Sunday, October 14, 2012
 

The continuing saga of Stop signs on the W&OD Trail

In today's Washington Post there is a letter from our friend Rhonda Krafchin to Dr. Gridlock about motorists who stop abruptly for cyclists on the W&OD Trail. Her concern is: "If I’m obeying my stop sign, I may have a driver to my right come to an unsigned stop. Before I proceed, I need to be clear what a driver to my left is doing, and that driver may not be stopping." That's why I always recommend that cyclists proceed through a crosswalk "one lane at a time." Once you're sure you've controlled that lane, proceed to the next one.

However, I appreciate motorists who stop to allow me to cross at a crosswalk. For one thing, once I"m in the crosswalk they are required by law to yield. The Stop signs just confuse the issue. The discussion about the W&OD Trail Stop signs has a long history and won't be resolved soon. We wrote the following letter to Dr. Gridlock regarding the situation:
Dear Dr. Gridlock,

You summed up the situation in the first line of your comment on the letter from Rhonda Krafchin in Sunday's Post: "Thus, we continue our conversation about who’s supposed to do what at crossings and when they’re supposed to do it." While I understand Rhonda's concerns, I also appreciate motorists stopping for pedestrians and bicyclists at crosswalks. 


The stops signs on the W&OD Trail adjacent to crosswalks are a contradiction. Normally a stop sign indicates a road user must wait until traffic clears before entering the intersection. From 46.2-821: "Before proceeding, he shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction." A pedestrian (and bicyclist) has the right-of-way in a crosswalk once they've entered the crosswalk. From 46.2-924, "A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway: 1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;" Trail users can't disregard oncoming traffic before entering the crosswalk, but they aren't required to stop if there is no crossing traffic.

VDOT recently conducted a study of the zig-zag markings adjacent to crossings on the W&OD trail. As part of their study they recognized this contradiction: "RECOMMENDATION 5. A review of the Code of Virginia should be undertaken with respect to those sections dealing with trail users on multiuse pathways and their obligation to comply with non-signalized traffic control devices. The purpose of the review should be to determine if legislative changes could help alleviate the confusion about right-of-way, and if so, to suggest appropriate legislative change proposals. Such a review could be initiated, or led, by VDOT’s Traffic Engineering Division with assistance from staff at VTRC. A cursory review of the Code language in this study suggested that trail users on multiuse pathways may not be obligated to comply with non-signalized traffic control devices where the trail intersects a roadway. In addition, the research found there is confusion among motorists and trail users about right-of-way laws regarding the W&OD Trail where a STOP sign is directed toward the trail users. This confusion could compromise safety at these and other similar multiuse trail/roadway intersections."

A major problem with the W&OD Trail stop signs is that police have used them as an excuse to target cyclists for not coming to a complete stop, even when there is no crossing traffic. However, in at least one instance, a cyclist was ticketed by police who used 46.2-821 as the reason. That ticket was dismissed since a trail is not a "highway."

Bruce

Labels: , , ,

Comments:
Some questions don't have a right answer. Consider the last sentence of your second paragraph to Dr. Gridlock, which relates to [what I believe is] the key language from § 46.2-924: "No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic."

Just because a pedestrian (or cyclist) in a crosswalk has the right of way doesn't make it okay for a pedestrian (or cyclist) to enter the crosswalk and claim the right of way.

Lawyers tend to be particular about choice of words. "Disregard", in this case, centers around the courtesy that trail and road users should have for others on an ongoing basis. Whether or not any other trail or road user will extend you the same courtesy you extend them is a crap shoot. I remember when Red Jenkins taught his class that you only have the right of way when someone else gives it to you.

As with many other scenarios we find on two wheels, I approach each one on a case by case basis with the primary goal of making it home safely.
 

Post a Comment

Contact FABB via email: info@fabb-bikes.org

Subscribe to the
FABB e-newsletter


Subscribe to posts:
[Atom 1.0] or [RSS 2.0]





  Bike to Work Day 2015 at Wiehle Station

  Transportation choices

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Archives

  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007