[CCrew]

I wear cheap Starter brand running pants bought at WallyWorld for less than $10 a pair tucked at the ankle with my RoadID ankle strap

Wear short bibs or the chamois inner linings from the various Zoic MTB shorts I own underneath

[CCrew]

@americancyclo 9669 wrote:

The cars do have a traffic control device. It’s the yield sign found in the MUTCD Section 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a). the ones that are ay all the w&od crossings near falls church. The ones that were stolen last year. I’d love to get some clarification from a lawyer, cop, and judge about this. It’s almost as contentious as the GW Parkway crossing by memorial bridge.

The ones that say yield to peds IN the crosswalk?

I don’t recall them saying “and all the people after them”

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9665 wrote:

I think you’re drawing a line where there isn’t one. Someone standing at the curb waiting is in the crosswalk. People are are not required to step out in front of cars to get them to yield..

Wrong. Crosswalks are in the roadway. They are not part of the sidewalk. Therefore your standing on the trail does not provide you the legal justification you seem to think you have.

Legal Definition of a Crosswalk | Pedestrian|
“That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.”

According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes:

“Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.”

[CCrew]

We’ll agree to disagree. With a Ped AT the crosswalk the vehicles have no duty to stop. Pedestrian IN the crosswalk they do.

By both of your definitions I can ignore walk signals and stop signs and be in the right if I’m merely in the proximity of a crosswalk and vehicles simply have to wait for me to make a decision..

“If peds were spaced so much apart, the first peds would completely pass the cars, making it safe and lawful for them to proceed, before the next peds would be in the intersection.”

And I’m sure that’s what happened here. Vehicles were stopped for another person, and Will assumed they were stopped for him and proceeded into the intersection.

[CCrew]

@elcee 9657 wrote:

If the forum can’t agree what proper behavior is at this intersection, what chance do ordinary drivers and cyclists have?

Can’t work in America? Just look at Manhattan, where cars routinely make right turns through crosswalks filled with pedestrians. Everyone manages to make it through. I don’t have statistics, but I’ll bet the accident rate is pretty low.

So very true. And your analogy is correct, Go into DC on any day and you see vehicles turning through the crosswalks. It somehow works.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9653 wrote:

Incorrect. It was a crosswalk. Additional signs or traffic control devices are not required. See the above quoted laws. Traffic is required to yield to the crosswalk, period. And traffic did indeed actually do it.

Vehicles are required to stop for a ped in the crosswalk. That we agree on. The thing is, Ped #2-10 that enters the crosswalk does so in disobedience of the traffic control device (the stop sign). They’re only depending on the grace of god that the traffic remains stopped.

Now red lights and walk signals? You’re 100% correct. That wasn’t the case here.

Think about it. If what you say is true, then an endless succession of pedestrians spaced 20 feet apart can legally hold up traffic forever. That isn’t the spirit of the law. The spirit is that a vehicle has to stop for a ped in a crosswalk if the ped is there and the car is approaching. The car isn’t required to stop because someone *might* cross after them.

Now lets look at this in a different fashion.
Traffic was stopped. That means most likely that there was a previous pedestrian that crossed, and was afforded the right of way by law exactly as you’ve cited. But subsequent pedestrians are actually in disobediance of the traffic control device (the trail stop sign) if they subsequently enter the intersection. By all measure of the law, someone approaching the intersection as a ped should then wait for traffic to clear and then proceed. If a car then approaches, they indeed are afforded protection under the law and you are 100% correct. The problem is that peds see stopped traffic, and they think that they can simply proceed. Given the stop sign they cannot.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 9647 wrote:

He followed the law to the letter. As stated, he has the rights of a pedestrian in that cross walk. And he did stop and wait for it to be clear before proceeding. The driver of the car started moving again while he was already in the crosswalk. A cut and dry accident that she clearly felt terrible about, but none the less, her fault 100% for not looking before she leaped.

In this case, he did everything right. Slowed, stopped, waited, traffic was confirmed stopped. Other people also did the same. Began crossing. Car abruptly moved forward from a stop while in the middle of crossing because she wasn’t paying attention. Other than attaching side facing warning lights, some things will always be unavoidable hazards.

Cars had no traffic control device at that intersection. Trail has a stop sign. Entering the intersection because he was expecting that all the cars would STAY stopped was an oversight and from a culpability standpoint means that he DID enter the intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.. Cars stopping at these intersections are more of a safety hazard than cars actually maintaining speed as they are allowed because they give cyclists the impression that they are within their rights to cross when in reality they aren’t.

What I’ll bet happened here? A group went across and just as they cleared the intersection Will entered thinking that he had the right to cross. The cars saw the first group cross and didn’t look for additional ones. And apologizing was a mistake that any first year lawyer would slap her for.

The laws you cite are 100% valid for an approaching vehicle when a pedestrian is already in a crosswalk. It does not mean that there can then be an endless procession of people crossing and then claiming they are complying with the letter of the law.

[CCrew]

@Dirt 9630 wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for posting that up.

It tossed me to the curb on the “Do you work someplace xx” questions :p

[CCrew]

” Thank you for participating, but at the current time you do not qualify to participate. “

[CCrew]

@americancyclo 9616 wrote:

Technically, according to the Code of Virginia, he IS a pedestrian.

§ 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.

Yeah, but even as a pedestrian he was required to wait for a walk light or clear traffic.. While the crosswalks are signed to tell cars that they need to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, it doesn’t mean that you can just arbitrarily enter one and claim that you had the right to be there and the world needs to stop.

And let’s not even go that he has the same rights yet still has to yield to peds … that’s an oxymoron

[CCrew]

@WillStewart 9572 wrote:

I don’t believe I broke any rules, if that’s what you are suggesting. I was in the crosswalk with all cars fully stopped.

*Technically* you’re not a pedestrian and you had a stop sign and they didn’t which makes it your fault. So if you proceeded with stopped cars you didn’t wait for clear traffic.

Now that said, we all do it, and cars stop where there are no stop signs and many of us are guilty of proceeding. I know I do. But if you tried to file an insurance claim against the driver I wouldn’t be surprised if the carrier claims contributory negligence.

Regardless glad you’re ok and on the mend.

[CCrew]

Nice bag but not for on a bike – no sub strap to stop it from sliding.

[CCrew]

@MCL1981 8847 wrote:

There is no baggage car. Its a normal Northeast Regional train. It just happens to be pretty empty since most normal people are asleep. Not mail and no bikes or other unreasonable luggage is allowed. Its quite unlikely that you’ll get your bike passed the gate agent, the police officer, and the conductors.

Yeah, dating myself here since I used to ride it all the time.

Looks like they killed it years back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Mail_(Amtrak)

[CCrew]

It’s a pretty straightforward job. You’ll get your hands a little dirty but it’s best to learn.

[CCrew]

One word: Tegaderm.

Hope you heal quickly.

[Author]

Posts