Is it normal for VDOT to have two workers and two supervisors standing around chatting for this type job?

Posted by CHAMPION02 (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I imagine that most drivers have had their attention grabbed by wandering onto the "rumble strip" along the outer edge of the interstate highways.

Would this technique- a series of rumble strip bands ACROSS the approaching lanes- work to get drivers' attention on a rural road? I think so.

Of course, the bands would have be at appropriate distances. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travel about 30 yards each second. Placing the initial band at 100 yards will give about three seconds warning. In combination with with followup bands at 70 and at 35 yards, this would alert any but the most impaired drivers.

Additionally, these rumble bands could be combined with fluorescent chartreuse warning diamonds (like the warning signs shown in the photo)painted on the roadway to give specificity to the alert.

Of course, I don't KNOW that this would work but it wouldn't cost very much to give it a try.

Posted by KennethAmerica (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Kravitz called me for this story because I had posted on the previous web story, so we never got into where I live etc.

Derek, I live in South Riding in Dulles and I'm not on the Planning Commission any more--the Sterling post has been held by Helena Syska for years, and she is excellent.

My personal wish for the trail? That Loudoun would direct their SAFTEA-LU grant recommendations toward eliminating at grade cossings. Proffers can still be sought in the eastern area of the county, but the west would probably see more action through grant funding.

Loudoun has put forward a lot of grant requests in TEA-21, ISTEA etc over the years that had ZERO to do with transportation. Making the trail the focus of all future efforts might get some progress!

(p.s.--look up Loudoun zipcodes--Sterling comes all the way down to rte 50 across from South Riding, which places the Arcola VFD in Sterling supposedly--yet if you cross the road from that station, you can quickly be in Aldie, Leesburg or Ashburn. I have a Fairfax zipcode, and have had for the dozen years I've lived here. Zipcodes bear zero relation to reality in Loudoun.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The dangerous aspect these painted lines present to motorcyclists needs to be addressed! They are very slippery when damp and to put them in the usual path of travel where braking is done is not good - maybe the paint could be made of a non-skid formulation?

Posted by dale.frosch (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here in Germany we have similar lines leading up to busy pedestrian crossings ( but smaller and on both sides of the travel lane). However, I feel the biggest problem is properly educating the car drivers that they have to share the road. Pedestrians and bicycles are just invisible to the average American car driver, who is too busy making phone calls.

Posted by loull_junk (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's nothing 'accidental' about them. They are collisions or crashes. The euphamism only reinforces the fact that nobody is responsible and they're not that serious.

Posted by djross2074 (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Champion,
What you don't see is the flag guy to the left of the two guys working the paint machine and the guy taking a smoke break in the truck.

I've already driven over these a few times. If anything they are a distraction. Where I used to look to both sides of the road for riders, I am now being drawn toward the strange zig-zag in the middle of the road.

Posted by BurtReynolds (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing that will slow traffic are speed humps -- the big awkward kind, not the smaller sort -- because they can't be ignored ... The reason speed humps work is because drivers see them as detrimental to their vehicles if taken at too high a speed. If people fear damage to their car, they'll surely slow down. I know I do ... The other alternative? Stop overlapping hiking trails with vehicular traffic lanes altogether.

Posted by terpfan2000 (anonymous) on May 3, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good eye for detail Dale. Have you contacted the county? I stopped my motorcycle one day for a bicyclist at Belmont Ridge and he fell down in the middle of the road. Hate to see what he would do if I started fishtailing at him.

Posted by mitlen (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 4:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the cars have the right of way, which they do, and the bike/hike trails have to yield, which they do, then paint the zigzags on the bike/hike trail so that the bikers/hikers are alerted to a crossing that they do not have the right of way at. I have gone by the crossing on Belmont Ridge many times and am always nervious when a biker is there. They seem not to want to wait but get right up to the road so I am not sure if they will go in front of me or not. Going over the speed limit, at the speed limit or slower than the speed limit does not help if the biker/hiker goes out in front of you.

Posted by momova (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's what I thought also momova (about placement of the zig zags). The guy who fell down in the road as I approached him didn't even slow down at Belmont and the stop sign at the path. I guess he was too busy bein' pretty with his $700 bike, $100 spandex dayglo attire, $50 sunglasses and his $150 shoes locked firmly into this stirrups on the pedals. He did have a safety helmit on ....

Posted by mitlen (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momova: The pedestrians do have the right of way. Always and everywhere. That is state law. Your ignorance of the law and some pedestrians seeming smug flaunting of the same law is the problem. I have also seen pedestrians not even hesitate to jump out into 40-50 mph traffic with the expectation that everyone will stop for them, just because it's the law. This is a sucidial assumption. At the same time, the driver is responsible for yeilding. Failure to yeild to a pedestrian anywhere in Virginia (and most other places) even without an accident of any kind is a misdemeanor offense.
Frankly, I find it shocking that anybody who drives does not know this. Perhaps you shoud try putting down your phone for a while.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tommc1 - you are incorrect.

At most of the W&OD at-grade crossings, the trail has stop signs and the road does not. This is true at Belmont (seen in the image above), Crestview (in Herndon), Sterling Blvd, and several others.

Many cyclists simply ignore the stop sign, or assume it's a 4-way stop, or misjudge the speed of oncoming traffic.

And I'm with the poster above who said the lines were distracting. I'd much prefer rumble strips. I find my eyes drawn to the zig-zag (and away from the crossing itself).

Posted by snarfsnarfsnarf (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee Chapel is a great hill to speed and get that roller coaster feeling. I know people who have gotten hurt there but I still enjoy the thrill.

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

tommc1
Pedestrains are governed by many VA Laws. In this case 46.2-924 covers this point. Specifically, they have the right of way on streets 35mph and under but cannot ignore approaching traffic. Basically if they step in front of a car they, not the car that cannot stop, are in violation of the law.
Bikers are governed under the same law as cars as well as many more specifically for bikes. The issue is bilers/hikers stepping out in front of cars that cannot stop.
Oh and by the way, I do not have a cell phone.
Keep to the issue and stop personal attacks.

Posted by momova (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually I am correct. And sorry if you think I made a personal attack but I have a hard time respecting anyone who is trying to justify murder.

The law is that pedestrians have the right of way at ANY signed and marked crosswalk. The stop sign, although it may look like a road stop sign, has no legal bearing. The trail is NOT a road, so how could any sign on the trail pertain to vehicular traffic? Also, as you point out, pedestrian and bycicle traffic have different sets of laws and are not governed by vehicle traffic law. Again, making a vehicle "Stop" sign irrelivant.

--The ONLY way the pedestrian can NOT have the right of way, or otherwise "violate the law" is if they cross outside of a marked intersection. That is jaywalking at that is illegal.---

Yes, there is a reasonable care component to the law. It's the "look both ways before you cross" clause and is there to protect drivers from litigation regarding actual suicides and otherwise stupidity on the pedestrian part. I did mention that in my post and I also have an issue with that as well. That is very far from giving the driver the right of way. Also, the choice of signage by the trail managers is poor in that it has led to such confusion. But the choice is usually made from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as they are readily available and cheap.

This is no personal attack on anybody here, but clearly the drivers education and licensing standards of this state are abysmal that so many people do not understand this most basic of laws.

Momova, I balme not you, but the State of Virginia. At the same time, all drivers have a responsibility to know the law, especially when life, limb and property are on the line.

I also plan pedestrian facilities for a local government. I dread crossings like this one and work to change them. This sometimes takes many years and is sometimes not possible. I do this because I am aware of the dischord between pedestrians and drivers in that neither seems to know how to reasonably apply the law. I also know that when bone hits bumper at 45 mph, who was right or wrong will no longer matter to either side. I have seen and known numerous people killed in pedestrian crossings. It is a graphic and horrible death, and is usually not instant like poeple might think. I would think you would want to do as much as possible to avoid it.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, the MUTCD traffic signs are usually used because they are available, cheap and easily understandable. If I were a concerned local citizen, I would write the WO&D people and suggest the removal or replacment of the stop signs. A cautionary or "warining" sign would be more appropiate and consistent with the law. Also, additional signage on the road that makes it clear that drivers must yeild to pedestrians are available as "supplimental plaques", which are the little signs that go below the main signs. Also a "YEILD" or "PED XING" or both painted in the road would be an improvment. Unfortuantely, the trend is to try to do as little as possible to save costs. Painting and signage as I suggest would cost almost $10K for one crossing (rather than $3-4K for basic markings) and would require maintenance every few years or after any time the road is resurfaced.
Also, although putting a bridge at every crossing would be wonderful, each bridge crossing would cost about $1M and 1-2 years, including design, permitting and construction. More if land aquisition is needed. So that is not feasible at every crossing. At the same time, I think any road that has 14,000 ADT (average daily trips) and a speed of 45 mph should be seirously considered for a grade seperated (bridge or underpass) crossing.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, to address the subject of the article, it is becoming clare to me i nreading the postings how little the law is understood. I think education and markings that clearly remind drivers of their responsibility under the law is key. I think that most drivers with an understanding of the law will make a correct and reasonable choice given the consequences. I also think that new signs reminding pedestrains of their responsibility to excersise caution are needed. Everybody at the crossing needs to be on the same page so correct decisions can be made, which is clearly not the case now. If it saves one life, it would be worth it.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also don't think the squiggly line are a very good solution in this case, although they seem to work well in the UK. Unfortunately, this is Louden County and London County. The assumption that people here will have the same reaction is a rather large assumption. On the other hand, I do like the rumble strip idea.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hasn't anyone seen the signs posted everywhere? It's a $500.00 fine if you don't yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk! I don't know about Loudon, but they are all over Fairfax County.

I get a little confused about cyclists who don't dismount in a pedestrian crosswalk, though. Am I supposed to give them the same right of way?

Posted by alannadc (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ouch, Please go back to calling me ignorant and a phone user. Those personal attacks were better than MURDERER

Posted by momova (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momova, take a closer look at the law, specifically 46.2-904. Motorists are to yield to bikes and pedestrians in crosswalks (and bikes may be ridden, not simply walked), not the other way around as you assert. Users of the path must not enter the roadway in disregard of traffic, but once at or in the crosswalk the law says yield or stop if necessary.

Further, a better reading of the law (46.2-924) will also clarify your improper reading of the crosswalk provisions. Peds (and bikes in crosswalks) have the right of way in any marked crosswalk. The code section you site regarding 35mph requires a more careful reading as it pertains to three engineered conditions addressing marked and UNMARKED crosswalks.

Posted by jhelmboldt (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, please. I'm just trying to emphasise that what we are talking about isn't legal semantics but real life and death. If it's not done right, people will die. People have died. I was also pointing out that your interpertation of the law is incorrect. I did say that it was not your fault. Unless your a lawyer, if the law is not properly commuinicated to the public, or worse yet even badly communicated as seems to be this case, there should be no expectation that people will understand.

I didn't call you a murderer or ignorant. I do not know you and would not make such assumptions. I did call you a phone user, and if that is incorrect in your case, then I apologize. It is simply my observation that the typical NoVa driver are far too distracted behind the wheel. I too do not use my phone behind the wheel. Hands free or otherwise. And it seems that the Virginia state government places "personal freedom" over public saftey in most cases. And if my messages seem very direct, it is simply out of frustration. I would very much like to hear any comments or suggestions you may have.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And it seems that the Virginia state government places "personal freedom" over public saftey in most cases."

Ding-ding! And there you have it. It's all about convenience. If someone has to die because an SUV driving exurbanite can't be inconvenienced to stop their 4500 lb vehicle for 15 seconds, so be it. Where do you think you're talking about? Socialist Europe?

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icoleman: I'm not sure I understand your comment. I am a firm believer in personal freedom. At the same time we all have an equal right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". These rights are not mutually exclusive nor can the right of one person be taken away for the right of another. i.e. - your Pursuit of Happiness cannot take away my Life. This is not Socalism, but the founding principals of this country. As written, ironiclly, by Virginians. Times have changed and the laws must change with them. If Mr. Jefferson was here to consult with, I would, but he's not. I just feel this state does not do enough in this day and age to protect all of it's citizens rights. That is all.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth over who has the right of way according to the law, yet despite the voluminous assertions of tommc1, only jhelmboldt has gotten to the heart of it. Yes, pedestrians and bikes have the right of way when they're IN the crosswalk, but they may NOT legally ENTER that crosswalk if there is approaching traffic.

The painting effort is intended to get drivers to slow down, but why? The article clearly states that the average speed is between 40 and 50 mph, for a posted speed limit of 45mph. So what's the problem? If drivers are "going to fast" then change the speed limit through that zone.

If, however, the problem is cyclists failing to stop before entering the roadway, then that is the problem that should be addressed. The speed of the road and sight-lines for pedestrians/cyclists are such that no car should have to do more that slow slightly to allow for safe passage, and should never have to stop. I have had cars ahead of me come to a full stop, however, to allow bike/pedestrian crossing, oblivious to the near-chain-reaction pileup behind them as multiple cars at highway speeds are forced to unexpectedly stop.

The zigzag markings are a response to a symptom rather than the problem. If cyclists continue to ignore approaching traffic in violation of law, then they will suffer the consequences. And the poor driver of the car will be as much of a murderer as pavement is to a jumper.

I certainly take MY personal safety seriously when I'm out cycling near the trail.

Posted by jlstapleton (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"but they may NOT legally ENTER that crosswalk if there is approaching traffic"

I'm sorry, but that is just not the law as it is written.

"If cyclists continue to ignore approaching traffic in violation of law, then they will suffer the consequences. And the poor driver of the car will be as much of a murderer as pavement is to a jumper."

I find this frankly an offensive and a troublesome attitude. Especially since "those people" that you marginalize have the right to cross the street. Your assertion that you should have to do no more than slow down is also misguided, and frankly leads me to believe that you just don't want to be inconvienced. While some people need to be informed better, you sir are just ignorant by choice.

The law clearly states that you must do what is needed to avoind the pedestrian, including stopping. In fact here is the enitre text, instead of interpertations:

§ 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.

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;

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.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.

No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would also read the following:

46.2-923 - How and where pedestrians to cross highways
46.2-924 - Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty
46.2-925 - Pedestrian control signals
46.2-926 - Pedestrians stepping into highway where they cannot be seen
46.2-927 - Boarding or alighting from buses
46.2-928 - Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left

All available at the following link: http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc...

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tommc1 You ignore an important part of the very statute you quote. "No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic."

What exactly is your expectation for cars on Belmont Ridge Road? Do you expect traffic to come to a complete stop for every trail user? Traffic lights and stop signs are universally recognized signals that traffic is required to stop for cross traffic. There isn't one here. VDOT could put one in (or lower the speed limit), but they haven't because they don't want every driver to stop. Belmont Ridge road is a major part of the transportation network as the only completed north/south road across Loudoun County between 28 and 15.

This is a hot button issue for you, but I disagree with your blame the drivers approach. Trail users and drivers both need to take reasonable safety precautions. Drivers should be considerate and alert for trail users, but trail users have to allow a reasonable gap in traffic before entering the crosswalk. I believe most of the tragedies happen because people miscalculate speed/distance/time and not because drivers are self-absorbed.

Posted by charsj (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting discussion, but one thing is missing, Basic Common Sense as a driver I have the obligation not to run into things in my path, Even stupid people who cannot grasp the concept that them having the right of way will not stop my vehicle. I always approach the trail crossing with much caution because I cannot count the number of time a Bicycler traveling at 25 MPH or greater has not even attempted to look, much less slow down or even exercise the smallest degree of caution when crossing a busy highway(Crestview, Sterling Blvd). I have actually watched as a bicycle ran into the side of a car that was stopped in the crossing due to other traffic. His comment when helped up was to the driver, you were not supposed to be there? Go figure.
To me reading the law shows that I as a driver must Yield to a pedestrian at all times (Common sense). However the pedestrian has responsibilities to not enter traffic until safe, (again Common Sense) and should cross only at marked intersections and when safe. If either one does something stupid the other must do what is required to protect the other. So I will continue to cross the trail with much caution to guard against Stupid people. (By the way a person waiting to cross until safe just might find me stopping for them.)

Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tommc1, MURDEDER here,
still calling people names are you.
What did jlstapleton ever do to you.
I checked back on the posts and you did indeed call me those things. Then you link me to lawyers which is crossing the line.
Please read the law. As jlstapleton and beenaroundhere has stated very nicely, a car who hits a person that steps in front of them cannot be charged with murder. They cannot stop. They have the right of way as the law states.
This issue not about rights or big bad SUV's, it is about safety. The persons being hit are going in front of cars who cannot stop. They would gladly yield the right of way if they could. If this is not the case where are all the drivers be charded with murder?

Posted by momova (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momova, I said you were attempting to justify murder. The statment may have been overly dramatic, but I was emphasising the importance of the issue. I also said that you were ignorant of the law, which is not to say that your ignorant. Most of us are ignorant of most laws. As for jlstapleton, and much unlike you, this person wrote in a manner that dsiplays a disregard for human life.
As I also said before, I agree that pedestrians need to excersise caution and common sense. I am not blaming drivers in all circumstances and have seen behavior by pedestrians that can only be charatrized as reckless. If you read all of the law, it might also be charatrized as illegal (interrupting traffic, ect).

What I rile against are the people who have posted here that say they are under no obligation to stop. Simply being in sight of the pedestrian is not cause for you not to stop. That is not what "in disregard of approaching traffic." means. And this single statement does not give any vehicle the right of way in any circumstances. If you can stop, you are obliged to do so. The pedestrian must judge if the vehicle has the distance to stop or otherwise alter their path to avoid them. That and crossing in a timely manner are the pedestrians responsibility. If someone steps out in front of a car traveling at 50 mph that is only 100 ft away, with a complete disregard of traffic, then I agree the driver is not accountable if he cannot otherwise avoid the person and is not speeding. On the other hand, this idea that if the pedestrian can see you, you have the right of way is just not correct. In fact, the vehicle never has the right of way to a pedestrian (46.2-924-A). It is just in some circumstances, the driver will not be liable. After the fact liability does not intrest me. I am more intrested in solving the problem.

I have read the law. The enitre thing in fact. I strongly suggest you do the same. As beenaroundhere states, the law is common sense.

Posted by tommcfarland (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was stated that “The pedestrians do have the right of way. Always and everywhere. That is state law.” If that is true, why is a speed limit mentioned in section A.3. (A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway: ... 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). So conversely, a vehicle does not have to yield the right-of-way on streets with a legal maximum speed greater than 35. Perhaps that is why there are no signs (YEILD" or "PED XING") on Belmont Ridge and there is signage on the W&OD trail. If this is not the case, why not put crosswalks across 66 or 495. At some vehicle speed it makes it is unreasonable to think a vehicle could safely stop. It appears to me Virginia picked at speed of greater than 35mph.

Posted by baraol (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have had cars ahead of me come to a full stop, however, to allow bike/pedestrian crossing, oblivious to the near-chain-reaction pileup behind them as multiple cars at highway speeds are forced to unexpectedly stop."
______________

Sorry to be the one to point out the obvious here, but the speed limit of 45 mph is the *maximum* legally allowed speed limit. If you're incapable of stopping for the car traveling ahead of you, you need to a) slow down; and b) give more room between yourself and the car you are following.

In any case, we're not talking about pedestrians darting out in front of cars. We're talking about a stream of inconsiderate jacka$$es in cars who wouldn't think of stopping for a pedestrian trying to cross the road at a clearly marked crosswalk. If you're driving in a car, you are required to stop for pedestrians trying to cross at a crosswalk--it's the law, and it's just decent human behavior.

I would take it a step further, and argue that someone operating a motor vehicle at 50 mph in a 45 mph zone who hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk should have the book thrown at them. You're speeding, period.

That's why the call it a "speed limit". As someone who drives many, many miles behind a wheel, and very few on a bike, I find the sense of entitlement among some of the less mature drivers out there is truly mind-boggling.

You hear folks argue that "the speed limits are "artificially low! Only 45 mph??? This road is perfectly safe under dry conditions at 70 mph!!! Oh, and any pedestrians trying to cross better watch out, because I'm going to fast to even see you, much less stop!"

I know seven-year-olds with better impulse control.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for the sake of clarification:
The code described below is cut and paste directly from the code of VA
. § 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.
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;
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.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.
No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.
The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.
Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

Please note it is in the form of an outline. This means
Section A applies when subsections 1, 2, or 3 are present
The statement A is not designed to be standalone, but uses qualifiers 1, 2,3. Therefore a pedestrian does not have the legal right of way and as a driver I do not have to yield unless the pedestrian is engaged in 1, 2, or 3. As such you cannot say”A pedestrian always has the right of way”
As I noted in my previous post I also have the legal obligation not to strike things that are in the roadway that I could have avoided even if I have the right of way. I believe what everyone is saying is that the obligation should be shared by both parties who have obligations both from a common sense standpoint as well as under the law. If a pedestrian does not have the right of way and chooses to step in front of my car does not give me the right to hit them. I still must exercise control of my vehicle in such a manner as to avoid striking them. There are stupid people who will step out because they feel they have the right; there are stupid drivers who will endanger others because they feel they have the right. Both are still stupid people. As was once said. Stupid is forever, you can fix dumb.
For the record it would be very nice if the zig zig concept were also on the trail (by the way if you use the trail you agree to abide by the rules of the trail which do include obeying traffic signs (IE stop signs at intersections).

Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

beenaroundhere,
Your explination of the law is the best so far. I do understand how the law is written and posted it myself a few up. All of the conditions of 46.2-924, and all other sections if Title 46.2 apply equally. My statement assumes that the pedestrian is in the act of qualifier 1, 2 or 3. Otherwise, they would either be in the travel lane illegally or not interacting with traffic at all. Of course even in the case where the pedestrian not following the law does not releive the driver of the use of common sense. You pointed this out.

Further clarification regarding pedestrian responsibility:

§ 46.2-923. How and where pedestrians to cross highways.

When crossing highways, pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles. They shall cross, wherever possible, only at intersections or marked crosswalks. Where intersections contain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligence as a matter of law for crossing at any such intersection or between intersections when crossing by the most direct route.

The governing body of any town or city or the governing body of a county authorized by law to regulate traffic may by ordinance permit pedestrians to cross an intersection diagonally when all traffic entering the intersection has been halted by lights, other traffic control devices, or by a law-enforcement officer.

icoleman - as for speeding:
§ 46.2-823. Unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way.

The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article.

baraol - Your interpertation, although I can see how it came about, is incorrect. The other qualifiers still apply. This rule applies to all intersections only which are unmarked and uncontrolled (no lights, no signs). The other stipualtions apply to all other conditions (such as this crosswalk) and do not have any speed qualifiers. Below is a link to the VDOT guidelines for marked crosswalks (pdf), which many might find informitive. It's not very technicial and has numerous examples. It will give you the rationale for installing crossings in different conditions and will explain why there are no pedestrian crossings of 495.

http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/business/re...

Enjoy.

Posted by tommcfarland (anonymous) on May 4, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article"

Just to clarify for some folks out there, the speed limit is an upper--not a lower--limit. If you're driving above 45 mph through that section of road, you are speeding, and have forfeited any right-of-way.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists may all violate the rules of the road, but they must obey the laws of physics. Just because you legally have the "right of way" doesn't mean that physically you'll get it.

As for the new markings, I'm getting sick of drivers who encounter them on Sterling Blvd for the first time. These drivers swerve all over and come close to causing collisions because they are trying to avoid the lines. Rumble strips would have been a better short-term solution, with building bridges/tunnels for the trail at road crossings a better long-term solution.

Posted by gieriscm1 (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists may all violate the rules of the road, but they must obey the laws of physics. Just because you legally have the "right of way" doesn't mean that physically you'll get it."

I always love when the implicit threats come out. Here's what I do: stop, dismount, put my bike up on its rear wheel, and begin crossing. It's up to the driver to control their vehicle at an at-grade crosswalk.

As gieriscm1 says, The laws of physics must be obeyed, and if my bike ends up going through your windshield at 50+ MPH, it's not going to be pretty.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icoleman, first, let's say the vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, 45 mph. No matter how close to the at-grade crosswalk they are, you would dismount and walk your bike across the street and expect them to be able to avoid you either by stopping or swerving? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would wait briefly to asses the situation--the first car or two would get a pass as I prepared to cross.

In other words, I would exercise caution, but I would expect cars to recognize my stopping, getting off the bike, and putting the bike on its rear wheel as a signal of my intent to cross.

By the time I start across the street, it would be clear to anyone who's paying attention that I'm crossing, and there would be no excuse for a driver to fail to yield.

See those big yellow diamond-shaped signs? Those are there to tell you to use caution--you're approaching a crosswalk. Also, the 45 MPH is a *maximum* speed limit--not a minimum.

If you're traveling through an area that has big yellow warning signs that alert you to a pedestrian/cyclist crossing, you should take precautions for that eventuality--even if it means slowing down.

Posted by icoleman (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tommcfarland - thank you for the clarification, you are correct, vehicles must always yield the right of way at marked crossing, as per section A.1. And thank you for the reference material, it was very informative and has helped me to refine my opinion. Please comment on the following, I would hate to send a fundamentally flawed suggestion to VDOT.
If the crosswalk markings were removed (not the crossing just the marking on Belmont), the right of way would switch from the trail to Belmont road, as per A.3, since the crossing would no longer be clearly marked or considered a regular crossing. The stop signs on the trail would now provide a true meaning of the right of way. The zigzags on Belmont could remain to provide awareness of an upcoming unmarked crosswalk. If VDOT wants the right of way to remain on the trail, I will suggest they should add the level 3 and 4 devices as suggested in Table 1 of their guidelines. Perhaps they could go as far as add a light, as at the Catoctin Cir intersection. But with side arguments of insufficient sight distances, the heavy construction truck usage, and cost, I guess if any option is taken, it would be the removal of the markings. Look forward to your reply.

Posted by baraol (anonymous) on May 5, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pt 1 - Thank you for reviewing the material. Much about VDOT is fundamentally flawed, so a flawed suggestion would fit right in! :)
Regarding your suggestions, removing the markings (and I also assume you mean the signs, as they also constitute markings as do the zigzag lines) would not be allowed. VDOT is interested in keeping the right of way with the pedestrians, as it is consistent with the intent of the law and it is known that pedestrians will cross there. Therefore, not to give pedestrians the right of way there would be negligent. Also, as I mentioned before, the stop sign transmits no responsibility or has any legal bearing to the pedestrian. You must not think of it as a stop sign in the vehicular traffic sense. For example, lets say someone installed a stop sign in the middle of a sidewalk and you walked by it without stopping. You would not get a ticket. There just isn’t any such law. The only device recognized to control pedestrian traffic are the “Control Signals” typical of lighted intersections as follows:

§ 46.2-925. Pedestrian control signals.
Whenever special pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words "Walk" or "Don't Walk" are in place such signals shall indicate as follows:
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.
Therefore, the stop sign has no meaning, is very confusing apparently and should be removed. Also, an argument can be made that the trail falls under the second condition of the rule where:

Ҥ 46.2-924. Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty.
A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:
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 (translation: the projected end of the sidewalk extending across the road when there is another sidewalk on the other side of the road, which would be a reasonable place to expect people to cross)”

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pt 2 - I know that it does say “at the end of a block”, but the engineered conditions all match sufficiently that it cannot be ignored. Also, other portions of the law other than § 46.2-924 pertain including § 46.2-923. How and where pedestrians to cross highways:

“When crossing highways, pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles. They shall cross, wherever possible, only at intersections or marked crosswalks. Where intersections contain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligence as a matter of law for crossing at any such intersection or between intersections when crossing by the most direct route.”

So as you can see, removing the markings will not legally put the right of way back onto the road and is therefore moot. Sorry. It would also be grounds for a negligence case against the State as soon as the first person is injured. And the State would most certianly loose. Also, as I mentioned before, condition A-3 of 46.2-924 is only in regards to three specific conditions, one of which is that it be at a road intersection, which this is not. ON the other hand, installing Type 3 or Type 4 devices is an excellent idea that their own guidance manual strongly suggests. If the sight distances are not good (a very specific conditions which needs to be surveyed), then additional signage is needed if a traffic light with pedestrian control signals is installed (which is a great idea). The cost would be more, but this crossing, just from looking at the photo, needs additional controls. I, for one, would not sleep well at night if I had been the one responsible for this crossing.

If you need anything else, just let me know.

Posted by tommc1 (anonymous) on May 6, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tommc1, Are you a lawyer? Have you argued cases involving pedestrians in court? Do you have any more justification for your statements than the rest of us? Yet you claim to know more that anyone else on this blog regarding traffic laws?

And frankly, I LOVE your feigned sincerity:
"you sir are just ignorant by choice." Thanks for being so polite! You made sure to let momova know that you weren't calling her ignorant, but you didn't hold back for me!

It's really a shame that you interpreted ANYTHING I said as a disregard for human life, and chose to make a personal attack against me, when you made the same statements in different form: "I agree that pedestrians need to excersise caution and common sense. I am not blaming drivers in all circumstances and have seen behavior by pedestrians that can only be charatrized as reckless."

That's the only point I was trying to make, and you have validated EVERYTHING I said in my earlier post with the exception of "The speed of the road and sight-lines for pedestrians/cyclists are such that no car should have to do more that slow slightly to allow for safe passage," which you somehow interpreted as "[I] don't want to be inconvienced." Inconvenienced? By having some poor soul die on my front windshield? Or by having another car slam into me at 50mph because I'm at a dead stop in the road? You're right! I'd rather NOT be inconvenienced in either of those ways! I guess that makes me selfish!

Have you even BEEN on Belmont Ridge Road? If so, then you'd know that it is possible for a biker to approach the road and enter it without being seen by a car until it is too late for the car to stop.

icoleman, if a biker/pedestrian checks before crossing, and crosses well in advance of the traffic as you do, then that traffic should not have to do any more than to slow down. There's a long downhill approach to the path from both directions, and a crosser will be easily spotted within the crossing.

And regarding your holier-than-thou attitude of speeding, I always follow at a safe distance, which is why I have never HIT any of the cars that stop unexpectedly in front of me. But that isn't going to save me from the person tailgating ME, now, is it?

Look, people, the simple fact is, Belmont Ridge was designed as a rural highway, with a path crossing appropriate for that, and it has not kept up with growth in the county. A grade-separated crossing is planned, but that costs more money than the county or state have right now, so it's not going be here for a while. In the meantime, the crosshatched pattern is, as I stated before, a response to a symptom rather than the problem. Pedestrians/bikers need to STOP and check traffic, and traffic needs to be aware that there are frequent crossings, and slow down for people in the crosswalk.

Posted by jlstapleton (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A six lane rural highway? It's in the plans...

Posted by bschweiker (anonymous) on May 15, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tommc1 – thanks for your interpretation. If anyone is interested or wants to provide VDOT with another opinion, I entered the following online work request this afternoon:
Please consider refreshing the zigzags at the Belmont Ridge Road and Washington & Old Dominion (W&OD) trail intersection in Loudoun County. They are losing their visual impact as they are being dulled by the numerous skid marks that now cover them. Especially on Belmont Ridge south bound.
Additionally allow me to make two observations. 1) As part of your monitoring of traffic speeds and driver behavior for a full year, I suggest you also monitor the W&OD trail usage to determine if sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk. A low cost alternative might be no markings at all. I realize this will require W&OD trail users to look both ways before crossing, but as your own guidelines suggest “Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may increase if only marked crosswalks are provided.” (page 12, GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF MARKED CROSSWALKS, Virginia Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division) It appears the number of fresh skid marks validates your document’s point.
2) If a mark crosswalk is justified, please stop experimenting with the safety of the W&OD trail users and follow your own guidelines. Your article, Experimental Pavement Markings Aimed at Speed Reduction, Pedestrian Safety (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/nort...), states that “We’re constantly looking for new ways to alert drivers about pedestrians,” said Hari Sripathi, VDOT regional traffic engineer”. Why reinvent the wheel? It appears to me that you were successful when you followed your guidelines in installing a level 5 devise, specifically a pedestrian-actuated signal, at the intersection of the W&OD trail and Catoctin Circle in Leesburg. Consider doing the same here.
Regards

Posted by baraol (anonymous) on May 18, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Note law enforcement’s interpretation, from “Transcript of Chat with Loudoun Sheriff's Officer on Rules of the Road”:
Question from, Sterling, Va.: “ …
If there is a stop sign on the bike trail, and no stop sign on the road, then no, the drivers should not stop if the bicycles are not yet in the crosswalk, correct? I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. Drivers do not stop at a crosswalk with pedestrians or bikers next to it, especially if only they have a stop sign.
Capt. Thom Shaw: Yes, in cases where the trail crosses the roadway and a stop sign is only present for the cyclist, the motorist has the right-of-way.
“

Posted by baraol (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)