Pedestrians
Crash shows need for safer crossings; is NPS listening?
A three-car crash last Thursday morning at a trail crossing on the George Washington Parkway once again highlights the need for the National Park Service to take action on critical safety improvements.
A driver stopped for a cyclist crossing the parkway at a marked crosswalk, but when an approaching pickup truck did not slow down, the cyclist hesitated. It very well could have saved her life; the nasty rear-end crash resulted in two injuries. An eyewitness captured the aftermath on video:
Image from Facebook. If you can't see the video, try logging into and/or refreshing Facebook first.
Trail users and parkway drivers can both attest to the constant danger at these crossings.
Solutions to these problems exist that would make the George Washington Memorial Parkway safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. But is the National Park Service interested in implementing them?
At least five unsignalized crossings are located near Memorial Bridge. Many of them cross two lanes, putting pedestrians in danger of a "double threat" when one lane of traffic has stopped but drivers in the other lane are unable to see the pedestrian in the crosswalk. Drivers hesitate to stop at all, as high speeds and heavy traffic on the parkway put them at risk of rear-end crashes like Thursday's.
Although the video suggests a tunnel, there is a simpler, less expensive solution that NPS can implement relatively quickly: HAWK signals, which Alexandria and the District have begun installing. HAWK signals are activated by the crosswalk user and installed at locations where a traditional stop light would not meet traffic engineering standards.
Research has shown that HAWK signals are not only more effective than other traffic signals at getting motorists to safely stop at the crosswalk, they reduce traffic delay compared to traditional signalized mid-block pedestrian signals.
Since being included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in 2009, HAWK signals have been installed across the nation. A news report from Providence, Rhode Island, explains how a HAWK signal works at one of that city's most dangerous crossings:
At crossings on the GW Parkway, HAWK signals could be implemented in combination with vehicle stop lines that are farther from the crosswalk. This would improve visibility for all users and reduce the likelihood of a "double threat" crash, resulting in a significant safety improvement for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike.
The recent Humpback Bridge construction resulted in significant improvements for Mount Vernon Trail users, and it shows NPS understands the trail is a significant reason to use the park. It's now time NPS made these critical safety changes a priority for all users of the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
 | Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program.   |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
by TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 10:19 am • link • report
I think the real problem is that a road that is otherwise built as a grade-separated highway has a pedestrian/cycling crossing at-grade.
(And, mind you, I think that the GW parkway is a rather nice road, if not a tad confusing. However, it functions very differently than what most motorists are accustomed to.)
by andrew on Jul 25, 2011 10:22 am • link • report
The current setup is unclear? Unclear maybe since drivers don't actually know any of the rules they should have learned when they were 16. If there's someone waiting to cross in a crosswalk, you stop!
But yeah, I'm not surprised drivers don't stop, as this is basically what would otherwise be a grade-separated highway (with those type of speeds and more) with at-grade unsignalized crosswalks. If you do stop, you risk the type of collision that happened here. It surprises me that there aren't more accidents and more people aren't killed.
@andrew
Why is the light pattern confusing? It's the same as a stoplight (yellow prepare to stop, red stop, blinking red treat as stop sign). The only difference is that people might not expect the signal on what is essentially a freeway, but once it's there people will get used to it.
by MLD on Jul 25, 2011 10:28 am • link • report
by JDAntos on Jul 25, 2011 10:32 am • link • report
You are incorrect. Code requires drivers to yield to pedestrians within a crosswalk, which by definition is part of the road.
by TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 10:37 am • link • report
If there's someone waiting to cross in a crosswalk, you stop!
---------------------------
I'm pretty sure in regards to the crossings on the GW parkway that this notion is incorrect. A driver is not supposed to yield to a crosswalk unless explicitly directed to do so by a light or sign.
by Fitz157 on Jul 25, 2011 10:37 am • link • report
Either go back to having no pedestrian priority crosswalks, in which case pedestrians wait for a safe gap in the cars, or put a traffic light there.
Otherwise you'll continue to have knuckleheads stop in the middle of a 40+ mph freeway to allow bikes/peds to pass, and other drivers who aren't so generous or alert flying by or slamming on the brakes. The current design is the worst of all worlds.
The original sin is really with the motorist who unexpectedly stopped the flow of traffic to allow the bicyclist to pass, but then this is also a normal reaction to someone waiting at a pedestrian priority crosswalk.
by eb on Jul 25, 2011 10:38 am • link • report
Why can't they just be regular stop lights that behave as follows: blinking yellow at all times (indicating caution), then turn to solid yellow then red when a ped presses to walk? Then return to blinking yellow (skip the blinking red which no one understands and rolls through anyway).
by JMC on Jul 25, 2011 10:45 am • link • report
by Tim on Jul 25, 2011 10:47 am • link • report
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 10:47 am • link • report
Unfortunately, a long straight stretch of road with 40+ MPH speed limits and 6' high signs obscured by foliage and where grade crossings are rare is one of those situations where the average human isn't going to be capable of 100% compliance.
by eb on Jul 25, 2011 10:48 am • link • report
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
Isn't the "original sin" with the designers of the road in relation to its crossings?
by Lucre on Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am • link • report
by Parkway Driver on Jul 25, 2011 10:54 am • link • report
I was specifically referring to the idea that the setup is "unclear." It's not unclear what you probably SHOULD do, it's designed horribly, which limits what you are able to do. As I said, I am unsurprised that people don't stop, as the whole situation is just dangerous.
by MLD on Jul 25, 2011 10:55 am • link • report
by OX4 on Jul 25, 2011 11:02 am • link • report
Before, cars were slowing down to start the curve around the circle already, and so were more inclined to react to pedestrians. Ask any cyclist who has commuted there before and after: they will all tell you that the old location was much safer.
At the time, cyclists made known to NPS that they expected the new location to be less safe. Voila!
by Steve O on Jul 25, 2011 11:08 am • link • report
So you're saying that the "original sin" is with the car that OBEYED THE LAW and stopped at a crosswalk? I think it's pretty hard to argue that car should have broken the law, which is basically what you're saying.
Legally, the fault is very clearly with the pickup truck driver. As plenty of people have pointed out, it's a bad design: anytime you have to choose between breaking the law and putting yourself in danger, that's a really bad design. So blame whoever put a crosswalk there, too. But blaming the driver who stopped? No.
by Rob on Jul 25, 2011 11:09 am • link • report
1. The vehicles do not have a stop or yield sign there on the GW Parkway. Trail users have a clearly marked stop sign.
2. There is a clear, flat quarter of a mile field of view from the crossing. Even at 60 mph you have a minimum of 15 or 20 seconds to cross, wait or get out of the way.
3. the GW parkway is one way. Is crossing it safely really that complicated?
Is there seriously a problem here. It is clear who has the ROW. If a car is dumb enough to sto pon a two lane road where they aren't supposed to, then that is their fault, but trying to get the NPS to spend gobs of money on grade seperated intersections, or signaling etc for a decidedly non-problem is just dumb.
by freely on Jul 25, 2011 11:20 am • link • report
The driver who stopped is the one responsible for this mess.
I don't remember when they moved -- or if they moved -- the intersection. Someone on washcycle had a good idea to narrow the road a bit more before the crosswalk. I don't think many people are going 60 though the crosswalk area, though. The bigger problem for drivers is you've got 2 difficult merges right before the crosswalk, and you're often paying more attention to your mirrors than what is right ahead of you.
Some of the traffic in the area will be diverted once the 110 trail opens.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
As for the other crossings where the speed limits are high -- most drivers just ignore them. Rear end collisions for the drivers that do honor the crosswalks are not isolated incidents either. They happen several times a year. The NPS is very good at managing traffic in their larger parks. I don't know why they can't figure things out here. My guess is that they don't want to piss off car drivers from Virginia.
by aaa on Jul 25, 2011 11:22 am • link • report
If there's someone waiting to cross in a crosswalk, you stop!
Many people believe in this false assumption.
by TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
by Rob on Jul 25, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
by Tina on Jul 25, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
Yes, drivers are to give ROW when trail users are "in the road", not standing to the side waiting.
As I said above, its a 2 lane rd (what, 16 feet wide?) with a ~20 second visual approach.
This isn't rocket science people. If a 20 second lead time isn't enough for people to spend 4 seconds crossing the road, then they have bigger problems.
Both the trail and road have clearly market signs. This is entirely the drivers fault and doesn't require us to spend tons of money fixing a non-existant problem.
by freely on Jul 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report
by JMC on Jul 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report
by Trulee Pist on Jul 25, 2011 11:37 am • link • report
If you're making any of those crossings as a ped or bicyclist and relying solely on the good graces of the drivers not to be going too fast, you got more faith in both God and Humanity than I do.
by Kolohe on Jul 25, 2011 11:38 am • link • report
The entirety of the argument hinges on the unexamined premise that our public spaces are for cars. Period. Pedestrians should wait for some arbitrary amount of time, forfeiting their right-of-way because it's safer for everyone that way.
It's the same shit that you hear when drivers argue that travel lanes aren't safe for cyclists--after all we're only looking out for your best interests. I can only imagine the response if my attitude towards riding on the sidewalks was that I'll go as fast as I want to, and pedestrian safety be damned. They can find another sidewalk, or huddle on the periphery. Doing otherwise is dangerous for everyone involved. And we high-speed sidewalk cyclists just want to make sure everyone is safe. (What? That makes no sense because sidewalks aren't just for bikes?)
Here's an idea: Slow the fuck down, and obey the goddamned traffic laws. And to the NPS, start enforcing the damned laws. It's been decades of Mad Max rules out there.
by oboe on Jul 25, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
Google view of intersection with speed limit sign.
http://tinyurl.com/4yfxeym
Has anyone **ever** heard/seen a speeding ticket at that location of Washington Boulevard?
Or perhaps this will be a more interesting question: Has anyone ever seen anyone drive 25 mph at that location of Washington Boulevard?
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 11:40 am • link • report
You can't forfeit what isn't yours in the first place.
by TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 11:41 am • link • report
In case you weren't familliar with it, Section 46.2-924 of the Virginia Code specifies that "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;".
Given the pavement striping and signage, I'd say this crossing qualifies as "clearly marked". The driver who stopped is not responsible for the mess.
That said, I agree with Charlie in that a HAWK signal probably would not be useful here, nevermind that *ANY* sort of signal has zero chance of being allowed by NPS. Signals on a parkway are antithemic to them. Just ask Fairfax County and the Mt. Vernon District. They tried in the past to get a signal on the parkway at a couple of the problem intersections south of the Beltway, and got flat out told NO.
The only solution here is some sort of reconfiguration. Ultimately, the whole area would be reconfigured to reduce the confusion factor and allow for better bike connections to/from the bridge, but that would cost a lot of money and involve a lot of construction. Still, I came up with such a reconfiguration a couple years ago and I should probably get around to posting it one of these days.
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 11:46 am • link • report
I'm not a lawyer. But, FWIW, by my reading of the statute, a motor vehicle needs to stop for someone waiting at the side of the crosswalk. See point #2 below. Note that additional text in the link states that pedestrians can't cross in total disregard of vehicular traffic.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-924
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.
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 11:46 am • link • report
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 11:47 am • link • report
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 11:48 am • link • report
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
So freely, your solution is for drivers to stop being stupid? Good luck with that. Does that involve you wiggling your nose or an arm-crossed head bob?
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
The reason I keep brining up this tiny procedural point is I've always suspected Columbia Island is unenforced for a reason -- Park Police don't want to deal with the hassle of jurisdictional conflicts. They are very aggressive around Rosslyn in terms of speed traps, and I've seen a number south of the airport as well.
Very possible there are other explanations.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
And since it got brought up that this is in DC, DC Code's Section 50-2201.28 says basically the same thing as Virginia. Also, Charlie, as long as pedestrians are not entering the crosswalk so late that drivers can't stop, there's nothing requiring them to wait for traffic to clear.
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
by Jimmy on Jul 25, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
"In both DC and Virginia cyclists using a crosswalk have the rights and duties of pedestrians, and the only duty of a pedestrian at an uncontrolled crossing is to avoid entering the road so suddenly that traffic is unable to yield. The only traffic controls which apply to pedestrians are walk/don't walk lights, or traffic lights in their absence. The only way to remove pedestrian right of way at a cross walk is to install a traffic light. Traffic lights are expensive, so engineers try to circumvent the law by putting up stop signs, which leads to a dangerous situation where right of way is ambiguous."
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 11:59 am • link • report
I agree this is confusing to drivers who, if they're doing it right, have been trained to treat "out" lights as four-ways stops. Peds too, for that matter. Whats the rationale for not having a blinking yellow as the default?
by Tina on Jul 25, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report
by Stephen Miller on Jul 25, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
Problems is, a road that was originally designed as a scenic drive has become a de-facto freeway because of significant population/job growth growth since the Parkway was built in the 1930's and the lack of another limited access route. It's one of the consequences of cancelling the planned freeways but that's another topic.
That said, the 45 mph speed limit (which many unfortunaltely treat as a suggestion) and the crosswalk at the location in question simply don't mix. Many if not most drivers don't expect anyone to cross a divded limited-access roadway and they don't expect anyone one to stop in the middle of trafffic to allow a cyclist or pedestrian to cross. I'm not defending the drivers, I'm just making note of the reality - some drivers go too fast and some don't pay enough attention to their surroundings.
Unless something is done to eliminate or reduce the inherent danger of placing a crosswalk in the middle of a 45mph divided, limited-access, unsignaled roadway, it's only a matter of time before someone gets killed. It's amazing that it hasn't already happened.
by ceefer66 on Jul 25, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report
Great question... I have no idea! In regards to the HAWK light on Georgia Ave I contacted the councilmember here as well as DDOT to register concern but did not get a full explanation. There is a sign (same as in the Providence news video above) saying "Stop on Red ()" but I think that actually makes it MORE complicated and confusing. You've got a split second to evaluate these odd-looking lights, an ambiguous sign (of course you stop on Red, it's what to do the rest of the time that's confusing!) and people honking at you for slowing down.
by JMC on Jul 25, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report
by Stephen Miller on Jul 25, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
by Tim on Jul 25, 2011 12:08 pm • link • report
Excatly; in small-town intersections you often see a two-way stop with a single hanging light showing flashing red to the stop signs and flashing yellow to the throughway.
by JMC on Jul 25, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report
And by that analysis, and by David C's quote, the pedestrian did the right thing there. they avoided entered the road. The accident occurred because the driver decided to stop -- and stopped in an unsafe manner.
Geoff Gee's map shoes that stretch of road as Wash Blvd, not the parkway. IF I recall correctly, perhaps the parkway is the section that runs to Roosevelt island closer to the water?
The speed limit there, as David C suggests, should be 25.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jul 25, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report
To be honest, I have no idea whether that crossing is the GW PKWY or Washington Blvd. Moreover, I can't tell you whether VA or DC motor vehicle code applies ... I've never seen traffic enforcement there.
But the previous speed limit sign -- from the link I included earlier, I believe you can see the intersection we're discussing on the right -- is pretty close. Which speed limit -- 25 or whatever GW PKWY is there -- applies will take someone with more knowledge than me. Personally, if traffic enforcement slowed everyone down to 25 mph at that point, I'd be happy since most drivers would only gradually accelerate towards GW PKWY.
-G
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report
Froggie is correct to a point. Pedestrians are required to obey signs and signals as well. The Stop on the sides of the roads requires the pedestrians to yield right of way.
by TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
From http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/parkmgmt/documents.htm:
Rules and Regulations
36 C.F.R. - Rules and regulations that apply to all National Park Service sites may be found in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Parks, Forests, and Public Property), Chapter I, Parts 1-199.
Park Compendium- A compendium is a list of park-specific rules and regulations. This list is used in combination with 36 C.F.R.
CFR 36 Chapter 1 § 4.20 Right of way.
An operator of a motor vehicle shall
yield the right of way to pedestrians,
saddle and pack animals and vehicles
drawn by animals. Failure to yield the
right of way is prohibited.
From the compendium:
4.21 Speed limits
Northbound
40 MPH from Abingdon Drive merge to Spout Run Parkway
by Shawn G on Jul 25, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report
Excatly; in small-town intersections you often see a two-way stop with a single hanging light showing flashing red to the stop signs and flashing yellow to the throughway.
Yes, if I said I thought blinking yellow meant "yield" I mis-spoke (wrote). It means "proceed with caution".
Its not just in rural towns I've encountered this; I see it in larger towns and cities that adjust the regular green-yellow-red-lights for times when there is less traffic volume (late at night/early morning/holidays) to blinking red on one side and blinking yellow on the other. I've never seen that around here and often thought it was stupid (but not stupid in the risk-taking sense).
by Tina on Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report
In case there's any lingering confusion, this (in the center) is the crosswalk in question.
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report
The video posted is about the intersection on the GW Parkway. Here is a link:
http://bit.ly/rlNm64
by Shawn G on Jul 25, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report
-G
by Geof Gee on Jul 25, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 12:31 pm • link • report
atinside crosswalksby TGEOA on Jul 25, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report
CFR 36 which governs right of way in NPS doesn't mention crosswalks.
Also, I'm curious as to where a stop sign applies to a pedestrian, and where they would give up their right of way at an intersection or crossing. I haven't come across that before.
by Shawn G on Jul 25, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report
by dcseain on Jul 25, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jul 25, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report
That might just deal with enforcement, and not placement.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report
That Northbound section of the GW parkway is on Columbia Island, which is in DC.
I don't think this applies to this specific stretch of the GWP, but in this compact (citation?) is VA enforcing VA laws or NPS laws? I don't see why the CFR wouldn't apply as it's governed by the NPS, but I'm also not a lawyer or politico.
by Shawn G on Jul 25, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
Aside from the poor design of the intersection at hand, does nobody wonder why there is such a feisty debate on such simple rules of the road? Perhaps more driver's ed is needed?
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report
by Christine on Jul 25, 2011 1:35 pm • link • report
36 CFR 4.2(a): State law governs vehicles unless otherswise...
the 4.20 section you cite is clearly meant for other NPS roads -- the vast network (100K miles) inside other park properties. The animals reference is a hint. So I'd argue state law prevails.
In terms of the (semi-mythical) compact is the the Park police using Virginia law on the Virginia sections, but in federal court. As you correctly note, in DC (and columbia island) they have full concurrent jurisdiction.
My earlier hypothesis, which is just that, is the jurisdictional confusion is one reason Park Police don't enforce traffic laws on Columbia Island very strictly.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 1:37 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Jul 25, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
I doubt it's a major reason. More likely, they're lazy or just don't care.
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report
Park Police are very busy. They have to tase pedicab operators, remove journalists from taxi commission hearings, arrest people for dancing, question photographers, ruin the 4th of July for tourists and illegally shut down food trucks at Farragut Square. With all that on their plate, you think they have time to enforce traffic laws?
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report
I've seen a HAWK signal on Van Dorn Street in Alexandria (it's located down the hill from Seminary Road towards Landmark), but I've never seen the signal actually in use. It's there to help pedestrians cross the street to a bus stop. Unlike the GW Parkway spot, the Van Dorn Street HAWK is amply visible from a distance.
Regarding the crosswalks in the Memorial Bridge area, I try to stop for people crossing (especially if doing so will annoy an aggressive driver or cabbie behind me), but I think you also have to be practical about it: If it's a choice between annoying a pedestrian by failing to stop or getting rear-ended by someone approaching at high speed, then I'm going to annoy the pedestrian by failing to stop, and I'm sure just about everybody out there would do the same. I guess it's a rule of reasonableness in this case: Regardless of what you're "supposed to" do, the real world doesn't always operate according to the rules and you have to act according to the circumstances. Christine's post above talks about how the fault is usually with the driver who does the rear-ending. While that is correct most of the time, it's small consolation if your car is destroyed by such a driver or if you wind up injured or worse.
(Let's be realistic: They can post it at 25 mph, but people aren't going to go that slowly there, and law enforcement is never going to succeed in getting them to do so.)
by Rich on Jul 25, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report
Hang a speed camera there, and start filling the NPS coffers with the fine money...
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report
right b/c blood and tissue stains and broken glass on the road are very aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps even historic.
by Tina on Jul 25, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
Two problems with that theory:
(1) Once people know where the camera is, they do the same thing they do everywhere else: Slow down for the camera, then floor it. (Consider the one on 16th Street near the tennis center or the one on Benning Road near Langston Golf Course.) In some ways this is the bigger safety problem as to speed enforcement there--people just go faster to make up what they consider (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter) to be "lost time." While it might promote pedestrian safety there, would it introduce a greater risk of other wrecks elsewhere, such as at the left-lane merge north of the bridge? (I don't know. I'm speculating.)
(2) If they don't want to put up a light for appearance reasons, the odds of a camera are probably slim as well, although who knows. There are/were two speed cameras on the GW Parkway, both inoperative--one just north of Reagan Airport on the northbound carriageway near the turnoff for Gravelly Point, the other just north of the turn for Parkway HQ near Turkey Run Park (I believe that one has been removed). But my gut tells me that the area around Memorial Bridge is one where they'd consider such things more objectionable for appearance reasons.
by Rich on Jul 25, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
That's not how we do things around here. Don't want to die? Buy a car--or get the hell out of the way. That's one the cherished incentives of our Captialist paradise. Rule of law would only distort the market.
by oboe on Jul 25, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report
Sorry, I was referring to the next crossing up closer to the circle. I didn't watch the video until just now.
by Steve O on Jul 25, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report
I think the legal requirement is "failure to control your vehicle" or "excessive speed"
So, in the insurance and/or civil portion you're quite correct. The pickup truck driver will likely be held liable. From the video, I'd suspect the pickup truck was NOT speeding as the damage to the two cars was not excessive. However, it is likely he will be cited (or should be) for failure to control.
That is slightly different that the more common usage of "fault" we are talking about here. The Park Service is at fault for having a bad design. The driver is at fault for stopping. George Washington is at fault for having built the road....
Legally, however, it useful to stop that chain somewhere and assign fault.
by charlie on Jul 25, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report
Speed tables every 100 yards or so that will do serious suspension damage to every vehicle that exceeds the 25 mph speed limit should do the trick. Simple, cheap, easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtK-lKRaA0A
by oboe on Jul 25, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report
I think the chances of that happening on the GW Parkway are similar to the chances of $100 bills falling out of my rear end when I sit on the toilet. :-)
The whole area in question is rather poorly-designed for the use those roads now receive (and I mean that as to both drivers and users of the various trails). I doubt there's really ANY ideal solution given the conflicting concerns regarding commuters, recreational users, historic considerations such as the design of Memorial Bridge,* and the Park Service's desire to keep it looking as much like a scenic parkway as possible.
*The ideal, in the case of the crosswalk at issue in this discussion, would be a new bike/pedestrian ramp directly from the trail up to the bridge, but we all know that's not going to happen.
by Rich on Jul 25, 2011 3:35 pm • link • report
I only watched this after submitting my previous comment. Funny stuff. Those drivers need a Dixie horn so they can yell "yee-ha" as they go over that bump.
by Rich on Jul 25, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report
Unless you're in Dupont Circle, where it does mean "Yield"...
by andrew on Jul 25, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
Plus design changes work 24/7, unlike enforcement.
by Steve O on Jul 25, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
by dcseain on Jul 25, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report
Hang 5 in a row. Rosslyn has a bunch of red light cameras in a row. It can be done. It has been done. It's a matter of will, not ability.
If they don't want to put up a light for appearance reasons, the odds of a camera are probably slim as well
You can paint cameras, and hide them pretty well. Again, will, not ability.
@ oboe: That's not how we do things around here. Don't want to die? Buy a car--or get the hell out of the way.
I know, I know. Bee here long enough. However, I am just protesting the notion that it can not be done. It can be done, because it has been done. I'm not saying that means that it will be done here.
After all, what's the life of a few pedestrians worth? Certainly not me being 30 seconds later.
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 4:03 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Jul 25, 2011 4:07 pm • link • report
They have average speed cameras in England as well. The funny thing is, whenever you talk to people about speed cameras, it's always, "It's a revenue scheme!" or "It's more dangerous because people (not me, of course) will just slam on their brakes, then floor it!" The list of excuses goes on and on.
Then you bring up something like average speed camera enforcement, which would allow you to enforce reasonable speeds in neighborhoods (not out on NY Ave, or some quasi-highway road), without all those drawbacks, and it turns out there are a million different reasons why *that's* a bad idea too. (Big Brother!!)
It's almost as though people just want to be allowed to drive however they want, and damn the danger to pedestrians and other road users.
I agree with you, though, it can be done. There's just no political will. That's because folks like to be able to break the law with impunity once they're behind the wheel. The most encouraging aspect of living in DC is that a) residents are self-selecting for a less auto-centric environment; and b) we've got the political isolation to avoid having a bunch of rural interests interfere with policy.
In a decade or so, the ongoing demographic shift will result in folks who like suburban living moving to the suburbs, and folks who like urban living moving to the city (i.e. DC, Alexandria, Clarendon, Silver Spring, etc...). DC is likely to pass the most pedestrian friendly laws of the region.
by oboe on Jul 25, 2011 4:44 pm • link • report
I've ridden through those crossings before. On the occasions where one driver stopped, I waved them on - until and unless the driver in the far lane also stopped. I thought it was only a matter of time until something like the above happened.
by Weiwen on Jul 25, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
The norm varies a lot across different places in the U.S. I've lived in some places in the U.S. where the norm is similar to what you describe in Singapore: people stop if there's a pedestrian even approaching the crossing. I've lived in other places where the norm is not to stop unless you absolutely must in order to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The difference seems to be enforcement: in places where the police regularly ticketed cars that didn't stop, the norm was to stop. I bet Singapore enforces the law, and that's why people are so good about obeying it.
In DC, of course, they never enforce any traffic laws. So the norm is not to stop -- and if any pedestrian dares to enter a crosswalk, you honk while driving around him.
by Rob on Jul 25, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
But regarding the idea of putting up a series of cameras, I was trying to approach the question from the standpoint of what the Park Service would consider reasonable. For example, I think most people here seem to agree that putting up a conventional traffic light there is not a reasonable option (given that nobody's suggested it). I have a feeling that the idea of putting up a series of speed cameras is something that the Park Service would not consider reasonable, regardless of whether it's a question of "will versus ability." There are a lot of things that we have the "ability" to do that are not "reasonable."
(I recently read a book called "The Big Roads" by Earl Swift about the history of the Interstate Highway System. One of the things he mentioned was the absurd scheme the US and California governments hatched to use atomic bombs to excavate a path for I-40 and a railroad through the Bristol Mountains. I suppose they had the "ability" to detonate 22 A-bombs, but I'm glad they realized it was unreasonable.)
by Rich on Jul 25, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report
Having said this, it really doesn't matter what the law is--people only stop for pedestrians at crosswalks if they want to. And, it turns out, most don't. Plain and simple.
by ed on Jul 25, 2011 6:54 pm • link • report
I don't trust drivers to not be looking down, and even if someone wants to stop for me, I don't trust the drivers behind THEM to notice, either. I don't want to cause an accident like the one in the original video.
Look, I'm in no hurry to cross. If I were, I'd be sprinting -- or driving.
by Leland on Jul 25, 2011 7:43 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 25, 2011 10:11 pm • link • report
by William on Jul 25, 2011 10:15 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 10:16 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jul 25, 2011 10:22 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 25, 2011 10:38 pm • link • report
I'm confused by your argument that the driver who stopped did something wrong. I don't know what the DC law is, but the VA law says that drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing highways at marked crosswalks. This was a marked crosswalk, so it like stopping was the proper thing to do. The only exception to that would be if the driver had to slam on the brakes. Maybe that's what happened, but I kind of doubt it since the second driver stopped fine. And, even if the first driver did slam on the brakes, you're not suppose to be following people so close that you can't stop in time.
So, what did the first driver do wrong?
by Andy R on Jul 25, 2011 10:46 pm • link • report
Fancy that.
by William on Jul 25, 2011 10:48 pm • link • report
If the parkway is for people to enjoy the vista they shouldn't be driving 50+ MPH on it commuting to work.
by MLD on Jul 25, 2011 10:50 pm • link • report
In all seriousness though, these parkways really were conceived and designed for the purpose of commuters enjoyment at 50 miles plus per hour. Seriously, like the Interstate system which developed from these parkways, they were never intended to be used by pedestrians or any traffic other than motorized traffic. It's nice that the Park Service has added in the recreational trails, but note that that was done in a way that didn't compromise the purpose of these highways. Adding in traffic lights would. No different than if you proposed adding traffic lights on the Interstates. Though something tells me some of you would advocate that. It's all part of the car hating ...
by Lance on Jul 26, 2011 7:38 am • link • report
In simpler terms: like you noted with the bike trails, these parkways were designed and built for the purpose of recreation, NOT for the purpose of commuting. Nevermind that the only segment with a design speed of 50 MPH is west of Sprout Run, not the segment in question here.
by Froggie on Jul 26, 2011 7:53 am • link • report
My argument in terms of fault is car 1 should NOT have stopped for the pedestrian because said pedestrian was NOT on the crosswalk, but on the side of the road. Pedestrian behaved correctly and was waiting for a break in the traffic. What happened with car 2 (did they stop as well, slow down, etc) is unclear. Then car 3 (pickup) rears ends both of them.
It all it very pedantic, and given that nobody died, I doubt any effort will be put into sorting it out. If I was the officer on the scene, I've give tickets to everyone and let them sort it out in court and the insurance adjusters. The reason the fault question is important, however, is the continuing contributory negligence regime in place in VA and DC.
If this was a contested accident, would the first car be even 1% responsible? I'd say a reasonable judge or jury could find that.
by charlie on Jul 26, 2011 8:16 am • link • report
by charlie on Jul 26, 2011 8:19 am • link • report
So then, it seems that cyclists, both those "enjoying the vista," and those commuting, should abandon the paths and use the roadway.
by CJ on Jul 26, 2011 9:03 am • link • report
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkway
Note that they were originally built as a way for the then city-concentrated motorists to get out to the country surrounding the cities ... with the commute reversing itself after the expansion of the suburbs, and with the commute now going both ways. In any case, these earlier version of our versions of our Interstates with their limited access were definitely created and designed with motorists in mind. And note what most differentiated them from anything that had become before was their by design 'only limited access' (i.e. buildings couldn't be built on them), no sidwalks, and definitely NO TRAFFIC lights ...
by Lance on Jul 26, 2011 9:10 am • link • report
Actually, only using roadways where no-motorized traffic is allowed is the only caveat I have to add to your statement. You wouldn't expect a bike not capable of flowing with the traffic at traffic speed to be anymore allowed on a 35 or 50 mph parkway than you would on a 65 or 75 mph Interstate.
We're fortunate that the Park Service has bent the rules to allow us to have these recreational paths. Let's not risk losing them by insisting that the actual purpose of these roads be obstructed.
by Lance on Jul 26, 2011 9:16 am • link • report
The problem is that you're treating "parkway" as a single type of road when in fact that term covers a large spectrum of highways. People in Pittsburgh misleadingly use the word "Parkway" in reference to a regular old Interstate highway (a substandard one, to be sure, but still an Interstate), whereas in New York "parkway" is a designator indicating that commercial traffic is prohibited rather than a description of a particular class of road.
To return to the GW Parkway crosswalk, though, I re-read the article above and I noted that one important piece of information is missing: Just how many pedestrian/cyclist accidents, and how many near-misses, occur there each year? In other words, a severe wreck of the sort shown in that video is a problem, but if that sort of wreck is a rarity there, a redesign might be an overreaction.
by Rich on Jul 26, 2011 9:23 am • link • report
Sure, but that's irrelevant. The truth of the matter is, drivers have taken over, and by their illegal, dangerous, and frankly selfish behavior, have made it unusable for any other mode.
Now frankly, I could give one fuck whether the Parkway was "created and designed with motorists in mind." In fact, what I'd like to see is a movement similar to Critical Mass by pedestrian advocates to assert their rights. This would probably take the form of crossing the street while pushing a handcart laden with laundry (which is what I used to do when I lived in Adams Morgan).
If the NPS won't enforce pedestrian rights, they're going to have to enforce them themselves.
by oboe on Jul 26, 2011 9:25 am • link • report
On a personal note: I'm just happy Lance lives in DC; it's going to be so enjoyable to think of him as the automobile is marginalized over the next decade. Gives me a smile just thinking about it.
We're fortunate that the Park Service has bent the rules to allow us to have these recreational paths. Let's not risk losing them by insisting that the actual purpose of these roads be obstructed.
by oboe on Jul 26, 2011 9:31 am • link • report
Thanks for clearing that up. And once we get all those commuters off the road, I'm sure cyclists will get along just fine with the residual traffic.
by CJ on Jul 26, 2011 10:07 am • link • report
There's no need for Lance to get involved. Just imagine the most disingenuous position you can think of, then phrase it in such a way that's calculated to piss you off in the maximum way possible. There you go!
by oboe on Jul 26, 2011 10:12 am • link • report
There are essentially three options for dealing with the problem. Either:
1. Close the highway.
2. Get rid of the crosswalk.
3. Build a bike bridge (with ramps, like across the River on Clara Barton Pkwy.)
by nwdcforlife on Jul 26, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
Lance's Wikipedia reference on parkways applies mostly to the parkways built in the New York City area...not so much to the parkways built by/for the NPS. The NPS parkways, unlike Lance's citation, were built much more for historical/recreational purposes.
by Froggie on Jul 26, 2011 10:32 am • link • report
"Seeking to remedy these conditions in time for the nationwide celebration of the bicentennial of Washington's birth in 1932, Congress authorized the construction of Mount Vernon Memorial Highway in May 1928. The Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) was tasked with designing an attractive and efficient parkway that would accommodate the rapidly growing tourist and commuter traffic while preserving scenery, linking sites associated with Washington's life, and providing recreational opportunities along the Potomac shoreline.
Along with commemorating Washington and serving Mount Vernon-bound motorists, the BPR saw the project as an opportunity to demonstrate the principles of modern highway design. Together with New York's Bronx River Parkway, Mount Vernon Memorial Highway helped popularize such features as limited-access construction with widely spaced exits and entrances; overpasses to eliminate danger and congestion at major interchanges; broad, tree-lined right-of-ways to enhance safety and beauty; and careful integration of the roadway with the surrounding terrain to highlight attractive views and make driving safer, easier, and more appealing.
Old Mt. Vernon Road near Gum Springs, 1930 (NARA)
AMERICA'S MOST MODERN MOTORWAY
When it was completed in January 1932, Mount Vernon Memorial Highway was widely praised as "America's Most Modern Motorway." Highway engineers, planners, and the popular press celebrated the parkway as the ultimate blend of modern engineering, landscape architecture, historic preservation, and patriotic sentiment."
Again, not to confuse matters, but I was thinking of that stretch of Washington Blvd rather than the parkway. Was that built for the Pentagon or as part of the Mt. Vernon highway?
Lance's point that this was built for cars still stands.
by charlie on Jul 26, 2011 10:51 am • link • report
What we need and want now are complete streets. There is a bike trail there, and every level of government that matters has said they want more people to bike to work - and that trail is critical for that purpose in this area. So, the intersections should be made safe, even if that means inconveniencing drivers.
by David C on Jul 26, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
The problem is that people think that they themselves don't cause crashes. They're better than everyone else. That changes though when they do get in an accident. Or when a family member of friend gets hurt. Then they're all enraged at the lack of enforcement. In short, people are irrational. True.
Fact is that wherever governments have started enforcing speed limits, crashes, deaths and injuries have gone done. Spectacularly so.
@ Rob:In DC, of course, they never enforce any traffic laws.
And that is the problem.
@ Rich:There are a lot of things that we have the "ability" to do that are not "reasonable."
Enforcing the law, and preventing death and injuries are now unreasonable? Wow.
@ oboe:We're fortunate that the Park Service has bent the rules to allow us to have these recreational paths.
Isn't it great? I'd like to point out that bikers and pedestrians have way more time to enjoy the vista of these parkways than cars, because they go slower. It's a lot easier to enjoy the vistas when you can smell and hear them.
I doubt if there were many cars in the 30s that easily drove 50 mph. I also wonder if people from the 30s would enjoy the vistas that have been made since then. That 5-sided office building. That massive airport. That power plant. Those multilane highways. Those highrises. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of graves...
by Jasper on Jul 26, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
The suggestion on WashCycle that the crosswalk be closed and pedestrians use the new tunnel is a good one as well.
by charlie on Jul 26, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
No. It's actually awful. There is no way to get to or from Memorial bridge to anywhere else if the five grade crossings are closed. You'd be trapped in medians. I don't think closing Memorial Bridge to bike/ped traffic is a solution.
by David C on Jul 26, 2011 11:27 am • link • report
Yeah! What you said! They didn't ride bikes to work in 1932, and they damned well shouldn't now!
Good lord, you and Lance are fatuous.
Back over here in the real world, this conversation is about making the parkway safe for cyclists and drivers. In that regard, asserting that a driver contributes to an accident when they stop at a crosswalk is dangerous and ignorant. You are both.
by CJ on Jul 26, 2011 11:32 am • link • report
Enforcing the law, and preventing death and injuries are now unreasonable? Wow.
Where did I say that? Quote me the exact spot where I said it. Take your time.
by Rich on Jul 26, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
Uh, I'm pretty sure Arlington Cemetery was there with tens of thousands of graves in the 1930s... and while the Pentagon and Reagan Airport are new, there was certainly the Washington-Hoover airport where the Pentagon now stands. And let's not forget the landfill next to that old airport where they burned trash, creating a stench that even crossed the Potomac.
by Anon in Arl on Jul 26, 2011 11:59 am • link • report
I can't. You implied it by rejecting all logical solutions and comparing them to something insane.
by Jasper on Jul 26, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report
The cemetery was there. Just with a lot less graves. Hoover airport was an airfield, nothing close to what there is now. And thanks for pointing out that there has been one improvement.
by Jasper on Jul 26, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
I can't. You implied it by rejecting all logical solutions and comparing them to something insane.
Oh, come on. I thought you were one of the more intelligent commenters here and then you post childish drivel like that? "Logical solutions" doesn't have to mean "make the Parkway unpleasant for drivers" or "ignore any rationales the Park Service might have for deciding on designs." I think "logical" means "reasonable compromise between all users of the facility as well as the government agency that runs it."
If you look back at my original comment from 14.49 yesterday, you'll see that I said that I think a HAWK signal is a reasonable idea IF it's coupled with an additional advance warning signal in recognition of the trees and the curve in the road. I also said that I expect the Park Service might reject the idea for the very reason that they oppose lights. I'm not sure why you seem to think that means that I somehow "rejected all logical solutions" unless you've fallen under the spell of the "ban all motorized vehicles from everywhere" crowd (which is itself an utterly unreasonable position and they know it). It seems to me that if I said "a HAWK signal is a good idea, but the Park Service will probably reject it," then it should be pretty clear that I'm supporting that signal while trying to be realistic about the chances of one being installed there. If you DON'T consider what the Park Service will say in response to different proposals, then you're just being silly.
by Rich on Jul 26, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
You can anticipate what they will say - if they'll say anything at all - but that does not mean that you will accept what they say, or even regard what they say as valid.
There is a problem in this town that people accept virtually all statements as true and valid, because "it's just a matter of philosophy/opinion/politics etc". That is not the case. Quite frankly, there is a lot of bullsh!t around, and it needs to be called. The NPS's answer here will be bullsh!t. It should be told to stop producing childish drivel like that. If a government agency is unwilling to have serious responses, based in reality, not hollow phrases, then it is silly.
by Jasper on Jul 26, 2011 8:31 pm • link • report
While I agree we're not absolutely certain about the facts of this case, this isn't a court. It seems pretty safe to assume the two cars stopped at the crosswalk, and the truck rear-ended both of them, at least for discussion purposes.
You're not the only person that has made references to only having to top for pedestrians *in* crosswalks (I assume that's what you meant in your comment). I'm curious where this is coming from. I found a link to the Virginia law, and it says you have to yield to pedestrians *at* crosswalks. To me, the use of the word "at" pretty clearly says you have to yield to pedestrians on the side of the road at a crosswalk.
by Andy R on Jul 26, 2011 10:10 pm • link • report
I don't necessarily agree with everything the government says (I mean, look at the unqualified clown who's currently serving as president....enough said!), but whether you like it or not, the agency in charge of that road will have an immense about to say about what you can and can't do, so the fact that YOU may consider it not "valid" really doesn't matter. If you think you're going to succeed in getting a 25-mph speed limit on the GW Parkway through there, or a series of speed humps, or in getting cars banned from that road, then you're just delusional, plain and simple. (I don't mean my use of "you" to mean you personally; I'm using it generically.)
by Rich on Jul 27, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report
Well sure, obviously the most likely outcome going forward is that NPS will continue to endanger pedestrians and cyclists because doing otherwise would mean a marginal inconvenience to drivers. That's understood.
I was just pointing out that the assertion "nothing can be done to curtail speeding anyway" was wrong.
by oboe on Jul 27, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
This is pretty funny, given that the real issue here was a crash that occurred when a driver DID THE RIGHT THING by stopping. Yet somehow it's morphed into another "cars are bad" discussion. You know what? Life isn't safe. No matter how much you do the right thing, you can still get hurt through no fault of your own. I've had a car totalled when I was stopped (short of blocking an intersection) and a woman rear-ended me when she was going 25 mph. I've been in a bike accident on a 15-mph street through the UVA Grounds when a woman turned into a parking space right after she had passed me on my left (she didn't signal, either). No matter what you do, no matter what precautions you take, somehow accidents are still going to happen.
The crash discussed in the original article didn't happen BECAUSE the crossing is unsafe for pedestrians. It happened because there was a dumbass behind the wheel of the second vehicle. That sort of thing can, and unfortunately will, happen regardless of the road conditions. My point was that you can argue for a 25-mph speed limit, but it's not going to be accepted by anyone such that it would, simply put, be futile to post it. When the speed limit there has been 40 mph for at least 30 years (maybe longer, but I don't know what it was in the 1960s and 1970s), trying to get people to change their behavior to go 25 would be a massive battle, and I don't think it's "anti-pedestrian" or "pro-car" or "unreasonable" to say that, either. It's just a simple fact of life, just like it's a simple fact of life to recognize that while cyclists who run stop signs are breaking the law in most jurisdictions, they're still going to do it.
Given the nature of that road, I seriously do think that the only realistic way to improve those crosswalks would be to use the HAWK signal. Everyone knows what a red light means. But it's still important as the pedestrian that you not just walk out when the light turns red, simply because some drivers (not all, despite the propaganda some spew) are assholes. That is, I don't think it's much good being "right" if you're "dead right."
BTW, I also wonder if crosswalk relocation in some of those spots might help. You know where the bizarre merge is between the ramp from the GW Parkway to Washington Boulevard on the approach to the circle? There's a crosswalk right before it. Because the merge is controlled by a "yield," it's not surprising that many drivers are looking first to see whether the merge is clear. I've wondered periodically whether that crosswalk would be safer if it were moved further back from the merge, although I also wonder if that would be counterproductive because traffic would be moving faster there.
by Rich on Jul 27, 2011 4:50 pm • link • report
by Mike on Aug 1, 2011 10:39 am • link • report
Add a Comment