[mstone]

@dasgeh 32441 wrote:

Personally, I don’t think it’s completely unsafe for cars to stop here. I’ve driven this section of the GWP. The sightlines aren’t so bad. If you slow down and drive the speed limit, then you have time to see peds approaching/waiting and you have time to slowly slow down.

Exactly. This focusing on “stop” ignores that there’s the option “slow”. I think the incidents where people are rear-ended largely involve motorists that didn’t slow down when they could have, because they were hoping the pedestrian would give up and not inconvenience the motorist.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32432 wrote:

However, there are also safety concerns with people trying to be too nice, or too safe. For instance, when cars stop at the GW crossing to let someone begin to cross, I think that’s not safe. It creates uncertainty, especially when there are two lanes, and you don’t know if the other lane will stop, or if the other lane can see the person crossing. I think it’s important for cars to know that they are not required to stop in that case, and probably shouldn’t try to be courteous either.

And that’s what we keep debating – whether cars must stop to let someone begin to cross.

I wonder if you are willing to say what you think of that question. Do you agree that they aren’t required to stop?[/quote]

I agree that they are not required to stop any more than the pedestrian is. I think it is reasonable for the car to stop or slow down to let give the pedestrian a positive acknowledgement that it is safe to cross. I agree that the current situation of one car speeding around another at a crosswalk is dangerous, but I think it is colossally stupid to attempt to address that by encouraging cars to further disregard pedestrians at crosswalks. I think the cars should be encouraged to slow down and stop (though they are only required not to hit the pedestrian) with “speed of traffic flow” a much less important priority than pedestrian safety. If the traffic truly cannot be slowed down for some real reason, then a signal should be added with big blinking lights to alert everyone to the dangerous and aberrant crossing, or a non-grade crossing should be implemented. The argument I’m hearing is that it is too expensive to implement a technical solution, and slowing down the traffic is too inconvenient. Either come up with the money or slow down the traffic for free. We should in no way encourage this mis-prioritization of convenience over human lives. Since you asked.

Quote:

To me, that’s the same thing as saying cars have the right of way, at that moment at least – but whatever, let’s not let legal terms cloud the issue. This means that cars have no obligation to stop or even slow down when they see me waiting to cross. I must yield, 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.

What I find bizarre about your continuing argument is that you only focus on what responsibilities the pedestrian has and what rights the car has, and who has to “stop”. You seem to consistently ignore that the pedestrian has every right to enter that intersection if it is reasonably possible for the car to avoid a collision, just as the car has every right not to stop, because he can meet his obligation to yield the right of way by slowing or changing course as alternatives to stopping. Again, the right of way doesn’t say “stop”, it says “avoid a collision”. The sensible pedestrian doesn’t test his assessment of the laws of physics by proceeding in the assumption that a car can stop without some positive sign that a motorist is going to act to avoid a collision (just as I wouldn’t assume a gun is unloaded or that a stove isn’t hot), but that doesn’t mean that pedestrian is obligated to let the motorist get away with asshat behavior. Bottom line, you are comparing what the pedestrian should do to what the motorist must do, and calling that right of way. That’s not “right of way”, that’s “might makes right”. On a personal level the sensible pedestrian will be cognizant of that, but on a societal level we must not condone that attitude, because it erodes the sense of responsibility (and fear of liability) which is, in the end, all that protects the pedestrian from the motorist.

Quote:

Now, the yellow sign may be confusing or simplistic, but if you are standing somewhere where you can read it, it’s right. Once you pass the sign and can no longer read it (by crossing) then you have the right of way.

Please, stop using your personal definition of right of way to justify the sign. Note that you have never responded to the substance of any of my posts on why that is important.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32380 wrote:

Fine. This entire discussion isn’t about right of way then. It’s about who must stop and wait to cross an intersection after yielding to someone else who wants to cross.[/quote]

Any discussion is easier when everybody uses the terms properly. It’s unfortunate it’s gone on this long clouding the issues.

Quote:

Well, no. When you are trying to cross an intersection, who has to stop (more properly, who has to yield) is absolutely essential. It’s all that matters. It matters legally, and it matters to safety. The law is designed to help keep us safe and assign blame when an accident occurs.

I need to know one thing – what am I obligated to do when I get to that intersection? That – plus any additional actions that may be necessary to keep me and others safe – are all that matter.

As I see it, you’re still arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The law as written requires people to be reasonable. There is no way to write a law for this situation that would work in the absence of reasonable parties. There is no way to put tape measures and radar cameras by every crosswalk so cars and pedestrians know that within X feet or X mph a crossing is legal and otherwise not. No prescriptive formula will work in practice or be enforceable. If you think otherwise, propose your scheme, and then we can blow holes in it to show why it won’t work.

The current mechanisms work fine as long as the pedestrian has a reasonable concern for their own safety and doesn’t act like an idiot, and as long as the motorist isn’t an asshat trying to intimidate the pedestrian so they don’t have to slow down a little. In practice there are examples of both idiots and asshats, but the law simply can’t prevent that.

Note that if speed limit laws were actually enforced, the safety of crosswalks would improve dramatically without any hand-wringing over the realities of how law requires judgement. A lot of the ambiguity that I have to deal with involves cars at wildly different speeds and closing rates, some of which are going far enough over the speed limit that their ability to stop is impaired and the probability of a collision killing me is quite high.

Quote:

So just tell me – when I get to the intersection, what should I do? [1] Stop? [2] Stop only if cars are coming and don’t have time to yield if I proceed? [3] Or not stop and expect the cars to stop? [4] Wait until cars stop to let me go? What am I legally required to do?

you can do any of those, unless in [3] you’re certain to cause a collision. you’re only legally required to do [2], but you’d be an idiot to not in some way assure yourself that the traffic will actually stop (e.g., make eye contact with slowing car).

[mstone]

@DaveK 32411 wrote:

I’ve been running and almost mowed down without a sound by a right-turning Prius I never saw as I was crossing an intersection. This has happened several times in my neighborhood.

there have been efforts to require cars make a certain level of noise, possibly through a noise generator. seems dorky, but probably a good idea if you have an interest in pedestrian safety.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32270 wrote:

How could I think that? That’s meaningless. Of course the pedestrian can enter the roadway. If he couldn’t, he could never cross.

He can’t enter it when there isn’t a safe gap in traffic. And that, as I mentioned, is the same thing as saying cars have the right of way at that moment.

This keeps going around in circles because you still seem to not grasp “right of way”. You’re trying to interpret “right of way” to figure out “who has to stop”, and it simply doesn’t work like that. So you keep arguing straw men and missing the point of what other people are saying, because it doesn’t fit into your model of “who has to stop”. Let’s look at some scenarios.

1) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car goes through the crosswalk, coming close to the pedestrian. The pedestrian does not alter their speed, nor does the car. There is no right of way violation. It would be incredibly stupid and unsafe for either the car or the pedestrian to do this, but the concept of right of way is intended to govern who has the liability for avoiding a collision, not to enumerate safe and sensible behaviors. In real world terms, the sensible thing would be for the car to slow down, and for the pedestrian to wait to see the car slow down, even though neither has that requirement.

2) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car slams on its brakes to avoid a collision, leaving skid marks. No right of way violation has occurred. It would be incredibly stupid for either the pedestrian or the car to let the situation reach that point, but see above about stupid.

3) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car runs over the pedestrian without attempting to stop. A right of way violation has occurred (the car was responsible for avoiding the collision). The driver is liable.

4) A pedestrian is crossing the street at a crosswalk. A car hits the pedestrian, leaving skid marks as they desperately attempted to stop. A right of way violation has occurred (the car was responsible for avoiding the collision). The motorist is not liable because the pedestrian was negligent in not allowing an opportunity for the motorist to yield the right of way.

5) A pedestrian is in the street, not at a crosswalk. A car hits the pedestrian. A right of way violation has occurred (the pedestrian was responsible for avoiding the collision). The pedestrian is liable.

(Note that in any case with an actual collision, it’s going to be a lot more complicated than the simplistic example, and a jury will need to examine the facts and determine whether things actually happened as described in the scenario or whether there was evidence to suggest a different allocation of responsibility, like distracted driving or distracted walking or somesuch. In 3 the jury would probably find it significant that there was no attempt to avoid the collision, and would try to sort out if the inevitable “I didn’t see him” excuse is credible. In 4 there are other possibilities like the presence or absence of sidewalks and crosswalks. Bottom line is that our legal system depends quite often on a jury determining what is reasonable in a particular situation; we do not have a legal system that prescribes all of our actions.)

This is what right of way is about. It’s not some simplistic “somebody has to stop” formula. It’s explained that way to new drivers and children for practical reasons, but it’s inherently a more complicated concept. (Which is why if NPS feels there needs to be a sign, it really needs to 1) explain the problem and/or 2) suggest a course of action, not babble about something that the person who wrote the sign and the person reading the sign probably doesn’t fully understand. I will candidly acknowledge that I don’t fully understand right-of-way either, but it’s closer to the above than “it means you stop”.) Note that there is sometimes additional language in the code when discussing right of way, like “stop and yield the right of way” or other complexities–but the sign only talked about right of way, and I’m only talking about right of way.

In practical terms, “who has to stop” doesn’t matter–everyone has a responsibility to be safe, and an argument about “who has to stop” only matters if you’re trying to win the internet. And, again, this is why I’m so worked up over this: changing the right of way does not enhance the safety that you say is your goal, it doesn’t clarify who should stop when, it doesn’t change anything in terms of practical pedestrian behavior–all it does is remove liability from the motorist in the event of a collision in a crosswalk. The pedestrian already has a big incentive to behave in a sane manner (beyond the minimum required by law), they could die if they don’t; shouldn’t the motorists also have some kind of incentive to behave in a sane manner (beyond the minimum required by law)?

To head off the “well, this one time there was a guy who ran into a crosswalk without looking” argument–let’s focus on the law as applied to reasonable people exercising due care, and not try to twist it to add additional penalties for people whose behavior we dislike, in disregard of the ramifications for the rest of us.

[mstone]

You’re still misunderstanding what it means to “disregard” traffic in Virginia; the pedestrian has equivalent rights/responsibilities in both jurisdictions. Please review the appropriate precedents.

The easiest way to make a safer crossing is to slow down the cars. If you can’t do that, yeah, you’re going to need a big blinky light. Why is that unreasonable? I fail to see the problem you’re trying to solve, unless your starting position is that cars shouldn’t have to be driven safely and at a reasonable speed.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32263 wrote:

Well, yeah, that’s all I’ve been saying this entire time, including the bolded part. Glad we finally have clarity.

But you seem to think that somehow means the pedestrian can’t enter the crosswalk and take the right of way (which is incorrect). The car has the right of way only because nobody with a superior right is present.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32255 wrote:

Then that means the motorist, at that point, has the ROW.[/quote]

Correct, they have the right of way until the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, then the motorist has a duty to avoid the collision. Perhaps your confusion is that you think “right of way” just means “stop”?

Quote:

It’s not a straw man when I have actually seen people DOING it.

It’s a straw man because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, perhaps because you believe right of way simply means “stop”. You’re arguing against a behavior that nobody is advocating, and in the process dreadfully confusing an unrelated topic.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32249 wrote:

Fine. So tell me – if a pedestrian is standing at a crossing, and waiting to cross, what is the obligation of a car that is approaching at that moment? Must he slow down? Stop? Remember, no pedestrian is in the roadway at that moment. We all agree that the pedestrian can’t jump in front of the car unsafely, and we all agree that the car must avoid a pedestrian who is in the roadway already. But the pedestrian is waiting to cross in this instance.

What is the obligation of the car at that moment?
[/quote]

The motorist has no obligation to do anything. As soon as the pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, the motorist is obliged to act to avoid a collision. The pedestrian has an obligation not to do that stepping in such a way that makes a collision unavoidable, but otherwise has the right of way and can obligate the motorist to act in such a way as to avoid a collision. A sensible motorist will slow down if he sees pedestrians near a crosswalk, just as a sensible pedestrian will allow ample room to make sure the motorist can exercise his duty to avoid the collision.

Quote:

No, it put up a sign that is too simple (as most signs are). I don’t think anyone thinks that this sign gives cars the right not to “exercise care” at a crosswalk.

No, it doesn’t give cars that right because it can’t alter the law; it’s a completely meaningless sign. The question is how it will be misused.

Quote:

I would imagine any such report would cover all sides of the issue, including explaining what we’re discussing here.

Have you ever even seen an anti-bicycling article? The “news reports” are bad enough, without even getting to where the commenters start egging each other on.

Quote:

I see enormous public good in reminding joggers and cyclists that they can’t just run out in front of traffic. And yes, I have seen both do actually do that.

Whether people do that or not has nothing to do with the sign and nothing to do with the doctrine of right of way in a crosswalk. You’re back to waving a straw man that nobody is arguing in favor of.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32247 wrote:

But that doesn’t clarify things.[/quote]

It does unless you’re being obtuse. Are you suggesting that the law should, instead, state that cars must stop if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk in a manner which makes it impossible for the car to stop in time to avoid a collision? (That is the situation the clause you’re arguing about applies to.) The standard is that the car must yield, but the pedestrian cannot force a collision. There’s no fixed law about how close, how fast, etc., the standard is what a reasonable person would consider ample opportunity to avoid the collision, and a jury decides whether that standard was met.

Quote:

I think you meant “doesn’t” right?

Yes, but that still implies that a pedestrian is responsible for yielding. The cars don’t have to stop and wait for a pedestrian to begin to cross.

Yes, I meant “doesn’t”. No, the cars don’t have to stop. Yes, the cars have to slow down, stop, swerve, perform some magic, etc., to avoid colliding with a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Doesn’t matter how they avoid the collision, they just have to do it.

Quote:

The term “right of way” isn’t in the law. So we have to figure it out from what we’ve got.

Are you serious or am I being trolled? The precedents on this aren’t particularly hard to find.

[mstone]

@Certifried 32233 wrote:

Ultimately, it should work out to the same amount of time off

I suppose that’s possible, but I’ve never seen that. Usually the sales pitch is along the lines of “yes, it’s a few less days, but why can’t you see that it’s BETTER!” often at the same time as “oh, and stop rolling days over from year to year”.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32227 wrote:

But I don’t think the law says that about pedestrians. Pedestrians can step out in front of a car so fast that were this the law, it would require all cars to pass by all pedestrians – even those not yet in the road – at less than 5 miles per hour or so, because at any higher speed, the car couldn’t avoid hitting the pedestrian. That makes no sense.[/quote]

Yes OF COURSE the cars should slow down and exercise care if they see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk, rather than hitting the gas and barreling through. That’s the entire point of the crosswalk. If your interpretation were actually correct, we wouldn’t have crosswalks, we’d just tell pedestrians to huddle on the curbs until no cars were anywhere in sight, then scurry across before a superior road user like a car comes in sight again. Instead, we paint all these big lines on the road and put up signs telling cars that pedestrians are crossing, so they SLOW DOWN and EXERCISE DUE CAUTION. The car doesn’t have to stop, it can also slow down or otherwise avoid a collision. But yes, if you don’t slow down and exercise due caution and hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk (where they have the right of way) you’d better be able to convince a jury that the pedestrian left you no possibility of avoiding that collision.

Quote:

But it’s really a moot point anyway because NPS put stop signs at the crossing to control pedestrians. I would think they can do that, and that this overrules all the other laws.

You’d be wrong; stop signs do not apply to pedestrians on a sidewalk. Please stop randomly speculating on what you think the law should be.

More fundamentally, I think you don’t understand what “right of way” means. It has nothing to do with who has permission to jump out in front of someone else. What it does is establish liability in a collision. If a pedestrian is struck on a roadway where they do not have right-of-way, as a matter of law the driver is not liable. If a pedestrian is struck at a crosswalk where they do have right-of-way, a jury has to determine the very subjective question of whether the pedestrian acted in such a way as to make the collision unavoidable, and (if not) the driver is liable. THAT IS IT, THAT’S ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY DOES. This ridiculous, continuing, strawman argument over jumping in front of cars is pointless, because you are arguing against a point nobody is making. The entire question here is whether motorists should have potential liability for hitting a pedestrian in that crosswalk. (Not “will they be liable”, but “may they be liable”–it would be up to a jury to determine the extent of liability.) NPS (and, apparently, some posters) feel that the public interest is best served in absolving motorists of any responsibility to exercise care at the crosswalk, by removing the pedestrian right of way. I think that is incredibly detrimental to the public good, and that there must be a deterrent effect by clearly communicating to motorists that are legally liable if they run over a pedestrian in the crosswalk in an avoidable collision. My fear is that this stupid, pointless, illegal sign will be covered by the examiner or fox news or some other such outlet, and motorists will think to themselves, “I’m just gonna floor it and barrel through there, because I have the right of way anyway, and those darn pedestrians shouldn’t be there and it’s their own fault if they get run over”. If you can explain any public good that comes from that sign, versus one that communicates actual information and suggests a course of action (like “high-speed crossing, assure increased distance from oncoming cars”) I would love to hear it.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32228 wrote:

What do you think it means?

We all agree, I think, that pedestrians don’t have the right to jump out in front of cars and cause them to slam on the brakes. The question is, and I’m not 100% sure I know the answer – are cars required to stop when they see a pedestrian waiting to cross, who hasn’t yet begun to cross?

It means, quite simply, that cars are required to yield, but pedestrians are not supposed to create a situation in which the car cannot possibly yield in time to prevent an collision. It doesn’t prevent a pedestrian from leaving the curb if there is plenty of time for the motorist to avoid a collision by slowing down or stopping, regardless of whether that inconveniences the motorist.

But, for some reason, some people keep quoting the part about disregard, creating a straw man about jumping in front of cars, and using that whole artificial structure to claim that the pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk does not exist. That confuses and astounds me.

[mstone]

I’d suggest braking more on the front and less on the rear.

I’ve been happy with the Continental Contacts (not the Top Contact or Travel Contact or Sport Contact, etc. — their naming system is terrible). About 2.5k on them so far, some tread wear in the back but not near replacement levels.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 32208 wrote:

Doesn’t your work have a “no heroes” policy? My old boss used to say “there are no heroes here, if you’re sick, stay home.” Hope you feel better soon. The weather has been awesome.

Most places have eliminated sick time, so people are sometimes faced with the choice of dragging themselves in or cancelling vacation time with their family, etc. So on the one hand employees are told, “it’s important not to come in while sick”, while on the other they’re told “but not important enough for us to pay for it”.

[Author]

Posts