[StopMeansStop]

@Dirt 6190 wrote:

Bikeman has Lake winter cycling boots on sale.

Link please…. I rode out to Vienna at noon today and kept thinking that this want so bad. As long as I kept moving. Having frozen feet is FAR worse than this heat.

[StopMeansStop]

True, but a driver is not required to stop for waiting pedestrians unless signage to that effect is in place, as the code you cited clearly states. I’m not saying none exists, but I’ve never seen any signs to that effect in VA.

[StopMeansStop]

@Jsnyd 6105 wrote:

I passed that this morning, haha. It gave me a cheesy grin for a second. There was a small group who stopped to look.

You made it that far out in this heat? Wow!

[StopMeansStop]

@ronwalf 6109 wrote:

You are presenting a false dichotomy: If you see a pedestrian at a crosswalk, waiting to cross, you should come to a controlled stop. Fortunately for you, since no one seems to acknowledge this law, Virginia has seen fit to provide penalties only when there are explicit reminders (46.2-924C).

Also, considering how many deer there are around here, you should always be prepared for the person in front of you to stop.

It’s not a fallacy, I addressed section C already.

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?964-Stop-signs-at-crosswalks-Do-you-yield-to-cars&p=6024#post6024

[StopMeansStop]

@CCrew 6106 wrote:

I consider it “being considerate”. A trait that’s lost on a lot of people. Necessary? No. illegal? Arguable. Showing some consideration for a fellow human being regardless of how misguided? Definitely!

If it were my child on a bike trying to cross the street I’d personally appreciate someone putting two tons of steel in the way of the next person that comes along thinking that trying to be considerate is “boneheaded”

Please note that my comments were aimed at the GW situation. While I appreciate the courtesy that drivers show in this situation, it is completely misguided. Some innocent woman died a gruesome death. I’d love for those crossings to be fixed somehow. Short of installing traffic lights I don’t see a solution.

[StopMeansStop]

Speeding and tailgating is certainly boneheaded. But so is coming to a sudden stop on a 2 lane highway for people WAITING to cross. That is not the law.

[StopMeansStop]

@txgoonie

As you can tell there is a difference of opinion about this. My advice on the GW is to not stop for people waiting to cross, and be prepared for someone else to pull a bonehead move and slam on their brakes.

[StopMeansStop]

That jogger ran the light!!!!!

[StopMeansStop]

I’m pusher…

[IMG]http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UX8Q5bp1TW4/TicFCMf33AI/AAAAAAAAAL0/XGFCpujGTkM/s1024/IMAGE_1000000029.JPG[/IMG]

[StopMeansStop]

@napes 6044 wrote:

The law, by the way, talks about “at” crosswalks, not “in” crosswalks.

“Crosswalk” means 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; or any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

By definition, a crosswalk is part of the roadway. You are either in the crosswalk or you’re not.

@napes 6044 wrote:

The main reason there are stop signs on trails when they cross intersections is to slow down the bicycle traffic enough to give the car drivers enough safe time to yield to them.

INAL, but that is drawing an inference as to the intent of the law. One could easily suggest that stop signs are at crossings to help prevent users from “entering without disregard” and ensure safety.

“The duty of a motor vehicle driver on approaching an intersection is to keep a vigilant lookout for pedestrians between curbs on the traveled portion of the highway, and when pedestrians are negotiating the crossing, or about to step from the side into traffic lanes, to operate his car at such speed and under such control that he can readily turn one way or the other, and, if necessary, bring his machine to a stop in time to avoid injury to pedestrians.”

Absolutely!! When you’re driving a two ton bullet (ok, 1.5 tons nowadays) you should always be in control of your car and aware of the situation and react accordingly. Just because a car may have right-of-way does not negate their responsibility to be prepared to stop!

As a cyclist, I’m very appreciate to drivers who yield and give them a nice thank-you wave. As a driver I will yield if I think it doesn’t create an unsafe situation for the pedestrians.

But just because the driver has a duty to be vigilant does not mean that drivers are required to yield right of way to pedestrians outside a crosswalk unless there is signage requiring the driver to do so. There seems to be a mindset for some that cars always have to yield to pedestrians waiting to cross, which is just not true.

@PC — The GW accident was horrible. IIRC the jogger that was killed (not a cyclist) wasn’t even crossing and was several feet outside of the crosswalk. The fault lies with both of the drivers, the one stopping suddenly and the one who lost control.

[StopMeansStop]

Nice. The start is actually in Shrlington. Try and park there and when you finish your ride, get a half smoke from the Weenie Beenie. Puts Bens to shame.

[StopMeansStop]

theaskton (welcome to the board!)

I never saw section C, however the pedestrians still have to obey the stop signs on trails, which still requires them to yield right of way.

With regards to crosswalks in NOVA as you mentioned above, Arlington has quite a few of these signs already which say something like “yield to pedestrians within crosswalk”. I’ve never seen one saying “yield to pedestrians attempting to cross”. Maybe they exist. But it sounds like the county has the authority to post such signs if they wish.

[StopMeansStop]

Mark

Nice post. An interesting aside: Did you know that all legally enforceable signs in Virginia that are erected by the various governments are supposed to have a sticker on the back of them? I forgot what it says, but it is a little white sticker indicating it is backed by Virginia code. This is to differentiate these official signs from ones that are installed by others. A cop told me this, but don’t like to advertise this for some reason.

[StopMeansStop]

@CCrew 6005 wrote:

Err, no. Because other factors come into play. Maintaining a safe following distance for the cars is one.

About the only way to escape responsibility for a rear end collision is to be the middle car in a sandwich where the impact from the rear car drives you into the car in front.

I can slam the brakes for a bunny in the road and if the car behind me hits me they’ll get the ticket. By your description that wouldn’t be the case. Think about it. A kid rides their bike out of the driveway into the street, and you slam the brakes and the car behind you hits you. By your description it’s your fault. I don’t think that’s gonna fly.

But in the examples you point out, there was a valid reason for the lead car to come to a sudden stop. There was an obstacle in the road. In my example there was no valid reason for the lead driver to stop.

Also, in the sandwich situation you describe, only the lead driver is possibly not at fault. The middle driver failed to maintain a safe distance. I read about this after one of those massive fogout accidents.

[StopMeansStop]

Americancyclo

I’m not trying to start an argument, so I hope this doesn’t come out sounding that way. However….

The NVRPA Stop signs (at least the ones in Shirlington) say they are “required by law” so I’m assuming that there is some code behind them and thus enforcable

@americancyclo 5997 wrote:

§ 46.2-924
A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

Pedestrian code is fairly uniform across the states. The general interpretation is “crossing” means that a pedestrian is already inside the intersection. Whether walking, riding or doing cartwheels as long as a pedestrain is touching the intersection then they are defined to be crossing. And the logic for this reasoning is a pedestrians intent is subjective. They could just be standing there enjoying the sunshine. There is no way for a driver to be certain of the pedestrians intent. However touching the intersection is very objective. Either they are, or they aren’t.

If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is inside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver B is at fault.
If driver A yields to a pedestrian that is outside an intersection, and the driver is rear-ended by driver B for coming to a sudden stop, then driver A is at fault.

[Author]

Posts