[Steve]

@rcannon100 45099 wrote:

Shall we just keep repeating the same arguments so that you can continue to defend the car-oriented NPS shoving biking into an unsafe navigation?

I suppose.

But seriously, I’m not saying that the trail is good. I’m just saying that I think we are making too big of a deal out of a minor inconvenience. Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve never seen a wreck on the trail there. My guess is that we won’t see a huge uptick in crash data there as a result of the barriers. The tree is in a bad spot, but bikes can easily see cars heading south in the lot while they are riding up the trail (prior to the first right turn), and so they don’t exactly come out of nowhere. First you tell me that no cars are ever there, but then you tell me that we’re all gonna get mowed over by cars coming thru the crossing.

I just think that this isn’t the most dangerous place in the BikeDC area. That’s all. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fixed.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 45114 wrote:

FWIW, I pass by a zebra-striped crosswalk across VA Ave (near 22nd NW) every day. Even if there is a line of cars, peds step out onto the asphalt, and generally the third car back (if there’s a line, with the first being right at/on top of the crosswalk) slows to a stop to let the ped cross. The ped doesn’t have to break stride. That’s how I’d expect zebra stripe crosswalks to work.

My daily crossings (3) are the GWP. I’m not stepping out until either a car stops or there is a big enough break that I think an oncoming car can see me and slow. A lot of our disagreement probably starts there. My crossings are generally cars that are flying (we can save speeding issues on the GWP for another thread), and so maybe that’s why I think it’s hard in traffic to see me and stop, and why I usually wait for big breaks to cross.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 45097 wrote:

I’ve spent a lot of time in Europe (mostly UK and Germany) where the law, at least for zebra-striped crossings, is that cars MUST stop for pedestrians.

Those silly Europeans! They enforce a lot that we don’t. You know the one in Germany that I found most odd, was that folks go ballistic if someone crosses a road when they don’t have the cross signal. And this was while studying in Augsburg (not a very big city) and being on some fairly rural roads with really long sightlines. I get it in the city, but crossing one lane of rural traffic…. they wouldn’t have it! And don’t get me wrong, I love Germany, that one just always made me laugh.

Back to the topic at hand. Dasgeh, I don’t disagree with you that people *should* stop when peds are waiting on the side of a crosswalk. I even think in many cases, it’s fairly easy to spot them and stop in time. However, I do not believe the law requires this in most cases. Perhaps we just interpret it differently. I think by the law, a driver must yeild to someone crossing, not someone waiting to cross. The ped has the duty to cross only when sufficient time exists. Therefore, when a reasonable crossing can occur, a ped can enter the crosswalk. If a car approaches the crosswalk with a ped in it, they must yield. Now the question is, “when is there enough time, when can the ped enter the crosswalk?”

VA is a contributary negligence state, I believe. As a result, I think the law would not favor the ped in most accidents caused in the crosswalk. The ped would have to demonstrate that they began the crossing with plenty of room for an approaching car to see them (which probably means you can’t be hidden by others cars in a line of traffic), that they were in the crosswalk, and the car didn’t yield. If you can’t prove all of that, my guess is you would at least be found to have had some contribution in the accident and would not win a suit.

I’m glad we’re having this discussion. It’s interesting to see how we approach the laws a little differently. I don’t like the law the way it is written, as I think more right-of-way should be given to peds, in a VERY clear manner. And not being very good at knowing the ins and outs of the legal system much, I appreciate the information you’ve provided.

[Steve]

@rcannon100 45079 wrote:

Parking Lot. Today AM. Devoid of cars.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2472[/ATTACH]

Trail looks devoid of bikes too, so it’s probably not that dangerous either.

[Steve]

my whole mood just improved.

[Steve]

@DaveK 44924 wrote:

You: this thread
Me: wondering where you’ve gone

Fair enough. Sorry. Back to the thread….

You: crosswalk lying down across gw pkwy
Me: happy cyclist guy waiting to cross

I’m not sure who’s in charge of you or when I can come play out there, but you sure are a good friend. I like your new high viz signs and rumble strips too! Maybe someday they’ll give you a red light to hold.

But seriously, to the little bunny rabbit that hopped in front of me this morning, sorry for my girlish yell. You scared me. And why were you heading to Rt. 50? 50 is no place for a bunny rabbit to go play, especially if you’re not wearing a helmet.

[Steve]

@baiskeli 44912 wrote:

I agree, and I think Steve probably does too. You don’t have to wait until a car would experience absolutely no inconvenience, just until it’s safe for a car to slow or stop for you if necessary. On the GW, though, that means giving plenty of room.

I stand by my position that in a steady stream of cars, the cars are not required to stop at the crosswalk. I’m not saying they never do (I almost always do when driving), but I do not think they are required to. “Crossing” to me means in the crosswalk, not next to it. I believe you must wait until there is sufficient room and sightlines to enter a crosswalk, ones that would allow a car to clearly see that you are in the crosswalk and slow to yield. If there is a steady stream of cars, you would never be able to safely enter the crosswalk to begin the process. That is of course unless a car slows enough for you to enter, which often happens.

I’m aware that the crossings are in DC, gotta love the confusion that that creates! Curious if you happen to know the answer, but do the road laws fall under NPS juristiction, or DC? If so, who’s traffic laws apply? Federal or DC? Just curious on that one.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 44900 wrote:

In Virginia, the car driver’s duty is not fuzzy: it’s clearly to yield the right of way to pedestrians “crossing” at a crosswalk. There is a separate responsibility on pedestrians to not cross “in disregard” of traffic. That is pretty fuzzy, but I don’t see how, given the car driver’s clear duty, that requires waiting until no cars are coming.

In the District, the law says something like car drivers must STOP at crosswalks. No responsibility of pedestrians.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that “crossing” mean’t physically in the crosswalk. So if a car approaches a crosswalk in which a pedestrian is already present, the car must yield. That part is clear. However, a pedestrian cannot cross in disregard of traffic. Meaning that a pedestrian cannot enter the crosswalk until there is ample clearing. So, if a line of moving traffic is going thru a crosswalk, with no breaks in traffic, even if a pedestrian is waiting to enter the crosswalk, the cars do not have to stop and allow the crossing. They only have to yield if the pedestrian is already present in the crosswalk.

The place I see this in practice the most is GW Pkwy crossings. I believe that as long as traffic is a steady stream, a car does not have to stop if I am waiting to enter the crosswalk. A car must only stop and yield if I begin crossing at a reasonable clearing and am already present as it approaches.

[Steve]

@baiskeli 44894 wrote:

I had the right-of-way when the incident I’m referring to occurred this morning, when I was already more than halfway into the crosswalk.

(My post was a very brief missed connection).

I figured that. I wasn’t trying to correct you. More just I saw it as a green light complain about the stupid stop sign law.

[Steve]

@DismalScientist 44877 wrote:

Actually, people crossing the crosswalk only need to wait to enter the crosswalk until it is clear and safe (i.e. no approaching traffic [due regard standard, whatever that means]). They don’t necessarily need to stop. This is why the stop signs on trails are annoying and likely unenforceable, except in Loudon in the near future.

Yea, my bad. I didn’t mean to use the term stop there. I meant it only if cars are coming thru. I was trying to highlight that the crosswalk itself does not give right-of-way, that the person entering it has the duty to ensure it is a safe crossing. The law seems to favor the car in that if both a bike/ped and a car are getting to the crosswalk around the same time, the car has the right-of-way.

I also totally argree that the fuzzyness of the definition of when you have enough space/clearing to cross makes it tough.

[Steve]

@baiskeli 44862 wrote:

Hey, I’ve got the right-of-way when I’m using a crosswalk and you’re in a car, buddy.

Not necessarily. You don’t have the right-of-way until you are in the crosswalk, and only if you enter the crosswalk when there is ample time for the car to slow. This is why the stop sign law that was just passed (I realize local government still have to pass it for it to be active) is so useless. People crossing the crosswalk already have to stop and wait to enter the crosswalk until it is clear and safe.

[Steve]

@brownnugen 44836 wrote:

Well, I think we’ve found a place over in Belle Haven. Provided there are no show stoppers on the home inspection, it will be our home for at least the next 4 years. I think my bike commute will only be about 11 miles and it appears access to the MVT and WW bridge will be very easy, without having to cross any major roads.

Does anyone on here live in that area?

Plus there’s a great bike shop right there, Spokes Etc.

One thing to note, which I believe has been discussed a bit thru this thread, is that crossing the WW bridge likely does not do much for you in terms of a commute. From the bridge to St. E’s doesn’t provide you with a lot of great options. What most people do is ride the MVT up to 14th St. Bridge, Come down Water or M St., and cross the South Capitol St. Bridge. It adds a few miles, but provides a much better ride.

[Steve]

Some great inputs here. I like the learning I get to do on the forum. Two side things I thought about were 1) roads are not just paved to handle cars, they have to handle trucks, semis and other larger machinery that probably require it to handle heavier loads than just cars (though as demonstrated today, the trails have to handle some trucks too). My guess is if only cars were on roads, they would not require quite as much pavement and gravel, though I don’t know for sure. And 2) cars have a higher person-per-vehice count that bikes. I’m not sure what it is exactly, I thought I remembered it being like 1.2 persons per car (amazingly low), but I could be wrong on that. Buses certainly have a higher person-per count as road users. Not sure how this would impact your numbers, but its something to think about as most bikes are only one person per bike.

[Steve]

It made me happy that they emailed back to say thanks. At least you know someone is at least looking at the email.

[Steve]

I can’t imagine how confused strava was on my commute home. Did he walk to his bike, ride for a bit, and then walk up the w&od? On Water St, by the Wharf, I pedaled all the way thru a stop sign but I’m still not sure if I technically ran it. That slow.

[Author]

Posts