« PG County Steps Up Its Game | Main | 14th St NW Bike Lane Addition »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As the online commenter pointed out, many trail crossings differ from the typical crosswalk in that they have a red stop sign for trail users. Those signs also are unambiguous. They do not mean, "Calculate whether you can make it across the road before you get hit and then decide whether you actually have to stop."

Thanks, Dr Gridlock, for a succinct and comprehensive explanation of why stop signs on crosswalks are dangerous, unfair, and quite possibly illegal.

The problem is it's not clear at all what they *do* mean. If they're intended to explicitly remove the pedestrian right-of-way from the crosswalk, there needs to be legislation that does so. And a sign that says, "Pedestrians have no right of way here. Cross at your own risk."

Dr. Gridlock took 767 characters to say absolutely nothing about the issue. I also don't like the way he used the phrase "before you get hit" placing blame on the pedestrian.

When will this fossil retire? He's endangering cyclists by spreading his unique brand of uninformed idiocy.

"The problem is it's not clear at all what they *do* mean."

They mean you are supposed to *stop*. How is that ambiguous?

There's a difference between losing your right of way and not having the right to continue into an intersection without stopping. When a motorist arrives first at a 4-way stop sign s/he has the right of way AND must stop.

I read Dr. Pangloss as specifically talking about pedestrians. In general stop signs don't apply to pedestrians. So while it may "mean" stop it may be as legally applicable as a sign that reads "Police may enter your home without a warrant."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader