Those silly things aren't going to slow me down at all; the bicycles can wait their turn

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good idea.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the person we were following this past weekend who came to a stop at the Belmont Ridge location. There were no bicyclists or pedestrians. ERG!

Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It made me slow down.

Posted by Potomacstation (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it definitely grabs your attention.
.
I think the paint is on the wrong strip of asphalt. Shouldn't the zigzag be put on the bike path? It's the biker's responsibility to slow down and yield, not the cars. From the way VDOT has tossed road graffiti onto Belmont it almost makes car borne folks think they have to slow down, which is not true.
.
I am all for the safety of bikers (which I am one of), but bikers are the ones needing the reminder to yield not cars. At least in this situation.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't be surprised if confused drivers try to stay to the right of the zig-zag line.

Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so the words SLOW DOWN BIKE XING don't work...?

Posted by tttrenee (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That crossing has a pretty nasty blind curve to the south for west bound pedestrians. Its one of my more hair-raising crossings when riding down the W&OD. Factor in the typical 50-60 mph speed on Belmont Ridge, and you have a situation where pedestrians have to dart across the road at first opportunity. Cars come on you fast even if there are none immediately in view.

Pedestrians do need to yield to traffic and not think they have right of way. But sometimes, just sometimes, drivers may have to lift off the gas. Maybe these lines will help make drivers aware that there are people running/riding across the road.

Posted by swu69 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, cyclists are not the only ones that use that trail - although they are the more annoying bunch (this, coming from a cyclist).

On a bike, I can get across that road pretty quickly - no need to worry about me. Why don't you all talk about the well being of Mommy Ashburn pushing her hatchlings across the road? I hear no concern for her safety?

Posted by swu69 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought the plan was to have the W&OD trail cross over Belmont Ridge via a new bridge to be built. Was that scrapped due to lack of funds at VDOT?

Posted by FH59312 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My concern as a driver is that this may give pedestrians and bikers the idea that they have the right of way. If this happens, it will cause a lot of confusion, not to mention a serious accident when a driver has no time to stop and a crash occurs. Let's not forget the trucks that use this road to get to the quarry and the time it would take them to stop. Also, all too often pedestrians walk right out in front of a moving car just expecting that the driver will see them and have time to react.

On bikes, I think they are great and I would like to see more bike trails and lanes. However, I really would like them to stop riding on roads like Belmont Ridge Rd. It is just an accident waiting to happen and they are putting their safety and everyone else's at risk.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bikers don't have the right of way when crossing Belmont Ridge Road on the W&OD trail.
.
On the other hand, bikers DO have the right of way when riding ON Belmont Ridge Road.
.
Slow down, share the road, or go to jail.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pedestrians do have the right of way (and if cyclists dismount they become pedestrians) and vehicles must yield--NOT the other way around. See Virginia code 46.2-924.

http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc...

But Virginia code aside, yielding for pedestrians is the courteous thing to do and only delays us drivers for a few moments.

Posted by axman (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

axman, check out the code when pedestrians and bikes have a stop sign on the trail. Which is the case here.
.
Something should be communicated definitively. It's extremely difficult for vehicular traffic to continue at speed then have someone in front think they have to stop for a crossing or bike. Or worse, think they have to slam on the breaks. I know of two accidents that have happened because of this.
.
The way I see it cars are not required to slow down. Be vigilant sure, but they don't need to slow down.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AFF3 -"Slow down, share the road, or go to jail". How threatening. I do slow down for bike riders. I am very conscientious as a driver and I think your response to my comment ignores the reality of Belmont Ridge Rd and other rds in the area. Sometimes on these roads, slowing down can cause an accident, too. My concern is not only for the cyclist, but to avoid having my kids crushed in the back of my vehicle by a dump truck that can't stop because I slowed down for a bike.

From the code -
"No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic"

That is my complaint. Common sense would dictate that you stop for pedestrians. It is pedestrians that cross in the middle of streets with no cross walk and without regard for oncoming traffic that I have a problem with. Please consider all the aspects of these issues for the safety of all.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS - don't assume that someone will act recklessly just because they don't like something that occurs on the road. As a driver, I do everything in my power, as I and everyone else should, to drive safely and courteously. In addition, I saved a pedestrian from being hit at a Leesburg intersection when someone flew through a red light and if I had not alerted the pedestrian to stop they would have been hit. The driver of the car flipped my off because I blew my horn to alert him and the pedestrian of the potential accident. At least the pedestrian didn't flip me off and decide to cross in front of a speeding car.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the Friends of the Washington and Old Dominion web site, they make mention of safety at intersections (http://www.wodfriends.org/safety.html). What they emphasize in the first guideline definitely applies here because there is a stop sign at the intersection of the trail with Belmont Ridge Road.

I live in the Belmont Greene neighborhood which borders the trail and use the trail regularly as a jogger and on in-line skates. I also use Belmont Ridge Road regularly, so I see this issue from both perspectives. I think the new lines are good to alert drivers of an upcoming crossing. But they are no excuse for a user of the trail to feel that this gives them the right-of-way or that this should lull them into a false sense of security. Care and caution should be the rule each day.

Posted by valawman (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a PSA: Horseback riders also use the trail, and horses don't read very well so they won't necessarily know what a STOP sign is - though I see them stopping and obeying traffic laws much better than the bikers many times.

Posted by gieriscm1 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When a car traveling 50+ mph hits a pedestrian, be it a walker, biker, jogger, the car will win. The pedestrian will more then likely be dead. At this point, does it really matter who had the right of way? Why don't I cycle down busy, shoulder-less roads like Belmont Ridge? Because even though I might have the right-of-way, it doesn't really matter if I can't argue the case in court due to my being 6-feet under.

These lines aren't saying STOP. They're pulling the drivers attention away from texting on their phone, or screaming at their kids. And it tells them that "Hey, look ahead. I might have to make sudden maneuvers due to an obstacle in the road." Do you stop when you see deer crossing signs? No, you keep extra aware of your surroundings and prepare for sudden changes in your driving environment. Lets do the same here.

If you've never had to cross this road before on foot at this intersection, please stop commenting. It is a dangerous intersection due to speed of traffic and visibility. Motorists be glad that they didn't throw in a stop-light; taxpayers be glad that they didn't build a bridge.

Posted by swu69 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a terrifying intersection, and I always slow a bit approaching it because I know someone who WILL lose if I hit them (no matter whose right of way, fault, etc) could come out in front of me with little/NO warning.

Good on them for putting some extra awareness signals on the road, and I fervently hope they put equal or better on the trail.

There have been several fatalities even in the "rural" area of the trail west of Leesburg in the past couple years, because of people biking right out into roads.

Rather than the county spend their SAFTEA-LU grant recommendations on the fluff that usually gets forwarded, why not buckle down and seek flyovers for all major trail intersections?

We could match some of the funds by deep-sixing the fluff 100K+ "bike coordinator" and actually DO something productive for bike and pedestrian safety in the process.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

swu69a - well said. Barbara, I agree whole-heartedly. We need improved safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. As swu69a stated above, it really doesn't matter who had the right-of-way when a death or serious injury occurs - that is a permanent outcome. Whether it is my fault or not, I would be devastated if I ever hit a pedestrian or cyclist. Let's all be alert, follow the rules, and use common sense.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me explain the rationale for the stop signs on the trail. The stop signs are placed so that bikes do not zip across the road at full speed. Drivers have an obligation to stop for pedestrians and bikes in the crosswalk, but they cannot be expected to see a bike coming out of the woods at 25 MPH. Thus, the stop sign is placed such that the bikes stop before entering the roadway, and the bike riders have time to ensure that they are not entering directly into the path of a vehicle that does not have time to stop. However a bike *CAN* enter the crosswalk, after stopping, if there is an approaching vehicle far enough away to stop. Once the bike or pedestrian enters the crosswalk, normal crosswalk rules apply, and cars are required to yield the right of way.

Each side has rights and responsibilities. The car drivers have a right to not have a bike dart out in front giving the driver no chance to stop. The car drivers have a responsibility to stop for bikes and peds legally in the crosswalk given ample opportunity to do so, regardless of how inconvenient it might be or if someone is following them. Bikes have a responsibility to stop and not plow into a crosswalk at full speed. But bikes also have a right to get from one side of the street to the other in a reasonable amount of time.

Lets use a little common sense and courteousy here. Bikes who plow across the intersection without so much as slowing down, let alone stopping, and car drivers who refuse to stop for pedestrians and bikes, "making believe" you don't see them when you really do.....you are the cause of the problem!! As another poster said, drivers should be thankful that VDOT doesn't put up a traffic light at this crossing, and taxpayers should be happy that VDOT doesn't put up a bridge. Everyone needs to quit abusing the privilidge if we want free-flowing pedestrian crossings to stay, however.

Posted by thetan (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the Bike Coordinator has done a fantastic job in helping the biking community..
Passovers are way to expensive, so coming up with ideas will keep people safe and keep our tax money going to the right places. Nice work !!

Posted by kevlem2000 (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kevlem, there is no bike coordinator yet.

It was just added to a tight budget at a cost of over $100K per year.

Passovers may NOT be way too expensive, depending on how they are sought.

In the areas allowing development, they can and should be sought through proffers as part of transportation improvements.

In the areas banned from development, that still see massive traffic on very poor roads from Loudoun's strong commitment to failing to admit things have changed here, that would be the place to seek grant funding that would actually benefit many instead of a few.

It may be cheap at the cost if it prevents further fatalities at trail intersections in the future.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 22, 2009 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@OhTheHumanity:
"Those silly things aren't going to slow me down at all; the bicycles can wait their turn"

I ride my bike out the W&OD occasionally (though I prefer MD). Generally speaking, I ride to the intersection, and if no one's coming, I just ride across without stopping. If someone *is* coming, I get off, put my bike up on the rear wheel (for greater visibility) and just start rolling it out into the street. Pedestrians have the right-of-way.

The benefit of this technique is that folks like OhTheHumanity have the option of either stopping, or getting a windshield full of bicycle.

I find that, in pretty much every case, drivers somehow find the wherewithal to stop.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on April 22, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, now I am confused about the intersection of Belmont Ridge Rd and the W&OD trail. icoleman, are you saying that pedestrians have the right of way even though they have a stop sign? Are you saying that you roll your bike out into the road in front of cars instead of stopping at the stop sign and yielding the right of way to on coming traffic, moving at 45 miles/hour?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on April 22, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Virginia there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to stop at a stop sign on a trail. In a crosswalk, when dismounted cyclists have the rights and duties of pedestrians -- and pedestrians have no duty to stop at a stop sign.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on April 22, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More here:

http://www.velonews.com/article/6740

While the legal status of a cyclist *on* a bicycle is ambiguous, the legal status of a pedestrian (or a cyclist *pushing* a bicycle) is not: You are legally obligated to yield.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on April 23, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They have the zig zags in England! Abbey Road, see the photo: http://blushfilms.wordpress.com/2009/02/...

Posted by insideoutblog (anonymous) on April 23, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icoleman, you are correct. All the people posting here saying that vehicles have the right of way are shockingly ignorant. The stop sign on the trail has no legal bearing. It is similatr to the electronic crossing signs at street light crossings. Even if a street light is green, the pedestrian still has the right of way. There are no caveats to the law as the law is based on who will cause the most injury by not yeilding. The reasonable care item is put in there simply to protect drivers from frivilous litigation in the event of a suicide or other total adbandonment of common sense.

Since when in any place do the vehicles have the right of way anyway? How self entitled do you have to be to think that anyway. Let's call it like it is: The objections posted here to yeilding to pedestrians are simply because you don't feel like it because you are inconvienced. You just don't want to stop. So, your willing to commit murder, just to not be inconvienced? And yes it is murder because you already decided (premeditated) not to stop long before you got there. The only reason those drivers are not charged with murder is that there is no evidence of a preexisting act or decision (i.e. - DWI). Now posting on a website that you have no intention of stopping is very nice evidence indeed.

Keep posting, please.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way one out of 30 posters got the law right. Sad. Having personally known someone who was killed crossing a street (a drunk decided to run a red light), this makes me very sad. What do they teach in drivers ed in this state anyway? or do you not see the "Yeild to Pedestrians" signs all over the area?? What, do you think that is just for that intersection and not for the next one?
Since when do you think you are not responsible if you kill someone with your car? What will it be? A father, a mother, a daughter, son, coworker, best friend?

Who are you going to kill?

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello you speeding careless drivers out there! This includes you Luck Stone trucks. Yep, I saw you flying through the Belmont Ridge W&OD intersection this past weekend, ignoring those cyclists, runners, walkers, roller-bladers not to mention those ZIG-ZAGS. Attention: LCSO has been contacted and you'll be supporting their salaries soon. Tah Tah!

Posted by zucca (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

zucca, I bet the Police are setting up a surveillance sting op as we speak. They are sparing no expense to stop these scofflaw motorists, who (gasp!) are driving on a public road.

Heaven forbid a bicyclist has to wait a few seconds before he can cross a street.

Maybe we should escalate this right up to the Supreme Court

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stupid is as Stupid Does, If pedestrian, or bicylist is stupid enough to ignore the stop sign put up to remind them to stop before entering into a traffic flow moving at 45 MPH then they run the risk of being both dead and stupid. tommc1,icoleman a pedestrian under the law does NOT always have the leagle right of way. only under circimstances defined by the law. (you also posted on the other thread of this subject so you know this is true.) Also because I saw a yield sign one time at a intersecton I guess i am to assume that this applies to all intersections for all time. get real. Drivers and Pedesterians both have a responsibility to look out for each other. If i were to approach a trail crossing and totaly disregard looking and being ready to slow or stop I would also be stupid even if I had the leagle right of way. By the way I have watched bicyclists get tickets for not stopping and entering the highway without regard to oncoming traffic. (Herndon) at crestview crossing.

Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)