Friday, October 7, 2016
Comments on Crosswalks
We received the following from John Hoopes, a long time FABB member who has had numerous interactions with motorists at crosswalks. He has done some research and we thought it would be good to post the info on the FABB blog for your reading interest and for future reference. We especially liked the quote toward the bottom from a 1919 VA Supreme Court decision:
"The pedestrian and the automobile have equal rights upon the highway, but their capacity for inflicting injury is vastly disproportioned. It follows also from this that the driver of an automobile cannot be said to be using the highway within his rights, or to be in the exercise of due care, if he takes advantage of the force, weight, and power of his machine as a means of compelling pedestrians to yield to his machine superior rights upon the public highway designed for the use of all members of the public upon equal terms."
From John:
From John:
For a driver who has not completely forgotten high school driver’s education, a crosswalk SHOULD be all he needs to see to know that he has to yield or stop for a pedestrian or bicyclist at that crosswalk. Virginia Code and Virginia court decisions for the last 80 years firmly support pedestrians and bicycle riders’ priority “at” crosswalks.
Certainly a wishful driver may prefer that motorized vehicles had precedence over an individual wanting to cross at an crosswalk without a signal, but such a driver is being a bully and using sheet metal to intimidate, and probably acts knowing that there are few tickets handed out to those who ignore crosswalks, and perhaps knowing that a pedestrian has limited legal recourse if that pedestrian hazards himself by being hit at all.
Pedestrians gave up some rights to use the road, so drivers could go faster between crosswalks and intersections. In exchange for letting drivers go faster, pedestrians received priority at crosswalks. There was a massive social/legal shift in driving rules of the road in the 1920's and 1930's as speeding cars killed thousands of pedestrians, mostly children. Peter Norton's book Fighting Traffic has an interesting review of the many changes in how Americans came to view the streets.
A driver sees STOP signs on side roads and reasonably expects cars there are going to remain stopped and not enter the intersection ahead of the driver on the priority road. But wait, you are in a car approaching a trail and there’s a crosswalk painted on the roadway and a stop sign facing the trail users. Who has right of way? If you are not quite sure, you are far from alone.
One VDOT survey reported vast uncertainty on who has right of way at WO&D style crossings. Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.” (pg 61 of Best Practices in Traffic Operations and Safety: Phase II: Zig-zag Pavement Markings) Those numbers are almost unbelievable, but in light of Northern Virginia crosswalk experiences, those numbers may reflect the chasm of misunderstanding and lack of law enforcement support.
Who has right of way? Generally the pedestrian/bicycle rider has right-of-way at crosswalks, but the law also imposes a major responsibility on the crosswalk user not to hazard himself by entering in front of traffic too close to stop. Since Virginia is a contributory negligence state, if a pedestrian is hit, she may have real problems collecting civil damages in proving that she followed that part of the law. To repeat, a pedestrian in the hospital with severe injuries MAY have to pay for all her own medical expenses if she is hit, and the driver may have to pay for a new fender.
In one Fairfax County crash (Russ v. Destival) referred to the Virginia Supreme Court in 2004, the jury essentially decided in favor of a driver who did not see a bicyclist in a sidepath along Braddock Road and eased his car out into the crosswalk, hitting and injuring the bicyclist who was proceeding through the crosswalk without having fully ascertained the driver had actually yielded the right of way to him. The jury determined the bicyclist acted with some degree of negligence in his crossing at the unsignalized crosswalk. As the court described it, “The right to proceed is to be tested by whether a person of ordinary prudence would attempt it.” Peers on the jury are car drivers.
Virginia Code §46.2-924 specifically uses the phrase “at a crosswalk,” in other words the area where the pedestrian is waiting to cross, and not just the striped portion in the roadway.
Traffic lights or police direction indicate right-of-way at many intersections. If there is no signal, Virginia Code §46.2-924 instructs “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;
2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;
3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.”
A bicycle rider at a crosswalk can walk his bicycle across OR he can ride it across. In Virginia Code §46.2-904 “A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.” So to recap: bicyclists are treated as pedestrians when on a trail.
At a crosswalk Virginia courts have held “the pedestrian has a superior right — that is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles — and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.” (Marshall v. Shaw. Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
“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.” (Sawyer v. Blankenship, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
“At intersecting streets where there are neither traffic lights nor traffic officers, the pedestrian has a superior right — that is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles — and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.” (Lucas v. Craft, Virginia Supreme Court, 1933)
Social norms prevent someone pushing their shopping cart in front of a frail older lady in a grocery checkout line, in full knowledge that if she fell she would possibly break bones. Current driving social norms do seem to permit a driver to bully that same pedestrian at a crosswalk. Calling motorists bullies is nothing new. Questions of who had right of way and right to use the streets and highways were only a little easier when everything moved at a walking pace. The next quotation is now only of historical interest, before pedestrians were pushed from the streets in exchange for priority at regularized crossings like crosswalks, but a 1919 Virginia Supreme Court ruling held:
“The pedestrian and the automobile have equal rights upon the highway, but their capacity for inflicting injury is vastly disproportioned. It follows also from this that the driver of an automobile cannot be said to be using the highway within his rights, or to be in the exercise of due care, if he takes advantage of the force, weight, and power of his machine as a means of compelling pedestrians to yield to his machine superior rights upon the public highway designed for the use of all members of the public upon equal terms. . . . If there is anything in the argument of priority, man was created before the automobile, and, to paraphrase a quotation from Holy Writ, man was not created for the automobile, but the automobile was created for man.” (Core v. Wilhelm, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
To recap, certainly a wishful driver may prefer that motorized vehicles had precedence over an individual wanting to cross at an crosswalk without a signal, but such a driver is being a bully and using sheet metal to intimidate, and probably acts knowing that there are few tickets handed out to those who ignore crosswalks.
Pedestrians gave up some rights to use the road, so drivers could go faster between crosswalks and intersections. In exchange for letting drivers go faster, pedestrians received priority at crosswalks. There was a massive social/legal shift in driving rules of the road in the 1920's and 1930's as speeding cars killed thousands of pedestrians, mostly children. Peter Norton's book Fighting Traffic has an interesting review of the many changes in how Americans came to view the streets.
A driver sees STOP signs on side roads and reasonably expects cars there are going to remain stopped and not enter the intersection ahead of the driver on the priority road. But wait, you are in a car approaching a trail and there’s a crosswalk painted on the roadway and a stop sign facing the trail users. Who has right of way? If you are not quite sure, you are far from alone.
One VDOT survey reported vast uncertainty on who has right of way at WO&D style crossings. Of those responding in a survey, 63 percent thought motor vehicles have the right-of-way; 28 percent thought trail users; and 8 percent did not know.” (pg 61 of Best Practices in Traffic Operations and Safety: Phase II: Zig-zag Pavement Markings) Those numbers are almost unbelievable, but in light of Northern Virginia crosswalk experiences, those numbers may reflect the chasm of misunderstanding and lack of law enforcement support.
Who has right of way? Generally the pedestrian/bicycle rider has right-of-way at crosswalks, but the law also imposes a major responsibility on the crosswalk user not to hazard himself by entering in front of traffic too close to stop. Since Virginia is a contributory negligence state, if a pedestrian is hit, she may have real problems collecting civil damages in proving that she followed that part of the law. To repeat, a pedestrian in the hospital with severe injuries MAY have to pay for all her own medical expenses if she is hit, and the driver may have to pay for a new fender.
In one Fairfax County crash (Russ v. Destival) referred to the Virginia Supreme Court in 2004, the jury essentially decided in favor of a driver who did not see a bicyclist in a sidepath along Braddock Road and eased his car out into the crosswalk, hitting and injuring the bicyclist who was proceeding through the crosswalk without having fully ascertained the driver had actually yielded the right of way to him. The jury determined the bicyclist acted with some degree of negligence in his crossing at the unsignalized crosswalk. As the court described it, “The right to proceed is to be tested by whether a person of ordinary prudence would attempt it.” Peers on the jury are car drivers.
Virginia Code §46.2-924 specifically uses the phrase “at a crosswalk,” in other words the area where the pedestrian is waiting to cross, and not just the striped portion in the roadway.
Traffic lights or police direction indicate right-of-way at many intersections. If there is no signal, Virginia Code §46.2-924 instructs “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;
2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;
3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.”
A bicycle rider at a crosswalk can walk his bicycle across OR he can ride it across. In Virginia Code §46.2-904 “A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.” So to recap: bicyclists are treated as pedestrians when on a trail.
At a crosswalk Virginia courts have held “the pedestrian has a superior right — that is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles — and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.” (Marshall v. Shaw. Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
“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.” (Sawyer v. Blankenship, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
“At intersecting streets where there are neither traffic lights nor traffic officers, the pedestrian has a superior right — that is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles — and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.” (Lucas v. Craft, Virginia Supreme Court, 1933)
Social norms prevent someone pushing their shopping cart in front of a frail older lady in a grocery checkout line, in full knowledge that if she fell she would possibly break bones. Current driving social norms do seem to permit a driver to bully that same pedestrian at a crosswalk. Calling motorists bullies is nothing new. Questions of who had right of way and right to use the streets and highways were only a little easier when everything moved at a walking pace. The next quotation is now only of historical interest, before pedestrians were pushed from the streets in exchange for priority at regularized crossings like crosswalks, but a 1919 Virginia Supreme Court ruling held:
“The pedestrian and the automobile have equal rights upon the highway, but their capacity for inflicting injury is vastly disproportioned. It follows also from this that the driver of an automobile cannot be said to be using the highway within his rights, or to be in the exercise of due care, if he takes advantage of the force, weight, and power of his machine as a means of compelling pedestrians to yield to his machine superior rights upon the public highway designed for the use of all members of the public upon equal terms. . . . If there is anything in the argument of priority, man was created before the automobile, and, to paraphrase a quotation from Holy Writ, man was not created for the automobile, but the automobile was created for man.” (Core v. Wilhelm, Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
To recap, certainly a wishful driver may prefer that motorized vehicles had precedence over an individual wanting to cross at an crosswalk without a signal, but such a driver is being a bully and using sheet metal to intimidate, and probably acts knowing that there are few tickets handed out to those who ignore crosswalks.
Labels: crosswalk, W and OD Trail
Monday, January 20, 2014
Following too closely and Don't pass a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk make it out of House Subcommittee
Two bills that will improve bike safety made it out of Virginia House Subcommittee 2 this morning. The two bills are HB 82, sponsored by McLean Del. Barbara Comstock, which changes the "following too closely" law so that it would apply to bicyclists, by removing a single word, "motorist." Virginia is the only state where it's not illegal to tailgate a bicyclist. FABB worked with Del. Comstock to ensure that only the second occurrence of "motorist" was struck from the existing language so that it would not apply to bicyclists following other bicyclists. Del. Comstock agreed to modify her bill to make this change.The second bill is HB 320 sponsored by Del. Kory, which makes it illegal for a vehicle to pass another vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk. On many multi-lane roads cyclists and pedestrians have been struck when one car stops, the cyclist proceeds, and the second car does not stop.
The bills will next be heard in the full House Transportation Committee, possibly as early as tomorrow. Herndon Del. Rust is chair of this committee and it would be helpful, especially if you are a constituent, to send Del. Rust a note asking him to support these bills.
Thanks to VBF, Jeff Anderson of FABB, and others for speaking out at the committee meeting in support of these bills. It was an early morning for Jeff who left Vienna at 4:50 a.m. so he could get to the 7:00 a.m. meeting.
Labels: crosswalk, follow too close
Friday, January 10, 2014
2014 Virginia bicycle legislation
The Virginia legislative session began this week in Richmond. A number of bike-related bills have been introduced. FABB is working with Delegate Comstock, who introduced this year's version of the Following Too Closely bill. She has agreed to modify the bill in committee to ensure that it only applies to motor vehicles, not bicyclists drafting other bicyclists.HB277 would require motorists to actually stop for pedestrians or bicyclists in a crosswalk instead of simply yielding. HB320 would prohibit a motorist from passing another motorist who is stopped for a pedestrian or bicyclist in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. These could be an important changes for cyclists who use the W&OD Trail, or any other trail where it crosses multiple lanes of traffic. Often one motorist will stop for a cyclist but others will continue to zoom past. That could have been the case on Sunrise Valley Dr in Reston where cyclist Cat Freck was struck last year.
WABA published a summary of Virginia bike bills in Bike Legislation to Watch in the 2014 Virginia and Maryland Sessions. :
Virginia Bills:
HB 82 — Following Too Closely: This bill would require drivers of any vehicle to not follow more closely than is reasonable any other vehicle, including bicyclists.
SB 225 – Dooring Legislation: If this law is enacted, drivers and passengers in Virginia will be legally required to exercise care when opening their car doors with respect to adjacent traffic. Dooring of bicyclists by drivers and passengers can cause serious injury and this bill seeks to reduce the potential of dooring.
SB 97 – Three Foot Passing : Current Virgina law requires drivers to exercise care when passing vehicles, including bicyclists, and to give at least two feet when passing. This bill seeks to extend the passing distance to three feet, in line with D.C. and Maryland law.
HB277 – Pedestrians crossing highways: This bill would clarify the duties of vehicles to stop to allow pedestrians (and bicyclists) to cross highways at marked crosswalks. The full bill language helps to define many ambiguities that exist in current law.
HB320: Reckless driving; passing other vehicles at intersections: This bill seeks to amend the legal reckless driving statute by prohibiting a person from overtaking or passing another vehicle stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection when a pedestrian (or bicyclist) is present.
HB 82 — Following Too Closely: This bill would require drivers of any vehicle to not follow more closely than is reasonable any other vehicle, including bicyclists.
SB 225 – Dooring Legislation: If this law is enacted, drivers and passengers in Virginia will be legally required to exercise care when opening their car doors with respect to adjacent traffic. Dooring of bicyclists by drivers and passengers can cause serious injury and this bill seeks to reduce the potential of dooring.
SB 97 – Three Foot Passing : Current Virgina law requires drivers to exercise care when passing vehicles, including bicyclists, and to give at least two feet when passing. This bill seeks to extend the passing distance to three feet, in line with D.C. and Maryland law.
HB277 – Pedestrians crossing highways: This bill would clarify the duties of vehicles to stop to allow pedestrians (and bicyclists) to cross highways at marked crosswalks. The full bill language helps to define many ambiguities that exist in current law.
HB320: Reckless driving; passing other vehicles at intersections: This bill seeks to amend the legal reckless driving statute by prohibiting a person from overtaking or passing another vehicle stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection when a pedestrian (or bicyclist) is present.
Labels: crosswalk, dooring, follow too close, three feet to pass, virginia legislature
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Montgomery Co police conduct crosswalk sting operation
 |
| Photo: Montgomery Co Police |
During this pedestrian enforcement, plain clothes officers dressed in bright clothing cross the street in marked crosswalks. Officers stop vehicles that do not yield to the plain clothes officers or other pedestrians in the crosswalk, and drivers are issued citations. General traffic law is also enforced. Traffic Division officers will continue this type of pedestrian enforcement throughout the month of May.
When I was on the Fairfax Co Non-motorized Transportation Committee (now the Trails and Sidewalks Committee) county police were asked to conduct a similar sting operation and they reacted by saying it was too dangerous. I'm not sure if they got the irony of their response.Anyone how rides on a trail that crosses a road with a crosswalk has encountered motorists who refuse to yield. In my experience, most motorists will yield when I'm IN the crosswalk. Some yield when I approach the crosswalk. According to Virginia law, motorists are required to YIELD to pedestrians and bicyclists in a crosswalk. I believe one difference between Maryland and Virginia is that motorists in Maryland are required to STOP for pedestrians in a crosswalk. The weaker wording of the VA law means the law can be interpreted more loosely.
Labels: crosswalk, fairfax county police, montgomery county
