Why do cars stop for bikes at trail crossings?

[dkel]

I think 1, 2, and 3, are all possible, though who can tell what any driver is thinking. The one I really, really don’t get is when a car stops in the traffic lane just because I’m approaching from a side street, or even already stopped: no crossing posted, no reason to stop except there’s a bike present. The worst is when there’s a lot of other traffic, and cars coming in the opposite direction aren’t stopping (nor should they). Talk about awkward! I always shake my head and wave the driver through.

[baiskeli]

I’d say mostly 1, partly 2.

I often ride around the Lincoln Memorial on my commute. Cars nearly always stop for me before I reach the crosswalk. There are even stop signs for pedestrians/cyclists there, but the cars stop. Can’t figure out why. Once there were cops there, and as I carefully started to go through while watching to make sure the car were going to stop, a cop said “go ahead, you have the right-of-way.” This was when I hadn’t yet entered the crosswalk and I had a stop sign.

[TwoWheelsDC]

Well, drivers are legally required to yield to trail users at a crosswalk, so it’s definitely 1. The stop sign on the MUP requires trail users to come to a complete stop before entering the crosswalk, but that doesn’t mean that drivers no longer have to yield…that’s my interpretation, at least. Regardless of the law, however, I’d say most drivers are empathetic and consider 2 and 3 as well.

[dkel]

@TwoWheelsDC 90472 wrote:

Well, drivers are legally required to yield to trail users at a crosswalk, so it’s definitely 1. The stop sign on the MUP requires trail users to come to a complete stop before entering the crosswalk, but that doesn’t mean that drivers no longer have to yield…that’s my interpretation, at least.

I thought they had to yield to people *in* the crosswalk, so if you’re stopped there, they don’t have to yield.

[kcb203]

@dkel 90478 wrote:

I thought they had to yield to people *in* the crosswalk, so if you’re stopped there, they don’t have to yield.

And the cars often yield when I’m still 50′ up the trail approaching the intersection.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dkel 90478 wrote:

I thought they had to yield to people *in* the crosswalk, so if you’re stopped there, they don’t have to yield.

I think you’re referring to the DC law:

“2208.12 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.”.

Virginia’s law seems to be less ambiguous, using “at” the crosswalk, rather than “within” like DC:

§ 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.

[baiskeli]

@TwoWheelsDC 90472 wrote:

Well, drivers are legally required to yield to trail users at a crosswalk,

Yielding and stopping aren’t necessarily the same thing though. Sometimes cars stop in situations where it doesn’t seem to be required.

[dplasters]

@TwoWheelsDC 90482 wrote:

§ 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.

That is an interesting little bit of info. I wonder how long you’d have to stand at the crosswalk at the intersection of the FCPkwy and Modisto lane before anyone actually yielded to you. It makes me wonder why they would even put crosswalks mid-block on high speed roads like the FCPkwy.

[dkel]

Yeah, the whole “at” or “in” the crosswalk thing is unneccesarily murky. I had someone tell me once that all of those laws are for pedestrians and not for cyclists; so if you walk your bike the law applies, but if you ride, maybe cars don’t need to yield? :confused:

[dasgeh]

@dkel 90490 wrote:

Yeah, the whole “at” or “in” the crosswalk thing is unneccesarily murky. I had someone tell me once that all of those laws are for pedestrians and not for cyclists; so if you walk your bike the law applies, but if you ride, maybe cars don’t need to yield? :confused:

This is just wrong. When bikes are on the sidewalk or crosswalk, they’re pedestrians; when they’re on the street, they’re “vehicles”. There are a few exceptions to this, but not the crosswalk law.

[dasgeh]

@kcb203 90454 wrote:

The news of the accident yesterday at Little Falls/W&OD made me think about why cars generally stop and yield to bikes at trail crossings. I bike to work from Arlington to Reston and have 22 trail/road crossings along the way. Most times, the driver stops when they see me coming and wave me through. I look for traffic coming the other way (or in the second lane going the same way), and proceed without stopping when invited like this by the driver. Almost all cyclists do the same. But I’ve often wondered what the driver is thinking. Is it:

1) The driver thinks it’s legally required because of the yield to pedestrian signs (even though the trail has a stop sign)?*

2) The driver is polite, and understands it’s a PITA to stop at every stop sign on the trail. This is what I do when driving.

3) The driver is afraid of hitting a cyclist, expecting the cyclist won’t stop. Even if the driver doesn’t fear a ticket or liability, most drivers don’t want to inflict injury where they can avoid it.

* Let’s not get into the debate about whether the stop signs are legally enforceable. The drivers think they are and aren’t interested in the technicalities of whether NVRPA or other trail authorities have the power to install legally enforceable stop signs.

Drivers are legally required to stop (or yield right of way, which often practically means stop) at crosswalks. As mstone pointed out, the existence of whatever sign pointed to the trail doesn’t change that. Moreover, drivers often can’t see the signs, and certainly can’t see them from far enough away to stop. Don’t you stop for people at crosswalks when you drive?

This may have been implicit in your 2 & 3, but I’d say drivers respect the spirit behind the “yield to the crosswalk” law: protecting and giving preference to vulnerable road users. I.e. they don’t want to hurt people.

[kcb203]

@dasgeh 90492 wrote:

Drivers are legally required to stop (or yield right of way, which often practically means stop) at crosswalks. As mstone pointed out, the existence of whatever sign pointed to the trail doesn’t change that. Moreover, drivers often can’t see the signs, and certainly can’t see them from far enough away to stop. Don’t you stop for people at crosswalks when you drive?

This may have been implicit in your 2 & 3, but I’d say drivers respect the spirit behind the “yield to the crosswalk” law: protecting and giving preference to vulnerable road users. I.e. they don’t want to hurt people.

But does the obligation to yield arise before the cyclist’s obligation to stop? In other words, I could see a driver thinking that they’ll yield to someone who is waiting at the crossing having already stopped, but doesn’t feel an obligation to yield to a cyclist approaching whose intentions about stopping are unknown.

[dasgeh]

@kcb203 90496 wrote:

But does the obligation to yield arise before the cyclist’s obligation to stop? In other words, I could see a driver thinking that they’ll yield to someone who is waiting at the crossing having already stopped, but doesn’t feel an obligation to yield to a cyclist approaching whose intentions about stopping are unknown.

The obligation arises regardless of the cyclist’s “obligation to stop” (since there’s no obligation, I can’t, with a straight face, write that there is).

[baiskeli]

@dkel 90490 wrote:

Yeah, the whole “at” or “in” the crosswalk thing is unneccesarily murky.

That’s what it comes down to – do you have to dip your foot (or front tire) into the crosswalk to assert your right-of way?

[mstone]

@dkel 90478 wrote:

I thought they had to yield to people *in* the crosswalk, so if you’re stopped there, they don’t have to yield.

They stop because, for the most part, people aren’t sociopaths. If a motorist sees someone obviously attempting to cross an intersection it is better to slow down far enough away that the pedestrian knows that the motorist is aware that the pedestrian is there and won’t run into him. This is better for the motorist because if the motorist does not slow down far away, the pedestrian may still assert their right to use the crosswalk by walking into it (at which point everyone agrees that the motorist is responsible for not hitting the pedestrian, which is harder if you wait until the last minute–and most motorists don’t actually want to Milloy anyone). That said, the area’s traffic does push a non-trivial fraction of motorists into sociopathy, so crosswalks are always a nerve-wracking interaction.

[Author]

Posts