YAA (yet another accident) at Lynn?

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 33620 wrote:

I think you’re incorrect on both points here. The peds get a “walking person” first, while cars from the ramp still have red, but the walking person continues for a few seconds after the cars get green.

Maybe, but as I recall, it’s only a second or two.

At least at Scott, there’s a countdown and a bike signal.

I go through both of these every day.

Which one do you follow then? If the bike signal said red, but the ped signal was still counting down, would you follow the walk signal? I don’t see the point of both, unless they correspond exactly, which would make them redundant, because bikes are going to follow whichever one is most convenient to them.

I think the countdown is a good idea, but it’s not working as intended for cyclists or walkers.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 33622 wrote:

Which one do you follow then? If the bike signal said red, but the ped signal was still counting down, would you follow the walk signal? I don’t see the point of both, unless they correspond exactly, which would make them redundant, because bikes are going to follow whichever one is most convenient to them.

The dual signal works logically: peds get walking, bikes get green; when the car signal is about to change, peds get a countdown appropriate to the width of the intersection, bikes stay green for most of that countdown; when, given the width of the intersection, it makes sense for bikes not to enter the intersection, the bike signal turns yellow (I think it’s at 3 in the countdown); both peds and bikes get red while opposing cars get green. There’s no point where bikes get red and peds get countdown.

It eliminates the problem that the countdown is calibrated for the lowest common denominator, so to speak, and recognizes that bikes can safely make it through the intersection faster than peds.

At Lee/Lynn, say peds need 25 secs to cross, but bikes need 5. The bike signal would stay green until the ped countdown gets to 5. (Traffic engineers would calibrate).

I still assert that, as long as you enter the intersection while the hand is blinking off, you’re complying with the law.

[KLizotte]

@Tim Kelley 33618 wrote:

Less typing, more doing. Make it happen.

I expect that putting pressure on elected officials might make it happen. Writing/harassing VDOT probably won’t do anything since they are not elected (look how long it took to get action on the MVT trail near Memorial Bridge – Moran pushed that through after years of effort). Bad publicity about the intersection would certainly help.

Again, write to your elected officials and to the local newspapers/news outlets.

[chris_s]

NPS refuses to cooperate with any changes in that area because their parkland in that section is a potential future monument site and they don’t want to make any changes now that might end up being detrimental to how the future monument might interact with the site. Because of this all of the upcoming improvements (The Esplanade Project) are squeezed into a tiny strip of land on the north side of the intersection.

SO…here’s my crazy-ass-theory-of-the-day:

One of the best things we could do to help bring about improvements to that area is to get a monument assigned to that site ASAP. Then additional improvements to the intersection along that NPS land could get rolled into the monument construction & landscaping.

Makes a twisted kind of sense to me at least.

But it’s probably crazy.

[rcannon100]

I have suggested to ARLBAC that they ought to have a blog to elevate the visibility of their concerns.

A parallel suggestion could be made here. We (whoever we are) could establish a blog (twitter feed, rss feed….) to elevate concerns, praise, announcements…. A blog thru something like blogger can be administered by multiple people. We could in theory have a few people administer it – and everyone who wanted to can help contribute to it.

Or here’s a straw proposal for discussion and modification:

I volunteer to set up a forum blog. The purpose of the blog is to elevate views, concerns, praise, and announcements of the community. The blog does not represent anyone’s particular views nor does it represent consensus – altho demonstrations of consensus will strengthen messaging. Anyone can contribute. Guidelines will be established for submissions (ie, no haters, no trolls, no helmet debates). This is not another bike blog about my daily ride, or cup of coffee. The purpose is more community engagement and activism, to promote cycling in our area.

To me, Lynn Street is the perfect example of a problem that the cycling community should just never let up on. This is a battle I have actually be a part of for over 20 years. For 20 years that boulder has not budged. And for 20 years we have seen accident after accident after accident – with politicians making lame excuses.

We do a great job of kevetching to ourselves – we need to engage the community. This is one piece of the strategy.

[TwoWheelsDC]

Maybe I’m crazy, but I’m thinking I’ll go out there one day with a camping chair, some blankets, and a bright yellow sign that says “Drivers, yield to pedestrians!” and wave it while people go through the intersection. I think sitting on the NE corner would be most effective. I’m taking Monday off to recover from the 13 hour drive I have planned for Sunday…if I can drag my ass out of bed (and the weather isn’t crappy), I’ll do it then, or in the evening.

[rcannon100]

I think it will unlikely do any good. Attempting to change the attitudes of individuals in an overwhelmed transportation infrastructure I dont think will be effective; the solution is to change the infrastructure.

[Mark Blacknell]

@chris_s 33640 wrote:

NPS refuses to cooperate with any changes in that area because their parkland in that section is a potential future monument site and they don’t want to make any changes now that might end up being detrimental to how the future monument might interact with the site. Because of this all of the upcoming improvements (The Esplanade Project) are squeezed into a tiny strip of land on the north side of the intersection.

SO…here’s my crazy-ass-theory-of-the-day:

One of the best things we could do to help bring about improvements to that area is to get a monument assigned to that site ASAP. Then additional improvements to the intersection along that NPS land could get rolled into the monument construction & landscaping.

Makes a twisted kind of sense to me at least.

But it’s probably crazy.

Here, we already have the Netherlands Carrillion nearby, perhaps we could get Belgium to send us this (from Oudenaarde):

[Arlingtonrider]

How about a monument for everyone who was injured or killed at that intersection.

[dasgeh]

@chris_s 33640 wrote:

SO…here’s my crazy-ass-theory-of-the-day:

One of the best things we could do to help bring about improvements to that area is to get a monument assigned to that site ASAP. Then additional improvements to the intersection along that NPS land could get rolled into the monument construction & landscaping.

Admit it – you were listening to NPR yesterday around lunch time. I had the SAME THOUGHT while listening to something on new memorials. Maybe we can get Denmark to sponsor something that looks like that bike roundabout in the Netherlands (http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/spectacular-new-floating-cycle-roundabout/)

[ShawnoftheDread]

@Arlingtonrider 33652 wrote:

How about a monument for everyone who was injured or killed at that intersection.

It looks like that’s what Mark just posted — the twisted bikes of those smacked at Lynn & Lee.

[baiskeli]

@chris_s 33640 wrote:

NPS refuses to cooperate with any changes in that area because their parkland in that section is a potential future monument site and they don’t want to make any changes now that might end up being detrimental to how the future monument might interact with the site. Because of this all of the upcoming improvements (The Esplanade Project) are squeezed into a tiny strip of land on the north side of the intersection.

SO…here’s my crazy-ass-theory-of-the-day:

One of the best things we could do to help bring about improvements to that area is to get a monument assigned to that site ASAP. Then additional improvements to the intersection along that NPS land could get rolled into the monument construction & landscaping.

Makes a twisted kind of sense to me at least.

But it’s probably crazy.

My crazy-ass theory – simply not crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal as intended by the signal – is cheaper and immediate.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 33673 wrote:

My crazy-ass theory – simply not crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal as intended by the signal – is cheaper and immediate.

And, as pointed out by many, doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 33678 wrote:

And, as pointed out by many, doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

I think it would help a great deal. Along with getting rid of or re-timing the right on red.

[baiskeli]

Found the code:

§ 46.2-925. Pedestrian control signals.

Whenever pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words, numbers, or symbols meaning “Walk” or “Don’t Walk” are in place such signals shall indicate and apply to pedestrians as follows:

Walk. – Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the highway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.

Don’t Walk. – No pedestrian shall start to cross the highway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the Walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island and remain there while the Don’t Walk signal is showing.

So according to the letter of the law, you should not enter the intersection after the green.

[Author]

Posts