Say that you have what would normally be an unmarked crosswalk, and there's a black on white sign that says "All Trail Users must stop and Yield". Is this legally enforceable and do cars have the ROW since this is different than the state statute that says that pedestrians have the ROW in crosswalks?
Could you define what an "unmarked crosswalk" is? If the crosswalk is not marked, why would drivers expect a pedestrian/biker to enter the right of way?
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 06, 2015, 01:35:43 PM
Say that you have what would normally be an unmarked crosswalk, and there's a black on white sign that says "All Trail Users must stop and Yield". Is this legally enforceable and do cars have the ROW since this is different than the state statute that says that pedestrians have the ROW in crosswalks?
Let's start with the title of the thread first: "Do Regulatory Signs trump general law?" Absolutely they do. Case in point: Most states have statutory speed limits and maximum speed limits. However, a signed speed limit will always take precedence over the statutory speed limit.
Now, in this case: If the trail doesn't have pedestrians crossing at an intersection, then it's not, by definition, an unmarked crosswalk. It's simply jaywalking. So the motorists aren't breaking any laws to begin with.
If it's at an intersection, and the unmarked crosswalk fits the definition of an unmarked crosswalk, then technically the pedestrians do have the right of way.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 06, 2015, 01:35:43 PM
Say that you have what would normally be an unmarked crosswalk, and there's a black on white sign that says "All Trail Users must stop and Yield". Is this legally enforceable and do cars have the ROW since this is different than the state statute that says that pedestrians have the ROW in crosswalks?
What the means is that they must stop and actually look before crossing the street. We have small stop signs for the same purpose here. Imagine that, pedestrians and bicyclists stopping before crossing a street and actually looking first! What'll be next, the expectation that you need to come up every so often while swimming for air, the knowledge that water is really wet, or that two plus two equals four?
Quote from: Chris19001 on October 06, 2015, 01:46:47 PM
Could you define what an "unmarked crosswalk" is? If the crosswalk is not marked, why would drivers expect a pedestrian/biker to enter the right of way?
An unmarked crosswalk would be any instance where a pedestrian facility (sidewalk, trail, etc.) intersects a roadway, but striping for a crosswalk is not provided. In an area without sidewalks, a "pedestrian facility" could also include the side of the road, as long as pedestrians are not expressly prohibited.
In many areas, crosswalks tend to be marked in downtowns, near schools, and at signalized intersections on arterial roads, but not elsewhere. Still, every minor four-way intersection on a secondary suburban street with no sidewalks or crosswalk markings constitutes four unmarked crosswalks.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 06, 2015, 02:12:30 PM
Let's start with the title of the thread first: "Do Regulatory Signs trump general law?" Absolutely they do. Case in point: Most states have statutory speed limits and maximum speed limits. However, a signed speed limit will always take precedence over the statutory speed limit.
I don't think that's a valid comparison. Every state law that I've seen regarding topics like state speed limits has included language that specifically allows for exceptions–for example, this from Pennsylvania "
No maximum speed greater than 55 miles per hour shall be established under this section except on highways listed in section 3362(a)."
On the other hand, what if you did have a situation where the wording of the state law did
not provide for any exceptions? And then a sign contradicted the state law? That's an interesting question. Most of us depend on signs, pamphlets, state drivers' manuals, and law enforcement officers to inform us on the law, yet those things aren't the law. The law is contained in the reams of legalese in the state code–which most people never will see.
There was a big debate locally (north TX area) a few years ago when yellow-diamond regulatory signs with speeds signed below them were posted along part of the Dallas N. Tollway. Some people thought the yellow sign speeds were more important than the regular speed limit signs, and others had other ideas. Either way, the debate dragged on for a while, but finally died down.
Quote from: txstateends on October 07, 2015, 08:25:47 AM
yellow-diamond regulatory signs
What are those? Yellow diamonds are warning signs. Yellow speed plaques are advisory and not regulatory. Texas' while signs stating 'obey warning signs' is literally impossible, as warning signs do not issue directives to obey.
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2015, 01:41:16 PM
Quote from: txstateends on October 07, 2015, 08:25:47 AM
yellow-diamond regulatory signs
What are those? Yellow diamonds are warning signs. Yellow speed plaques are advisory and not regulatory. Texas' while signs stating 'obey warning signs' is literally impossible, as warning signs do not issue directives to obey.
While you don't have to obey them, ignoring ones that show a curve ahead and low-clearance, among others, can ultimately lead to disastrous results!
My point is that, if your car can handle it, it's perfectly legal to take a 35-mph-advisory curve at 55 mph if the last posted speed limit was 55.
As to the OP, I suspect that the regulatory sign in question prohibits pedestrians from walking out into the road in front of an approaching vehicle. However, no written code or sign in a America actually guarantees someone the 'right of way'. Our traffic laws are prohibitive, in that they state what you MAY NOT do, not what you MAY do. And so, if a pedestrian does not sufficiently yield right of way to vehicular traffic (which is likely, as pedestrians move more slowly and are thus more apt to judge a break in traffic poorly), that in no way means 'cars have the right of way'; they still must yield to the pedestrian as outlined by the general vehicle code.
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2015, 01:41:16 PM
Texas' while signs stating 'obey warning signs' is literally impossible, as warning signs do not issue directives to obey.
Would you prefer something along the lines of "Heed warning signs" or something like that?
They used to say "observe warning signs-state law", which was still pointless, but at least possible. All these signs are is un-necessary clutter and a waste of money.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 07, 2015, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2015, 01:41:16 PM
Texas' while signs stating 'obey warning signs' is literally impossible, as warning signs do not issue directives to obey.
Would you prefer something along the lines of "Heed warning signs" or something like that?
I would prefer they eliminate them altogether. Failing that, they could say OBEY SIGNS, which is ambiguous enough to not be blatantly stupid. But the signs are at best superfluous, at worst misleading. Superfluous in that signs telling you about signs just creates more clutter and leads people to actually start ignoring signs. Misleading in that they suggest yellow signs such as speed advisory plaques are enforceable laws, whereas they are not.
TxDOT's speed zone manual has an interesting perspective on advisory speeds.
In Texas, the real speed limit is "reasonable and prudent," while the numerical limits are prima facie, so that exceeding the speed on the sign is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent, and therefore unlawful. In a strict sense, the regulatory speed limits are not enforceable, but give guidance to drivers and law enforcement about what the engineers consider to be reasonable and prudent speeds in good conditions. I believe most other states have absolute speed limits, so that this thinking is not relevant in most places.
However, the same theory applies to advisory speeds (presumably everywhere). In the speed zone manual, TxDOT claims that advisory speeds can help law enforcement determine whether a speeding violation has occurred, based on the actual speed limit: reasonable and prudent. Going around a curve below the regulatory speed limit but far above the advisory speed may not be reasonable and prudent for that stretch of road, which I believe most or all states define as an offense or an infraction.
Quote from: wxfree on October 07, 2015, 07:12:11 PM
Going around a curve below the regulatory speed limit but far above the advisory speed may not be reasonable and prudent for that stretch of road, which I believe most or all states define as an offense or an infraction.
Not in Illinois, it isn't. As long as you are at or below the regulatory speed, regardless of the advisory speed, it is not an infraction. You may be cited for "too fast for conditions" if you get into an accident over it, but cannot be stopped for simply going faster than the advisory speed.
Quote from: Brandon on October 07, 2015, 07:40:53 PM
Quote from: wxfree on October 07, 2015, 07:12:11 PM
Going around a curve below the regulatory speed limit but far above the advisory speed may not be reasonable and prudent for that stretch of road, which I believe most or all states define as an offense or an infraction.
Not in Illinois, it isn't. As long as you are at or below the regulatory speed, regardless of the advisory speed, it is not an infraction. You may be cited for "too fast for conditions" if you get into an accident over it, but cannot be stopped for simply going faster than the advisory speed.
That isn't exactly what I'm saying. It isn't an offense or infraction to go over the advisory speed, but to go faster than is reasonable and prudent for a particular piece of road, which is judged by considering all of the information, including the advisory speed. In Texas, the same is technically true of regulatory speed limits, which is why I started by describing that in order to introduce the relevant type of thinking.
Quoting the Illinois Vehicle Code: "No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions and the use of the highway, or endangers the safety of any person or property. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection, approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions." That section does not define violations as an offense or infraction, so it falls under Article II of Chapter 11, which defines any violation of a provision in the chapter, not otherwise defined, as a petty offense.
I approached this in a very specific way in order to clarify the nuance involved. It is a petty offense to drive at a speed faster than reasonable and proper. Judging what is reasonable and proper speed below the speed limit requires consideration of all of the facts, and the advisory speed is one of the facts considered. How it's enforced is a matter of law enforcement policy. I know of no one who's been stopped for going below the speed limit but too fast around a curve. My point here is that it isn't a simple matter that the advisory speed is or isn't enforceable, but that the "reasonable and proper" rule (or however a state terms it) is always enforceable.
I stand corrected.
Yet Texas' signs are still a pet peeve.
A regulatory sign must be backed up by state law. You can't plop down a regulatory sign that says 'no bikes' or 'no horn honking even in emergencies' unless a state law allows this sort of restriction.
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2015, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 07, 2015, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2015, 01:41:16 PM
Texas' while signs stating 'obey warning signs' is literally impossible, as warning signs do not issue directives to obey.
Would you prefer something along the lines of "Heed warning signs" or something like that?
I would prefer they eliminate them altogether. Failing that, they could say OBEY SIGNS, which is ambiguous enough to not be blatantly stupid. But the signs are at best superfluous, at worst misleading. Superfluous in that signs telling you about signs just creates more clutter and leads people to actually start ignoring signs. Misleading in that they suggest yellow signs such as speed advisory plaques are enforceable laws, whereas they are not.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.eprci.net%2Fdo-not-read-this-sign&hash=a95a342b89f8c618885fe700e872e575de33acb1)
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2015, 11:20:40 AM
A regulatory sign must be backed up by state law. You can't plop down a regulatory sign that says 'no bikes' or 'no horn honking even in emergencies' unless a state law allows this sort of restriction.
As per speed limits, Massachusetts gets even more complicated. In Massachusetts, you can only post a regulatory speed limit sign on a specific section of road provided a special speed regulation has been established for the section of road. Although Massachusetts law also provides for prima-facie speed limits on otherwise unregulated roads, you cannot legally post a prima-facie limit on a regulatory speed limit sign.
Some states draft their speed limit provisions so sloppily that you almost have to reach for whatever governs statutory construction to be sure you are interpreting them correctly. Kansas, for example, fixes 55 MPH as the maximum speed limit on county roads in a clause that looks like a complete statement of law since it does not note any exceptions. Yet the state has several county roads signed for 65 MPH. It turns out there is a separate clause, buried in a completely different section, that allows counties to upzone for 65 MPH.
Back to unmarked crosswalks, it's funny. I've been a pedestrian (and a passenger, of course) most of my life, but only learned about those when I was finally studying for the written test. That's not to say that I never use unmarked crosswalks. I just thought I was breaking the law. And actually, I don't think the NJ manual limited them to four-way intersection. I believe it said that any intersection where pedestrians are not prohibited have unmarked crosswalks across all roadways involved in it.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2015, 03:44:39 PM
And actually, I don't think the NJ manual limited them to four-way intersection. I believe it said that any intersection where pedestrians are not prohibited have unmarked crosswalks across all roadways involved in it.
Two state courts (Arizona and Kentucky?) interpreted the same UVC language differently in determining whether a T intersection has one or three unmarked crosswalks. Arizona then amended the law to clarify that it has three.
Regarding the crossing in question that precipitated this thread, the underlying question at hand ISN'T the signage at such a crossing, but whether a multi-use path crossing a roadway, unmarked, mid-block is considered a crosswalk. Minnesota state law is very unclear on this matter.
Quote from: froggie on October 08, 2015, 11:36:31 PM
Regarding the crossing in question that precipitated this thread, the underlying question at hand ISN'T the signage at such a crossing, but whether a multi-use path crossing a roadway, unmarked, mid-block is considered a crosswalk. Minnesota state law is very unclear on this matter.
How is it not clear? The language is plain as day. It couldn't be clearer:
Quote
169.21 PEDESTRIAN... Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
I should've elaborated in my earlier comment, but there is also a question of whether a MUP crossing of a roadway is considered an intersection...an argument could be made for such by stringing 3 other statutes together, but it is generally unclear. If so, then the subdivision of 169.21 that you referenced does not apply and Subdivision 2(a) applies instead.
What about the current situation with the tollways in Illinois? If I understand correctly, the state legislature passed a law raising the speed limits on these highways to 70. In response, the Tollway is in the process of raising its speed limits, but it is doing so in a piecemeal way and not always to 70. If my understanding is correct, then, in this case, the signs on the road have more authority than the statutes, but I recognize that there are competing authorities here that muck things up a bit.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 09, 2015, 04:57:13 PM
What about the current situation with the tollways in Illinois? If I understand correctly, the state legislature passed a law raising the speed limits on these highways to 70. In response, the Tollway is in the process of raising its speed limits, but it is doing so in a piecemeal way and not always to 70. If my understanding is correct, then, in this case, the signs on the road have more authority than the statutes, but I recognize that there are competing authorities here that muck things up a bit.
On the matter of the question about whether signs trump laws, I'd say the answer is no. A sign cannot require or authorize a thing that is not allowed under law. Speed limit laws are generally written so that there is a default, sometimes a higher maximum, and a provision for changing a limit. In Texas, the laws of which I'm pretty familiar with, the default speed limit for a rural state highway is 70. Setting a different limit requires a speed study. The maximum (except under specific provisions) is 75.
A quick look at the Illinois code shows that the default for rural Interstates and tollways is 70, except that certain counties may adopt ordinances setting a lower maximum speed limit. The language of the statute starts with "Unless some other speed restriction is established under this Chapter," which means that the speeds stated are default values and can legally be changed based on other statutory authority.
Section 11-603 authorizes the Toll Highway Authority to establish a different speed limit on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation. The signs for lower limits do not supersede statute, but are authorized by it, so long as they are based on traffic engineering principles.