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

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 32445 wrote:

I don’t think many motorists deliberately try to cut off pedestrians trying to cross just so they don’t have to slow down.

Really? Have you ever tried to cross at any signal-less crosswalk? I would say most motorists deliberately continue driving at whatever their speed they’re driving, even when they clearly see a pedestrian already in a crosswalk, just so they don’t have to slow down. I used to live half a block from the signal-less crosswalk on Washington Blvd (at 3rd St) and now live a block from the signal-less crosswalk on Lee Hwy (at Nelson Street). I’ve seen it happen in DC (the crosswalks on Virginia Ave are part of my commute, though those are better-respected by drivers than most), on Park Service land (e.g. the crosswalk in question) and all over Arlington.

I believe this driver behavior, while common, is contrary to the law.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32450 wrote:

Really? Have you ever tried to cross at any signal-less crosswalk? I would say most motorists deliberately continue driving at whatever their speed they’re driving, even when they clearly see a pedestrian already in a crosswalk, just so they don’t have to slow down.

I did also say “Maybe downtown, but not on a highway.”

I used to live half a block from the signal-less crosswalk on Washington Blvd (at 3rd St) and now live a block from the signal-less crosswalk on Lee Hwy (at Nelson Street). I’ve seen it happen in DC (the crosswalks on Virginia Ave are part of my commute, though those are better-respected by drivers than most), on Park Service land (e.g. the crosswalk in question) and all over Arlington.

Okay.

I believe this driver behavior, while common, is contrary to the law.

No question.

[Amalitza]

Quote:

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.

Is anybody questioning this?

What I thought the questions are is, if the driver *does* have a “reasonable ability by the laws of physics to live up to his/her responsibility to yield”, but doing so requires the driver to slow or stop, can the pedestrian enter the crosswalk, or must the pedestrian wait for a gap in traffic large enough that a driver does not have to slow or stop at all?

and

Does the driver who has a reasonable ability by the laws of physics to live up to his/her responsibility to yield, have to yield to a pedestrian waiting to cross?

Apparently according to the two links, in Virginia the answer to the second is no, the driver does not have to allow that waiting pedestrian to cross, even though he safely could, so I was wrong about that. (in MD and DC??)

But I still don’t know the answer to the first– if I am the pedestrian waiting to cross, and I see a car coming at a distance such that they can reasonably and safely slow or stop to allow me to cross (but they do have to slow or stop in order for me to safely make it across), can I begin crossing? If yes— if I can create a requirement for the driver to let me cross by entering the crosswalk, but the driver does not have that requirement to let me cross if I keep standing on the sidewalk waiting for my gap in traffic, doesn’t that create a situation where I have to– or at least am encouraged to– put myself in greater danger? ie, no one has to let me cross so long as I am waiting safely on the sidewalk (or trail) where there is no chance i might be hit by a distracted driver who doesn’t see me, but I can step into the street creating a legal requirement for a car to stop or slow as necessary (and reasonably able) to let me cross, but am now putting myself at risk of being hit if the driver doesn’t see me in time. If that’s the actual law, I think it’s nuts.* I personally don’t to think it’s safe to step into the street until I know the driver sees me, which I can only do by noticing him slowing to let me cross, which he doesn’t have to do unless I step into the street.

*I readily admit that me thinking a law is nuts in no way prevents it from actually being a law.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32450 wrote:

Really? Have you ever tried to cross at any signal-less crosswalk? I would say most motorists deliberately continue driving at whatever their speed they’re driving, even when they clearly see a pedestrian already in a crosswalk, just so they don’t have to slow down.

I live a couple of blocks from Washington Blvd. I’ve never had any problems crossing without a signal at a marked or unmarked crosswalk. Of course, I don’t enter the street before it is safe to cross.

[dasgeh]

The way I look at this, if drivers don’t have a responsibility to slow down when they see a ped at a crosswalk clearly intending to cross*, then crosswalks have no meaning. Why bother writing a law that says drivers must stop/yield/slow to pedestrians, if a driver refusing to slow down, and thus forcing a ped to “wait to cross”, can negate that requirement?

*I say “clearly intending to cross” because I think “waiting to cross” is the wrong standard. I could be waiting for my friend to show up, and thus standing to the side, near but not in/at the crosswalk. Cars shouldn’t have to stop for that. On the other hand, I could be standing on the asphalt, basically in the parking lane, in the crosswalk, but not moving because when I first got there a car was already there/almost there. So technically I’m waiting to cross, but I’m only waiting to cross because the drivers are violating the law and not stopping/yielding.

[DismalScientist]

@acl 32452 wrote:

What I thought the questions are is, if the driver *does* have a “reasonable ability by the laws of physics to live up to his/her responsibility to yield”, but doing so requires the driver to slow or stop, can the pedestrian enter the crosswalk, or must the pedestrian wait for a gap in traffic large enough that a driver does not have to slow or stop at all?

Under both DC and Virginia law pedestrians at unsignalized crosswalks can demand the right of way by stepping into the street. I think being outside the street yield no obligation to drivers other than to exercise due caution.
In DC, it is legal for the pedestrian to do this if it is “possible” for the vehicle to yield the right of way to the pedestrian. There are no adjectives like “safely” or “reasonably” modifying possible.
In Virginia, the standard is more vague stating that the pedestrian entering the crosswalk must do so with due regard to oncoming traffic. Whether this means that the pedestrian can cross causing the traffic to slow, I do not know.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 32454 wrote:

The way I look at this, if drivers don’t have a responsibility to slow down when they see a ped at a crosswalk clearly intending to cross*, then crosswalks have no meaning. Why bother writing a law that says drivers must stop/yield/slow to pedestrians, if a driver refusing to slow down, and thus forcing a ped to “wait to cross”, can negate that requirement?

*I say “clearly intending to cross” because I think “waiting to cross” is the wrong standard. I could be waiting for my friend to show up, and thus standing to the side, near but not in/at the crosswalk. Cars shouldn’t have to stop for that. On the other hand, I could be standing on the asphalt, basically in the parking lane, in the crosswalk, but not moving because when I first got there a car was already there/almost there. So technically I’m waiting to cross, but I’m only waiting to cross because the drivers are violating the law and not stopping/yielding.

Crosswalks may not have any meaning with respect to cars slowing down to let waiting pedestrians cross. They do, however, provide useful visual clues for drivers indicating high pedestrian activity. I saw a state of Virginia study stating that not all intersection should have marked crosswalks in order to emphasize the ones that do.

If you are standing in the parking lane in the crosswalk, moving or not, you are in the crosswalk and cars should yield. So, no, you are not technically waiting to cross.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 32454 wrote:

The way I look at this, if drivers don’t have a responsibility to slow down when they see a ped at a crosswalk clearly intending to cross*, then crosswalks have no meaning. Why bother writing a law that says drivers must stop/yield/slow to pedestrians, if a driver refusing to slow down, and thus forcing a ped to “wait to cross”, can negate that requirement?

But the law doesn’t say cars must yield to pedestrians…until they start to cross. They don’t have to stop or slow to let someone begin to cross. The pedestrian must wait until there is a safe gap.

*I say “clearly intending to cross” because I think “waiting to cross” is the wrong standard. I could be waiting for my friend to show up, and thus standing to the side, near but not in/at the crosswalk. Cars shouldn’t have to stop for that. On the other hand, I could be standing on the asphalt, basically in the parking lane, in the crosswalk, but not moving because when I first got there a car was already there/almost there. So technically I’m waiting to cross, but I’m only waiting to cross because the drivers are violating the law and not stopping/yielding.

But now you’re asking cars to read your mind.

This is one reason why cars aren’t required to stop or slow. They’d conceivably have to stop or slow every time they see a pedestrian on a corner.

[mstone]

@acl 32452 wrote:

But I still don’t know the answer to the first– if I am the pedestrian waiting to cross, and I see a car coming at a distance such that they can reasonably and safely slow or stop to allow me to cross (but they do have to slow or stop in order for me to safely make it across), can I begin crossing? If yes— if I can create a requirement for the driver to let me cross by entering the crosswalk, but the driver does not have that requirement to let me cross if I keep standing on the sidewalk waiting for my gap in traffic, doesn’t that create a situation where I have to– or at least am encouraged to– put myself in greater danger? ie, no one has to let me cross so long as I am waiting safely on the sidewalk (or trail) where there is no chance i might be hit by a distracted driver who doesn’t see me, but I can step into the street creating a legal requirement for a car to stop or slow as necessary (and reasonably able) to let me cross, but am now putting myself at risk of being hit if the driver doesn’t see me in time. If that’s the actual law, I think it’s nuts.* I personally don’t to think it’s safe to step into the street until I know the driver sees me, which I can only do by noticing him slowing to let me cross, which he doesn’t have to do unless I step into the street.

That’s exactly it. You have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop, but you’re scared to do so because you don’t know if the driver is a whack-job that’s going to run over you for giggles. You are forced by circumstance have to give up your right to cross the street (biaskeli would say here “you have to stop! that means you don’t have the right of way! I was right!”) because some percentage of motorists are psychotic (or, generously, “just” not paying attention). Some people are happy with this and say “well, that means that no cars should slow down or stop ever because they don’t have to and the pedestrians are too scared to cross anyway”. (That is, they will actively discourage (!) motorists from being responsible and signaling to the pedestrian that the motorist will exercise his duty not to kill the pedestrian.) The logical conclusion of that train of thought is that pedestrians can never cross a street. “Oh no!”, they say, “it’s all about the laws of physics; as long as it’s safe the pedestrian can cross”. But they have redefined “safe” to be, effectively, “the pedestrian cannot cross the street if there is a car around, because it’s on the pedestrian to read the driver’s mind and the driver should not be expected by convention to signal intent to the pedestrian, and the liability is all on the pedestrian anyway”.

Perhaps it sucks that the current situation requires everyone to be polite and exercise a degree of courtesy above the bare minimum required by law in order for things to work reasonably and smoothly. As I said before, I don’t think this can be “fixed” in law. We simply do not have a practical mechanism for legislating that motorists signal their intent to obey the law to pedestrians. Trying to “fix” the problem by putting all of the burden on pedestrians seems like a huge leap in the wrong direction. Requiring motorists to come to a complete stop instead of just making eye contact with the pedestrian and slowing up a little seems onerous (and unenforceable in practice; how far away do they have to stop, etc.). The current law accommodates the realities of children, disabled (e.g., blind), and other vulnerable pedestrians far better than some scheme that pushes additional duties onto the pedestrian. The current law really isn’t that bad if everyone acts in good faith, and we shouldn’t let a few bad apples ruin things. No civilized society can work if people use the law to try to screw each other, so I don’t see that it’s worth trying to optimize for that case.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32463 wrote:

That’s exactly it. You have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop, but you’re scared to do so because you don’t know if the driver is a whack-job that’s going to run over you for giggles. You are forced by circumstance have to give up your right to cross the street (biaskeli would say here “you have to stop! that means you don’t have the right of way! I was right!”)

No I wouldn’t. You still don’t understand my point.

You just said it – “you have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop.” But NOT before that opportunity.

because some percentage of motorists are psychotic (or, generously, “just” not paying attention). Some people are happy with this and say “well, that means that no cars should slow down or stop ever because they don’t have to and the pedestrians are too scared to cross anyway”. (That is, they will actively discourage (!) motorists from being responsible and signaling to the pedestrian that the motorist will exercise his duty not to kill the pedestrian.) The logical conclusion of that train of thought is that pedestrians can never cross a street. “Oh no!”, they say, “it’s all about the laws of physics; as long as it’s safe the pedestrian can cross”. But they have redefined “safe” to be, effectively, “the pedestrian cannot cross the street if there is a car around, because it’s on the pedestrian to read the driver’s mind and the driver should not be expected by convention to signal intent to the pedestrian, and the liability is all on the pedestrian anyway”.

Um, no, you’re wildly overreacting again.

You said it yourself: “You have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop.”

That’s the law. And it’s smart to follow it, and sometimes even exceed it. You will never ever eliminate the irresponsible or the lunatics. But you’re not legally required to exceed it. Your family will probably collect some money from the driver who killed you.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32475 wrote:

No I wouldn’t. You still don’t understand my point.

You just said it – “you have the right to enter the street because the car has every reasonable opportunity to stop.” But NOT before that opportunity.

LOL. Really? That was your whole point? That you can’t legally step in front of a car that can’t possibly avoid running you over? Ok, you can have your point because nobody in this thread was ever stupid enough to argue otherwise. That’s still not what “right of way” means and it does nothing to inform what’s legally required when the car is far enough away to stop, even as a panic stop. And it’s not really what you said half a dozen pages ago.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 32483 wrote:

LOL. Really? That was your whole point? That you can’t legally step in front of a car that can’t possibly avoid running you over?

No, not just that – the implication is that cars don’t have to slow or stop to give you that opportunity.

Ok, you can have your point because nobody in this thread was ever stupid enough to argue otherwise.

Yet some people actually DO that, not just argue it. I’ve seen it happen.

That’s still not what “right of way” means

There’s no such term in the law. The law says who must yield to whom and when. It’s commonly known (and is stated on the sign) as “right of way.” We all know what it means.

and it does nothing to inform what’s legally required when the car is far enough away to stop, even as a panic stop.

I didn’t say it did.

In that case, a car must yield to someone already crossing. If they don’t, that means either the car is at fault for not yielding, or the pedestrian is at fault for not giving him enough time (disregard of traffic, in the DC law).

Just follow the laws of physics and you’ll be alive, and usually on the right side of the law.

[NickBull]

Sign is wrong. Cars _don’t_ have right of way. The more complicated truth doesn’t fit on a sign. Cars do not have to slow down just because they see someone standing by the side of the road, but they have a duty to stop for someone entering the crosswalk if it is reasonable and safe to do so, and people entering the crosswalk have a duty to check that it is reasonable and safe for drivers to be able to stop.

Since that won’t fit on the sign, the sign as currently stated is incorrect, and should be removed. If they want language warning pedestrians that cars are driven at high speed they should say so. If they don’t want to do remove the “Cars have right of way” sign, then big signs should be put up on the roadway saying “Pedestrians have right of way”, just to be parallel. Sort of like one-lane bridges that have signs on both sides saying “Yield to oncoming traffic”.

[baiskeli]

@NickBull 32520 wrote:

Sign is wrong. Cars _don’t_ have right of way. The more complicated truth doesn’t fit on a sign. Cars do not have to slow down just because they see someone standing by the side of the road, but they have a duty to stop for someone entering the crosswalk if it is reasonable and safe to do so, and people entering the crosswalk have a duty to check that it is reasonable and safe for drivers to be able to stop.

Since that won’t fit on the sign, the sign as currently stated is incorrect, and should be removed.

The NPS probably put that there because the much more demanding and clear “STOP” sign for pedestrians – which is a much better approximation of what the law says – is sometimes ignored.

If they don’t want to do remove the “Cars have right of way” sign, then big signs should be put up on the roadway saying “Pedestrians have right of way”, just to be parallel.

But that would probably lead many more cars to stop before pedestrians begin crossing, which in my view is unsafe, especially at a 2-lane crossing.

They should just put up a really really really big stop sign, with another underneath it, with a yellow sign that says “Dammit, pedestrians and bikes, stop and wait until it’s safe for cars to yield to you before you begin to cross.”

[napes]

Not that it is particularly relevant to DC law or the widespread ignorance of crosswalk rules, Virginia’s laws and judicial opinions are on the side of the person waiting at the crosswalk. Of course, if a pedestrian is hit, he probably positioned himself “in disregard of approaching traffic” and would probably have a hard time with any court case because of contributory negligence issues. As a VDOT study noted:

“If a pedestrian seeks to cross lawfully at a crosswalk at an intersection and begins to cross in front of an approaching driver who, unbeknownst to the pedestrian, does not intend to yield, the pedestrian is also at fault, since ‘notwithstanding’ his or her right of way in section A, he or she is crossing an intersection in ‘disregard’ of approaching traffic. Thus, a situation may arise where a pedestrian who reasonably expected that the vehicle would yield the right of way is barred from recovery because he or she was contributorily negligent in crossing in ‘disregard’ of traffic.” (http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/08-r5.pdf pg 44)

A different VDOT study:

“The results of the locally distributed surveys revealed differing opinions about who has the right-of-way at the W&OD Trail intersections. Of those responding, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know. These percentages underscore the level of uncertainty about right-of-way at the trail crossing and prompted a review by the researcher of the Code of Virginia language with respect to crosswalks and right-of-way laws.” (http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r9.pdf pg 61)

Nonetheless, any pedestrian or bicycle rider has right-of way over vehicular traffic at a marked crosswalk or trail-crossing crosswalk without a signal. The Virginia Code says that drivers shall yield to bicycle riders and pedestrians at crosswalks and at most intersections, unless there is some traffic control device or law enforcement person directing traffic otherwise. At lights, in other words, the bicycle rider/pedestrian has to follow the standard light signals, but the bicycle rider and pedestrian has right of way at all other crosswalks (regardless of traffic speed) and at intersections without signals (if the speed is less than 35 mph).

The law specifically talks about “at” crosswalks, not “in” crosswalks, thus including the area where someone is waiting to cross the road. The MUTCD-based definition of “crosswalk” is brutally dense, but it also can be read to include the section on the side of the road where pedestrians stand as “crosswalk” area. Here is the Virginia Code:

§ 46.2-904. Use of roller skates and skateboards on sidewalks and shared-use paths; operation of bicycles, electric power-assisted bicycles, and electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks and crosswalks and shared-use paths; local ordinances.

A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

§ 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;

2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;

3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

At a crosswalk Virginia courts have held “the pedestrian has a superior right — that is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles — and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.” (Marshall v. Shaw. Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2476417758289562501&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

“The duty of a motor vehicle driver on approaching an intersection is to keep a vigilant lookout for pedestrians between curbs on the traveled portion of the highway, and when pedestrians are negotiating the crossing, or about to step from the side into traffic lanes, to operate his car at such speed and under such control that he can readily turn one way or the other, and, if necessary, bring his machine to a stop in time to avoid injury to pedestrians.” (Sawyer v. Blankenship, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933) (http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19330615_0040113.VA.htm/qx)

None of this, naturally gives the pedestrian/bicyclist the right to jump in front of traffic too close to stop. The police will probably only interview the driver in such a case.

[Author]

Posts