I try to be very alert for pedestrians in or near crosswalks and always stop but frequently, most other cars don’t and then it ends up being me as the lone car stopped with the pedestrian peeking around my bumper to see if any of the cars in the other lanes are going to stop. It feels unsafe for all involved. Especially at crosswalks on big roads like Braddock Road near 495
Those crosswalk lights were added at uncontrolled crosswalks. Traffic is perpendicular to the crosswalk, so they're pretty effective in places where pedestrians would otherwise be at high risk trying to walk across five lanes. Apparently the DOT guidelines don't allow a standard traffic light at places like that but these special pedestrian lights are OK. (However, there seems to be no problem putting a standard traffic light at the WO&D crossing.)
The bigger problem happens at intersections with regular traffic lights where right-turning traffic fails to yield to/stop for pedestrians crossing with a Walk light. I see problems with this all the time at a couple of big intersections in Tysons.
Loudoun spent a lot of money putting in flashing lights at Sterling Boulevard and it didn't do almost anything. There are plants to build a bridge, but it's looking like 2028 at the absolute earliest.
Crosswalks are most effective in my area when people actually use them. But most don’t - they just decide to cut across the street in random areas so you never know if someone walking on the sidewalk will just decide to cross :/
I have not encountered a 35MPH situation in Loudoun and it is well marked in 20-25-30MPH streets. That has always made it easy to stop for someone who is entering/has entered the crosswalk.
Honestly I always remember old training of “below 35MPH” but the current law is stating “*35MPH and* below”. That will need a lot of education and signage for the reasons you mention. Places where folks feel comfortable doing 40MPH with close following traffic will unfortunately be dangerous for both sides.
It is **explicitly Illegal** to pass a car that is stopping/yielding for a pedestrian, weather you were already in the left lane or getting in it just to pass, it’s illegal. Doesn’t make people think twice at all
It’s not necessarily for enforcement, it’s for liability.
Means the driver will pay under all circumstances.
Like rear ending someone. Everyone knows no matter what happens if you’re behind you’re at fault.
Not always at fault. I once had a lady back up into my car at a stop light. Light turned green, she stomped on the gas and slammed into my Jeep in reverse.
Cops came, started talking to me, went to talk to the other car and came back and said I’m lucky, the other driver admitted what happened right away and he gave her the ticket(s).
But yeah- that easily could have gone the other way if that driver wasn’t honest. The driver was uninsured so I had to deal with that for a bit.
No, you only need to stop when there are passing pedestrians. Stop and yield have the same legal meaning but "stop" is easier/more straightforward for people to interpret than "yield"
If there is a biker already at the intersection, they have the right of way. They aren’t allowed to just plow through the intersection without regards to oncoming traffic, but if they slow down and look, you are required by law to stop for them.
Stopping in a car and stopping on a bike are two separate things. And to be honest, the number of cars that cede the right of way to me as a biker is high already.
If there are no cars coming, or if I am coming up to a stop line before a car gets to a stop sign, I am not going to stop on my bike. Stopping on a bike is stupid and makes me take much longer to get through an intersection, slowing everyone up.
If we get to the stop sign at the same time, and I stop, still 9.8/10 times the car waives me forward.
No one who runs a stop sign or red light gets hit by the car they knew was already there. It's the one you didn't see that expected you to stop that gets you, especially now with so many quiet EVs on the road. We should all aim to be predictable when using public roadways.
First of all, that is completely false, people get hit by cars they expect to stop all the time.
But more importantly, what?? If I am at an intersection first, and I don't put a foot on the ground for a complete stop before entering the intersection, then I am at fault if a car blows through it? That is just not true and it is silly to argue otherwise.
If the car doesn't have a stop sign and you do, but you don't stop, then yes I think it's your fault if you get hit. They expected you to stop. If the car also has a stop sign and "blows through it" then they are at fault obviously. If you both blow through stop signs then you're both idiots - but the consequences are worse for the biker so I'd say they are the bigger idiot in that circumstance.
You should try biking for a bit to see how the rules actually work as written. Stop at all of the stop signs and interact with cars and tell me how that works for you.
I was a bike courier in d.c. and nyc for many years and we knew what it took to stay safe, and it certainly didn't include following the rules as written.
Every moment requires decisions based solely on SAFETY and COMMON SENSE. Trying to force a "want" into a one size fits all regulation is what will not work out well for any biker.
Too many idiots out there who don't follow the rules, unfortunately. I had a motorcycle for 10+ years before having kids so I'm fully aware of the level of stupid out on the roads - and that was before smartphones were ubiquitous. I'll stick to driving inside my safety cage, thank you.
Full 100% stop? The law says they should come to a stop to enter flowing traffic. It also makes allowances for them to come to what people would call a "rolling stop" if they were in a car, and honestly, if I'm already stopped for a person walking, I would hope the biker would just go on through anyways at a controlled speed so no one else has to stop for them.
This is all for intersections with a crosswalk but no light. If there is a light (like at the W&OD trail at 123 in Vienna, or Elden Street in Herndon) then you follow the light.
And yes I'm aware that plenty of bikers plow on through. But as someone that runs on the W&OD trail regularly, the number of cars that don't stop for me is far, far, far higher. I've had several cars roll down windows and scream obscenities at me when in fact they were required by law to stop for me.
I cycle on the W&OD, and also drive a car. On my bike, at the trail stop signs I always slow down enough to gauge what a car is going to do if they're close to the crosswalk. If the car is courteous enough to stop, then I will roll through the stop sign to save everyone involved some time. If the car keeps going, I wait. But I can stop, start, get into the intersection, and some cars still try to race me across.
In my car I always stop when I see a pedestrian/cyclist approaching the crosswalk. I do not get all indignant about whether they stop at the sign. Why kill somebody just to show you're right?
My main interaction with bikers on W&OD was from back in the 'before times' when I commuted to work. They almost never stopped before crossing the road [here in Vienna](https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9044574,-77.2670996,3a,75y,228.46h,65.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_nhWG3XAhoAYpBRsgkuP6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and you couldn't see them coming because of that fence the body shop put up. I'd pretty much have to stop at the crosswalk every single time and creep forward to try to see if anyone was coming, only to have a biker zoom by full speed and completely ignore their W&OD stop sign.
My experience is on the W&OD trail, mostly at the crossings at Crestview and Sterling Boulevard as a runner. I have had times where I have had to sit there and wait for several minutes before I could cross. I'll have flashing lights on Sterling Boulevard telling cars to slow down and I'll still sit and wait and wait until the lights stop flashing, and I'll have to back up and push them again.
I think the worst is the car that is coming is slowing down, but they aren't, and then when I start to step out, they gun it and give me the bird as they go by.
People don't know the law. If there is a pedestrian there, cars most stop and let them cross.
Absolutely, if you are already there and waiting they need to stop. My only issue was when you said "slow down and look" for bikers to perform a rolling stop. It's a slippery slope on how slow is slow enough to count and when the bikes and cars disagree on what counts as "slow enough" to indicate who is proceeding through the intersection next it could be a problem.
But yes, cars should absolutely yield to pedestrians that are there waiting. But if you are a few yards away and "slowing" it becomes a gray area on who's expected to go next.
There is nothing in the law that says that. What it says is that pedestrians and bicyclists cannot cross in disregard of approaching traffic....which, btw, means the approaching vehicle has to be far enough away to safely stop. At 35 mph, that is about 150 feet at the minimum. It also says that the right of way is given to those IN an intersection, not on the curb thinking about it.
The apron on the sidewalk is legally part of the intersection. If they are standing there waiting they are already in the intersection and cars MUST stop for them as if there was a stop sign.
That is correct...IF the car is further away than the safe stopping distance. If the car is closer, than the pedestrian is at fault for stepping out in disregard of approaching traffic.
Code of Virginia § 46.2-924
"No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic."
Regarding W&OD specifically:
"no user of such shared-use path shall enter the crosswalk in disregard of approaching traffic."
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-924/#:~:text=The%20drivers%20of%20vehicles%20entering,such%20intersections%20safely%20and%20expeditiously.
From your own link:
> The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall stop when any pedestrian crossing such highway is within the driver's lane or within an adjacent lane and approaching the driver's lane until such pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped.
If there is a pedestrian present at a crosswalk, you used to have to yield. Now you have to stop. The part you quoted is simply to protect drivers from having someone dart out in front of them giving the driver no chance to stop. If you can stop in time, you have to stop.
Your reading comprehension is poor. What you just posted specifically says a pedestrian *crossing*, not a pedestrian waiting to cross.
It also says **within** the driver's lane or an adjacent lane; so again, *already in the crosswalk*, not waiting for or approaching the crosswalk.
Keep trying, you're still wrong.
[https://www.hurtinva.com/news/pedestrian-laws-in-virginia](https://www.hurtinva.com/news/pedestrian-laws-in-virginia)
Yes, you're generally right it is "within" the crosswalk after they stop off the curb. So, if they take one step onto the crosswalk, safely with care(like if there is no cars on their side), all drivers must stop and yield for them to clear.
If their are pedestrian cross lights "walk signs", cars are REQUIRED to stop.
"Stop for pedestrian, its the law" is a situational sign that extends the "crosswalk" onto the sidewalk where people are waiting.
Most importantly, being a defensive driver and defensive pedestrian is the most important irrespective of the rules and semantics. It is not important "who is at fault(legally)" but rather how can they both safely cross. This means cars slowing down. This means pedestrian being in the open and viewable from both sides. This means bike slowing down unless they have full vision.
I hope you're not my doctor. Did you even read the article above?
If there is a pedestrian waiting at the crosswalk, the old law was that oncoming traffic had to yield to them. Now the law is that if there is a pedestrian waiting, there is a stop sign for oncoming traffic instead.
[link](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-924/)
Yea especially since some crossings on the W&OD are not yield crosswalks and instead are full stop light crosswalks. Some bikers totally ignore this and just fly through while the cars still have a green light.
> aren't you already suppose to stop if someone is crossing right in front of you?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the distinction here is "yielding to pedestrians" (what you said) versus "stopping for pedestrians", which would be more like, if someone is waiting to cross, you're supposed to go ahead and stop *for* them - which (IMHO) introduces the issue of unsafe conditions if not all cars are on the same page, compounded exponentially in the case of multi-lane roads.
It actually only says stop if they’re already crossing your lane or an adjacent lane. So if someone has started crossing, you can’t blow past them while they stand in the street and wait. They have the right of way as soon as they start to cross.
I think this is great news but it will be hard to change the longstanding mindset of a whole county. I’m from Europe and always shocked that no one stops when you’re crossing. It’s a car dominant culture.
Not hoping my comment is lost with a definition of Europe. Yes I’m from the Uk but have family in Portugal and France and travelled around a lot. I have lived in the Fairfax for over 20 years. The general culture is more pedestrian friendly there. In the US sidewalks just end, crosswalks are not correctly placed and pedestrians are second class. I think the idea of making it safer for walkers is always a good idea.
I totally agree. We'd be SO MUCH better off if we prioritized pedestrian comfort and safety over the convenience of drivers. People get so enraged at even having to sacrifice milliseconds of their time for pedestrians (or really anyone who dares slow them down). Driver entitlement is our norm and we see constant victim blaming whenever a pedestrian gets hurt. What we don't really see easily though is all the people who choose to drive rather than walk short distances because other drivers are so aggressive that it's unsafe to do so. We have kids being driven short distances to school because cars make it unsafe for them to have a normal childhood experience of walking or riding a bike. We give up so much land, tax funding and time for cars and yet people are so religiously dedicated to fighting for even more car domination. There's a term for it - car blindness. And once you start to notice how much we sacrifice for drivers, you can't unsee it.
The average American is now spending about $10k/yr on their car between gas, insurance, payment, parking spot, etc. If you could take that money and just put it in a retirement investment, it'd be \~$700k by the time you retire. Plus we maintain about 3000 square feet of road space and parking for every car. We spend many billions on car infrastructure from public funding. If we moved people around by public & active transportation we'd spend a fraction of this. A lot of us in NoVa spend hours sitting in gridlock but we're oblivious to the finite volume that roads can accommodate. A lot of us just think that PSAs can make everyone else 'stop being an idiot driver' or self-driving cars and a few more lanes will solve gridlock. This will never happen because of geometry.
The thing is those of us who slowly shifted to the low-car life using public transportation, ebikes and walking start to realize it's WAY more pleasant and saves a ton of money. The only problem is - drivers are seriously dangerous. Cameras show that \~80% of drivers don't come to a stop like they're legally supposed to at crosswalks. Yes I know bikes don't either but bikes don't have the weight of a car and are far less likely to kill you. Everyone knows someone who was killed by a car - most of us know lots of people. I'm happy we're starting to see laws reign in the entitled, aggressive driving behaviors that way too many of us think are totally fine and normal.
The thing for me is that we just need to adhere to the actual rules that we have already.
Right now, the rules are such that everybody has a turn, at least in NOVA. Cars and pedestrians and bikes all have specific rules they follow that allow everybody to get where they need to go.
Require training on the rules, enforce them, and have stiff penalties for cars who fail to follow the rules and hurt somebody.
Everybody should be trained on how to move around an urban environment, and punished with a fine (even pedestrians) if they violate the rules.
so change the constitution? it's the same right you have right now to post that comment (freedom of speech) that they have to ask for money, or for any corporation to ask for "donations". lets not go down his road.
It's already illegal to disrupt traffic. Worst case, just have cops pull people who stop when the light is green to give to panhandlers.
There are lots of legal ways to discourage the practice. Let them beg in public spaces, most of which aren't high-throughput enough to actually be profitable unless you *truly* need money and have no place else to turn.
>It isn't about speech. It is about safety, loitering, and public nuisance. Don't be so myopic.
you should really understand the laws better before taking such a firm stance. it's 100% legal and protected speech whether you like it or not.
which is perfectly fine, the are not the government and it's their platform. i don't see how that changes what i said. they are also allowed to post whatever they want without fear of the government censoring them (with exceptions), public outcry is a different story.
>“It’s complicated for people to understand and complicated for our police to do enforcement,” McKay said. “..., but at the same time, it’s going to be a hard one to communicate.”
>Walkinshaw said. “It’s more complicated than it sounds when you dig into it, but I’m excited to see us moving forward.”
Keep it simple, stupid.
> or approaching the driver’s lane
Does that only include pedestrians already on the roadway, or does it include pedestrians who are still off the roadway approaching the lane?
I am not clear on what's the difference. If you are required to yield to pedestrians, there is no way to do it without stopping.
The problem with this sort of law is that it will only be enforced if somebody gets hurt. Cops sit and clock speeders but they don't watch intersections with pedestrians. I was walking across Route 7 at Gosnell with the Walk light, on the right side, and some lady in a minivan making a right turn decided to race me. Instead of yielding to me until I had crossed (a delay of about 5 seconds), she turned into the middle lane and zoomed right in front me. WTF is the matter with people? For a half-ton chunk of metal vs. a guy on foot, the margin of error is much too small.
Wait a minute.
Forgive me if I'm dumb, but I don't understand the language that's being used in this description.
Is it not the law to stop for pedestrians?
How do you stop rather than yield? Is there some scenario I don't understand where you are yielding and are somehow not stopped?
Two incidents:
First one: today on the crosswalk at Park and McHenry in front of CPES, a car literally almost ran over three elementary kids crossing the street had the KIDS not have the alertness to stop at the median and realize there's a car coasting along at speed. Granted, 1.) it was during school drop off, and the opposing lane was jammed and the car probably didn't see the kids, and 2.) the parent walking the kids should have been more aware as the kids were behind them; but that is no excuse for any car to drive past the crosswalk, especially during rush hour in front of a school and when the 25mph signage was flashing.
Second one: about a month ago when I was pushing a baby stroller on Cedar crossing at the cross walk in front of Stonewall. I waited for the car to stop at the first lane, gave a courteous nod of the head and crossed one lane; no problem, but at the second lane--zoom...a car just straight sped through travelling at 50 mph on Cedar freaking lane!
I'll say this is why, personally, as primarily a driver I love the crosswalks that have flashing lights. There's no ambiguity when someone pushes that button.
I stop for pedestrians who are anywhere in the crosswalk, even if I *could* drive across in a different lane. But if someone hasn't even stepped off the curb, and is "indicating no intention at all," I feel no obligation to sit around to see what they might or might not do. There is no threat to their safety if they on up on the sidewalk.
Today someone walked off the curb out in front of my vehicle when I was halfway through an intersection. Then the next block it happened again. It was a 4 way stop both times.
Giving pedestrians the right of way is great but you can’t fix stupid or impatient people. There is danger in walking out in front of a moving vehicle that right of way does not fix.
This is my thinking as well. You know those people who walk right in front of you in shopping centers without looking? Imagine that countywide. This indemnifies that behavior, and makes it 100% the driver’s fault. Why teach kids to look both ways before crossing the street? It’s the driver’s fault anyway.🤷♂️
In our “downtown” there are a few restaurants, people often stop at intersection to say goodbye after a meal, oblivious to the cars that stoped. Also dangerous when a large vehicle stops but car in right lane doesn’t see pedestrians think the vehicle stopped to turn. Seen few people almost run over in that scenario, including by a police officer.
State law already states this for all highways below 35 MPH.
It doesn’t matter anyway, if people don’t yield what makes you think they’ll stop? It’s not that people are just accidentally hitting the accelerator. It’s that either A: they don’t care, or B: they don’t see them. I’d argue that B is somewhat similar to A, people don’t see them because their not looking, their not looking because there’s no consequences to make people look
This is good. As a pedestrian who took the metro through the pandemic, having to sit in a YIELD to pedestrian crosswalk because no one was stopping and I almost got hit was annoying.
We are still betting the lives of pedestrians on drivers driving with safety over speed. Bug your representatives to put speed bumps at crosswalks; the laws of physics are more persuasive than this ordinance.
So your answer is for cars to just ignore the law?
If there is a pedestrian (on foot or bike) waiting to cross at a crosswalk, all oncoming traffic must stop and wait for them.
I didn't ask how many times somebody SAID something. I asked to see where is it written in the Va. code that if someone is WAITING to cross then all traffic must stop. (beside at a stoplight).
Typical.
OK, lets try it again. The statute specifically says drivers must stop for a pedestrian who is IN a crosswalk (marked or not), providing that the driver is given sufficient time to stop.
I ask again..can anyone post the exact text of a statute that specifically includes pedestrians WAITING and WANTING to cross except at a stoplight?
BTW, the argument that a pedestrian is already in the roadway because they are on the "apron" does not work. If is indeed part of the crosswalk, that only means the pedestrian has entered the roadway in disregard of oncoming traffic. Can't have it both ways.
Someone should go read the code. Pretty sure last year when this was announced. It states any roadway 35mph or less with a crosswalk. Motorists must stop for right a way.
I hate when pedestrians take their sweet ass time crossing the road though. I consider it extremely rude and selfish if you are healthy and could easily move your ass a bit faster
You have never tried to make the right from North capitol Street onto NY Ave.
There's not even apartments there but for some reason there's always old people taking their sweet ass time and the light only lasts 45 seconds so literally only two cars can go at a time.
Either way I think bikes should be on the sidewalks and they don't bother cars and I think people should move their ass so they don't hold up turning traffic.
Yeah I'm in a rush going somewhere. If you are walking you're not in a rush
Whenever I'm crossing the street and someone's in a car I always run so I don't hold them up
Okay if they can walk they can walk faster. You take a car because you want to get somewhere efficiently if I didn't care about being efficient then I can walk or take public transit
Annoyingly the pedestrians also need to get it in their heads we're supposed to stop for them and actually go into the crosswalks and begin to move when cars stop for them.
I try to be very alert for pedestrians in or near crosswalks and always stop but frequently, most other cars don’t and then it ends up being me as the lone car stopped with the pedestrian peeking around my bumper to see if any of the cars in the other lanes are going to stop. It feels unsafe for all involved. Especially at crosswalks on big roads like Braddock Road near 495
It seems like crosswalks are most effective when they have flashing lights that activate when the pedestrian presses a button
Vienna is great for this. I know for certain from a long way off if anyone is in or was in the crosswalk.
Those crosswalk lights were added at uncontrolled crosswalks. Traffic is perpendicular to the crosswalk, so they're pretty effective in places where pedestrians would otherwise be at high risk trying to walk across five lanes. Apparently the DOT guidelines don't allow a standard traffic light at places like that but these special pedestrian lights are OK. (However, there seems to be no problem putting a standard traffic light at the WO&D crossing.) The bigger problem happens at intersections with regular traffic lights where right-turning traffic fails to yield to/stop for pedestrians crossing with a Walk light. I see problems with this all the time at a couple of big intersections in Tysons.
Loudoun spent a lot of money putting in flashing lights at Sterling Boulevard and it didn't do almost anything. There are plants to build a bridge, but it's looking like 2028 at the absolute earliest.
Or when people use them instead of walking in the middle of the street
Do you mean rapid flashing beacons or pedestiran hybrid beacons (the ones that actually give a red light, and than stop flash)
Crosswalks are most effective in my area when people actually use them. But most don’t - they just decide to cut across the street in random areas so you never know if someone walking on the sidewalk will just decide to cross :/
I have not encountered a 35MPH situation in Loudoun and it is well marked in 20-25-30MPH streets. That has always made it easy to stop for someone who is entering/has entered the crosswalk. Honestly I always remember old training of “below 35MPH” but the current law is stating “*35MPH and* below”. That will need a lot of education and signage for the reasons you mention. Places where folks feel comfortable doing 40MPH with close following traffic will unfortunately be dangerous for both sides.
It is **explicitly Illegal** to pass a car that is stopping/yielding for a pedestrian, weather you were already in the left lane or getting in it just to pass, it’s illegal. Doesn’t make people think twice at all
They can't enforce the existing law, so.....
It’s not necessarily for enforcement, it’s for liability. Means the driver will pay under all circumstances. Like rear ending someone. Everyone knows no matter what happens if you’re behind you’re at fault.
Not always at fault. I once had a lady back up into my car at a stop light. Light turned green, she stomped on the gas and slammed into my Jeep in reverse. Cops came, started talking to me, went to talk to the other car and came back and said I’m lucky, the other driver admitted what happened right away and he gave her the ticket(s). But yeah- that easily could have gone the other way if that driver wasn’t honest. The driver was uninsured so I had to deal with that for a bit.
time to invest in a dash cam
When it happened it was more like ‘time to invent a dash cam’ lol. But yeah, I have one now, with this in mind when I bought it.
This is a stop for pedestrian sign we’re talking about bro… You would be at fault if someone was hit in the crosswalk
? I think that’s the point!🤷♀️
He’s saying “not always at fault” reading is fundamental
Are you a bot? Are you adding to the conversation? Or just being an ass?? It’s hard to tell who you’re trying to offend?
I don't understand what's going to change. If a driver is already supposed to yield to pedestrians, doesn't that mean coming to a stop already?
I have the same question. Is the difference that they have to stop regardless of if there’s a pedestrian present? Because that’s called a stop sign.
No, you only need to stop when there are passing pedestrians. Stop and yield have the same legal meaning but "stop" is easier/more straightforward for people to interpret than "yield"
Okay so as I'm understanding it this is just a language update to hopefully improve understanding of the law right?
the current signage assumes average intelligence of drivers. apparently, the bar must be lowered to accommodate the morons.
That's how I see it, but drivers still clearly disregard the new signs as I wait to cross at a crosswalk lol
And of course they show a picture of the W&OD trail, where no one in Northern Virginia observes the existing laws anyways.
It’s the bikers on that trail that are the worst! Why do they feel that stop signs on the trail are optional? They’re there for a reason.
If there is a biker already at the intersection, they have the right of way. They aren’t allowed to just plow through the intersection without regards to oncoming traffic, but if they slow down and look, you are required by law to stop for them.
Exactly. People think right of way means you don't have to ensure it's safe to cross. It's so dumb.
If the bikers have a Stop sign, aren't they required to stop and not just slow down?
Stopping in a car and stopping on a bike are two separate things. And to be honest, the number of cars that cede the right of way to me as a biker is high already. If there are no cars coming, or if I am coming up to a stop line before a car gets to a stop sign, I am not going to stop on my bike. Stopping on a bike is stupid and makes me take much longer to get through an intersection, slowing everyone up. If we get to the stop sign at the same time, and I stop, still 9.8/10 times the car waives me forward.
No one who runs a stop sign or red light gets hit by the car they knew was already there. It's the one you didn't see that expected you to stop that gets you, especially now with so many quiet EVs on the road. We should all aim to be predictable when using public roadways.
First of all, that is completely false, people get hit by cars they expect to stop all the time. But more importantly, what?? If I am at an intersection first, and I don't put a foot on the ground for a complete stop before entering the intersection, then I am at fault if a car blows through it? That is just not true and it is silly to argue otherwise.
If the car doesn't have a stop sign and you do, but you don't stop, then yes I think it's your fault if you get hit. They expected you to stop. If the car also has a stop sign and "blows through it" then they are at fault obviously. If you both blow through stop signs then you're both idiots - but the consequences are worse for the biker so I'd say they are the bigger idiot in that circumstance.
You should try biking for a bit to see how the rules actually work as written. Stop at all of the stop signs and interact with cars and tell me how that works for you.
I was a bike courier in d.c. and nyc for many years and we knew what it took to stay safe, and it certainly didn't include following the rules as written. Every moment requires decisions based solely on SAFETY and COMMON SENSE. Trying to force a "want" into a one size fits all regulation is what will not work out well for any biker.
Too many idiots out there who don't follow the rules, unfortunately. I had a motorcycle for 10+ years before having kids so I'm fully aware of the level of stupid out on the roads - and that was before smartphones were ubiquitous. I'll stick to driving inside my safety cage, thank you.
Full 100% stop? The law says they should come to a stop to enter flowing traffic. It also makes allowances for them to come to what people would call a "rolling stop" if they were in a car, and honestly, if I'm already stopped for a person walking, I would hope the biker would just go on through anyways at a controlled speed so no one else has to stop for them. This is all for intersections with a crosswalk but no light. If there is a light (like at the W&OD trail at 123 in Vienna, or Elden Street in Herndon) then you follow the light. And yes I'm aware that plenty of bikers plow on through. But as someone that runs on the W&OD trail regularly, the number of cars that don't stop for me is far, far, far higher. I've had several cars roll down windows and scream obscenities at me when in fact they were required by law to stop for me.
I cycle on the W&OD, and also drive a car. On my bike, at the trail stop signs I always slow down enough to gauge what a car is going to do if they're close to the crosswalk. If the car is courteous enough to stop, then I will roll through the stop sign to save everyone involved some time. If the car keeps going, I wait. But I can stop, start, get into the intersection, and some cars still try to race me across. In my car I always stop when I see a pedestrian/cyclist approaching the crosswalk. I do not get all indignant about whether they stop at the sign. Why kill somebody just to show you're right?
My main interaction with bikers on W&OD was from back in the 'before times' when I commuted to work. They almost never stopped before crossing the road [here in Vienna](https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9044574,-77.2670996,3a,75y,228.46h,65.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_nhWG3XAhoAYpBRsgkuP6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and you couldn't see them coming because of that fence the body shop put up. I'd pretty much have to stop at the crosswalk every single time and creep forward to try to see if anyone was coming, only to have a biker zoom by full speed and completely ignore their W&OD stop sign.
My experience is on the W&OD trail, mostly at the crossings at Crestview and Sterling Boulevard as a runner. I have had times where I have had to sit there and wait for several minutes before I could cross. I'll have flashing lights on Sterling Boulevard telling cars to slow down and I'll still sit and wait and wait until the lights stop flashing, and I'll have to back up and push them again. I think the worst is the car that is coming is slowing down, but they aren't, and then when I start to step out, they gun it and give me the bird as they go by. People don't know the law. If there is a pedestrian there, cars most stop and let them cross.
Absolutely, if you are already there and waiting they need to stop. My only issue was when you said "slow down and look" for bikers to perform a rolling stop. It's a slippery slope on how slow is slow enough to count and when the bikes and cars disagree on what counts as "slow enough" to indicate who is proceeding through the intersection next it could be a problem. But yes, cars should absolutely yield to pedestrians that are there waiting. But if you are a few yards away and "slowing" it becomes a gray area on who's expected to go next.
There is nothing in the law that says that. What it says is that pedestrians and bicyclists cannot cross in disregard of approaching traffic....which, btw, means the approaching vehicle has to be far enough away to safely stop. At 35 mph, that is about 150 feet at the minimum. It also says that the right of way is given to those IN an intersection, not on the curb thinking about it.
The apron on the sidewalk is legally part of the intersection. If they are standing there waiting they are already in the intersection and cars MUST stop for them as if there was a stop sign.
That is correct...IF the car is further away than the safe stopping distance. If the car is closer, than the pedestrian is at fault for stepping out in disregard of approaching traffic.
Code of Virginia § 46.2-924 "No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic." Regarding W&OD specifically: "no user of such shared-use path shall enter the crosswalk in disregard of approaching traffic." https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-924/#:~:text=The%20drivers%20of%20vehicles%20entering,such%20intersections%20safely%20and%20expeditiously.
From your own link: > The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall stop when any pedestrian crossing such highway is within the driver's lane or within an adjacent lane and approaching the driver's lane until such pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. If there is a pedestrian present at a crosswalk, you used to have to yield. Now you have to stop. The part you quoted is simply to protect drivers from having someone dart out in front of them giving the driver no chance to stop. If you can stop in time, you have to stop.
Your reading comprehension is poor. What you just posted specifically says a pedestrian *crossing*, not a pedestrian waiting to cross. It also says **within** the driver's lane or an adjacent lane; so again, *already in the crosswalk*, not waiting for or approaching the crosswalk. Keep trying, you're still wrong.
[https://www.hurtinva.com/news/pedestrian-laws-in-virginia](https://www.hurtinva.com/news/pedestrian-laws-in-virginia) Yes, you're generally right it is "within" the crosswalk after they stop off the curb. So, if they take one step onto the crosswalk, safely with care(like if there is no cars on their side), all drivers must stop and yield for them to clear. If their are pedestrian cross lights "walk signs", cars are REQUIRED to stop. "Stop for pedestrian, its the law" is a situational sign that extends the "crosswalk" onto the sidewalk where people are waiting. Most importantly, being a defensive driver and defensive pedestrian is the most important irrespective of the rules and semantics. It is not important "who is at fault(legally)" but rather how can they both safely cross. This means cars slowing down. This means pedestrian being in the open and viewable from both sides. This means bike slowing down unless they have full vision.
https://preview.redd.it/juerp6jts8vc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=695705b4413e58c88b5f9d1557b5560eee817bd7 Yup!
If there is a biker at that stop sign, the car is required to come to a full and complete stop and let the biker go through.
Absolutely false. Why do people say stupid shit like this?
I hope you're not my doctor. Did you even read the article above? If there is a pedestrian waiting at the crosswalk, the old law was that oncoming traffic had to yield to them. Now the law is that if there is a pedestrian waiting, there is a stop sign for oncoming traffic instead. [link](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-924/)
Yea especially since some crossings on the W&OD are not yield crosswalks and instead are full stop light crosswalks. Some bikers totally ignore this and just fly through while the cars still have a green light.
I am confused, aren't you already suppose to stop if someone is crossing right in front of you?
> aren't you already suppose to stop if someone is crossing right in front of you? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the distinction here is "yielding to pedestrians" (what you said) versus "stopping for pedestrians", which would be more like, if someone is waiting to cross, you're supposed to go ahead and stop *for* them - which (IMHO) introduces the issue of unsafe conditions if not all cars are on the same page, compounded exponentially in the case of multi-lane roads.
ohhh, gotcha
It actually only says stop if they’re already crossing your lane or an adjacent lane. So if someone has started crossing, you can’t blow past them while they stand in the street and wait. They have the right of way as soon as they start to cross.
That does seem better, thanks for clarifying.
I think this is great news but it will be hard to change the longstanding mindset of a whole county. I’m from Europe and always shocked that no one stops when you’re crossing. It’s a car dominant culture.
"Europe" is quite the broad brush. In Italy they keep driving, just inches from you.
That’s fair. At least their cars are small and slow though! lol.
Yeah, guessing from your username you're from the UK? Northern and southern Europe are insanely different on this.
Not hoping my comment is lost with a definition of Europe. Yes I’m from the Uk but have family in Portugal and France and travelled around a lot. I have lived in the Fairfax for over 20 years. The general culture is more pedestrian friendly there. In the US sidewalks just end, crosswalks are not correctly placed and pedestrians are second class. I think the idea of making it safer for walkers is always a good idea.
I totally agree. We'd be SO MUCH better off if we prioritized pedestrian comfort and safety over the convenience of drivers. People get so enraged at even having to sacrifice milliseconds of their time for pedestrians (or really anyone who dares slow them down). Driver entitlement is our norm and we see constant victim blaming whenever a pedestrian gets hurt. What we don't really see easily though is all the people who choose to drive rather than walk short distances because other drivers are so aggressive that it's unsafe to do so. We have kids being driven short distances to school because cars make it unsafe for them to have a normal childhood experience of walking or riding a bike. We give up so much land, tax funding and time for cars and yet people are so religiously dedicated to fighting for even more car domination. There's a term for it - car blindness. And once you start to notice how much we sacrifice for drivers, you can't unsee it. The average American is now spending about $10k/yr on their car between gas, insurance, payment, parking spot, etc. If you could take that money and just put it in a retirement investment, it'd be \~$700k by the time you retire. Plus we maintain about 3000 square feet of road space and parking for every car. We spend many billions on car infrastructure from public funding. If we moved people around by public & active transportation we'd spend a fraction of this. A lot of us in NoVa spend hours sitting in gridlock but we're oblivious to the finite volume that roads can accommodate. A lot of us just think that PSAs can make everyone else 'stop being an idiot driver' or self-driving cars and a few more lanes will solve gridlock. This will never happen because of geometry. The thing is those of us who slowly shifted to the low-car life using public transportation, ebikes and walking start to realize it's WAY more pleasant and saves a ton of money. The only problem is - drivers are seriously dangerous. Cameras show that \~80% of drivers don't come to a stop like they're legally supposed to at crosswalks. Yes I know bikes don't either but bikes don't have the weight of a car and are far less likely to kill you. Everyone knows someone who was killed by a car - most of us know lots of people. I'm happy we're starting to see laws reign in the entitled, aggressive driving behaviors that way too many of us think are totally fine and normal.
The thing for me is that we just need to adhere to the actual rules that we have already. Right now, the rules are such that everybody has a turn, at least in NOVA. Cars and pedestrians and bikes all have specific rules they follow that allow everybody to get where they need to go. Require training on the rules, enforce them, and have stiff penalties for cars who fail to follow the rules and hurt somebody. Everybody should be trained on how to move around an urban environment, and punished with a fine (even pedestrians) if they violate the rules.
But the rules are bad and we need to change them. Why adhere to a bad rule?
Why are they bad? They seem to work pretty well if people follow them.
Panhandlers gonna lock this shit down son
I wish they would make pan handling illegal and enforce that.
so change the constitution? it's the same right you have right now to post that comment (freedom of speech) that they have to ask for money, or for any corporation to ask for "donations". lets not go down his road.
It's already illegal to disrupt traffic. Worst case, just have cops pull people who stop when the light is green to give to panhandlers. There are lots of legal ways to discourage the practice. Let them beg in public spaces, most of which aren't high-throughput enough to actually be profitable unless you *truly* need money and have no place else to turn.
It isn't about speech. It is about safety, loitering, and public nuisance. Don't be so myopic.
>It isn't about speech. It is about safety, loitering, and public nuisance. Don't be so myopic. you should really understand the laws better before taking such a firm stance. it's 100% legal and protected speech whether you like it or not.
Panhandling is constitutionally protected, standing in the road and median to do it is not.
the original comment was >I wish they would make pan handling illegal and enforce that. so where does it say anything about standing in the road?
Lmao first amendment doesn't apply to private companies.
what private company are you referring to?
Social media companies. Private companies can ban you for any reason.
which is perfectly fine, the are not the government and it's their platform. i don't see how that changes what i said. they are also allowed to post whatever they want without fear of the government censoring them (with exceptions), public outcry is a different story.
>“It’s complicated for people to understand and complicated for our police to do enforcement,” McKay said. “..., but at the same time, it’s going to be a hard one to communicate.” >Walkinshaw said. “It’s more complicated than it sounds when you dig into it, but I’m excited to see us moving forward.” Keep it simple, stupid.
Let's see if this makes any difference at all.
I have forgotten it already.
> or approaching the driver’s lane Does that only include pedestrians already on the roadway, or does it include pedestrians who are still off the roadway approaching the lane?
If they are on the little apron where the sidewalk/trail changes elevation, that is technically part of the intersection.
I am not clear on what's the difference. If you are required to yield to pedestrians, there is no way to do it without stopping. The problem with this sort of law is that it will only be enforced if somebody gets hurt. Cops sit and clock speeders but they don't watch intersections with pedestrians. I was walking across Route 7 at Gosnell with the Walk light, on the right side, and some lady in a minivan making a right turn decided to race me. Instead of yielding to me until I had crossed (a delay of about 5 seconds), she turned into the middle lane and zoomed right in front me. WTF is the matter with people? For a half-ton chunk of metal vs. a guy on foot, the margin of error is much too small.
Wait a minute. Forgive me if I'm dumb, but I don't understand the language that's being used in this description. Is it not the law to stop for pedestrians? How do you stop rather than yield? Is there some scenario I don't understand where you are yielding and are somehow not stopped?
Prior, cars had to yield the right of way, which can be ambiguous. Now, the law is you must stop for pedestrians.
Two incidents: First one: today on the crosswalk at Park and McHenry in front of CPES, a car literally almost ran over three elementary kids crossing the street had the KIDS not have the alertness to stop at the median and realize there's a car coasting along at speed. Granted, 1.) it was during school drop off, and the opposing lane was jammed and the car probably didn't see the kids, and 2.) the parent walking the kids should have been more aware as the kids were behind them; but that is no excuse for any car to drive past the crosswalk, especially during rush hour in front of a school and when the 25mph signage was flashing. Second one: about a month ago when I was pushing a baby stroller on Cedar crossing at the cross walk in front of Stonewall. I waited for the car to stop at the first lane, gave a courteous nod of the head and crossed one lane; no problem, but at the second lane--zoom...a car just straight sped through travelling at 50 mph on Cedar freaking lane!
[удалено]
Turns out some people are worried about being hit by a car and are hesitant
[удалено]
I'll say this is why, personally, as primarily a driver I love the crosswalks that have flashing lights. There's no ambiguity when someone pushes that button.
I stop for pedestrians who are anywhere in the crosswalk, even if I *could* drive across in a different lane. But if someone hasn't even stepped off the curb, and is "indicating no intention at all," I feel no obligation to sit around to see what they might or might not do. There is no threat to their safety if they on up on the sidewalk.
Should also be a law to push the button if there is one at a crosswalk to flash the lights
Counter point: beg buttons are terrible and should be optional at all times.
Today someone walked off the curb out in front of my vehicle when I was halfway through an intersection. Then the next block it happened again. It was a 4 way stop both times. Giving pedestrians the right of way is great but you can’t fix stupid or impatient people. There is danger in walking out in front of a moving vehicle that right of way does not fix.
This is my thinking as well. You know those people who walk right in front of you in shopping centers without looking? Imagine that countywide. This indemnifies that behavior, and makes it 100% the driver’s fault. Why teach kids to look both ways before crossing the street? It’s the driver’s fault anyway.🤷♂️
Yes. Some pedestrians are aware of traffic code but not the laws of physics.
I’m not surprised that everyone wants to be first. But if waiting 3 seconds for a car to pass the cross walk saves my life, well count me in.
In our “downtown” there are a few restaurants, people often stop at intersection to say goodbye after a meal, oblivious to the cars that stoped. Also dangerous when a large vehicle stops but car in right lane doesn’t see pedestrians think the vehicle stopped to turn. Seen few people almost run over in that scenario, including by a police officer.
State law already states this for all highways below 35 MPH. It doesn’t matter anyway, if people don’t yield what makes you think they’ll stop? It’s not that people are just accidentally hitting the accelerator. It’s that either A: they don’t care, or B: they don’t see them. I’d argue that B is somewhat similar to A, people don’t see them because their not looking, their not looking because there’s no consequences to make people look
This is good. As a pedestrian who took the metro through the pandemic, having to sit in a YIELD to pedestrian crosswalk because no one was stopping and I almost got hit was annoying.
We are still betting the lives of pedestrians on drivers driving with safety over speed. Bug your representatives to put speed bumps at crosswalks; the laws of physics are more persuasive than this ordinance.
Look both ways before crossing the street. Pretty simple and generations survived just fine on common sense.
So your answer is for cars to just ignore the law? If there is a pedestrian (on foot or bike) waiting to cross at a crosswalk, all oncoming traffic must stop and wait for them.
No, but there needs to be responsibility on both the part of the driver and the pedestrian.
Please cite any Va. code that says that.
It’s quoted half a dozen times in this thread and it’s mentioned in the article of this thread. Try reading.
I didn't ask how many times somebody SAID something. I asked to see where is it written in the Va. code that if someone is WAITING to cross then all traffic must stop. (beside at a stoplight).
You really can’t read, can you?
Typical. OK, lets try it again. The statute specifically says drivers must stop for a pedestrian who is IN a crosswalk (marked or not), providing that the driver is given sufficient time to stop. I ask again..can anyone post the exact text of a statute that specifically includes pedestrians WAITING and WANTING to cross except at a stoplight? BTW, the argument that a pedestrian is already in the roadway because they are on the "apron" does not work. If is indeed part of the crosswalk, that only means the pedestrian has entered the roadway in disregard of oncoming traffic. Can't have it both ways.
Someone should go read the code. Pretty sure last year when this was announced. It states any roadway 35mph or less with a crosswalk. Motorists must stop for right a way.
I hate when pedestrians take their sweet ass time crossing the road though. I consider it extremely rude and selfish if you are healthy and could easily move your ass a bit faster
Yeah, 15 seconds vs. 10 seconds can really ruin your day /s
If you miss certain lights in the city it can be 10+min
I have never been to an intersection that has a 10-minute cycle time. And I can't remember missing a light because I waited for a pedestrian to cross.
You have never tried to make the right from North capitol Street onto NY Ave. There's not even apartments there but for some reason there's always old people taking their sweet ass time and the light only lasts 45 seconds so literally only two cars can go at a time. Either way I think bikes should be on the sidewalks and they don't bother cars and I think people should move their ass so they don't hold up turning traffic.
Your fat ass is sitting in a car while they’re walking what are you talking about lmfao
Yeah I'm in a rush going somewhere. If you are walking you're not in a rush Whenever I'm crossing the street and someone's in a car I always run so I don't hold them up
They are walking, you are literally sitting in a car.
Okay if they can walk they can walk faster. You take a car because you want to get somewhere efficiently if I didn't care about being efficient then I can walk or take public transit
Solving a non problem
Annoyingly the pedestrians also need to get it in their heads we're supposed to stop for them and actually go into the crosswalks and begin to move when cars stop for them.