More on trail crossings of roads

Here

Nick Keenan says that stop signs at trail crossings "are problematic, because they erroneously give motorists the impression they have the right of way when they do not." [Dr. Gridlock, July 29] That might be the case, but the stop signs were installed for a reason, usually issues of visibility, and cyclists should obey them.

A good example is the W&OD Trail crossing of Virginia Lane in Fairfax County. The crossing is on a tight curve of Virginia Lane, just four yards from the intersection with Shreve Road. Southbound motorists on Virginia Lane approaching the intersection watch for traffic on Shreve and cannot easily see eastbound cyclists because they are obscured by the driver's blind spot.

Similarly, westbound cyclists are obscured by tall grass along the trail. The stop signs are meant to protect the cyclists from motorists who can't see them. A cyclist would have to be nuts to blow through that crossing without stopping. I've been riding the W&OD Trail on and off for nearly 30 years, and I've seen lots of close calls. I respect stop signs along the trail.

Clive Carpi

Kingstowne

DG: Motorists probably aren't going to see the stop signs pointing at trail users, so I think it's unlikely that the signs create any confusion for drivers. They should be paying attention to the crosswalks and the warning signs on the roads. But the trail stop signs should serve as an unambiguous aid for the trail users, calling their attention to the need to stop and look in both directions. The signs really aren't about who has the right to hit whom, or whether someone has the right to move out into oncoming traffic. As Carpi notes, the signs and lines are meant to protect everyone, not assign blame after a collision.

Comments

[James]

Actually I think the stop signs *do* give the impression that trail users do not have the right of way. I was witness to an accident where the WOD crosses Cedar. A car had stopped at the cross walk, the car behind him did not. The first question I was asked by the Police was "Did you come to a stop at the stop sign". If the cops think we dont have the right of way you can bet ordinary drivers dont.

[Dr Pangloss]

Yep. Those signs are there *specifically* to take the lawful ROW away from pedestrians and cyclists and give it to drivers.

[Contrarian]

They're an attempt anyway. Putting up signs doesn't change the law.

What's interesting is that Maryland has taken a hard turn in the opposite direction, at least along the Capital Crescent Trail. There they have put up bollards saying "State Law: Stop for Pedestrians" and even painted stop lines on the road. It seems like only yesterday they were putting speed bumps on the bike path so this is a pretty radical departure for them.

What's even more interesting is that Maryland's law is much more ambiguous than Virginia's.

[Jim Titus]

@James. Dr. Gridlock meant that the stop signs don't give drivers an excuse to change how they drive or a legitimate reason to later claim that they have the right of way in spite of the crosswalk. Police investigating an accident should ask everyone what they were doing--though it seems strange that if you were just a witness the police would ask you whether you stopped, more important to know about the parties to the accident.

@Dr. Pangloss. I don't see any basis for what you say about the purpose of the stop sign. The law requires yielding to a cyclist or pedestrian in the cross walk--there is no exception for cyclists running stop signs, so a driver must yield even to a drunk cyclist on a cellphone who just ran the stop sign. (The cyclist also has a duty to stop, so if the cyclist fails to stop and the car fails to yield then both parties are at fault just as if each had run a stop sign.)

@Contrarian. Could you explain what you think is ambiguous about the law in Maryland? It seems pretty clear to me that cyclists in the crosswalk do not get any of the right of way that is afforded to a pedestrian, unless the cyclist has a green signal or a walk sign. For the situations described along the W&OD, there is not light so the car has the right of way over a cyclist on the trail.

[J]

Cyclists always get the blame thrown a them. The media does it, the cops do it, other people do it.

When a bike gets hit, the questions appear to be (in order)
-Was he wearing a helmet?
IF NOT BLAME
-Was he in the bike lane?
IF NOT BLAME
-Was he in the crosswalk
IF SO BLAME
-Did he blow through the crossing?
IF SO BLAME

Note that none of those things are legally correct, but the cyclist will be blamed anyway, and the cop will not cite the driver.

It's rare enough that a driver will be cited for hitting a bike. if there's even the tiniest indication that 1% of the blame may be on the cyclist (ie, not stopping at the illegal stop sign), then there wont be a citation, plain and simple.

[twk]

@Jim

Wasn't the MD law recently changed that gives cyclists the right of way over drivers in a crosswalk?

[Contrarian]

@Contrarian. Could you explain what you think is ambiguous about the law in Maryland?

In Maryland, cyclists are permitted users of crosswalks, but the law says nothing about their rights and duties while doing so.

Instead, there is a muddle-headed mess. Maryland law defines something called a "public bicycle area":

“Public bicycle area” means any highway, bicycle path, or other facility or area maintained by the State, a political subdivision of this State, or any of their agencies for the use of bicycles.

and a catch-all law:

Every person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter in a public bicycle area has all the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the the driver of a vehicle by this title, including the duties set forth in 21-504 of this title except:
(1)
As otherwise provided in this subtitle; and
(2)
For those provisions of this subtitle that by their very nature cannot apply.

So what does this mean? First, is a crosswalk a "public bicycle area?" It depends on how broadly you construe "maintained ... for the use of bicycles."

Assuming that a crosswalk is a "public bicycle area," what does the law mean? What does "as otherwise provided in this subtitle" mean? Vehicles are prohibited from using sidewalks; the only reason bicycles can use them is because of a bicycle-specific clause in the law. Is that "otherwise provided" and the whole section doesn't apply? If not, what are the laws that govern operation of vehicles in crosswalks? There aren't any, because it isn't allowed.

Does a Maryland cyclist have to stop for a stop sign at a trail crossing? Well, Maryland law only requires vehicle operators to stop for stop signs at intersections. A trail crossing is not an intersection, which is defined as the crossing of two roads. Yes, there is a duty to stop and yield when entering a highway from anything other than a highway, although there is some question as to whether using a crosswalk is "entering a highway."

It's prettty clear that what the legislature had in mind was "same rules as cars" but they did a lazy, shoddy job. It's hard to imagine that whoever drafted this gave very much thought to the details of how bicycles are operated.

[Jim Titus]

@twk: The recent revision (which takes effect Oct 1) explicitly gives cyclists the same rights of way as a pedestrian when in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection. It also allows cyclists to ride in other crosswalks whenever they are legally riding on a sidewalk that uses such crossong, but does not give them the right of way. Until Oct 1, the statute does not explictly allow bikes in any crosswalks, making it somewhat unclear whether bikes must always dismount (which I doubt a judge would actually hold but you never know.

@Contrarian. The provisions you mention relate to the ambiguity in the law before Oct 1, 2010, but not post Oct 2010. As I mentioned above, until Oct 1 there was some ambiguity as to whether one could cycle in crosswalks, and there was ambiguity about whether cyclist ever had the right of way over a motorist by virtue of being in the crosswalk. But the 2010 amendments are quite explicit about the rights of a cyclist in a signalized crosswalk, and the right to be in other crosswalks. Whatever the ambiguities were in the past, the explicit indications of where cyclists have the same right of way as a pedestrian and where they are not given that same right of way, leaves no doubt that cyclists do not have the right of way by virtue of being in the crosswalk in the general case. That is, the statute is comprehensive in its discussions of crosswalk rights of way, so there is no need to analogize to cases where there is no crosswalk to determine the rights by virtue of being in a crosswalk. That leaves the cyclist with a stop sign in the same position as anyone else with a stop sign.

I'll just add that I regularly hop off my bike and assert my way into fast-moving traffic and dare the cars to not stop. They usually do (I stand upstream from my bike so I won't be hit by a flying bike if they don't. I think I actually get more compliance with a bike than as a naked ped. I feel safer doing it while walking bike than I would relying on a right-of-way for bikes. I do this whether crosswalk is marked or not, and it is clear that most drivers think that the yield rule only applies to marked crosswalks.

[contrarian]

But the 2010 amendments are quite explicit about the rights of a cyclist in a signalized crosswalk, and the right to be in other crosswalks.

But they don't address under what rules cyclists operate under in non-signalized crosswalks. Here's what the bill says:

IN A PLACE WHERE A PERSON MAY RIDE A BICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK OR SIDEWALK AREA, A PERSON MAY ALSO RIDE A BICYCLE FROM THE CURB OR EDGE OF THE ROADWAY IN OR THROUGH A CROSSWALK TO THE OPPOSITE CURB OR EDGE OF THE ROADWAY.

Whatever the ambiguities were in the past, the explicit indications of where cyclists have the same right of way as a pedestrian and where they are not given that same right of way, leaves no doubt that cyclists do not have the right of way by virtue of being in the crosswalk in the general case.

The only thing that this makes explicit is that crosswalk cyclists are operating "as otherwise provided in this subtitle" and not as vehicles. It says nothing about how they are to operate, what their rights and duties are. The legislature could have settled the matter by adding a clause such as "with the right and duties of pedestrians" or "and must yield to all traffic when doing so," but they chose not to.

Since the legislature chose not to address the issue of cyclists' rights and responsibilities in a crosswalk, it falls to the courts. When the courts have looked at cases where cyclists are permitted to use a facility, but their rights and duties are not specified, they have generally taken the view that in traffic law right-of-way attaches to the facility and not to the type of vehicle. When you come to an intersection you look at the traffic controls, not the type of vehicles there. (There are exceptions to this rule -- emergency vehicles, funeral processions and military convoys, for example -- but they are few and well-defined.) In cases where courts have looked at cyclists using crosswalks, they have found that they have the rights and duties of other traffic using the crosswalk -- pedestrians.

[Jim Titus]

That's a good argument. Do you know whether such rights to cyclists were ascribed in states where the law had been amended to give cyclist the right of way in some situations, but not others? Of three places talking about rights in crosswalks, they changed pedestrian to pedestrian or cyclist in two cases but not a third case, so doesn't it seem to be a stretch to conclude that they meant to change it in that third case as well?

[Contrarian]

Maryland bicycle law is such a mess that it's hard to tell what it means at all. I'm something of a traffic law nerd (something you say?) and there are things in Maryland I've never seen anywhere.

Most states try to start with the Uniform Vehicle Code and then nibble around the edges. Maryland has a make-it-up-as-they-go-along hodgepodge.

An example: Most states either just define bicycles as vehicles and are done with it, or they define bicycles as "devices" that are subject to the rules for vehicles when operated on a road. DC and Virginia take the "devices" approach. By calling bikes devices you can allow them to operate in places where vehicles are prohibited -- like sidewalks and bike paths -- without having to go back and rewrite your whole vehicle code.

But Maryland has something I've never seen before, this notion of the "public bicycle area," which is so broadly defined that it could include any public property in the state where it is legal to bicycle. And in a public bicycle area, a bicycle is subject to the rules for vehicles. Except -- get this -- Maryland already defines a bicycle as a vehicle! And in most public bicycle areas, vehicles are prohibited. What does this mean? Who knows? Does anyone read this stuff before they vote? Probably not.

Of three places talking about rights in crosswalks, they changed pedestrian to pedestrian or cyclist in two cases but not a third case, so doesn't it seem to be a stretch to conclude that they meant to change it in that third case as well?

When the law is ambiguous, one of the things the courts can look at is the legislative history for clues to what the legislature intended. So, for example, if the bill originally specified cyclists rights, but was amended to remove those rights, that could be introduced as evidence that those rights were deliberately excluded, not through oversight. Similarly if there was debate about the issue before a vote that debate can be introduced. In big-dollar litigation the lawyers would go through the legislative record and history looking for points to back their interpretation of the law.

I don't know enough about the history of this bill to say what was intended.

[Barry Childress]

First it's MOTOR vehicles prohibited on trails.

Is this the problematic third crosswalk rule?
"Vehicular traffic described under subsection (b) of this section, including any vehicle turning right or left, shall yield the right–of–way to any other vehicle and any pedestrian lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk when the signal is shown. "

Bikes are vehicles and can be in the intersection or in the crosswalk (now lawfully) so a turning vehicle has to yield, no extra verbiage necessary.

[Shawn]

@Jim "For the situations described along the W&OD, there is not light so the car has the right of way over a cyclist on the trail."

I'm pretty sure in Virginia, cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian while not on a road, so when a state park or trail, crosses a road, like the W&OD cars do NOT have the right of way, and must stop for peds and cycles. Of course, the peds and cycles are obligated not to enter the roadway if a car cannot stop before hitting them.

[Steve O]

A lot of cyclists, me included, avoid part of the conflict at the Virginia Avenue crossing by riding on Virginia Avenue between Shreve Road and the I-66 crossing rather than on the W&OD trail.
It also allows you to avoid a number of driveway crossings and seems much safer all in all.

When westbound you can turn right off the trail onto the road, avoiding southbound car traffic. When eastbound you are already in the road, so you can just make a left turn onto the trail. You are easier to see and it is easier to see traffic at this point.

I guess this is off topic from the legality issues, but it came to mind when I read the post.

[Jim Titus]

@Shawn--Contrarian and I were talking about Maryland; I just meant a situation in Maryland similar to the configuration of what was previously discussed along W&OD.

Regarding legislative history, I think we started with a court case holding that it was illegal to bike in the crosswalk extending a sidewalk where it is legal to ride a bike (i.e. MoCo)in which the cyclist also had a green light. The main goal was to over-rule that case, where the trial judge agreed that the law made no sense but felt obliged to rule the way he had. No one was thinking about bike trails with stop signs. But I'll ask why they didn't change that section while they were at it.

Supposing for the sake of argument that this objective was not only the goal of the sponsor and proponent of the bill, but somehow made it into the record, how does that affect the analysis?

All: if you'll be at the meeting tonight please say hi. I'll have a purple and white long-sleeved shirt. I am at a bit of a disadvantage knowing who is who.

[Jim Titus]

@Barry: No that is not hte problematic third section. The section (b) in that sentence refers to vehicles with a circular green signal.

The place where they did not change "pedestrian" to "pedestrian and bicycle" was the general rule for yielding to pedestrians:

section 21-502. Pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks.

(2) The driver of a vehicle shall come to a stop when a pedestrian crossing the roadway in a crosswalk is:

(i) On the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling; or

(ii) Approaching from an adjacent lane on the other half of the roadway.

(b) Duty of pedestrian.- A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.