I live, work, drive and walk in DC. Although right turn on red is a big convenience as a driver, as a pedestrian I'm ready to ask it to be revoked. Cars seem to think they have the right of way, some drivers don't even look or slow down at red lights if they are turning.

More Cars need to be ticketed for not yielding to pedestrians, and more pedestrians for jaywalking. I'm more than happy to yield at a crosswalk for a pedestrian, in spite of often getting honked at it by the car behind me. I recently stopped at a crosswalk and the driver behind me almost hit the pedestrian when they went to illegally pass me. On the other hand jaywalking drives me crazy, especially adults leading small children by the hand into traffic. It may not be abuse, but it is child endangerment.

I used to bike to work, but don't now both because my new building doesn't allow bikes inside (that should be illegal) and I found that too many cars play chicken with bikes, view bike lanes as passing lanes and/or double parking lanes. My mornings in before 6:00 were fine, but getting on the road with cars to go home was crazy.

I think the reality is we all need to walk more and need to make sure our city is more walkable, for our personal health, and for the environment.

I can hardly get a thought around the topic as it is all so simple

the commuter traffic drives through the city not realizing that they are driving through neighborhoods

each morning I start my day with anger because people drive down my street as if they were on the autobahn

a few simple changes could make it so we do not have to do anything drastic...

-have drivers drive in a civilized manner

to assist them in this...

-make complete stops at stop signs

-keep cell phones and pdas out of reach
there is no need to be texting someone while driving

-obey the speed limit

-respect other around you
especially those outside of their cars
with special attention to mothers, children, and the elderly

-use common sense

-express the basic courtesy

hmmm....

that is easy enough
and that would not cost us anything

-gwadzilla
www.gwadzilla.blogspot.com
a bicycle blog

I'm honestly all for allowing drivers and pedestrians the benefit of the doubt at first. We can have un-signalized crosswalks, we can allow drivers to turn right on red, and we will assume that the drivers will stop and look for pedestrians before crossing, will stop at an un-signalized crosswalk when they see a pedestrian approach, etc. However once there is demonstrated proof that one or both sides are taking advantage, let the crackdown begin. I'm all for restricting right-turn on red far more often in pedestrian heavy environments, building pedestrian fences where there are jaywalkers, and going on a massive enforcement blitz against bikes who disobey laws, and an even more massive enforcement blitz against drivers who harass or intimidate bikes and pedestrians. People in this area have shown that they can't be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to pedestrians, unlike the midwest or California where people don't think twice about stopping when someone is in the crosswalk.

It sounds like the few legal pedestrians need to get their keys out.

If commuters are driving through neighborhoods, that's a sign you haven't built your roads right.

"If commuters are driving through neighborhoods, that's a sign you haven't built your roads right."

Exactly!!! If I-95 would have been completed through the city, New York Avenue and the neighborhood streets around Capitol Hill would by far have less commuter traffic. Many commuters use Kenilworth Avenue to Constitution Ave, C St NE and East Capitol Streets as commuter routes as an alternative to the gridlock on New York Avenue.

And some one please tell me how closing access to New York Avenue from the I-395 3rd Street Tunnel will improve pedestrian safety??!?!? If anything, this will cause MORE traffic, and more aggressive and angry drivers as commuters will be forced onto neighborhood streets, such as the streets in Capitol Hill, to find alternate routes to and from work/home.

Two words: Speed bumps. Put more in the residential neighborhoods to discourage commuters from taking high speed "short cuts" that may save them a few seconds, but endanger the lives of DC residents. Also, if DC police can PLEASE enforce the no cell phones while driving law, that would make the streets a good deal safer.

Louis Kahn had an ingenious plan for the urban center of Philadelphia -- it involved all cars being parked outside the city center on the edges of town and all commuters taking public transit to get to where they needed to go. Shame the city of Philadelphia ran him out of town for the idea.

Maybe DC should think about it. Or at least put a huge tax on cars coming into the city center like they do in London.

One of THE most dangerous places (for both drivers and pedestrians) is the eastern intersection of Mass Ave & Dupont Circle. Drivers are cnstantly ignoring the walk sign and barreling through the intersection as pedestrians cross into the circle, and drivers often collide trying to get onto Mass from the two converging lanes within the circle. I have personally witnessed two collisions and many near misses there, not to mention having to dodge cars that ignore the light. Better traffic signaling and aggressive law enforcement is needed!

As someone who commutes via Metro from Northern VA, I am thrilled at the new pedestrian safety plan, and hope the city enforces the new fines. Too many drivers fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, especially when making turns (usually without signaling). At least twice a week I have to jump back onto the curb while crossing with a light. I've actually had out of town friends ask if turning cars have the right of way over pedestrians in the crosswalk in D.C.

"Speed bumps."

I have no real objection to speed bumps that can be traversed at the posted speed limit, as those are there to make drivers obey the law. The ones I hate are the ones that force you to slow to 5 or 10 mph or risk suspension damage. Those aren't there to slow traffic--they're there to try to make people use a different route. But if the street is a public street, I don't think it's right to try to stop people from using it. Synchronize the lights on the main arteries and use speed humps to enforce the speed limit on the residential streets and you ought to see more people on the main arteries because they should move faster. There's nothing more frustrating and counterproductive than seeing your light turn green only to see the next light turning red at the exact same time.

Banning right on red is something I've begun to think is needed because people don't yield to anyone (even other drivers who have a green light), but I do have a problem in that if you do this, there is no way for drivers to make a legal right turn. You HAVE to enforce the pedestrian laws if you ban right on red because the pedestrians will walk against the light during the time for the drivers to turn.

The problem in a nutshell--I stopped and waited at a red light to turn right on red to allow someone to cross the street. A car came up behind me and the driver started honking and revving his engine and swearing at me.

The pedestrian was a pregant woman pushing a baby carriage legally in the crosswalk.

The car was a police car, driven by an uniformed officer.

Pedestrians will always be unsafe in this city a long as the police are complicit in their being needlessly put at risk.

Legally in crosswalk and wearing steel toed boots vs. door panel of car cutting you off.

Rich brings up a good point. If the drivers are being asked to give a little (not being able to turn right on red), then so should pedestrians. I think the pedestrian phases should be like the ones at some intersections on H and I streets where the ped cycle ends early, and the parallel roadway then gets a green arrow to facilitate their turns. If cars bullying pedestrians becomes an issue, then install a red arrow for while pedestrians have the crosswalk signal. But you are right, much more enforcement is needed to ensure that things operate the way they are supposed to.

And DDOT tried a signal like this at Morrison Street and Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase.

The signal was 100% effective on the safety front. No accidents, no crashes, no injuries or fatalities.

However, drivers complained that the signal was confusing and frustrating. So what happened? DDOT announces, without the benefit of any scientific or engineering data, to convert the signal to a traditional red-yellow-green light.

This decision is based on anecdotal evidence at best, and is making a move to accommodate impatient drivers.

Isn't that what we are trying to address? Why wouldn't DDOT figure out how to make the signal less confusing or frustrating? Given the $18 Million Pedestrian Plan calls for Pedestrian Signals, what kind of message does this send?

The signal in Northwest at Connecticut and Morrison is very straightforward, and meets all Federal standards for signals of that type. I don't see what the problem is. You see a flashing red, you stop. You see a flashing yellow, you go and anticipate cross traffic. You see a solid red, you stop and wait. What's so hard about that?

Re: "If commuters are driving through neighborhoods, that's a sign you haven't built your roads right."

Washington DC was built during John Adam's presidency. In 1792. It's defining roads were designed for horses and wagons.

The suburbs? Adams Morgan when it was farmland. No one was really thinking about commuters. And no one here wants an overpass through the city.

People only care when you hit them where it counts. Sadly, I don't mean their health. I mean their wallet. Jaywalkers walk in front of cars. Drivers cut off vehicles twice their size and pedestrians a tenth of their size. You have to ticket ticket ticket. Write good laws, enforce them ruthlessly, and with the revenue, hire good traffic engineers. What is so difficult with that?

Eric Weiss's story was highly slanted, including from the headline on down. No pedestrians interviewed, only drivers and the spokesperson for the *automobile* club.

And why does it have to be us against them (suburbs vs. city, driver vs. pedestrian). Why can't we find solutions that are more accommodating to all.

Not to mention, none of us has a hassle-free commute. Not drivers, not bus riders (that's my preferred mode), not subway riders. We all have to take a deep breath and be more patient.

That said, I agree with other commenters that I don't appreciate drivers (regardless of their tags) speeding through my residential neighborhood and blowing through stop signs.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how lights are timed for drivers, not pedestrians. In fact, pedestrians have little time to cross at major intersections. For example: 20 seconds to cross 6 lanes of traffic on Connecticut Ave. at the front entrance of the National Zoo (and do it with children, no less!). About the same to cross Massachusetts Ave. at 17th St., NW. Nearly the same to cross 16th St. at many intersections in the Adams Morgan/Mt. Pleasant area (Irving St., Euclid St., etc.).

Gwen Rubinstein

Many drivers are very bad about stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. I think that they simply don't know or don't care that it is the law.
One of the worst places for this are the crosswalks on Massachusetts just south of Ward Circle, near American University. These crosswalks are clearly marked with brightly colored signs (which state that it is DC law to stop for pedestrians) and yet most drivers speed through. I've often had to wait a long time for drivers to stop for me.
When one person stops for me, I often have to wait for several minutes in front of their car because the driver in the second lane of traffic fails to stop, even when they see I am crossing the street. They just drive faster so they don't have to stop for me. Remember it's a crosswalk and they should stop when they see me at the curb. It's the law.
Why aren't drivers ticketed when they disobey this law? Why isn't there a camera here, catching drivers who don't stop?
DC has cameras to catch speeders- why no have cameras at crosswalks to catch drivers you don't yield to pedestrians?

I think the death of the 22 year old woman riding her bike, in a bike lane WITH A HELMET, should cause some to reconsider their "waaaaah, I can't drive my Suburban into the city. or WAH WAH, Now I'm going to have to stop for WALKERS."

I agree with so many of the previous posters about the extreeeeeemmmeeely slanted story (and it's front page - egads, man!) by Mr. Weiss the other day.

I recommend the Greater Greater Washington blog for an articulate defense to this "city vs. suburb" editorial.

I think the death of the 22 year old woman riding her bike, in a bike lane WITH A HELMET, should cause some to reconsider their "waaaaah, I can't drive my Suburban into the city. or WAH WAH, Now I'm going to have to stop for WALKERS."

I agree with so many of the previous posters about the extreeeeeemmmeeely slanted story (and it's front page - egads, man!) by Mr. Weiss the other day.

I recommend the Greater Greater Washington blog for an articulate defense to this "city vs. suburb" editorial.
(washwords) http://washwords.wordpress.com

"Remember it's a crosswalk and they should stop when they see me at the curb. It's the law."

This is a serious question, not a flame--do you make it obvious you intend to cross? The reason I ask is that sometimes you see people standing on the curb who clearly do not intend to cross (hailing a cab, for example) or who appear to show no interest in trying to cross.

Nancy L.: "Remember it's a crosswalk and they should stop when they see me at the curb. It's the law."

Rich: "This is a serious question, not a flame--do you make it obvious you intend to cross? "

You've just pointed out an excellent gray area in the law. The law actually requires you to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. Not pedestrians intending to step into a crosswalk, but pedestrians *already* in a crosswalk. Now in places like Massachusetts and California, people will stop for peds that are intending to enter the crosswalk. But technically, they don't have to until the ped puts foot into crosswalk.

Now of course, this leads to the obvious question, how do you get into the crosswalk if there is steady traffic? Well, if the crosswalk is designed properly, there should be a shoulder or other refuge where you can freely walk out into the crosswalk without stepping into the path of oncoming traffic. Or, you can wait for a gap and then step out and everyone else is supposed to stop for you. In practice, many drivers will "intimidate" pedestrians by speeding towards them to try to get them to not step out.

Of course the above applies to un-signalized crosswalks only, and does not absolve the pedestrian of their responsibility to not step out into traffic until they are sure the cars are phyically able to stop (step out 5 feet in front of a car at 30 MPH, the ped is at fault there).

And in the case of hiker-biker trail crossings where there is a stop sign for peds/bikes, my interpretation is that peds and bikes have to stop first before entering the crosswalk, but once they see a gap in the traffic lane nearest them and put their foot into the crosswalk, everyone has to stop to let them across. The stop sign controls entry into the crosswalk, but once the ped has entered the crosswalk, normal crosswalk rules apply.

This is not a flame. It is the law to stop for pedestrians. That is an actual quote from the sign at this crosswalk. If you know this particular crosswalk, it is pretty obvious that there is no other reason a pedestrian would stand in the lower curb area on that street. There is no where else to go but across the street. There are also several brightly colored signs letting drivers know that this is a crosswalk.
I mentioned that at Massachusetts Ave south of Ward Circle there are 2 crosswalks with an island between them.
If you are on the island you are obviously going to cross to the other side of the street. And if you are in front of a car that is stopped for you in one lane, you need to get across the other lane of traffic. Drivers consistently fail to stop while I am in the crossing area (lower curb), on the island, or standing in front of a car already stopped for me.

I don't know that area very well, as I hardly ever go up there, so I will take your word for it.

The crosswalk I pass most often that has no signals controlling it is the one on 7th Street SW just south of the VRE station as you approach the old DOT headquarters. More often than not, you'll see a pedestrian along the sidewalk who is making no move to head towards the crosswalk to cross. Under those circumstances, I don't usually stop, and I'd understand people behind me getting mad if I did. Once the pedestrian moves to step off the curb I will be on the brakes, though.

Or you have a situation like earlier today where I was trying to hail a cab on Massachusetts Avenue and I might have looked to some folks like I wanted to cross the street, as there was a crosswalk there (although with a traffic light controlling it), but in reality I was just waiting for a cab to come along. Hard to blame the driver for being uncertain in that situation because obviously I had to stand right on the curb to see if I needed to raise my arm.

Oh, okay, I know exactly which crosswalk Nancy is referring to, and I observe the exact same thing she is referring to...no one stops. And she is absolutely right...there should be no question that someone standing in the center intends to enter the crosswalk. Honestly, I think Ward Circle should have signals controlling the Massachusetts Ave NW entrances to the circle, in the same way that Nebraska Ave NW has them. Though if a pedestrian is trying to get from AU to destinations on the north side of Massachusetts Ave east of Nebraska (as opposed to destinations on Nebraska itself), the signalized mid-block crosswalk at the bus stop between Ward Circle and McComb St. NW is a much better place to cross. But for the benefit of those trying to get to Nebraska north of AU towards Tenleytown, I'd say at a minimum the north/west side of Massachusetts (the lower traffic volume side) should be signalized at the circle.

I don't feel like looking this up right now, but what is the law in regards to stopping for pedestrians? Is it if they are approaching a crosswalk? Or must a driver yield only if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk?

The reason i ask is that in Maryland, the law is if a pedestrian is approching a crosswalk, you must yeild to the pedestrian. The reason I know this is that on campus at the University of Maryland, campus police used to set up "crosswalk stings" where an officer would cross at one crosswalk, turn left, walk one block, and cross at another cross walk, turn left walk one block, cross, etc.

Many of my friends got tickets at these stings because the officer said they had not yeilded to the pedestrian. According to my friends the officer hadn't entered the crosswalk yet, so they thought it unfair. But that is the law.

I think a lot of the problem with yielding to pedestrians is driver education. If one driver thinks one thing is the law (i.e. must be in the crosswalk) and another driver things something else (i.e. approching the crosswalk) you are never going to have a consistent frame of reference of how pedestrians and drivers need to interact.

Personally, I think the approaching the crosswalk is safe because if you wait to slow down until someone enters the crosswalk you risk slamming on the brakes and being rear-ended. Even if the person is not crossing (such as hailing a cab), by recognizing that the pedetrian may enter the street and slowing down some, you create a safer driving situation for all those around you.

Another problem is overly timid or downright stupid pedestrians. I've stopped for people standing at crosswalks and they don't move. If they're expecting 4-6 lanes of traffic to stop before moving a toe, they're never going to make it.

Easy solution: instead of orange flags at either side of an uncontrolled crosswalk leave a couple of cinder blocks spray painted dayglo orange. As the pedestrian crosses the street, they carry one of the cinder blocks.

Cars will then yield the right-of-way.

Just a question:

If there is a light at the crosswalk and the pedestrian is crossing AGAINST the light (i.e., the light is red), who has the right-of-way, the driver with the green light, or the pedestrian crossing on a red light?

"If there is a light at the crosswalk and the pedestrian is crossing AGAINST the light (i.e., the light is red), who has the right-of-way, the driver with the green light, or the pedestrian crossing on a red light?"

The driver does, but if the driver could have avoided hitting the pedestrian, he'd be certain to lose if the pedestrian sued him.

Just have a cop write the dying illegal pedestian a ticket.

I lived in the DC area for a few years and have never seen a cop ticket a driver for not yielding to a pedestrian. Here in Seattle cops occasionally do that.

"I lived in the DC area for a few years and have never seen a cop ticket a driver for not yielding to a pedestrian. Here in Seattle cops occasionally do that."

A friend who lives in Seattle tells me that the cops out there sometimes ticket people who jaywalk or cross against the light, too. I've never seen a pedestrian given a ticket in DC. Guess it's just a free-for-all for everyone here.