An article about a car-bicycle crash on the Pinellas Rail Trail in Florida is on the Cycling Today Web site. Please view the embedded video there before reading the rest of this post.
There is a lot of nonsense about this crash in a Facebook post and comments. Many people just looked at the dual-pane image at the top of the post, and claimed that the crash was fake news. It wasn’t. I commented:
I have identified the intersection (actually, technically not an intersection, see comments) and directions of travel from the street sign in the video, also from landmarks including the end of a guardrail, a pole near the stop sign, which will be visible if you move forward in the linked Google Street View, and the locations of tactile pads. (The Pinellas path is intended for pedestrians to keep to one side, hence also the two bollards dividing the path into thirds.) The pushbuttons just before the path light up something (rapid-repeating rectangular beacons) on the yellow signs with their solar arrays, but that doesn’t show in the video. The pushbuttons on the near side of the intersection are, however, not positioned where a cyclist riding in the middle lane, as intended, could reach them.
I don’t think that the closer of two bicyclists coming from the far side of the intersection pushed the button there — the video starts when he is already in the intersection, but he is going too fast to have accelerated from a stop. (I was wrong about this. A better, longer version of the video clip shows him pushing the button.) So, the motorist in the second car, which hit the bicyclist, did not have a warning to stop (that is, not a sign or signal requiring a stop.) — and does not have a stop sign, as the yellow, diamond-shaped warning sign does not require a stop (nor do the beacons). The motorist could easily have been distracted by the other car passing on the right and not have noticed the approaching bicyclist until too late to avoid a collision. The motorist is culpable at least of leaving the scene of the crash. The bicyclist failed to stop at a stop sign (though it is a troublesome stop sign: crossing is possible in a shorter gap without stopping, and I have already described the problem with the location of the pushbuttons). Another requirement at a stop sign, though, is to yield and instead, despite seeing the approaching cars, the bicyclist exercised extreme victim behavior, throwing up his hands rather than to attempt any evasive action, either braking or swerving. He didn’t even stop pedaling. What a clusterf**k.
(Further weirdness: the stop sign has no force under the law — see comments.)
I have read that the police say that the lights were flashing. How do they know this? The only way the would know is from an eyewitness.
It is a cluster ****. But the cyclist who was hit was riding like an idiot.
“Idiot” doesn’t quite describe the cyclist’s behavior to me. “Fool” is more like it. He appears to have been more concerned with preaching to a nonexistent choir (unless, unlikely, he knew that his actions were being recorded — the choir is quite large, actually, as it turns out). I don’t think that he carried the day for the choir with his few seconds of sermonizing that ended, fortunately for him, in an injured wrist rather than in flat-out martyrdom. Many members of the choir, present company included, are more inclined to gasp, or to shake our heads in wonderment, than to sing a song of praise for his self-sacrifice.
The motorist who struck him was possibly reckless, and that motorist’s leaving the scene is depravity, also possibly an attempt to escape police attention to other problems. (I would have any sympathy only if the problem were, for example, the likelihood of being deported to a country where the driver’s life would be in danger.) The other motorist’s passing on the right in an intersection was certainly reckless and possibly illegal. The cyclist’s rejecting the opportunity to prevent the crash in favor of potentially martyring himself was no act of selflessness, it was a foolish abandonment of the basic drive for self-preservation in the interest of taking up a better battle another day.
My own approach to situation like this, where motorists, or bicyclists, or people who build streets and paths do it poorly, is to shoot video to document the problem, usually from my bicycle, and while riding in the safest way I know. That way, it doesn’t have to be some surveillance camera accidentally recording me making a fool of myself.
When I stumbled across this blog, I was shocked at the content and victim bashing tone of this post (as well as most of the comments in the linked article). I’m sorry to be so blunt, but the writer got almost everything wrong, revealing an astonishing lack of knowledge or understanding of the relevant laws.
This quote gets to the heart of the matter: “the motorist in the second car, which hit the bicyclist, did not have a warning to stop — and does not have a stop sign, as the yellow, diamond-shaped warning sign does not require a stop”.
Wrong! The motorist was duty bound to yield to the bicyclist—whether he or she needed to stop or simply slow down is immaterial. This is an open and shut case, so why did so many people get this wrong and blame the bicyclist? The writer may have provided a hint because he repeatedly describes the crosswalk where the collision occurred as an “intersection”. This confusion is rampant among transportation officials who are steeped in the “motorists own the road” mentality, but it is fundamentally wrong because laws define and regulate them differently. The collision occurred in Florida, so let’s consider the statutes which regulated the movements of the parties involved in this crash. [1] (Most states that follow the Uniform Vehicle Code have similar laws)
An “intersection” is that area of a highway where two roadways join [§ 316.003(32), Fla. Stat.]—it’s the place where the right of one vehicle to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to the other vehicle is determined by traffic control devices or applicable statutes. Because pedestrians are not permitted to walk on roadways, they may not enter intersections [with only one exception as described in § 316.130(14)], so the place where this non-motorized trail crosses the roadway can not possibly be an intersection.
However, the crossing meets the statutory definition of “crosswalk”: “Any portion of a roadway . . . distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.” [§ 316.003(16)(b)] Intersections are that part of a roadway where vehicles come into conflict with each other, but crosswalks are that part of a roadway where vehicles come into conflict with pedestrians. It should go without saying, but apparently needs to be said: conflicts between vehicles require a very different set of rules than conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
Priority at uncontrolled crosswalks like this one is assigned to pedestrians by § 316.130(7)(c): “. . . the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.” Unlike intersections where priority can be somewhat complex, this law is unambiguous: motorists SHALL yield to pedestrians who are in an uncontrolled crosswalk—NO exceptions.
But, what about bicyclists? It is important to understand that bicyclists operate under two different sets of laws. When a person is riding a bicycle on the roadway, his or her rights and duties are generally the same as those of motorists: “Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter, except . . ..” [§ 316.2065(1)] However, a person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a crosswalk has all the rights and duties of a pedestrian: “A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.” [§ 316.2065(9)] Because this bicyclist was riding across the roadway in the crosswalk, he had the same legal status as a pedestrian—which the motorist was duty bound to respect by yielding to him.
The writer also claims: “The bicyclist failed to stop at a stop sign . . . Another requirement at a stop sign, though, is to yield . . .” Let’s see how this claim would work in real life: The bicyclist stops at the STOP sign and then yields to traffic that is approaching on the roadway. Once he discovers a gap in traffic he mounts his bicycle and rides across the roadway. If at any time an approaching driver must slow down or stop to avoid colliding with him, it is proof the bicyclist failed to yield the right-of-way as defined in § 316.003(68): “The right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed, and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other.”
If bicyclists are required to stop in obedience to the STOP sign, what about the pedestrians who also use this shared-use path—are they also required to stop and then yield to approaching traffic? If the answer is yes, the crosswalk is legally meaningless because it makes no difference whether a person is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk or outside of it—he or she must always yield to vehicular traffic. If the answer is no, we end up with the absurd situation in which motorists are required to yield to one type of trail user, pedestrians, but not the other type of trail user, bicyclists.
Fortunately, the writer’s claim is false because the Florida statutes have never defined a person’s responsibilities in the bizarre (but all too common) situation where he or she faces a STOP sign anywhere other than at an intersection. Notice the clear restriction the legislature has placed on who must obey STOP signs…and where: “. . . every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall . . ..” [§ 316.123(2)(a)]
This collision took place in a crosswalk, not an intersection, where the bicyclist had the same rights and duties as a pedestrian, not as those of the driver of a vehicle. Consequently, this statute does not apply to STOP signs (or YIELD signs) on trails, sidepaths, or sidewalks—trail users may legally ignore them.
In summary, the driver violated the right-of-way of the bicyclist by entering the crosswalk while the bicyclist was crossing the roadway in said crosswalk. Although we might quibble over the bicyclist’s alleged failure to make reasonable efforts to avoid the collision, nothing changes the fact that it was the motorist who failed to yield to the bicyclist as required by law.
—–
[1] No relevant local ordinances have been adopted, so only the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law applies, which can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/skju5mq
Long comment deserves a long reply.
First of all, thank you to the references to applicable laws. Now let me address the individual comments.
I didn’t cite the laws, or look them up. The laws, however, establish fault. They do not teach people how to operate safely and do not describe how to avoid crashes. To do that was the purpose of my post, not establishing fault or “victim bashing” but preventing more crashes and the creation of more victims.
This is where you get me wrong. The motorist was legally required to yield, but the signs did not require the motorist to yield. And there are rather clear reasons that the motorist did not yield.
The flashers, by the way, are of the type known as rapid rectangular flashing beacons, or RRFBs. They were the subject of an Interim Approval by the Federal Highway Administration based on experimentation to determine their effectiveness, at the very location where this crash occurred, among others in the St. Petersburg area. The experimentation led to a positive recommendation from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD). I know of this as a member of the NCUTCD’s Bicycle Technical Committee, and I voted on this proposal. The flashers operate only when a path user presses a pushbutton.
OK, this is not technically an intersection. But passing judgment before considering all the evidence doesn’t play with me. Is considering the status of cyclist in a crosswalk on a path to be the same as that of motorists in the street an example of a “motorists own the road” mentality?
Drivers are also required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks adjacent to an intersection, and a stop sign is placed before the crosswalk. But go on.
That is generally true but in this specific instance, the rule is the same. A driver or cyclist facing a stop sign is required to stop, and yield to cross traffic in the crosswalk, and in the street. Most drivers and cyclists come to a complete stop only when they must yield. They take the stop sign as a warning to slow down so they are prepared to yield. The overuse of stop signs in the USA leads to this “cry wolf” situation, and it would be better to have a more nuanced sign. A yield sign would be appropriate at intersections; here, it would not, because the cross traffic is required to yield. The traffic engineers pull the stop sign out of their toolbox to get cyclists to slow down. The cyclist here did not slow down.
No, there is an important exception: 316.130(8): ”No pedestrian shall 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.”
So, 316.130(8) applies to a cyclist in the crosswalk. I think that it was probably possible for the driver to yield, pending an accident reconstruction that accounts for speeds, sight lines and braking distances. I am withholding judgment but I will probably agree with you that the driver was at fault for failure to yield. I do think though that the four factors which I have mentioned resulted in the driver’s not yielding.
The last sentence is not a sentence. What you left off is that § 316.003(68) is the definition of right of way.
OK. Here I go. That is a faulty argument. Stop signs do not apply to pedestrians, anywhere. Where cross traffic has a stop sign, drivers and cyclists are required to yield only to pedestrians. Why would a cyclist who isn’t an expert on every loophole in the statutes think that the stop sign would have any different meaning here?
So, did the cyclist attend law school, study the statute book up and down, determine that “oh, there is a stop sign here but actually it is meaningless,” and find it perfectly fine to ride out at full speed into a crosswalk while motorists are approaching, also at speed? Not very likely. You make your argument based on a convenient loophole in the law. Expecting a typical user to rely on the absence a statute, where the purpose of a stop sign is entirely well understood as a matter of common knowledge, is quite a stretch.
Or — will the cyclist assume that the law for stop signs is the same here as anywhere else, but ignore the stop sign under the assumption that the driver will see him and yield, as the driver should, but not making it easy for the driver? That is what actually happened.
I see. You have made your case. Thanks to a hole in the law, the signs are legally meaningless. But on the other hand, what is the message that these meaningless signs are intended to convey? Why did anyone bother to post them?
Why? Identifying the crossing of a path with a street as a crosswalk may legalistically make pedestrian rules apply, but it does not make cyclists into pedestrians. The State of Florida plants these signs because cyclists approach a crosswalk at much higher speeds than pedestrians, and do not have the ability to stop as short. This often places cyclists out of sight of motorists until too late for the motorists to yield. The state wants cyclists to push the button to actuate the flashers, and to be going slowly enough that drivers in the street will notice them and yield to them. The legislature hasn’t caught up with the Department of Transportation in supporting these installations with law.
In fact I mostly agree with you about fault. What did I say? “The motorist is at the very least at fault for leaving the scene.” That is a felony, much worse than the misdemeanor of failure to yield, of which he is culpable if it was possible. Though the motorist was required to yield, the cyclist contributed to causation because he did not stop, or push the button, slow down, and threw up his hands rather than braking or swerving out of the way. Though he was not at fault under the law, he threw away every opportunity he had to prevent the crash.
So, who is placing blame here? It is you. Your comment is all about placing blame. And beyond that, your argument is entirely legalistic and foregoes any analysis of why the crash happened or might have been prevented. It holds no lessons going forward.
Despite the legalism, you have overlooked what is arguably a violation by the other driver, passing on the right when it was unsafe, 316.084 (2). If passing on the right when approaching a crosswalk where there is another car ahead blocking sight lines and there is traffic in the crosswalk is unsafe, then that driver was in violation. And specifically if the driver who struck the cyclist had stopped, the the other car might have collided with the cyclist. That would certainly have been unsafe.
You have overlooked violations by both drivers which I will allege, of 316.083, the basic speed law, driving too fast under the existing conditions. The motorists may also have been in violation of the speed limit, 35 mph, see Google Street View, but determining whether they were would require a geometric analysis of the video. The cyclist was in violation of the basic speed law law if the rail trail is categorized under the law as a highway. (I did not find a definition of highway in 316.003, though the word is used numerous times in other definitions in that section. (“Highway” as used in the law refers to the property owned or under easement by the state for travel, between the property lines — not necessarily to main roads as in the vernacular. It even refers to canals, and so it would seem also to apply to rail trails.)
Correct, as a matter of law. The cyclist’s “alleged failure” — give me a break. It’s plain as day. Your comment reads like a lawyer’s closing argument. I would not be surprised if you are the cyclist’s lawyer in this case. I wish the cyclist well.
—–
[1] No relevant local ordinances have been adopted, so only the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law applies, which can be found here:
Regarding the fact that the statutes do not define any responsibility for people who face STOP signs anywhere other than at intersections, you responded: “I see. You have made your case. Thanks to a hole in the law, the signs are legally meaningless.”
We must assume the legislators meant what they wrote (unless a court has interpreted otherwise), so your claim about “a hole in the law”, a loophole, does not stand up under scrutiny. Even the UVC (§ 11-403) addresses STOP signs only in the context of drivers of vehicles approaching intersections, and nowhere else, so Florida’s law falls within the nationwide norm. Also, contrast that with §§ 316.075(1), 316.075(2), Fla. Stat. (and UVC §11-202) which requires *all* traffic to obey traffic control signals *wherever* they are installed: “. . . the lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows: . . .” and “in the event an official traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this section shall be applicable . . ..”
No, this is not an oversight, a mere loophole, but rather an ongoing effort by the courts and legislatures to come to grips with one of the consequences of the auto-centric design of our nation’s highways. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles are very different forms of transportation because their capacity for damage is dramatically different—the bodily harm a pedestrian can inflict on a motorist is very different than the other way round, and we have laws that address those differences. The fact that just about everyone gets this wrong is very troubling because this language is not couched in lawyerly hairsplitting terminology—it is plain and simple.
You wrote: “The legislature hasn’t caught up with the Department of Transportation in supporting (the installation of STOP signs on shared-use paths) with law.”
The DOT does not have the authority to adopt rules except under a very narrowly defined process codified in Chap. 120, Fla. Stat., something it has not done. Attempting to brainwash people into believing a law exists by installing STOP signs when there is no supporting law is not only unethical, it is also a violation of the MUTCD, Sections 1A.08, P3; 2B.01, P1; and 2B.01, P2. Furthermore, using STOP signs in an effort to slow people down is contrary to the MUTCD’s *standard* that they are only to be used “when it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection . . ..” (Section 2B.05, P1) STOP signs on shared-use paths are the wrong traffic control device for numerous reasons, and at least one younger engineer in FDOT has seen the light. You can see an example where I know for a fact that the absence of STOP signs facing the trail was deliberate: https://tinyurl.com/rv2tgdw
You wrote: “Despite the legalism, you have overlooked what is arguably a violation by the other driver . . .” and “you have overlooked violations by both drivers which I will allege . . ..”
I had initially planned to address this issue, but the post was already rather lengthy. So, I am happy you brought it up because it permits us to dig a little deeper into the broader picture:
On the approach to the trail crossing, a driver who was paying attention would have noticed: a) the speed limit is 35 mph, b) about 170 feet before the crossing a pedestrian ahead warning sign assembly, c) also about 170 feet ahead of the crossing the broken white line which separates the lanes changes to a solid white line (which is supposed to discourage changing lanes, presumably because of the approaching crossing), d) about 30 feet ahead of the crossing a stop bar extends across both lanes (but, absent a regulatory “Stop Here For Pedestrians” sign it is probably legally meaningless), e) at the crossing itself there is a pedestrian and diagonal arrow warning sign assembly, f) an RRFB on the right side of the roadway, although it’s not really noticeable unless activated (the two that had been installed in the median appear to be missing—maybe an errant motorist took them out?), and finally g) markings on the pavement which define a legal crosswalk.
Although the numerous warning signs and markings have no regulatory authority, they do serve notice that a hazardous condition involving pedestrians (and bicyclists) may exist. The Florida Statutes specifically address such a situation: “The driver of every vehicle shall . . . drive at an appropriately reduced speed when . . . any special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians . . ..” [§ 316.183(4)(3)] Consequently, if motorists approach the crosswalk without having appropriately reduced their speed to the point where they can stop if required to yield, they are guilty of traveling at an unlawful speed. If a bicyclist “suddenly” enters the crosswalk, the motorist had had ample warning to be prepared for that possibility at the very specific location where the bicyclist was encouraged to cross.
You wrote: “No, there is an important exception (to my claim that there are NO exceptions to the requirement that motorists yield to pedestrians who are in the crosswalk): 316.130(8): ’No pedestrian shall 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.'”
We may not disregard the construction of the statute in an effort to twist its application to suit us. The operative word here is “suddenly”, which Merriam-Webster defines as: “happening or coming unexpectedly . . . marked by or manifesting abruptness or haste”. The video clearly shows that the bicyclist did nothing “suddenly” because he approached and entered the roadway at a steady speed—there was nothing unexpected about him entering the crosswalk. A driver who had not obeyed the law by slowing down appropriately and failing to keep a proper lookout might claim the bicyclist “suddenly” appeared out of thin air, but that would have been false.
Also notice that a pedestrian may not suddenly enter the path of an approaching vehicle if it is *impossible* for the driver to yield. But, the burden of proof would be on the motorist to demonstrate that it was impossible for him to yield despite him having slowed down as he approached the crosswalk. The fact that DOTs typically design roadways to operate at high speeds where pedestrians can be expected to cross in crosswalks makes them partially culpable for the failure of motorists to slow down as they approach crosswalks.
You wrote: “I do not think that the flashers on the warning signs (RRFBs) were blinking, because I don’t think that any of cyclists who entered the intersection pushed the button to actuate them.”
I can state with almost certainty that you are wrong—see this video: https://tinyurl.com/wqo89tm . The two bicyclists who approached the crosswalk from the opposite direction clearly pushed the buttons to active the RRFBs. I’m guessing they are programmed to flash for a minimum of 15 seconds (based on the standard of 3.5 feet per second for pedestrians to cross this 50 foot wide roadway), but there is a good chance they were active for 30 seconds. The bicyclist reached the push button on his side about 9 seconds after the other bicyclists pushed their respective buttons, so the RRFBs had been flashing as he approached the crosswalk and would have continued to flash until he reached the other side of the roadway.
Had the motorists reduced their speed appropriately as they approached the crosswalk, they would have had ample time to stop before the bicyclist entered their paths. The sight lines between the bicyclist and the near side motorist were relatively unobstructed, and if he had stopped as required by law, it would have been illegal for the other motorist to overtake him [§ 316.130(9)].
Finally, you wrote: “So, who is placing blame here? It is you. Your comment is all about placing blame. And beyond that, your argument is entirely legalistic and foregoes any analysis of why the crash happened or might have been prevented. It holds no lessons going forward.”
Yes, my argument was legalistic because you had charged the victim with violating a non-existent law and excused the perpetrator by a) speculating (wrongly) that the RRFBs had not been activated before the bicyclist entered the crosswalk, b) ignoring the crosswalk markings by focusing solely on the warning signs, c) insisting on calling this an intersection when it is in fact a crosswalk (where the rules are different), d) castigating the bicyclist for entering the intersection [sic] at speed while ignoring the motorist entering the crosswalk at a high rate of speed, and finally e) excusing the motorist because you somehow determined he was not looking in the direction of the bicyclist because he may have been distracted by the other car that was unexpectedly overtaking him on the right.
If we can’t even agree on the legal framework that surrounded the sequence of events which led up to this crash, we’re not going to get anywhere because when push comes to shove, the bicyclist will always loose. I would be happy to provide some suggestions about what lessons we can learn from this collision and how to move forward, but I’ll let you go first because my post is once again rather lengthy.
OK, continuing the discussion:
Yes, a traffic control signal (traffic light) may be used at driveways and crosswalks. This is a long-standing practice. Did the legislature know what it was doing? Show me where the legislature has addressed the practice of installing stop signs where they have no meaning, other than through omission. The long-standing reasons that stop signs are used only at intersections is that vehicular traffic must always yield when entering from driveways, and so no stop sign is needed. At crosswalks, the long-standing assumption has been that crosswalk traffic would be pedestrian, but pedestrian rules work poorly for bicyclists, and the stop sign is a stop-gap attempt to address this issue.
Pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles are also very different forms of transportation because of their differing operating characteristics. In this regard, bicycles are little different from slow motorcycles, much more like motor vehicles than like pedestrians, and so bicycles are defined as vehicles, or the operator is defined as having the rights and duties of a vehicle operator. That definition amounts to the same thing but allows equipment requirements to be treated directly rather than as exceptions. The question of the capacity to inflict damage arises in laws about standard of care. Motor vehicles too differ greatly in the hazards they pose, and this is reflected in equipment, licensing and registration requirements.
I have no argument with your analysis of the law. The question remains as to how a person with the typical understanding of stop signs will interpret their use. As to the Google Street View example you give, the question remains as to what, other than nothing at all, might substitute for stop signs. I note that vegetation has been cleared back to provide extended sight lines for motorists approaching the crosswalk from the street to the right. That addresses the problem of motorists’ yielding as they exit the side street, though not the one of motorists turning right from the boulevard, where the bicyclist may be outside the field of view of a passenger-side rear view mirror, or motorists turning left, where the bicyclist may be screened by other vehicles.
The sidepath in your example has few intersections, reducing the number of such hazards, but that is a tradeoff for another problem: all of the trip endpoints along this stretch of a wide, multi-lane, high-speed road are on the other side. The next intersection to the east is 0.4 mile away. Ovenbird Road, 0.2 mile the west, Ts into the opposite side of the highway, https://goo.gl/maps/DVHgAPYRGTtucvrz7, and there is not even a perfunctory provision for bicyclists to cross — they must ride across grass, or start at a driveway, then merge across multiple lanes of motor traffic. This is an example of car-centric design disguised as bicycle-friendly design. An overhead view of the area show the all-too-typical Florida pattern of neighborhoods connected with each other for motor traffic, but isolated from each other for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. https://goo.gl/maps/hngPAXZdUYWXNC8o9 It is no wonder that I didn’t see a single bicyclist on this sidepath as I clicked along it in Google Maps. This isn’t an example of “build it and they will come,” it is an example of “suppose they built a path and nobody came.” It contrasts strongly with the Pinellas, which is heavily used. And nobody would use this path, alongside a busy highway,for a pleasure ride.
I have no disagreement about this.
So, the bicyclist was legally in the right to enter the crosswalk. He was so intent on making this point that he threw his hands up in the air rather than to grasp his brake levers.
Consider the politics here: The road pre-existed the paths, and the DOT is attempting to retrofit something to make the crossing safer, without the expense of constructing a grade separation or inviting political backlash by forcing motorists to slow down.
I thank you for pointing out this longer and better version of the video. I stand corrected: one of the cyclists pushed the button. Unfortunately, though, the video does not show the RRFBs, so we have no direct evidence as to when or whether they were flashing. There are additional factors in when they flash, beyond the ones you mention. At this mid-block crossing:
* There may be a minimum delay between when the button is pressed and when the RRFBs start flashing.
* It is usual for there to be a delay between when a signal stops flashing and when it may start again, so that repeated button presses do not keep the RRFBs flashing constantly.
* Timing of the RRFBs may be coordinated with timing of traffic signals at a nearby intersection or intersections.
The actual programming of the signals can be determined through a request for information, and through observation. Do you live nearby? Or, anyone else who is reading this, please go check it out. Unfortunately, I live 1500 miles away and the last time I rode through this intersection was in 2012. I shot video at a similar intersection on the Pinellas Trail. The RRFBs did turn on right away, but I did not stay around long enough to check out different timing possibilities, and the timing may have been changed since.
Correct, except that drivers conditioned to respond to the RRFBs could ignore the signs. And the driver who struck the bicyclist was distracted by the one passing on the right.
There are additional potential offenses. The driver who passed on the right could be held at fault for aggressive careless driving, 316.1923 for both speeding and passing on the right where unsafe; the motorist who struck the bicyclist, for careless driving 316.1925. Here is a question involving case law: the cyclist was operating on a roadway at the time of the crash, but not traveling longitudinally on the roadway. Does that also bring 316.1925 into play?
Finally, you wrote: “So, who is placing blame here? It is you. Your comment is all about placing blame. And beyond that, your argument is entirely legalistic and foregoes any analysis of why the crash happened or might have been prevented. It holds no lessons going forward.”
Well, the non-existent law makes a stop sign, a traffic-control device whose meaning is universally understood, meaningless here. Also:
a) Based on better evidence, I stand corrected that a cyclist pushed the button, though neither of us has cited direct evidence that the flashers activated in time to alert the drivers.
b) I considered the crosswalk markings and signs to be unimportant in this case, based on the assumption that the flashers were not flashing in time to alert the drivers, an assumption which has still not been disproven. Agreed, the signs and markings should have warned the motorists to be more cautious.
c) I am not insisting on calling at an intersection. I stand corrected on that — but it makes a difference only in legal interpretation, not in crash causation.
d) I did not ignore the motorist entering at a high rate of speed. I pointed (in my previous reply) to the need for a geometric analysis to establish the speed.
e) I did not excuse the motorist. I pointed to distraction as an apparent factor in causation of the crash, not a legal excuse, only an explanation. I withheld conclusions about the motorist’s culpability (other than for leaving the scene), due to insufficient evidence. Once again, you divert a question of crash causation and prevention into one of blame.
I don’t disagree about the legal framework. You have been very helpful in elucidating it, and in particular, pointing out that the use of stop signs rests on a faulty legal framework. However, the legal framework did not cause this crash. People’s expectations and behavior in the actual installation caused the crash. Please do suggest how things might more forward to make crashes less likely here. I’ll pose a few thoughts about this:
* Grade separations have been installed at several other crossings of major streets along the Pinellas Rail Trail. That is one potential solution, though it is very expensive.
* Might there be less expensive engineering improvements? Better signalization and signage? A speed table or other device to force motor traffic to slow down? Diversion of the path to force bicyclists to slow down?
* Might there be better law enforcement? Enforcement against speeding?
* Might there be better education of both motorists and path users?
Your thoughts?
You wrote: “Yes, a traffic control signal (traffic light) may be used at driveways and crosswalks. This is a long-standing practice. Did the legislature know what it was doing?”
I don’t understand your question. Jurisdictions may not design highways in a manner that encourages users to violate state law, and they certainly may not design them in an effort to frustrate the text of the statutes. The general concept being that what the legislature has granted or forbidden, lower jurisdictions or agencies do not have the authority to frustrate.
For at least 70 years, pedestrians and drivers of vehicles have been required to obey the indications of traffic lights without the legislature having specified any restriction as to their location. The present language, “in the event an official traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this section shall be applicable . . .” does not change the earlier meaning whatsoever. Maybe the legislature decided to add this in order to bring it into line with the UVC which has contained that subsection since the 1940s?
You wrote: “Show me where the legislature has addressed the practice of installing stop signs where they have no meaning, other than through omission . . ..”
The text of § 316.123(2)(a) is crystal clear—even the title is restrictive: “Vehicle entering stop or yield intersection.” There is no reason for the legislature to note where this law does not apply any more than, for example, if the legislature requires lights to be used at night it does not need to note that they are not required during daylight hours. Or, maybe I did not understand what you were asking?
Yes, I realize the history of STOP signs and traffic lights is very different, but that does not change the fact that the legislature has, for decades, only required drivers who are approaching certain intersections to stop and then yield. As I wrote before, DOTs do not have the authority to restrict what the legislature has not restricted unless a local jurisdiction has first created the legal framework for such a restriction, most likely under the authority granted it under § 316.008, “Powers of local authorities”.
You wrote: “At crosswalks, the long-standing assumption has been that crosswalk traffic would be pedestrian, but pedestrian rules work poorly for bicyclists, and the stop sign is a stop-gap attempt to address this issue.”
For some 40 years the UVC and Florida Statutes have extended the rights and duties of pedestrians on sidewalks and in crosswalks to people propelling vehicles by human power, something I would think is “long-standing”. Surely it can not have escaped the notice of the legislators and the large body of people who crafted the UVC that bicyclists typically travel faster than people afoot, even on sidewalks and when they’re crossing the roadway in a crosswalk. And yet there is not a single law that I am aware of anywhere that targets the speed at which a bicyclist may, or may not, travel on sidewalks or crosswalks.
I do not categorically disagree with your claim that “pedestrian rules work poorly for bicyclists”, but the law is what it is, and I doubt there is any movement under foot to change that, so we need to work within the existing legal framework.
You wrote:”I have no argument with your analysis of the law. The question remains as to how a person with the typical understanding of stop signs will interpret their use.”
If you have spent any time riding trails you know that the failure of bicyclists to stop behind the stop bar and then yield to traffic on the roadway approaches 100%. So, yes, I do know how the typical person interprets STOP signs on trails: with total disrespect because they ignore them.
I have to ask, do you always, without exception, stop behind the stop bar on a trail when a STOP sign has been installed, and then yield to conflicting traffic? If so, I will buy you a meal at my favorite restaurant (McDonald’s) because I have a long-standing offer, to date unclaimed, to buy that meal for the first person I observe who always stops behind the STOP bar on trails and then yields to oncoming traffic.
You wrote: “I have no argument with your analysis of the law. The question remains as to how a person with the typical understanding of stop signs will interpret their use. As to the Google Street View example you give, the question remains as to what, other than nothing at all, might substitute for stop signs. I note that vegetation has been cleared back to provide extended sight lines for motorists approaching the crosswalk from the street to the right. That addresses the problem of motorists’ yielding as they exit the side street, though not the one of motorists turning right from the boulevard, where the bicyclist may be outside the field of view of a passenger-side rear view mirror, or motorists turning left, where the bicyclist may be screened by other vehicles.”
There is no reason for trail users to stop in the example I provided, or anywhere when they are crossing a roadway in an unsignalized crosswalk *because they have the right-of-way*! When the legislature has designated crosswalk users as the favored party by requiring conflicting traffic to yield, we MAY NOT attempt to frustrate that right. If you want to change the law and strip bicyclists of the rights the legislature has granted them, that is fine because that is how our laws are supposed to work. But to underhandedly try to strip them of that right angers me.
May I suggest you rephrase the question? How about: Why does FDOT not require turning motorists to stop before they enter the crosswalk (they put up thousands of STOP signs willy-nilly anyway)? Why did the DOT design such a wide radius which encourages high speed turns? Why did it not move the crosswalk further away from the roadway so the turning motorist crosses the trail closer to a 90 degree angle? Why did it not raise the crosswalk to encourage motorists to cross at a slower speed?
(On a side-note: Earlier this year I won a three year long fight with FDOT over a somewhat similar issue where it signalized an intersection near a parallel trail and created a hazardous condition by permitting turning motorists to cross the trail while trail users had a pedestrian “WALK” signal. Yes, I realize this is standard practice across the country, but it creates unnecessary hazards and stresses for trail users, and I wasn’t about to let them get away with that in my back yard without a fight. FDOT finally relented and now forbids any turning movement by motorists while the trail has a “green” signal. The DOT also eventually agreed to my request to install a push button upstream of the crossing so bicyclists can request what I call a “protected green crossing” before they get to the crosswalk.)
You wrote: “There are additional factors in when (the RRFBs) flash, beyond the ones you mention. At this mid-block crossing:
“* There may be a minimum delay between when the button is pressed and when the RRFBs start flashing.
“* It is usual for there to be a delay between when a signal stops flashing and when it may start again, so that repeated button presses do not keep the RRFBs flashing constantly.
“* Timing of the RRFBs may be coordinated with timing of traffic signals at a nearby intersection or intersections.”
If you know for a fact that any of these schemes are in place anywhere in the country, I would like to know about them. The RRFBs should begin flashing as soon as the button is pushed without any delay. To fool people into thinking the RRFBS are flashing because they pushed the button when in fact someone has programmed a delay would, in my opinion, be criminal. And nearby traffic signals have absolutely no bearing on the statutory requirement that motorists to yield to trail users in the crosswalk. Yes, I know the argument, and it is despicable!
You wrote: “Well, the non-existent law makes a stop sign, a traffic-control device whose meaning is universally understood, meaningless here.”
Not only do bicyclists have absolutely no respect for STOP signs on trails, most don’t have much more respect for them anywhere else either. We need to be honest and realistic about STOP signs for bicyclists because they don’t make sense. Don’t take my word for it, just look at how many bicyclists stop in obedience to STOP signs whether they are posted on trails or at intersections. Most bicyclists are cognizant of the hazards of colliding with motor vehicles so they make their decisions based on their experience and what is unfolding at the moment.
If I remember correctly, a couple of states have seen the light by enacting some version of the “Idaho stop” law, but resistance from certain quarters is steadfast. That law has been on the books in Idaho for some 30 years, so we know how it works. But we muddle along, pretending that the meaning of STOP signs for bicyclists “is universally understood”, when in fact the signs are considered irrelevant.
Once again, my post is lengthy, so I plan to respond to your questions about how to improve the safety of this crossing tomorrow.
And, thank you for permitting me to take up so much space on your blog.
Sorry, I was not making myself clear. I was referring to whether the Legislature knew what it was doing about (or was oblivious to the issue of) installation of stop signs on trails. I did not mean traffic signals.
I agree.
I think that you did not understand. As you clarified earlier, the law authorizes stop signs only at intersections.
Well, yes, there is, the law that prohibits pedestrians and bicyclists from entering the street at such speed that a motorist is unable to yield.
I agree that bicyclists do not come to a complete stop at stop signs. Many do not even slow down if they can see that there is no conflicting traffic. I disagree strongly that most bicyclists fail to yield. The consequences of that can be injury or death, rather strong disincentives.
No, you don’t get to buy me a meal. I slow enough so I get a good view of the street and so I am prepared to stop before reaching it. If there is no oncoming cross traffic close enough to pose a risk of collision, I then proceed. That allows me to cross in less time – more safely – that if I were to restart from a full stop. I stop if a motorist is approaching close enough that I could not cross a safe distance ahead of the vehicle even if the driver maintains or increases speed. Sometimes this leads to a “you go first, no you go first” situation but that is preferable to a collision.
Indeed there is no reason under the law for trail users to stop, but there is a very good reason if there is a risk that motorists will put their health and lives in danger.
Why not indeed. All of these are legitimate questions and describe ways that safety at crosswalks can be improved. There is, however, a political tradeoff against the interest of keeping motor traffic moving.
Good for you. Crossing and turning collisions are the most common car-bike collisions, and account for most fatalities in urban areas. I would have liked to see an electronic detector that switches the signal without requiring the bicyclist to – hmm, stop – and push a button. Vehicle detection can also determine the speed of the bicyclist and adjust the signal timing accordingly. This is not my idea and it is not novel: see photo I’l attach to my next post.
I work as a consultant to attorneys and an expert witness in bicycle crashes. In the case of a crash, it is important for me to dot all the I’s and cross all the t’s, so to speak. Where signalization is at issue, it is only prudent to check the functioning of the signals, rather than to draw a conclusion based on general principles. Whether I am working for a plaintiff’s or defendant’s attorney, I will be facing questions from the other side.
No, nearby traffic signals do not affect the statutory requirement. I didn’t say that. Traffic signals can be coordinated. And more to the point here, repeated button presses are likely suppressed, if only to prevent vandals from keeping the RRFBs flashing continuously. When the RRFBs were first installed on the Pinellas Rail Trail, some also faced the path, so path users could easily determine that they were active. Those RRFBs were removed later on instructions from the FHWA. The situation is now like that on a street where the cross street has a stop sign: it is necessary to look for a traffic-control device facing cross traffic. This is not an ideal situation but it may be the actual one.
As do motorists. Stop signs are overused in the USA. Political pressure to “do something” leads to their installation where yield signs or the rules for uncontrolled intersections (as is usual in Europe) would suffice, except that the overuse of stop signs has led to a “cry wolf” situation where people expect that they need not yield if there is no stop sign. I already addressed that on this blog, in one of my first posts: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=8
Stop signs are universally understood to mean that operators are required to yield to cross traffic. The requirement to stop is almost universally ignored, by bicyclists and motorists alike, unless stopping is necessary in order to yield. A better solution would work the same for both, but we are stuck with the Idaho Stop thanks to our history. The downside of the Idaho Stop is that special privileges engender animosity. The Idaho Stop as applied to traffic signals is worse. It is used as a substitute for traffic signal actuators which work for bicyclists and motorcyclists. Crossing against a red light may be impractical or unsafe, and if the light does not change, the cross traffic does not stop.
That’s fine. This is an interesting discussion.
You wrote: “I was referring to whether the Legislature knew what it was doing about (or was oblivious to the issue of) installation of stop signs on trails.”
Some, maybe many, bicycle advocacy groups in this country seem to have divided people who choose to ride bicycles into three broad categories: real bicyclists who mix it up with motorized traffic and “control the lane”; people who have been smitten by the “cyclist-inferiority” complex and hug the curb; and the ones who don’t even count, namely those who ride on separated facilities like trails.
These groups will go to the wall to defend the rights of the first group, look down their noses at members of the second group, and ignore the last group. Because “real bicyclists” don’t ride on separated facilities (at least not when others are looking), the blatant violation of their right to cross the roadway in a crosswalk by attempting to coerce them into yielding when, by law, they have the right-of-way, is ignored. So, I do not think any organization has attempted to get the legislature to investigate this issue.
I had written: “And yet there is not a single law that I am aware of anywhere that targets the speed at which a bicyclist may, or may not, travel on sidewalks or crosswalks.” To which you responded: “Well, yes, there is, the law that prohibits pedestrians and bicyclists from entering the street at such speed that a motorist is unable to yield.”
I do not understand how that law, “no pedestrian shall 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” can possibly apply to the rate of speed at which a bicyclist enters a crosswalk. Speed is really velocity, that is, the “quickness of motion”, while suddenly deals with the rate at which speed or velocity changes: “marked by or manifesting abruptness” (Merriam-Webster) .
A bicyclist who approaches a crossing at x rate of speed and then enters the crosswalk at the same rate of speed can not possibly be construed as having “suddenly” left the curb without doing violence to the plain meaning of the word “suddenly”. When a motorist approaches a crosswalk at x speed and then enters it at the same speed, we don’t say the motorist suddenly entered the crosswalk, do we?
When people trot out that statute, they really mean that a bicyclist seems to have been teleported from somewhere unseen into the crosswalk. In reality, the motorist was either driving too fast for conditions or was not keeping a proper lookout as required by law.
Is it possible for a bicyclist to enter a crosswalk at such a rate of speed that it is unreasonable? Maybe, but if we expect motorists to be able to judge the speed of approaching traffic that is traveling at, let’s say, 60 mph, how can we claim they can’t be expected to accurately judge the speed at which a person propelling a bicycle by their own power approaches and enters a crosswalk?
You wrote: “I agree that bicyclists do not come to a complete stop at stop signs. Many do not even slow down if they can see that there is no conflicting traffic. I disagree strongly that most bicyclists fail to yield. The consequences of that can be injury or death, rather strong disincentives.”
I did not mean to imply they don’t yield—in fact, later on I wrote: “Not only do bicyclists have absolutely no respect for STOP signs on trails, most don’t have much more respect for them anywhere else either. . . Most bicyclists are cognizant of the hazards of colliding with motor vehicles so they make their decisions based on their experience and what is unfolding at the moment.”
You wrote: “Indeed there is no reason under the law for trail users to stop, but there is a very good reason if there is a risk that motorists will put their health and lives in danger.”
This brings us back to square one: The reason motorists regularly threaten the lives of trail riding bicyclists in crosswalks is because of official efforts to frustrate the clear intent of the legislature, namely that trail users’ right to cross the roadway is superior to the right of motorists to cross the trail. They are two separate transportation systems with very different “rules of the road”, but where they cross, everyone needs to be on the same page, something the legislature has done.
But transportation officials have muddied the waters with, among other things, STOP signs. As if that isn’t bad enough, they are now posting W4-4p Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signs below the STOP signs. And, when I thought it couldn’t get worse, I’ve even seen a few black on white regulatory looking Cross Traffic Does Not Stop signs at trail crossings below the ubiquitous STOP signs. (I plan to ask the MUTCD to investigate this wrong application of a warning sign which I’m certain was never intended to be used in this manner.)
You wrote:
Yuu have it upside down about the present state of bicycling advocacy. The prevalent groups are given over to participation advocacy — efforts to attract more people to ride bicycles, almost entirely through convincing government to spend money on infrastructure, and while turning a blind eye to the quality of said infrastructure or to other safety issues. The industry lobbying organization PeopleforBikes (note Astroturf name) pushes this approach and skews the advocacy picture, and since at the latest 2003, has manipulated the national cyclists’ advocacy organization, the League of American Bicyclists, to serve its ends. Increasingly, a segregationist paradigm prevails. The slogan “ages 8 to 80” has fallen by the wayside, to be replaced by “all ages and abilities” Consulting firms sop up the government funding. Consider, for example, this staged photo of an innocent little girl who is riding on a two-way one-side of the street bikeway. Leaving the intersection just ahead of her, and any other users, out of the picture creates the impression that she is riding in some kind of paradise when in fact she could not be safe here. https://tooledesign.com/theNewEs/ Toole Designs, one of the major consulting firms, rejects standard considerations of engineering, education and enforcement and inserts ones that are several degrees removed from the concrete issues of street design, “environment, engagement and economic”, in their place.
Those of us who actively use bicycles for transportation and want that to continue to be a practical option, welcome special infrastructure when it serves that goal but decry it when it creates more problems than it solves. We also vehemently call out to maintain our right to use the roads, because these are the only option for the largest part of most trips we would like to make by bicycle, or the best option when special infrastructure has created a worse one — longer, slower, unsafe. Disparaging that stance as appertaining to “real bicyclists who mix it up with motorized traffic and ‘control the lane'” and who supposedly look down on people who are not comfortable with that doesn’t sit well with me.
Studies of car-bicycle crashes, going back to the classic Cross-Fisher report, and repeatedly confirmed, show that bicyclists are at an elevated risk entering crosswalks because their higher speed places them outside where motorists expect to look or even possibly see them. Splitting hairs about what it means to enter an intersection suddenly might win a legal judgment but it doesn’t prevent crashes.
The stop sign at the crosswalk which we have been discussing stands at the center of a nexus of multiple issues, which I have described. You bring up the legalistic issue of the stop sign repeatedly, though it amounts to me only to a side issue, diverting attention from the motorists’ recklessness and cyclist’s foolishness, and hanging responsibility for the crash on engineers to whom the public, through its representatives, had given no better tool for their toolbox. The engineering solution with the warning signs, stop lines, flashing beacons, pushbuttons and stop signs effected a reduction in crashes but did not solve either the motorists’ or the cyclists’ behavior problems which led to this one. The larger political and transportation culture created the problems and allows them to persist. If your only tool is a hammer, every solution looks like a nail. I see you increasingly as a single-issue advocate and I am getting tired of this discussion.
But do see my next post for an example of a better crosswalk treatment.
You wrote: “Those of us who actively use bicycles for transportation and want that to continue to be a practical option, welcome infrastructure when it serves that goal but decry it when it creates more problems than it solves. We also vehemently call out to maintain our right to use the roads, because these are the only option for the largest part of most trips we would like to make by bicycle, or the best option when special infrastructure has only created a worse one. Disparaging that stance as appertaining to ‘real bicyclists who mix it up with motorized traffic and ‘control the lane’ and who supposedly look down on people who are not comfortable with that doesn’t sit well with me.’
I should have been more explicit in who I meant when I wrote: “Some, maybe many, bicycle advocacy groups in this country . . .” I was thinking of groups like the Florida Bicycle Association, not organizations such as PeopleforBikes and companies like Toole Design. However, if you are aware if either of them have addressed mid-block trail crossings such as the one we’ve been discussing, I would love to see what they have to say and recommend.
You wrote: “You bring up the legalistic issue of the stop sign repeatedly, though it amounts to me only to aside issue, diverting attention from the motorists’ recklessness and cyclist’s foolishness, and hanging responsibility for the crash on engineers to whom the public had given no no better tool for their toolbox.”
I do not understand why you denigrate the legal aspect of this crash. The legislature has made it abundantly clear that when pedestrians and bicyclists are crossing a roadway in an uncontrolled crosswalk, motorists SHALL yield. It’s that simple!
Instead, DOTs have ignored the clearly worded intention of the legislature by designing most roadways to operate too fast for motorists to yield, and shifted the responsibility to yield to the party the legislature designated as the favored party. These conflicts are engineered by FDOT and other state DOTs, and sanctioned by the MUTCD.
It’s not so much the “legalistic issue of the stop sign”—they’re legally meaningless and universally ignored—but rather, they’re a symptom of a disease that I really would like to discuss. Which is why I have requested we continue this discussion in the context of the MUTCD’s Figure 9B-7.
Figure 9B-7 is here; https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/fig9b_07_longdesc.htm . Indeed, It shows stop signs on a trail where it crosses a road, along with yield signs on the road. As I’ve stated before, the stop signs represent an attempt to get bicyclists to slow so motorists are more likely to see them in time to yield, and so bicyclists will yield if motorists don’t. They also create an assumption that there is a presumption of negligence for bicyclists who do not stop, though as you ahve pointed out, the stop signs have no legal validity under Florida law..
In the real world, there are inconsistencies between laws, infrastructure design and common behavior. Also, legislatures, public officials and engineers respond to public pressure. The largest pressure is from motorists and motoring interests. You can fight a legal battle and maybe achieve some progress but as a practical matter, bicyclists can’t expect the world to revolve around our interests. So, we control the lane when necessary, not that this issue is relevant to the question of stop signs on trails. The Florida Bicycle Association, by the way, has published the Florida edition of my booklet Bicycling Street Smarts, which contains practical information on how to manage road crossings on trails whether or not motorists yield, and on when and how to control the lane.
My next post has to do with lane control: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=8071
I feel the need to backtrack a little before moving forward because something you had written earlier rubs me the wrong way.
You had written: “‘Idiot’ doesn’t quite describe the cyclist’s behavior to me. ‘Fool is more like it. He appears to have been more concerned with preaching to a nonexistent choir (unless, unlikely, he knew that his actions were being recorded — the choir is quite large, actually, as it turns out). I don’t think that he carried the day for the choir with his few seconds of sermonizing that ended, fortunately for him, in an injured wrist rather than in flat-out martyrdom. Many members of the choir, present company included, are more inclined to gasp, or to shake our heads in wonderment, than to sing a song of praise for his self-sacrifice.”
Whew! A guy rides his bicycle to work and gets creamed by a car on the way, but you have somehow divined that he probably had a sinister motive, and was so dedicated to the cause that he was willing to die for it. Yes, it turns out the choir is large, and if the refrain it sang is evidence of the choir’s beliefs, I want to distance myself from it as much as possible.
Remembering that “attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” has led me down the wrong path more times than I care to admit, I decided to try to put myself on his saddle. Things looked very different from that perspective, and I hope you will hear me out.
According to a report I read, the bicyclist was on his way to work when he was struck by the car. I made the assumption that this was his regular commute, although I concede it is possible it was his first day on the job, or he typically takes a different route. Assuming he rides this section of the trail regularly, he would have been familiar with the traffic patterns at this crossing and the RRFBs that have been there for many years. He may know about how long they flash, and might have even discovered the pedestrian verification indicator to help him figure out whether or not they’ve been activated. Of course, it is possible he never once bothered to push the buttons, but I’d like to think otherwise.
We know from studies (and I know from limited personal observation) that RRFBs change the yielding rate of motorists dramatically, and that even if they have not been activated, motorists tend to yield at a higher rate where they have been installed for some time than elsewhere. I’ve watched in amazement as motorists slowed down at the trail’s crossing in Dunedin—even a couple of people with cell phones glued to their ears slowed down and twisted their heads to look for trail users even though no one was approaching and the RRFBs were therefor not even flashing. Consequently, I speculate that the bicyclist expects motorists to yield to him based on his personal experience at this crossing.
(I can already hear the choir: it is stupid to assume motorists see bicyclists and even more stupid to expect them to yield. Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard the refrain thousands of time, but I cry foul. Tell me the last time they stopped at an intersection when conflicting traffic has a STOP sign because “it is stupid to assume motorists will yield to bicyclists”. No, most people ride based on the assumption that motorists will obey the law, but we try to be hyper-vigilant because most of us know from personal experience that motorists sometimes don’t see us even when we thought we had made eye contact.)
If my assumptions are close to his experience, here is what I think may have happened: The bicyclist approached the crossing at his normal rate of speed, but was ready to slow down or stop if necessary because, if you look at the video, you will notice that as he enters the frame, he’s riding one handed. But, as he approaches the crossing he moves his free hand to the handlebar…maybe because that is where the brake lever is located?
He may have noticed the two bicyclists, especially the “real one” on the right, who had already crossed the road. Hmm, they probably pushed the buttons, so he may have figured the RRFBs were flashing, so there was no reason to push the button. He then noticed the car approaching from his right, and assumed it would stop, like the vast majority of them have done in the past. In fact, it appears to me the car did slow down and the driver may have planned to stop, although maybe just past the stop bar. I base that premise on the fact that the distance between the pickup truck and the near side car increases after the car enters the camera’s view at 0:13 when it appears to be slowing down. Of course, it is possible the pickup truck sped up, but it does look like the car is slowing down as it comes into view.
It seems to me that the bicyclist threw his hands up in the air in amazement and disgust that the driver had not slowed down earlier. I doubt he was able to see the second car which would have been hidden from his view at that moment and was fixated on the near side car, still expecting it to stop. Notice that his head appears to be turned toward the car beginning at 0:15 and seems to stay with it until 0:17 when the text obscures his head. But, the driver appears to have stepped on the gas at the last moment, something that may have been difficult for the bicyclist to detect, and certainly would have caught him by surprise.
If he had planned something sinister, why would he not have entered the crosswalk with his hands in the air? No, I just can not accept the conspiratorial analysis of the choir. Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I’d like to move forward.
You wrote: “However, the legal framework did not cause this crash. People’s expectations and behavior in the actual installation caused the crash.”
Agreed. The crash happened because the motorist failed to yield to the bicyclist who was under no obligation to anticipate negligence on the part of the motorist. By the time he realized the motorist was not going to yield as he had expected, and as he had the right to expect, it was too late.
“Please do suggest how things might more forward to make crashes less likely here. I’ll pose a few thoughts about this:
“* Grade separations have been installed at several other crossings of major streets along the Pinellas Rail Trail. That is one potential solution, though it is very expensive.
“* Might there be less expensive engineering improvements? Better signalization and signage? A speed table or other device to force motor traffic to slow down? Diversion of the path to force bicyclists to slow down?
“* Might there be better law enforcement? Enforcement against speeding?
“* Might there be better education of both motorists and path users?
“Your thoughts?”
First of all, it would be helpful to know the near miss and crash history at this crossing because without that information we have no idea if this is a hazardous crossing despite the RRFBs, or if the stars just seemed to be misaligned that day.
Grade separation would not only be very expensive, most of the ones on the Pinellas trail are poorly done, partially because of the ADA requirements. And we seldom do them well because they are typically retrofits.
I submit that a major issue is that trail users must deal with crossing four lanes of traffic. Yes, the island is helpful, but in my experience, they are not as beneficial as officials claim, or at least imply. Most trail users are hesitant to cross the first half of a roadway if they feel they might get trapped by traffic approaching on the other half of the roadway, especially in an island as narrow as this one. And considering that a motorist probably took out the two RRFBs in the island, I think their fear is justified.
I have no idea of the road’s ADT, but I would not be surprised if it operates below capacity most of the time. If this is true, why not merge the two lanes into one just before the crossing? This would reduce speeds, reduce the time trail users are exposed to vehicles, eliminate multiple-threat crashes, and permit trail users to deal with only one lane of traffic at a time, especially if the island is widened.
Another suggestion is to install big, solid bollards between the lanes just upstream from the crosswalk to reduce the speed of vehicles. Oh, I can hear the cries of horror from officials, but they think nothing of putting them on trails where they threaten bicyclists with great bodily harm, so if they’re good for the goose, why can’t they be good for the gander?
Yes, a raised crosswalk is an excellent countermeasure—they’re even recommended by FHWA on roadways with speed limits up to 30 mph, possibly 35 mph. But, try to get that past EMS people who insist on driving huge vehicles at high rates of speed to get to the scene of collisions that might have been prevented if motorists had not been driving so fast in the first place.
A HAWK might be more effective than the RRFBs, but they’re far more expensive and more restrictive for trail users than RRFBs, and it appears many trail users simply disregard them if the volume of traffic is relatively light. Besides, in Florida the indications of pedestrian crossing signals are not defined in the statutes, so trail users may legally disregard them. (Of course, may people disregard them anyway.) Plus, I’m not sure of their legal status for a number of reasons, but admit I have not really researched them.
I don’t see how it is possible to install more warning signs on the road. However, if speeding is routine and right-of-way violations are frequent despite the RRFBs (which I doubt), sting operations are a low cost option. Education? No, I don’t think that would be helpful because it appears RRFBs are extremely effective. Also, based on personal experience, I am under the impression most motorists know they are required to yield at mid-block crosswalks (because they are always marked), while many people are not even aware that crosswalks exist at all sides of intersections if they’re not well marked.
“Diversion of the path to force bicyclists to slow down?” No, I’m opposed to that type of countermeasure notwithstanding the claims of AASHTO and others that they slow bicyclists. In order to really slow bicyclists, their radii need to be very small, which forces them to focus on negotiating the curves when they really should be scanning for conflicting traffic. Besides, chicanes can be fun because of the challenge of negotiating them at high speeds…the very opposite of what officials claim will happen.
But I believe we need to dig deeper into the issue because, as this discussion has so clearly revealed (at least to me), officialdom is attempting to undermine statutory traffic law when it should be trying to figure out how to better encourage obedience. By doing so it has created confusion about right-of-way instead of working to clarify it. And that I believe is the single biggest issue at trail crossings.
Permit me to make a suggestion in a follow-up message.
I’m going to be so bold as to suggest that you start a new post where we, and hopefully others, can explore what I believe is the biggest safety issue facing bicyclists who ride on trails like the Pinellas Trail and sidepaths like the one to which I provided a link in a previous message.
I gather you take a rather dim view of these separated facilities, but more are being built every day in response to political pressure, and I submit that most designers don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing. But, are they to blame?
May I suggest you open your post with a copy of the MUTCD’s Figure 9B-7, Examples of Signing and Markings for a Shared-Use Path Crossing? I have reached the conclusion that this diagram demonstrates more concisely than anything else I’ve discovered that it’s not only the designers who don’t know what they’re doing, the MUTCD is officially sanctioning a design that creates confusion at crossings. And when there is confusion between relatively high-speed motor vehicles and bicyclists, the latter will bear the brunt of the hazardous design.
Permit me to provide an example of the problem as I see it. A few years ago I questioned the local county’s plans to install STOP signs facing a sidepath where a new commercial driveway was going to be constructed by asking, why a STOP sign? (A STOP sign would also face the driveway.) The county’s engineer could not provide an answer other than to say that this is the way the Engineer of Record (EoR) had designed it, and because the county had accepted the signed and sealed plans, it refused to entertain my complaints. Would the county be willing to ask the EoR for his reasons, I asked? Sigh…okay.
A few weeks went by before I was told that the EoR just thought it would be safer if bicyclists stop before they cross the driveway. After all, he had specified STOP signs at other driveways and road crossings on the same sidepath, including at two stubs where, the county hoped, commercial driveways would be constructed at some point in the future. (You can see one of them here: https://tinyurl.com/t29zx9j ) I was told that no one had complained about the STOP signs, and there was no record of crashes, so he did not understand my complaint.
But, I asked, why did he think that requiring bicyclists to stop was safer than no signage? Did he have any statistics upon which he based his professional opinion, any design standards? A couple of weeks later he responded that he had come up empty handed. He had even contacted FDOT’s district bike/ped coordinator, who likewise could not come up with anything. So, he had contacted the state bike/ped coordinator, but she also left him floundering because her only advice was to do what the felt was best. Which brought us back to square one.
Eventually the county relented and overrode the EoR by installing YIELD signs facing the sidepath (over my protest: https://tinyurl.com/t6arvmp ), but still no one could give a reason why the YIELD sign would be safer than a STOP sign, or no sign at all. And they certainly could not provide any reason why a trail user should stop and/or yield when motorists exiting the driveway are required by state law to stop before they enter the sidewalk/sidepath and then yield to people on said path: § 316.125(2), Fla. Stat. Again, they just felt it was safer.
This an example of the shocking state of the design of one aspect of separated facilities in Florida (and probably nationwide). Even FDOT’s bike/ped coordinators didn’t have a clue, and they obviously didn’t care that they didn’t have a clue.
Which brings me back to the MUTCD. Section 9B.03, P1 states as a standard that: “STOP signs shall be installed on shared-use paths at points where bicyclists are required to stop.” (Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a law exists which requires bicyclists to stop in obedience to STOP signs anywhere they are installed, and then yield to conflicting traffic.) Figure 9B-7 shows a STOP sign at the entrance to a mid-block crosswalk where, I assume, the MUTCD knows that drivers of vehicles in most states (probably all) are required to yield to trail users who are crossing the roadway in the crosswalk. So, they can not possibly be ignorant of the fact that they are officially sanctioning a yield condition on one approach to the point of conflict and a stop and yield condition on the other approach.
I suggest that this be a starting point for a discussion about what is wrong with the design of most trail crossings. If we don’t understand what is wrong, the chances of us happening to hit upon a solution is rather slim.
You wrote:
I take them on a case-by-case basis. I have a dim view of ones which create manufactured conflicts and hold out a false promise of safety.
I consider the Pinellas generally to be a very useful and attractive trail, except for a few sections, notably the two-way sidepath section in downtown St. Petersburg. The crosswalk which we have been discussing also poses a problem. In the Netherlands, at such a busy street, a crosswalk would probably be fully signalized. But here, lacking the political will to spend the money on that or delay motor traffic, we have a cobbled-together selection of signs and the RRFBs.
They really ought to be sufficient, but there is also a serious problem with behavior. Bicyclists, motorists and designers break the rules. Legislators leave gaps in them.
Coffin-corner intersections, door-zone bike lanes, sidepaths that hide bicyclists and motorists from each other till the moment of impact, crosswalks with traffic control devices which are supposed to control the traffic, but don’t achieve that, law enforcement which turns a blind eye – the list goes on.
A person needs to be prudent to maintain life and health under these conditions. It is not prudent to assume that everyone else will follow the rules.
It is easy in Florida to find a CyclingSavvy course where you could see how knowledgeable cyclists address these issues. I recommend that.
Pingback: More about the Pinellas Rail Trail crash | John S. Allen's Bicycle Blog
The website won’t allow me to post a response directly under your message, so this is a reply to your message dated December 27, 2019.
You wrote: “. . . (STOP signs facing trail users) have no legal validity under Florida law.”
You imply that Florida is an outlier when it comes to this issue, but I believe Florida is among the majority of states. You seem to be rather knowledgeable about issues that face bicyclists, so maybe you can direct my attention to one or more examples of states where trail users who are approaching a “stop crosswalk” (the term a couple of officials have used) indicated by a STOP sign are required by law to stop behind the stop bar, and then yield to traffic on the road approaching said crosswalk. Surely you know the laws of your state very well—are you required by statute to obey those STOP signs?
You wrote: “As I’ve stated before, the stop signs represent an attempt to get bicyclists to slow so motorists are more likely to see them in time to yield, and so bicyclists will yield if motorists don’t.”
Yes, I’ve had that claim thrown in my face by many DOT officials and LEO—I’ve even had a couple of LEO tell me they would cite bicyclists for failure to stop (behind the stop bar!) in obedience to STOP signs on trails if they felt the bicyclists entered the crosswalks “recklessly”; otherwise they turn a blind eye. (I still chuckle when I recall what one deputy told me: he had been warned that if he ever cited a bicyclist for failure to stop at one of those STOP signs on trails he’d be cooking supper for the rest of his life because his wife regularly rides a bicycle and wouldn’t put up with such nonsense.)
You also made that claim as if it were a fact, so I would appreciate being directed to official documentation which supports that claim—no one else has been able to do so.
In reality, this is anarchy from the *top* down:
* The MUTCD publishes Figure 9B-7 which violates the very concept of right-of-way, namely both parties being required to yield to each other
* The Figure is contrary to the MUTCD’s own Standards and Guidances regarding regulatory signs, including those which apply specifically to STOP signs
* DOTs install regulatory looking STOP signs in accordance with that Figure, but for which there is no applicable law
* Bicyclists are sometimes cited by LEO even though nobody seems to be able to find any legal basis for the citation
* Millions of bicyclists pay absolutely no attention to these signs
* “Bicycle advocacy” groups like FBA don’t even understand the problem (I’ve discussed it with them at length), and they couldn’t care less
Why is the MUTCD officially sanctioning the misuse of a regulatory sign to address an issue I’m sure it has never even bothered to investigate? Why has the NCUTCD’s bicycle subcommittee ignored this issue? That Figure seems to have been first included in the 2000 edition—which committee was responsible for designing it and having it incorporated into the MUTCD? Was it done with the bicycle subcommittee’s knowledge?
If the MUTCD and/or DOTs feel there is a need to get bicyclists to slow down, why don’t they develop a sign which clearly conveys that message, or is it beyond their abilities? FWIW: I discussed this very issue with a former FDOT state-wide bike/ped coordinator (who is also a member of the NCUTCD’s bicycle subcommittee) and we talked about what type of sign might be effective (assuming there is actually a problem). I had even begun to work on a design, but soon realized that neither he nor, I’m guessing, anyone else on that subcommittee understands the problem, so I’ve temporarily given up on the sign. Besides, I’d need to convince a local DOT to officially experiment with the sign (probably requiring the MUTCD’s blessing), but none of them even understand the problem because apparently they believe that as long as they can brainwash trail users into cowering in fear at the entrance to the crosswalk, mission accomplished.
I submit that DOTs do not understand *why* trail users have the right-of-way in crosswalks, nor do groups like FBA who only understand the world from the “bicycle driver” perspective, so nobody is working to address the issue. Because officialdom has been smitten by “windshielditis”, it can not grasp that there are two very different types of improved public ways: those designed for motorized traffic, and those designed for human propelled traffic. Each operates independently of the other and has its own sets of rules, but where they come into conflict, motorized traffic is the disfavored party and must yield to the favored party, namely human propelled traffic (unless priority is assigned otherwise by traffic signals). This assignment of favored status by statute appears to be based on case law, but despite the statutes being crystal clear, DOTs refuse to bow to the will of the legislatures and the courts.
You wrote: “You can fight a legal battle and maybe achieve some progress but as a practical matter, bicyclists can’t expect the world to revolve around our interests.”
Pardon me? Why is requiring officials to design trail crossings in a manner which encourages motorists to obey state law being construed as expecting the world to revolve around bicyclists? I’m fighting for the right of people to ride their bicycles safely in keeping with the officially promulgated statutes, and you’re telling me I’m being selfish…maybe because it might inconvenience a few motorists? Why is fighting for “lane control” more noble than fighting for the right of trail riding bicyclists to cross the roadway legally in a crosswalk?