Last week, I had an oil change performed on my car at Fairfield Toyota in Pennsdale, PA and decided to walk to the Lycoming Mall, barely a mile away, while I waited.
At the intersection of Lycoming Mall Drive and John Brady Drive/Legion Road, (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2349482,-76.8199566,114m/data=!3m1!1e3) I encountered this...
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8733/17160953030_d6bd7beb43_o.png)
No Pedestrians signs were posted at all four corners with no alternative walkway or pedestrian overpass, etc. Seriously, what does PennDOT expect the pedestrian to do–say "oh, well..." , then turn around and go home?
That red vehicle inside the intersection looks like it's missing part of it...
Holy shit how long was your oil change? 40 mins round trip, walking. There's no time to look inside the mall.
Beyond that, my guess is that pedestrians are so uncommon (there are no sidewalks), banning the crossing of pedestrians was considered the safest thing to do (drivers are not used to encountering them, so they get used to turning without yielding to pedestrians).
Quote from: jakeroot on May 02, 2015, 10:16:48 PM
Holy shit how long was your oil change? 40 mins round trip, walking.
I was advised "at least an hour" on the oil change and was able to walk to the mall and back in less than 30 minutes. I didn't end up buying anything, but much like the 3,000 mile drive I made to Pennsylvania, the motivation to walk had more to do with the journey itself than what I was going to do once I got there.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 02, 2015, 10:16:48 PMBeyond that, my guess is that pedestrians are so uncommon (there are no sidewalks), banning the crossing of pedestrians was considered the safest thing to do...
Perhaps PennDOT is trying to shield itself from liability knowing that the intersection is pedestrian-hostile, but as a practical matter, I doubt those signs aren't really going to dissuade anyone (they didn't faze me), and they could further weaken many people's already low respect for signs and rules in general. There are intersections where one side is dangerous for pedestrians while the other is safer, and in those situations, a "no peds" sign on the unsafe direction is both warranted and reasonable, but the pedestrian who's already been trained to disregard such signs by examples like this one in Pennsdale will end up disregarding the purposeful signs, too.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:49 PM
That red vehicle inside the intersection looks like it's missing part of it...
What are you talking about? That's the RAM Mini Hovertruck.
PennDOT is a dicksack. What you can do, however, is walk away from the intersection and cross at any other point, as long as the next intersection does not have a traffic light.
Quote from: briantroutman on May 02, 2015, 09:00:56 PM
Last week, I had an oil change performed on my car at Fairfield Toyota in Pennsdale, PA and decided to walk to the Lycoming Mall, barely a mile away, while I waited.
At the intersection of Lycoming Mall Drive and John Brady Drive/Legion Road, (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2349482,-76.8199566,114m/data=!3m1!1e3) I encountered this...
<pic omitted>
No Pedestrians signs were posted at all four corners with no alternative walkway or pedestrian overpass, etc. Seriously, what does PennDOT expect the pedestrian to do–say "oh, well..." , then turn around and go home?
It doesn't quite make sense to outlaw ped crossings at this intersection. According to Street View, they've also prohibited it at the next two intersections to the west, where you actually access the mall.
They must be assuming that there is no pedestrian traffic in this area. It's an understandable assumption given there do not appear to be sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities along the road. However, pedestrians may still exist (as you certainly did at the time), and could just rely on the vehicular signals to determine time to cross. There is no reason to disallow crossing at a signal, as that could promote crossing at a point not at an intersection which is also illegal and potentially more dangerous.
Pennsylvania liability law is such that PennDOT goes overboard with lots of things to avoid being sued. I suspect this is a case where PennDOT decided it was cheaper to just ban the pedestrian traffic rather than install curb cuts and pedestrian signals they would normally do. If someone was following the vehicular signal and got injured, the state could say they weren't allowed to be there in the first place.
Quote from: Bitmapped on May 03, 2015, 03:05:00 PM
If someone was following the vehicular signal and got injured, the state could say they weren't allowed to be there in the first place.
Except for the whole freedom of travel thing.
What about ADA? Any upgrades on that intersection or signals, and those signs are coming down, striping is going in and ramps to nowhere are getting installed, lest they get sued from ADA advocates. That or another suitable accommodation will have to be provided. In NJ, we're very sensitive to that now and little to no pedestrian use is not going to be an excuse. Not sure how much PennDOT worries about this now, but here it's a big deal.
Quote from: briantroutman on May 02, 2015, 11:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:49 PM
That red vehicle inside the intersection looks like it's missing part of it...
What are you talking about? That's the RAM Mini Hovertruck.
No, it's
part of a RAM Mini Hovertruck. According to the picture, how many wheels does it have?
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2015, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 02, 2015, 11:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:49 PM
That red vehicle inside the intersection looks like it's missing part of it...
What are you talking about? That's the RAM Mini Hovertruck.
No, it's part of a RAM Mini Hovertruck. According to the picture, how many wheels does it have?
That's just the single passenger version of the Hovertruck.
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2015, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 02, 2015, 11:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2015, 09:35:49 PM
That red vehicle inside the intersection looks like it's missing part of it...
What are you talking about? That's the RAM Mini Hovertruck.
No, it's part of a RAM Mini Hovertruck. According to the picture, how many wheels does it have?
Nope - that's the whole thing in full hover mode. Highly rated in Consumer Reports and it fits 3 in regular use, or 10 clowns.
So, to summarize, PennDOT is fine with pedestrians getting clobbered as long as PennDOT doesn't get sued?
I'd cross there anyway and sue PennDOT for denying me access to a public right-of-way without providing a reasonable, legal alternate route ("you can jay-walk upstream from the intersection" is not a reasonable detour).
The houses on Legion Dr are effectively denied pedestrian access anywhere south of them- the only alternative using public right of way without illegally crossing a street somewhere is https://www.google.com/maps?saddr=Legion+Rd&daddr=41.2427537,-76.801722+to:State+Rte+2014&hl=en&ll=41.23948,-76.818295&spn=0.019653,0.042272&sll=41.236979,-76.817372&sspn=0.009827,0.021136&geocode=FcAzdQIdJtJr-w%3BFYFQdQIdRhls-ylXrhzxyZjPiTHsWQpI_gDg_A%3BFd8vdQIdw9Nr-w&dirflg=w&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=16&via=1&t=m&z=15
which is 4.8 miles. Technically, since all those houses are on the east side of the street, there's no way to legally go west either, depending on what the local code is for jay-walking on a residential street.
Actually, hell, that route is also illegal since pedestrians aren't allowed to cross at the I-676 interchange or at the mall intersections to the west, so if you live on Legion Dr you legally have to own a car or bicycle or horse to go anywhere.
There's no way that would stand as legal in court if somebody that lived on that street bothered to challenge it. Unfortunately, given the time and hassle associated with challenging it, I'd assume those residents just jay-walk and hope they won't get a ticket.
I don't see it on the goog, but I would also note that it's insane that there is a BUS STOP at that intersection. (http://my.ridervt.com/InfoPoint/, look for route 318, stop ID 1564).
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 03, 2015, 03:44:46 PM
What about ADA? Any upgrades on that intersection or signals, and those signs are coming down, striping is going in and ramps to nowhere are getting installed, lest they get sued from ADA advocates. That or another suitable accommodation will have to be provided. In NJ, we're very sensitive to that now and little to no pedestrian use is not going to be an excuse. Not sure how much PennDOT worries about this now, but here it's a big deal.
That's probably WHY the no pedestrians signs are there in the first place. Because pedestrians are prohibited, the location can be marked as "not applicable" rather than "not accessible". This case is one for the smart growth advocates, not the ADA advocates.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 06:45:44 PM
This case is one for the smart growth advocates, not the ADA advocates.
This case is one for the non-assclowns.
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
This case is one for the non-idiots.
I'm going to push this one, actually, because it's so blatantly wrong. I'm e-mailing PennDOT now to tell them I'm looking into purchasing a house on Legion Drive from a family friend (since none are listed for sale), am unable to drive a car, and am wondering if it is legally possible to leave the street if I do indeed buy the house.
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 05:42:13 PM
Technically, since all those houses are on the east side of the street, there's no way to legally go west either, depending on what the local code is for jay-walking on a residential street.
Pennsylvania's jaywalking law (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=75&div=0&chpt=35&sctn=43&subsctn=0) is even less strict than the already-loose usual definition (other states where I've looked it up omit 'in urban districts' but keep the bit about both adjacent intersections having a traffic light):
QuoteBetween adjacent intersections in urban districts at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
So it is legal to cross anywhere outside the intersection, since this is presumably not an urban district. Is it safer? Probably not. But it's often safest to cross with the red after checking that no cars are going through the green, and this can be done outside the intersection.
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2015, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 05:42:13 PM
Technically, since all those houses are on the east side of the street, there's no way to legally go west either, depending on what the local code is for jay-walking on a residential street.
Pennsylvania's jaywalking law (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=75&div=0&chpt=35&sctn=43&subsctn=0) is even less strict than the already-loose usual definition (other states where I've looked it up omit 'in urban districts' but keep the bit about both adjacent intersections having a traffic light):
QuoteBetween adjacent intersections in urban districts at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
So it is legal to cross anywhere outside the intersection, since this is presumably not an urban district. Is it safer? Probably not. But it's often safest to cross with the red after checking that no cars are going through the green, and this can be done outside the intersection.
Okay, that's good then. Still shitty, but I guess if that type of crossing is legal then prohibiting pedestrians and allowing them to cross outside of a crosswalk upstream from the intersection is legal too.
Do post PennDOT's reply.
An increasingly similar problem (http://streets.mn/2015/04/29/the-case-of-the-disappearing-crosswalk/) in parts of the Twin Cities metro area, that got picked up this evening by the local NBC affiliate (http://www.kare11.com/story/life/2015/05/04/pedestrians-notice-crosswalks-disappearing-in-suburbs/26892057/).