the motorist.

I seriously doubt that. Most are probably cases where the motorist didn’t see the pedestrian – like when there are two lanes of traffic, or the pedestrian crossed without much time for him to notice. I don’t think many motorists deliberately try to cut off pedestrians trying to cross just so they don’t have to slow down. Maybe downtown, but not on a highway.

[mstone]

I give up, you win the internets.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32448 wrote:

I give up, you win the internets.

This isn’t about winning anything. It’s about not dying in the roadway and/or not losing your shirt in a lawsuit.

Thanks to you and others for hashing this out in (painful) detail.

[Author]

Posts