[mstone]

@eminva 32178 wrote:

The station attendant did not know about the new policy, so I showed her the announcement on Metro’s website on my smart phone. She thanked me and asked if I could print a copy for her and bring it to her at my convenience.

It sounds like a positive interaction, but WMATA’s organizational challenges are mind-boggling.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32158 wrote:

It’s right there, in the part where it says a pedestrian can’t cross in disregard of traffic.

You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

It’s like when MPD tickets lone cyclists for “riding abreast”.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 32121 wrote:

Why do you assume that? Perhaps the car was going the speed limit and someone used terrible judgement and jumped out in front of them.[/quote]

Because most of the incidents have involved things like one car speeding around another car stopped at the crossing. And because NPS refuses to enforce the speed limit.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32105 wrote:

I ask again, if regulatory signs on an MUP don’t carry any weight, how should the crossing be designed?

With a signal. The only reason this is any issue at all is that NPS refuses to put one in.

Beyond that, I’ve long given up on understanding what your point is. You seem to be arguing very passionately that people shouldn’t jump in front of cars. No duh; thank you Captain Obvious. Now, what about people who think they’re clear but misjudged? Should cars be slowing down when they see pedestrians, or assuming that NPS won’t hold them responsible for hitting the gas and plowing on through? The people who have been killed weren’t trying to die by intentionally jumping in front of cars, and the accidents would have been avoidable if the cars had been operated in a more responsible manner. I really don’t get why you’re arguing in favor of promulgating a policy that attempts to absolve motorists of any responsibility for driving in a manner appropriate for the conditions, which include a crosswalk that one should expect to be populated.

[mstone]

@Certifried 32101 wrote:

Not to inject any reality or anything foolish like that, but all the stop signs in the world aren’t going to save your life if you decide to cross and expect that distracted driver to not kill you. Signs or not, I never assume I’m going to win the right of way from a driver that’s obvious to the world around them, and your chances of coming across one of those is pretty damn high these days.

I know you’re all discussing the legal statutes and wording and all that neat stuff, but I hope no one loses sight of how to not get smashed to pieces.

As already stated, people should take care of their own safety. But unless you’re interested only in yourself, you should have an interest in making sure that motorists accept their role in ensuring the safety of other, more vulnerable, road users. An important part of that is ensuring that those motorists understand that society expects them to slow down and be cautious around crosswalks. In no case should we simply accept that cars should blow through crosswalks without worrying about the consequences. I’d like to think that they’d be concerned about the consequence of killing someone, but I’m willing to settle for them being afraid of loading money or going to jail. So the reality is that I get really pissed when people downplay the role of the motorist and pin all the responsibility on everyone but the motorist. Nobody can be perfect in dodging cars all the time, and one mistake shouldn’t guarantee death. I hope nobody looses sight of the fact that this discussion isn’t all that abstract.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32090 wrote:

My opinion is that that statute is dangerously worded. What is the standard for “impossible” to yield? In whose opinion? What are we to assume of the driver’s reaction time, condition of car, etc?

I prefer Virginia’s language: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.”

Why do you consider Virginia’s any clearer? You can ask the very same questions, just replace “impossible to yield” with “regard”. In Virginia, I can look around, see (regard) that the car has enough room to stop, and legally cross the street. The car is required to stop for me. In practice I’m not going to get in front of the car until I’m sure he’s stopping, but that’s immaterial.

In both cases the language is there so that a judge can find that the driver is not liable because the pedestrian did something stupid and/or deliberate. It’s unfortunate that so many people consider that crossing the road as a pedestrian is inherently stupid because they should be in a car instead.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 32073 wrote:

Were NPS to put up a sign that said something to the effect of “Caution: oncoming traffic may be traveling at high speeds”, I wouldn’t object. If a pedestrian or cyclist asks me how they should act at that crosswalk, I’d say to be VERY cautious — legal right of way doesn’t physically protect you from drivers disobeying the law. But, as I understand the law, once a persons foot/wheel is in that crosswalk, any driver driving through the crosswalk is breaking the law. Official signs erected by federal agencies should not state otherwise.

Exactly. It’s a dangerous intersection, and additional warnings may be appropriate. But the law is very clear, and this sign gets it wrong. The sign also doesn’t help warn at all to alert people to the dangers (it says something about right of way, which nobody would understand even if it were true, rather than saying something like “cars here go really fast and the drivers are jerks who are texting instead of watching the road”). Note that it’s yellow rather than white, so it’s not even trying to claim that it’s enforceable/regulatory. As others have said, it seems like it’s there solely to muddy the waters in a liability claim after failing to do anything to prevent an accident.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32083 wrote:

I’ve already stated that a signal is the best alternative, but it just won’t happen.[/quote]

Then their only other option is to lobby for a change to the governing legislation. You asked the question, you don’t like the answer. NPS has no other legal options, but they can make life worse by posting non-enforceable signage that confuses what are really quite simple rules.

Quote:

There are dozens of crossings of MUPs and roads. Do they all need signals?

No, they don’t–cars could start slowing down You act as though that is, for some reason, beyond the pale. I drive a lot, yet I somehow don’t have trouble with this.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32077 wrote:

I stated that I could not cite a specific law, not that I did not know it. Right of way is more than a legal concept; it’s necessary to maintain traffic flow.

But you’re dangerously rewording the statute here. The statute doesn’t say “pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk except when, in the opinion of the motorist, it would interfere with ‘traffic flow'”.

Here’s DDOTs handy quick-reference guide:

http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/On%20Your%20Street/Bicycles%20and%20Pedestrians/bike-ped_traffic_reg_summary.pdf

“Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

Note that it doesn’t mention a pedestrian duty to ensure “traffic flow” (because there is no such thing).

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32078 wrote:

Fine, how would you design a crossing between a MUP and a road where road traffic would have the priority?

As pointed out above, you make it a signal-controlled crossing. You seem not to want to hear what other people are saying.

All this ridiculous hand-wringing about pedestrian safety boils down to a simple concept: do cars sometimes have to go slower than their drivers might prefer, or not. The law says that sometimes cars need to slow down, but much popular culture says no. I think that’s a particularly dangerous part of the culture and (despite what its members think) not universal. Obviously pedestrians need to protect their own safety, and nobody is claiming otherwise, but motorists absolutely should not just get a pass on driving like maniacs through crosswalks.

[mstone]

@txgoonie 32050 wrote:

I don’t think you can blame rear-end collisions completely on driver inattention there.

Baloney. As a driver I need to be aware that I could need to stop at any time, and set a speed a following distance that is appropriate. I have very little tolerance of this, because I have been rear-ended several times when a car ahead of me stops, I stop, and the guy behind me is an inattentive idiot. (e.g., the guy who got out of his car covered with the beverage he’d been drinking from instead of watching the road.) Unfortunately, the police/courts in this area do not sufficiently enforce the laws and have encouraged a care-free attitude of inattentive driving.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32056 wrote:

I, as the cyclist, have a stop sign and a redundant little yellow sign. I yield the right of way.

I am not the one muddying the waters on who has the right of way.

please quote the section of code regarding stop signs

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32042 wrote:

Well, I find it incredibly rude for a line of cars to not let me cross a busy rural road when I have a stop sign whether I am driving, on a bike or a pedestrian. Well, sometime life just sucks…[/quote]

Luckily one of us has the law on his side, and the other only has an illegal yellow sign.

Quote:

The location is a glorified freeway. When traffic is traveling at speed, cars stopping for people to cross have caused numerous rear end collisions at this location.

Right. NPS needs to slow down the traffic. They’re not going to do that, so the rear end collisions will continue to happen. Muddying the waters about who has the right of way will not fix that problem, only slowing the traffic and enforcing the law (in regard to speed limits, following distances, distracted driving, etc) will correct that problem. I am always happier to hear that there was a rear-end collision (which should increase the insurance bill for the idiot who wasn’t paying attention and rear ended someone, even if the police don’t bother responding) rather than hearing that the idiot who wasn’t paying attention killed someone. For those who have been rear-ended by the idiots: thank you for helping to save a life.

Quote:

If there is stop and go traffic at the time you want to cross, just establish eye contact and drivers will likely let you cross.

So, basically, they’re following the law, and you should ignore the pointless yellow sign and exercise your right of way, instead of waiting on the curb for an occasion when there are no cars within sight.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 32032 wrote:

I am to take from this is it is possible for an approaching car to stop safely that a pedestrian/bicyclist can cross? I find this not only rude, but incredibly stupid. I would only cross if I could without causing a car to slow down. I would never trust a driver, cyclist or pedestrian not to be oblivious if I didn’t have to.

Well, I think it would be incredibly rude for a line of cars to make a pedestrian wait indefinitely, when it would only take a small movement of the driver’s foot to allow the crossing. Which is why I seem to have no problem yielding to pedestrians when I’m driving. I guess you have other priorities? Note that NPS could make this a signal controlled crossing, which would actually remove the right if way from pedestrians at certain times, but for some reason they seem to not want to admit that a car should slow down, ever.

And of course you don’t step in front of a car that’s not slowing down/stopping as they should to yield to the pedestrian.

[mstone]

The car does not have the right of way. The pedestrian has a duty not to begin crossing if it is impossible for the car to stop safely. That does not mean the car should speed up to intimidate the pedestrian into standing still. I don’t understand why motorists don’t get that.

[Author]

Posts