Intersection of Doom story

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 86323 wrote:

It’s illegal. See above.

Ugh, there you go again…

We’ve gone around and around on this before in a separate thread. Short version: it’s unclear.

Longer version, if flashing hand/counting means “Don’t Walk”, then it means don’t start. If it means something else, then it means something else. VA Code is silent, and their are rational arguments to be made on both sides. I haven’t seen any court opinions interpreting the silence.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 86190 wrote:

How about this?
Starting on a date TBD, every Monday during rush hours all the cyclists get off their bikes and walk them, single file, across the intersection, effectively taking up most of, or the entire, green light cycle. This is not illegal; in fact, there are plenty of drivers who complain about cyclists “racing into the intersection” or otherwise not behaving like pedestrians. We can call it DisMount Mondays. Traffic would back up onto I-66 and it would piss the drivers off. So be it. At least we’d all be safer crossing the street (maybe).

At first glance, I like this. In fact, I’ve long thought this could work on the GWMP crosswalk of doom.

But on further reflection, I think that motorists already get that this intersection sucks. For BikeSwell, BA folks interviewed drivers at this intersection, IIRC, and they said cyclists need their own safe space. I’ve seen plenty of situations where only 2-3 cars get to turn right just with the volume of peds and cyclists crossing normally. I don’t think we need to make it EVEN WORSE for them.

What has worked has been people showing up at County Board meetings and calling out the powers that be that progress is not being made. We got some change in the Realize Rosslyn plan. I think we should advocate for money allocated in the CIP (I believe Chris S said there wasn’t any). And to help us advocate, I support engaging the motorist stuck in the normal traffic caused by the crosswalk — maybe print up little flyers explaining that no-one likes this situation, that we’re working hard to find a solution that gets everyone moving safely, and would they please sign this online petition. Then have an online campaign that’s not just WABA, but maybe… AAA Midatlantic? Drivers and cyclists and pedestrians saying FIX THIS ALREADY.

I also think we should take advantage of the change in Richmond — whether it’s actually a substantive change for the better or not, we can say “now that we have new partners in Richmond to work on this intersection, let’s make a concrete plan to get an infrastructure fix to this in 5 years” – something measurable that we can hold them to. Allocate money in the CIP. Work with our partners in Richmond (a few of whom are running for Congress and might want to engage publicly).

[PotomacCyclist]

Even the past administration in Richmond sought more money for transportation in Rosslyn, from the sale of the I-66 airspace development rights. That process seems to be moving slowly, though.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 86363 wrote:

What has worked has been people showing up at County Board meetings and calling out the powers that be that progress is not being made.

Define “worked.” Rcannon has pointed out that he and others have been advocating for improvements here for 25 years or longer. Nothing has “worked” in my opinion. 15 words in the Realize Rosslyn plan and two seconds of advance walk signal? If you consider that “worked,” then I respectfully disagree.

In 25 years they cannot even get these stupid poles out of the way (http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6965-Intersection-of-Doom-story&p=85297#post85297), and that has nothing to do with redesigning or changing the streets in any way at all. Sorry, nothing has “worked.”

Do we take 3-5 years to get some mention in the CIP, and then it’s only enough money to do an engineering study. Then that gets delayed because of this political wind or that, etc. etc. Before long it’s 2030 and it’s pretty much the same as it is now.

Being too nicey nicey just isn’t going to cut it, IMO. If 25+ years isn’t long enough to wait for some sort of real commitment, is 26? Or 27? That’s why I think it’s past time to raise the bar a bit, and why I’m suggesting this bolder plan to garner attention.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 86361 wrote:

Ugh, there you go again…

We’ve gone around and around on this before in a separate thread. Short version: it’s unclear.

Longer version, if flashing hand/counting means “Don’t Walk”, then it means don’t start. If it means something else, then it means something else. VA Code is silent, and their are rational arguments to be made on both sides. I haven’t seen any court opinions interpreting the silence.

I’m not sure how the long version is different from what I said, or what the law says though. Don’t Walk means don’t start. If you’ve already started, you may continue (obviously – you don’t stop in the middle of the road).

I don’t know where there’s silence in the law. It says:

“Walk. – Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the highway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.

Don’t Walk. – No pedestrian shall start to cross the highway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the Walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island and remain there while the Don’t Walk signal is showing. “

i.e. Don’t Start

What’s missing? What’s unclear?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 86306 wrote:

Change [federal guidance on pedestrians facing countdowns at crosswalk] to what?

Clearly state that pedestrians may not enter the crosswalk during the countdown unless they can clear the crosswalk before the countdown ends. (Yeah, there’s then judgement required as to whether enough time has been allowed, but it at least states the desired outcome when a guy on a bike is looking at 30s to cross 4 lanes.)

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 86501 wrote:

What’s missing? What’s unclear?

Whether the blinking hand + countdown = “Don’t Walk” or something else. There are places where it means don’t walk. There are other places where it means something else. When the code is silent and courts are silent, the outcome is unclear.

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 86496 wrote:

Define “worked.” Rcannon has pointed out that he and others have been advocating for improvements here for 25 years or longer. Nothing has “worked” in my opinion. 15 words in the Realize Rosslyn plan and two seconds of advance walk signal? If you consider that “worked,” then I respectfully disagree.

In 25 years they cannot even get these stupid poles out of the way (http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6965-Intersection-of-Doom-story&p=85297#post85297), and that has nothing to do with redesigning or changing the streets in any way at all. Sorry, nothing has “worked.”

Do we take 3-5 years to get some mention in the CIP, and then it’s only enough money to do an engineering study. Then that gets delayed because of this political wind or that, etc. etc. Before long it’s 2030 and it’s pretty much the same as it is now.

Being too nicey nicey just isn’t going to cut it, IMO. If 25+ years isn’t long enough to wait for some sort of real commitment, is 26? Or 27? That’s why I think it’s past time to raise the bar a bit, and why I’m suggesting this bolder plan to garner attention.

What are you expecting, exactly? What is the next step?

My understanding is that for anything to get done by the County, the County has to allocate money. Step one, put it in the CIP. You seem to think there’s another Step One; that there’s some magic wand that will GET IT FIXED NOW. I would love for that to be the case, but I have no idea what that looks like, what we could ask for.

Whether the means are videos, online petition, constant attendance at County Board meetings, civil disobedience, being dicks to motorists within the law, or all of the above, let’s be clear on what our ends are. Otherwise, it’s a BFWT. We’ll get County Board members up on the dais saying “Yep, we should fix that” without more.

As far as “works”, I see the Realize Rosslyn language as a win, because we asked for something specific, and we got almost exactly what we asked for. Let’s figure out what the next specific thing we can ask for is, and ask for that. I think it’s money in the CIP.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 86513 wrote:

Whether the blinking hand + countdown = “Don’t Walk” or something else. There are places where it means don’t walk. There are other places where it means something else. When the code is silent and courts are silent, the outcome is unclear.

Ah, so the blinking part.

It seems to me that the code says Walk means Walk, and Don’t Walk means don’t start, and whether they are blinking or counting down doesn’t change that. The blinking, like the countdown, alerts you to how urgent it is that you complete the cross. I don’t think there’s ambiguity – when you see a hand, it’s a hand. But that’s just me looking at the text. What do you mean by “places?” Other states? Are there states where courts or the law says a hand can still mean proceed into the intersection if there’s blinking or something? That would be really strange.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 86506 wrote:

Clearly state that pedestrians may not enter the crosswalk during the countdown unless they can clear the crosswalk before the countdown ends. (Yeah, there’s then judgement required as to whether enough time has been allowed, but it at least states the desired outcome when a guy on a bike is looking at 30s to cross 4 lanes.)

Got it.

The countdown was intended to hold pedestrians’ hands in that judgement, but I think it has backfired.

[Rootchopper]

And this morning a car coming off of I-66 never even touched the brakes while running the Lynn St red light to turn right toward Key Bridge. I am beginning to think that the light is invisible.

[cyclingfool]

@Rootchopper 86529 wrote:

And this morning a car coming off of I-66 never even touched the brakes while running the Lynn St red light to turn right toward Key Bridge. I am beginning to think that the light is invisible.

What light?

[VikingMariner]

My bad. I’ve been experimenting with a new flux capacitor. This space-time stuff is more complicated than I thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhU862ONFys

[kcb203]

@baiskeli 86527 wrote:

Ah, so the blinking part.

It seems to me that the code says Walk means Walk, and Don’t Walk means don’t start, and whether they are blinking or counting down doesn’t change that. The blinking, like the countdown, alerts you to how urgent it is that you complete the cross. I don’t think there’s ambiguity – when you see a hand, it’s a hand. But that’s just me looking at the text. What do you mean by “places?” Other states? Are there states where courts or the law says a hand can still mean proceed into the intersection if there’s blinking or something? That would be really strange.

Just up the hill where there are green/yellow/red lights for bikes on the Custis trail along with Walk/Don’t Walk signs, the light remains green for the cyclist all the way through the flashing don’t walk, and only turns yellow and then red after the pedestrian light is steady red “Don’t Walk.” I never enter the Intersection of Doom on a flashing red, but I understand the confusion given that just 100 yards away, the signals clearly tell bikes they can enter until the don’t walk becomes solid red. I understand why they think that would apply, if not everywhere, at least at the next light on the path.

[rek]

@PotomacCyclist 86336 wrote:

FYI only, not legal advice, re videotaping:

http://www.martindale.com/family-law/article_MichieHamlett-Attorneys-at-Law_1229920.htm

According to this, there are only two main potential issues with videotaping from a legal perspective. If the video picks up oral communications, then it could be prohibited under wiretapping laws (unless all parties give their consent to the taping). This shouldn’t be a problem with video taken from a distance. There may also be an exception when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as someone shouting in public).

(The other issue normally wouldn’t apply, but you never know. It relates to videotaping someone who is in a state of undress and that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Normally you aren’t going to be seeing half-naked or naked people at the intersection. Even if you do, would that person have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Likely not, at least if you are filming cars and bikes in a normal manner. In other words, you would still get in trouble for filming upskirt videos, whether or not you are also filming cars and bikes.)

IANAL, but I am pretty sure that Virginia’s wiretapping laws do allow the proposed video collection (even with audio as well). Virginia is a one-party consent state, and the one party may be the person clearly visible in public holding the video camera. As I understand it, you would probably run afoul of the law if you set up such a recording device and then left the scene, but as long as you are with the camera in plain public view then you are considered a party to any recorded communication.

See paragraph B2 within § 19.2-62: “It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.”

There are some states where public audio/video still requires all parties to consent. Illinois comes to mind; I think some people have been jailed there for filming the police.

[Author]

Posts