Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Sign on W&OD in Sterling telling drivers not to stop for cyclists/pedestrians

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    What if we get together and make 5+ signs that say what the law is? An arms (sign) race seems like the only logical solution to this.

  2. Likes streetsmarts liked this post
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emm View Post
    According to posters, people called the police ALOT. So the police came and looked everything over...and did nothing. It took hours for anyone to remove the sign. Which is just frustrating. An illegal sign should be removed immediately, or at least moved to a spot it's not visible and causing unsafe conditions.
    I am not in anyway condoning what the guy did, but what was he doing that was illegal/is there is a statute prohibiting what he did? His sign does not look like an official sign, and I presume the police decided he was acting within his First Amendment rights, however reprehensible his actions.

  4. #13
    jrenaut's Avatar
    jrenaut is online now I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Columbia Heights, DC
    Posts
    3,667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MFC View Post
    I am not in anyway condoning what the guy did, but what was he doing that was illegal/is there is a statute prohibiting what he did? His sign does not look like an official sign, and I presume the police decided he was acting within his First Amendment rights, however reprehensible his actions.
    Via Twitter from a forum member whose handle I've forgotten: VA 46.2 831
    No unauthorized person shall erect or maintain on any highway any warning or direction sign, signal, or light in imitation of any official traffic control device erected as provided by law. No person shall erect or maintain on any highway any traffic control device bearing any commercial advertising.Nothing in this section shall prohibit the erection or maintenance of signs or signals bearing the name of an organization authorized to erect it by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Department of Transportation, or local authorities of counties, cities, and towns as provided by law. Nor shall this section be construed to prohibit the erection by contractors or public utility companies of temporary signs approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation warning motorists that work is in progress on or adjacent to the highway.Any violation of this section shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor.

  5. Likes Dewey, Emm, bobco85 liked this post
  6. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    881
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MFC View Post
    however reprehensible his actions.
    Reprehensible is kinda harsh, I'd call them very (VERY) misguided.

    I had to read the linked article several times to figure out (a) what exactly was going on and (b) why he thought he was helping PROTECT cyclists. Basically, Sterling is four lanes, two in each direction with a center median. A ped/cyclist was waiting to cross and the driver of the car in the near lane stopped to wave them through. The car in the lane next to them (traveling in same direction) didn't stop and ped/cyclist almost got smushed. At least according to the sign maker, maybe the ped/cyclist knew better and was going to peek around the stop car to see if another car was coming. I got t-boned in a car when I was 20 because I did NOT look when a driver waved me through. Hard lesson to learn but boy I learned it good.

    So after reading the linked article (repeatedly) and lots of head scratching, the sign maker seems to be asking cars not to stop and wave people through because the car next to them might not also stop and this puts trail crossers at risk. Points for effort I guess.

    (I think about getting t-boned by the car in the far lane every time I bike home via Memorial Bridge. I hate all of those crossings.)

    Editing to add this article that a friend found about drivers being TOO polite to pedestrians at crossing such as Sterling Blvd.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/m...an_safety.html
    Last edited by Tania; 05-08-2017 at 02:05 PM.

  7. Likes streetsmarts liked this post
  8. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Tukwila, WA
    Posts
    2,004
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MFC View Post
    I am not in anyway condoning what the guy did, but what was he doing that was illegal/is there is a statute prohibiting what he did? His sign does not look like an official sign, and I presume the police decided he was acting within his First Amendment rights, however reprehensible his actions.
    Good question. Someone on Twitter (@notthatdsk) pointed out this could be in violation of the following Virginia law http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/t...ction46.2-831/ which states:
    46.2-831. Unofficial traffic control devices prohibited; penalties.

    No unauthorized person shall erect or maintain on any highway any warning or direction sign, signal, or light in imitation of any official traffic control device erected as provided by law. No person shall erect or maintain on any highway any traffic control device bearing any commercial advertising.

    Nothing in this section shall prohibit the erection or maintenance of signs or signals bearing the name of an organization authorized to erect it by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Department of Transportation, or local authorities of counties, cities, and towns as provided by law. Nor shall this section be construed to prohibit the erection by contractors or public utility companies of temporary signs approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation warning motorists that work is in progress on or adjacent to the highway.

    Any violation of this section shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor.
    (Edit: ninja'd by jrenaut)
    Last edited by bobco85; 05-08-2017 at 01:36 PM. Reason: too slow on the draw

  9. Likes jrenaut liked this post
  10. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Its not an imitation of an official traffic control device. This provision is aimed at fake stop signs, etc.

  11. #17
    hozn's Avatar
    hozn is online now I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    3,258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tania View Post
    Reprehensible is kinda harsh, I'd call them very (VERY) misguided.

    I had to read the linked article several times to figure out (a) what exactly was going on and (b) why he thought he was helping PROTECT cyclists. Basically, Sterling is four lanes, two in each direction with a center median. A ped/cyclist was waiting to cross and the driver of the car in the near lane stopped to wave them through. The car in the lane next to them (traveling in same direction) didn't stop and ped/cyclist almost got smushed. At least according to the sign maker, maybe the ped/cyclist knew better and was going to peek around the stop car to see if another car was coming. I got t-boned in a car when I was 20 because I did NOT look when a driver waved me through. Hard lesson to learn but boy I learned it good.

    So after reading the linked article (repeatedly) and lots of head scratching, the sign maker seems to be asking cars not to stop and wave people through because the car next to them might not also stop and this puts trail crossers at risk. Points for effort I guess.

    (I think about getting t-boned by the car in the far lane every time I bike home via Memorial Bridge. I hate all of those crossings.)

    Editing to add this article that a friend found about drivers being TOO polite to pedestrians at crossing such as Sterling Blvd.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/m...an_safety.html
    Yeah, my first reaction reading the earlier posts (I did not read the article, but guessed that this was probably what was going on -- i.e. trying to avoid unexpected stopping there) was that this, at least as intended, probably would improve net safety at that intersection. Obviously if a car sees someone in the street they should stop, but the sign wasn't instructing cars to kill pedestrians in the crosswalk; it was instructing them not to stop if they see someone waiting to stop.

    Crossing at that intersection sucks. It can take awhile waiting for a gap. I've never actually experienced drivers stopping there. This sign highlights a problem, but I don't think it actually makes the situation worse. I prefer cars not stop for exactly the reason Tania mentions. In multi-lane-in-each-direction crossings -- like this one -- the cars in the adjacent lanes frequently do not stop. Which means I can't cross. Then the driver that originally stopped gets pissed that I'm not crossing and eventually drives off in what appears to be a huff. So that's a lose-lose situation.

    Then there was the driver that helpfully stopped as I approached an intersection and was rear ended by the car behind them. Not my fault, but probably lots of folks wish they'd kept rolling. I can wait for a gap. (And for that one time that actually resulted in a 3 car accident, there have been numerous occasions that have been close calls -- where driver behind slams on brakes because they weren't paying attention.)

    It's also too bad, though, that here not stopping is safer because stopping is such the exception. In stark contrast to experiences in Europe, where as soon as that pedestrian or cyclist steps up to the curb/crosswalk all the traffic stops in both directions. That's just the expectation and it puts a priority on the more vulnerable users of the infrastructure. This instills a lot more faith in humanity than behavior around here.

    It'd be great someday if stopping were the norm and actually less likely to result in loss of life or property damage.

  12. Likes streetsmarts liked this post
  13. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hozn View Post
    Yeah, my first reaction reading the earlier posts (I did not read the article, but guessed that this was probably what was going on -- i.e. trying to avoid unexpected stopping there) was that this, at least as intended, probably would improve net safety at that intersection. Obviously if a car sees someone in the street they should stop, but the sign wasn't instructing cars to kill pedestrians in the crosswalk; it was instructing them not to stop if they see someone waiting to stop.

    Crossing at that intersection sucks. It can take awhile waiting for a gap. I've never actually experienced drivers stopping there. This sign highlights a problem, but I don't think it actually makes the situation worse. I prefer cars not stop for exactly the reason Tania mentions. In multi-lane-in-each-direction crossings -- like this one -- the cars in the adjacent lanes frequently do not stop. Which means I can't cross. Then the driver that originally stopped gets pissed that I'm not crossing and eventually drives off in what appears to be a huff. So that's a lose-lose situation.

    Then there was the driver that helpfully stopped as I approached an intersection and was rear ended by the car behind them. Not my fault, but probably lots of folks wish they'd kept rolling. I can wait for a gap. (And for that one time that actually resulted in a 3 car accident, there have been numerous occasions that have been close calls -- where driver behind slams on brakes because they weren't paying attention.)

    It's also too bad, though, that here not stopping is safer because stopping is such the exception. In stark contrast to experiences in Europe, where as soon as that pedestrian or cyclist steps up to the curb/crosswalk all the traffic stops in both directions. That's just the expectation and it puts a priority on the more vulnerable users of the infrastructure. This instills a lot more faith in humanity than behavior around here.

    It'd be great someday if stopping were the norm and actually less likely to result in loss of life or property damage.
    The situation may be different in Sterling, but at Shirlington Road where the 4MRT crosses, if you don't cross when a car is stopped at a crosswalk, there are occasions when the time to cross would be very, very, very long. You just have to proceed slowly (because the non stopping traffic will usually stop once a ped or cyclist has actually entered the intersection) and look carefully into the other lane. Now that is different in that it has a hand operated walk signal, but since many drivers ignore that signal until someone enters the intersection, I am not sure it is that different.


    As for rear ending, someone who does stop, should do so gradually, not slam on the brakes. Not sure if they are slamming on the brakes there because of the overall high rate of speed? In general someone should be prepared to stop where ever there is a crosswalk (and this goes for my fellow cyclists on the streets of DC and Alexandria, as well as for drivers).

    So if someone is yielding to a pedestrian (or cyclist) about to enter a crosswalk, I have a hard time faulting them for either the failure of the cyclists/ped to cross slowly and look carefully at the other lane, or the failure of the driver in the other lane to stop.


    In fact Kaye Kory has tried to get the obligation of a driver to NOT pass another driver stopped at a crosswalk for a pedestrian written into the Va code. I believe the initiative failed and has not been introduced again recently.
    Last edited by lordofthemark; 05-08-2017 at 02:54 PM.

  14. Likes streetsmarts, bobco85, hozn liked this post
  15. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    628
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    As for rear ending, someone who does stop, should do so gradually, not slam on the brakes. Not sure if they are slamming on the brakes there because of the overall high rate of speed? In general someone should be prepared to stop where ever there is a crosswalk (and this goes for my fellow cyclists on the streets of DC and Alexandria, as well as for drivers).
    Puts me in mind of an incident on a wet afternoon last fall at the Ohio Drive crosswalk near the Hains Point entrance. I was westbound, waiting in the median. Car in the near southbound lane comes to an easy stop, don't recall what was happening in the far southbound lane, but well behind the stopped car a gray SUV was careening around the curve and made me think, "He's not going to be able to stop". So I held my place, and sure enough despite the best efforts of the SUV's antilock brake system, he hit the stopped car hard enough to make a cracking plastic sound, but not hard enough to move the stopped car. If I was writing the citations, they would have been "Inattentive Driving" and "Too Fast for Conditions".

  16. Likes streetsmarts liked this post
  17. #20
    jrenaut's Avatar
    jrenaut is online now I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Columbia Heights, DC
    Posts
    3,667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MFC View Post
    Its not an imitation of an official traffic control device. This provision is aimed at fake stop signs, etc.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I think a broad reading of that provision would include this. The intent here is clearly to control traffic. Unless "in imitation" has a specific legal meaning here, I think it applies.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •