welshTerrier2

Thank you for your deeply thoughtful and valuable contribution to the discussion. You may have just saved a life.

CliffordK

The problem isn't as much the stopped driver as the stupid drivers behind him that choose to pull out and drive around him. So, the one driver doesn't even stop the lane behind him, and what was periodic cars going past suddenly becomes a steady stream of cars through the left lane.

A law to stop for bikes and pedestrians would help with this.

The Island mentioned above would help with crossing multiple lanes. I've noticed islands with a crazy crooked path through the island, presumably to encourage people to stop in the island before proceeding into the next two lanes of traffic.

Of course, for major crossings, the city can install either stoplights, or flashing yellow lights. Here, when the yellow lights flash, cars in all 4 lanes are required to stop, but may proceed only after the crosswalk has cleared, even if the lights are still flashing.

Daniel4

Here's somebody who didn't stop but was forced to.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...dina-1.4729878

napes

The League of American Bicyclists ought to step up their game, and work the national levers of power to change things nationally through the Uniform Vehicle Code. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) used to provide detailed studies of traffic law, for example the 1979 version here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=f3...page&q&f=false

According to that book, page 173, 41 states had some sort of version of the Uniform Vehicle Code mentioned here about not passing vehicles stopped at crosswalks:

11-502 Pedestrians' Right of Way in Crosswalks
(d) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.


According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Vehicle_Code, the NCUTLO went into hiatus because of a lack of funding. There certainly is a continuing need to update the Uniform Vehicle Code as well as document failures to conform. According to the 1979 book, there appears to have been paid staff at one point, but that has apparently disappeared.

Bmach

I-Like-To-Bike

The value of the "contribution" to bicycling safety or advocacy discussion found in your OP suggestion is similar to the value of your other recent suggested "fix" at Getting Serious about Eco-Cycling.


Fodder for those who think anti-motorist zealotry combined with ranting about "carnage" passes for bicycling advocacy.

I-Like-To-Bike

Note that the OP suggestion for every vehicle to come to a halt when approaching (from any direction) a stopped vehicle in any lane, anywhere on the street was not restricted to those vehicles stopped at crosswalks nor stopped in the presence of crossing pedestrians.

MikeyMK

We have a law here that states you must not proceed until your exit is clear. So if you've approached a section of road where you must give way, you must not proceed until you can be sure it's clear for you to do so. Saying you didn't see a child on a crossing just isn't going to cut the mustard in court.

mr_bill

Here's the CVC. Where is it very specifically stated that even when a pedestrian has a cross signal they cannot cross until all traffic has cleared the intersection?

-mr. bill

mr_bill

See Senate Passes Bill to Improve Traffic Safety & Protect Vulnerable Road Users.

Just wondering, have you shared your "proposal" with Senator Brownsberger or Representative Rogers? (They are usually leading on pedestrian/bicyclist transportation safety issues.) How about *YOUR* State Senator or State Rep?

Because there is STRONG evidence based data that such restrictions WORK at crosswalks.

The brilliance of the "controlled areas" around a marked crosswalk are these are the limited areas where drivers MUST NOT STOP EXCEPT FOR PEDESTRIANS. (Except for some rare exceptions.) These are areas where drivers MUST SLOW AND NOT PASS and MUST STOP FOR STOPPED VEHICLES. There are also "give way" markings between 1.1 meters and 3 meters from the crosswalk, although some are as far as 10 meters from the crosswalk. And of course, PARKING (with extremely rare exceptions) is prohibited within the "controlled area."

All of this can be plainly seen if you compare the cover of Abbey Road with Abbey Road.

Anywhere in the world where your "proposal" has been implemented?

-mr .bill

mr_bill

The crazy crooked path is so that pedestrians face on-coming traffic while walking on the refuge.

-mr. bill

NewATBikeComute

In MA, S2570, OmniBike Bill An Act to Reduce Traffic Fatalities, just passed the Senate, now must pass the House.


Unfortunately, does not include provisions for allowing "Idaho stop", which was (I think) in the bill at one point. It does clarify safe passing distance (3ft, plus 1ft for every 10mph over 30) for 'vulnerable users', which includes cyclists, and explicitly allows motorists to cross over double yellow lines if necessary.





Link here: Advocacy - Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition

mr_bill

It never included "Idaho Stop". It included may use pedestrian leading interval, dead red, and:

" A bicyclist must come to a stop at a red light signal but may turn left or proceed straight with caution if there is no way to the right, provided, however, that they must yield to pedestrians."

Part of that is the Paris Straight at T. The other part of it "A bicyclist must come to a stop at a red light signal but may turn left with caution if there is no way to the right..." which is a complete mystery.

Added in the passed S2584 is the requirement for a red tailight AND rear reflector after dark.

Also added is that the prima facie speed limit on a state highway or parkway in a thickly settled district is 25 mph if the city/town has adopted section 25 mph speed limit in thickly settled areas. (State highways and parkways were 30 mph, and had to be posted to be below that, even in cities/towns that had adopted 25 mph in a thickly settled district. This led to much confusion.)

S2584 went to House Ways and Means yesterday. If they pass it without amendments, it goes to the Governor. If they amend it, it goes back to the Senate which may send it to conference.

-mr. bill

jefnvk

If you are going to do it, that is the best way. We have those a few places around Detroit, they work quite well, everyone seems to understand how to use them.

mr_bill

The closest "Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon" (RRFB) crossing is ignored by 80% of drivers.
The High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) crossing confused >90% of drivers and has been removed.

The only signals that "work" for drivers are red lights - for small values of "work."

From another thread:

(BTW, by the time they all cleared the crosswalk, the flashing red walk light began. Technically, I was not supposed to leave the curb at that point.)

jefnvk

Can't say how they work everywhere, but everywhere I have seen them used around me, people stop.

That includes in ground, on signs and overhead. One thing I will say about the overhead, is they initially flash red, then switch to yellow after a few seconds. Think that adds a bit more emphasis (as well as uniformity) to the traffic signals.

HazardBiker

California Vehicle Code 21456.

Specifically, 21456(a):

Also California Vehicle Code 21451.

Specifically, 21451(c):

Brian

Kontact 

This is really besides the point of the OP. Many drivers 'ignore' crosswalks because they know that they can force pedestrians to remain on the curb. This isn't the same problem as cars hitting pedestrians that are already in the street because they ignored both the other stopped vehicle AND the crosswalk markings.

Drivers ignore crosswalk markings knowingly, not because they don't see them. They do not strongly associate them with the kind of absolute dictated by a red light where there is no judgement involved.

rydabent

Seems like a reasonable law to me. Once they stop, and can see it is safe to continue, they can.

Number400

The root of the problem is that some people don't care to even take a second to assess traffic situations that are potentially dangerous.
Here is guy blinking his lights and letting me turn first. Then here comes a freaking whack job who jumps the traffic island because they cannot be bothered to slow down and wait. Had I just turned because someone was blinking at me and letting me go, it would have ended badly.
Skip to :35. I always leave context at the beginning of videos.

MoAlpha

Recently had a tragic and fatal case in point occur here. An elderly man on a recumbent was hidden behind a stopped car and got smashed when he emerged. I imagine he was sitting low enough to be blind to traffic in the other lane too. The solution was to take away the outer lanes of a four lane road for a couple hundred feed around the crossing. The authorities did this with flimsy, plastic stanchions, of which drivers take out a few more every month.

Kontact 

This looks bad because the Jeep went over that island, but in reality the situation is very normal - you don't get right of way because of the other turning vehicle, you still need to yield to anyone that is going straight, like the Jeep.


The problem with this thread OP is that it puts the onus on drivers to not hit pedestrians by every driver following a new and abnormal rule. But really, the best way for pedestrians to avoid being hit by cars is to look for them and not walk out in front of them - even if it means stopping in front of a car to look before continuing to cross. Doing this is essentially foolproof.