Stop signs at crosswalks. Do you yield to cars?

[americancyclo]

@RESTONTODC 5992 wrote:

The Virginia law also says yield for pedestrian in crosswalk, it doesn’t say anything about the cyclists.
Now, I learned that the drivers yield for us are taking a risk. They could be responsible for an accident.

@RESTONDC The Virginia law DOES cover cyclists, specifically. I’ve cited it below. The drivers that yield to trail users are following the law. The only one responsible for the accident was the person that rear ended the car in front of them.

Based on the following codes below, I’m under the impression that a cyclist (as well as any other trail user) is not to enter the crosswalk if there is oncoming traffic, but once that traffic sees you, and begins to yield, as required by law, you can proceed. To me, this makes the NVRPA stop sign moot. If there is traffic that will hit you, stop. If there is traffic approaching down the road, proceed, they are obligated to yield.

I’d love to hear other interpretations.

§ 46.2-904
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, 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
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;

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.

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.

§ 46.2-100. Definitions.

“Highway” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys, and, for law-enforcement purposes, (i) the entire width between the boundary lines of all private roads or private streets that have been specifically designated “highways” by an ordinance adopted by the governing body of the county, city, or town in which such private roads or streets are located and (ii) the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place used for purposes of vehicular travel on any property owned, leased, or controlled by the United States government and located in the Commonwealth.

[StopMeansStop]

@txgoonie 5980 wrote:

Here’s a question for clarification, though: a crosswalk gives you protection once you’re in it, but it doesn’t give you permission to walk out in front of cars, right?

Dead on balls accuarte, however let me append to that:

A crosswalk gives you protection once you’re in it, but it doesn’t give you permission to walk out in front of cars — but if you DO walk out in front of cars they are still obligated to stop.

[StopMeansStop]

@Jsnyd 5986 wrote:

I rode the WOD yesterday for the first time. YAY!. There are plenty of drivers who are very courteous to all people on the trail and I am pleased by that, but that kind of irritates me as well. Ill explain. Having had my time in the service, I like to follow the rules if there are rules set. I may roll a stop sign if I can obviously see there is nothing around me, but other than that I come to a complete stop. At least really really close to one. So when I come to a stop sign, unclip and stop just to find a car stopping for me at a place he/she doesn’t have a stop sign, I get irritated when it happens over and over. It creates confusion. Since it happens so frequently, I almost expect cars to stop now. I even came to a few stop signs stopping and waving cars on (like I thought I should in the first place) to see what would happen. Even if they already stopped I would wave them on, and that seems to irritate drivers even more haha! Madness. Sorry you had to put a 1/2 pound of pressure on your break to stop your hybrid while the entire day I’m gaining momentum and wasting energy knowing I have to stop just to be waved on. Thank you for being so kind and patient to allow me to pass through, but I would much rather see you slow a bit just to be cautious and then continue on. Then I can time it out so providing there aren’t any other cars, I can just roll through after you pass. Just my two cents haha.

I couldn’t agree anymore. Where did you take the WOD?

[StopMeansStop]

Americancyclo

I’m not trying to start an argument, so I hope this doesn’t come out sounding that way. However….

The NVRPA Stop signs (at least the ones in Shirlington) say they are “required by law” so I’m assuming that there is some code behind them and thus enforcable

@americancyclo 5997 wrote:

§ 46.2-924
A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

Pedestrian code is fairly uniform across the states. The general interpretation is “crossing” means that a pedestrian is already inside the intersection. Whether walking, riding or doing cartwheels as long as a pedestrain is touching the intersection then they are defined to be crossing. And the logic for this reasoning is a pedestrians intent is subjective. They could just be standing there enjoying the sunshine. There is no way for a driver to be certain of the pedestrians intent. However touching the intersection is very objective. Either they are, or they aren’t.

If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is inside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver B is at fault.
If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is outside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver A is at fault.

[RESTONTODC]

@americancyclo 5997 wrote:

§ 46.2-904
A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, 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.

americancyclo, I didn’t see the above code of Virginia before. It’s very interesting. We need a lawyer to interpret the law.

[CCrew]

@StopMeansStop 6001 wrote:

If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is inside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver B is at fault.
If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is outside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver A is at fault.

Err, no. Because other factors come into play. Maintaining a safe following distance for the cars is one.

About the only way to escape responsibility for a rear end collision is to be the middle car in a sandwich where the impact from the rear car drives you into the car in front.

I can slam the brakes for a bunny in the road and if the car behind me hits me they’ll get the ticket. By your description that wouldn’t be the case. Think about it. A kid rides their bike out of the driveway into the street, and you slam the brakes and the car behind you hits you. By your description it’s your fault. I don’t think that’s gonna fly.

[Mark Blacknell]

A couple of general points:

1) Cops don’t necessarily know the law. Especially when it comes to traffic enforcement regarding the interaction of cyclists and motorists. So make sure you know the basics for yourself.

2) There’s the law, and then there’s our general practices that have evolved over time. If the police all of a sudden started giving out tickets for every vehicle going 56 or more on 66, people would (rightly) go apes#it. When you act well outside of common practice, but within the law (say, going 50 in the left lane on 95), you create a risky situation. Whether that’s justified or not is another conversation.

As to the actual question at hand, here’s a lawyer’s answer: it depends. To my knowledge, Virginia law has never really explored what “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.” means, so we’re left with much uncertainty. I’d be quite comfortable arguing that it means that a pedestrian may cross so long as it did not require motorists to take unreasonable efforts to yield, while others (including many in Richmond) would argue that so long as a pedestrian can see the car, he better stay out of the road. On the whole, Virginia is rather backwards when it comes to the law and protecting pedestrians/cyclists. So don’t rely on it. Rely on your own sensible approach to what is safe and what isn’t.

(Finally, I’m not entirely sure there *is* any code to support the stop signs facing the WOD, as referenced above. I’d welcome any information to the contrary.)

[StopMeansStop]

@CCrew 6005 wrote:

Err, no. Because other factors come into play. Maintaining a safe following distance for the cars is one.

About the only way to escape responsibility for a rear end collision is to be the middle car in a sandwich where the impact from the rear car drives you into the car in front.

I can slam the brakes for a bunny in the road and if the car behind me hits me they’ll get the ticket. By your description that wouldn’t be the case. Think about it. A kid rides their bike out of the driveway into the street, and you slam the brakes and the car behind you hits you. By your description it’s your fault. I don’t think that’s gonna fly.

But in the examples you point out, there was a valid reason for the lead car to come to a sudden stop. There was an obstacle in the road. In my example there was no valid reason for the lead driver to stop.

Also, in the sandwich situation you describe, only the lead driver is possibly not at fault. The middle driver failed to maintain a safe distance. I read about this after one of those massive fogout accidents.

[StopMeansStop]

Mark

Nice post. An interesting aside: Did you know that all legally enforceable signs in Virginia that are erected by the various governments are supposed to have a sticker on the back of them? I forgot what it says, but it is a little white sticker indicating it is backed by Virginia code. This is to differentiate these official signs from ones that are installed by others. A cop told me this, but don’t like to advertise this for some reason.

[Mark Blacknell]

@StopMeansStop 6009 wrote:

Did you know that all legally enforceable signs in Virginia that are erected by the various governments are supposed to have a sticker on the back of them? I forgot what it says, but it is a little white sticker indicating it is backed by Virginia code. This is to differentiate these official signs from ones that are installed by others. A cop told me this, but don’t like to advertise this for some reason.

Are you sure it’s not to help the UN in event of an invasion?

[RESTONTODC]

@Mark Blacknell 6007 wrote:

(Finally, I’m not entirely sure there *is* any code to support the stop signs facing the WOD, as referenced above. I’d welcome any information to the contrary.)

Mark, thank you for clarifying the VA laws. I agree that most cops don’t know much about the laws relating to cyclists. Now, I feel it’s really a jungle out there.

If there is no code for the stop signs facing the WOD,so the cops can’t really enforce it, can they? I heard that cops gave tickets to some cyclist for not stopping.

[DaveK]

@StopMeansStop 6009 wrote:

Mark

Nice post. An interesting aside: Did you know that all legally enforceable signs in Virginia that are erected by the various governments are supposed to have a sticker on the back of them? I forgot what it says, but it is a little white sticker indicating it is backed by Virginia code. This is to differentiate these official signs from ones that are installed by others. A cop told me this, but don’t like to advertise this for some reason.

Not true.

What you might be thinking of is that temporary parking signs must have been in place for 24 hours before they can be enforced, so the date they are put up and a temporary ordinance is enacted is usually written on the back of the sign. Sign stickers are for inventory more than anything.

[JimF22003]

When I’m on a trail and am approaching an intersection with a stop sign, I am ready, willing, and able to come to a complete stop. I really, really am. If there is clearly no traffic at all from either direction, I will definitely slow-roll through the intersection (there, I said it.)

But if there is a car, or bike, or pedestrian coming,I am fully prepared to stop. That doesn’t mean I put a foot down, or unclip. Usually it means I come to a near stop (as close to a track-stand as I can manage anyway.) I can come to a dead stop immediately from this position.

But the drivers have been so well “trained” that 90% of the time they will come to a stop and wave me through while I’m slowing down and getting ready to stop myself. So what should I do? — get into a long “no, really, you first, you have the right of way, I insist…” dialog with them?

Believe me, they don’t appreciate it. It just p*sses them off. “See, I tried to do you a favor by not insisting on my rights, and this is the thanks I get?”

It just adds to the uncertainty which causes them to yield to me in the first place.

So really, you can’t win. For me it boils down to:

1) if it’s clear, I’m going through
2) if it’s not clear, I’m getting ready to stop
3) if a car is going through properly by not yielding, I come to a complete, full, and metaphysical halt.
4) if a car is going to yield (out of politeness, or fear, or wanting to preserve their paint job by not having a cyclist broadside them), then I am going to give a little nod or wave of appreciation, and go on through.

[CCrew]

@StopMeansStop 6008 wrote:

.

Also, in the sandwich situation you describe, only the lead driver is possibly not at fault. The middle driver failed to maintain a safe distance. I read about this after one of those massive fogout accidents.

In your example the pedestrian was the “obstacle”. Same thing essentially. You can come to a full stop in any road. Sure, you risk an impeding traffic ticket, but if someone hits you it’s 99% it’s their fault. Good example from a LEO about rear end collisions: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/733166.html
Safe distance doesn’t apply if at full stop. Get in one of those accidents one time, cop will invariably ask “was there one impact or two” If two, it was the first hit from the rear and the second hit pushing you into the front. Get out of jail free card.

Those fogout accidents generally result in the “Failure to maintain proper speed for conditions” ticket marathons. Or in VA there’s the “contributory negligence” loophole which is totally an ugly one.

But considering I’m not a lawyer, AND I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night it’s really going to be up to a court to decide. Either of us taking the stance that the other is 100% wrong is just going to be a disappointment

[Mark Blacknell]

@DaveK 6014 wrote:

Not true.

What you might be thinking of is that temporary parking signs must have been in place for 24 hours before they can be enforced, so the date they are put up and a temporary ordinance is enacted is usually written on the back of the sign. Sign stickers are for inventory more than anything.

DaveK is obviously a sleeper agent for the New World Order.

[Author]

Posts