Pedestrians on Road

[TEG24601]

I'm working on some budget items for my city, and we have a couple of streets where there are no significant shoulders or sidewalks, and as a thought, I was going to see if there was an MUTCD compliant sign, but can't find something to remind motorists that there may be pedestrians on the road, and was curious if someone could point me in the direction.

[1995hoo]

[GaryV]

That sign looks like someone will need to issue an Amber Alert.

[jeffandnicole]

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/fig9b_03_longdesc.htm

Combine W11-15 with W16-1P

[riiga]

W11-2 plus "ON ROAD" in text maybe?

This is what we use:

[froggie]

Baloo is correct.  W16-1P ("Share the Road") is falling out of favor because of everybody's (drivers especially, but they're not alone) lack of perception about what it really means.

because I notice lots of peds will just stand at the corner and not assert their right to cross

100-200lb human vs. 2000+lb vehicle...I don't blame them for not jumping out, especially given the high level of distraction drivers have these days...

[Brandon]

Baloo is correct.  W16-1P ("Share the Road") is falling out of favor because of everybody's (drivers especially, but they're not alone) lack of perception about what it really means.

because I notice lots of peds will just stand at the corner and not assert their right to cross

100-200lb human vs. 2000+lb vehicle...I don't blame them for not jumping out, especially given the high level of distraction drivers have these days...

If they're crossing a main arterial, they should wait (like all other traffic) until it is clear for them to cross.  That was valid 100 years ago, 70 years ago, 30 years ago, and is still valid today.

[1995hoo]

I'd wager in most places, most people don't know what an unmarked or implied crosswalk is.

[Brandon]

I'd wager in most places, most people don't know what an unmarked or implied crosswalk is.

The asshole bicyclist I had nearly mow me down in one sure as hell didn't.  He kept trying to claim it wasn't a crosswalk as it isn't marked.  Never mind it was at a street corner.

[1995hoo]

Stanley Roberts did a bit about unmarked crosswalks earlier this summer:

As usual, the laws vary from state to state. In Virginia, I recall the statute says unmarked (actually I think it calls them "implied") crosswalks only exist on roads where the speed limit is 35 mph or lower, and there are a couple of other principles having to do with where they're located. The pedestrian also has the obligation not to step out if an oncoming car won't have sufficient time to stop. In practice, of course, the average pedestrian tends to walk wherever he wants and the average driver generally tries to avoid stopping for anyone!

I'm pretty sure this was NOT included in driver's education, either the DMV manual or the behind-the-wheel class.

[jeffandnicole]

Stanley Roberts did a bit about unmarked crosswalks earlier this summer:

As usual, the laws vary from state to state. In Virginia, I recall the statute says unmarked (actually I think it calls them "implied") crosswalks only exist on roads where the speed limit is 35 mph or lower, and there are a couple of other principles having to do with where they're located. The pedestrian also has the obligation not to step out if an oncoming car won't have sufficient time to stop. In practice, of course, the average pedestrian tends to walk wherever he wants and the average driver generally tries to avoid stopping for anyone!

I'm pretty sure this was NOT included in driver's education, either the DMV manual or the behind-the-wheel class.

Here's the intersection:  https://goo.gl/maps/7YgXp

And here's the law regarding unmarked crosswalks:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21949-21971

To use a roadway 7 lanes wide with a 40 mph speed limit as an example of an unmarked crosswalk is really stretching it.  And the vehicle code mentions: "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."  In many cases in that report, those vehicles were pretty close to the intersection, or the drivers' view is blocked by other vehicles in the area. 

[jemacedo9]

W11-2 plus "ON ROAD" in text maybe?

This is what we use:

US 11/15 south of Selinsgrove PA is a 4 lane divided highway with full access and a 55 MPH limit.  Since it runs through Amish country, there are horse and carriages that ride along the SB shoulder...so every mile or so, there is a horse & carriage warning sign, with "ON SHOULDER" in text underneath. 

[Ace10]

Here's an example: SW Tualatin Valley Hwy (OR 8 from here on out) from SW 198th Ave to SW 185th Ave. At both ends are traffic signals. Bing says it's 0.7 mi between those two intersections. Two other streets - SW 192nd Ave and SW 187th Ave, have T intersections with OR 8 but no traffic signals; however, there should be a total of four unmarked crosswalks across OR 8 (two at each street) at the unsignalized intersections. The speed limit on OR 8 in this general area is 45 mph, but does drop to 35 mph immediately west of the intersection with SW 187th Ave.

http://www.bing.com/mapspreview?&ty=0&rtp=pos.45.494122_-122.867296_18511%20SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006_18511%20SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006__e_~pos.45.495281_-122.881023_SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006_SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006__e_&mode=d&u=0&tt=18511%20SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006%20to%20SW%20Tualatin%20Valley%20Hwy%2c%20Beaverton%2c%20OR%2097006&cp=45.494738~-122.876353&lvl=17&style=h&ftst=0&v=2&sV=1&form=S00027

As for why a ped would attempt to cross here at the unsignalized intersection, here are a couple reasons:

There are bus stops on both sides of the street. If someone is trying to catch a bus that is arriving soon - they may even see it approaching from the other side of the street - they may want to avoid walking the extra distance if it means they can catch the bus right then and there.

A person using a walker or wheelchair who may move much slower than someone who can walk at a faster pace may want to cross so that they can reduce travel time and unnecessary strain on their body.

I agree it can be pretty dangerous and nerve-wracking attempting to cross a very busy street with traffic going 45. I have seen people do it, but it's rare. However, there are good reasons for wanting to cross away from a signalized intersection (saving time, less strain on body) and pedestrians should be able to exercise that right if they so choose after ensuring vehicles see them and stop for them before attempting to cross. The law is squarely on the side of the pedestrian as long as they exercise due care (crossing in a marked or unmarked crosswalk and not beginning to cross when a vehicle is so close that it cannot stop safely or otherwise presents a hazard). The trick is triggering that process to begin. Many motorists will not stop for a ped on a corner - and I've stopped for peds waiting at a corner but with no intent to cross - so there just has to be a clearer way for peds and motorists to communicate with one another and for the ped to establish their intent to cross. ORS 811.028 states, "a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk when any part or extension of the pedestrian, including but not limited to any part of the pedestrians body, wheelchair, cane, crutch or bicycle, moves onto the roadway in a crosswalk with the intent to proceed." Theoretically all someone has to do is take one step off the curb or extend their hand into the roadway to signal their intent to cross; however, I've seen lots of people just wait at the corner - not in the roadway - for vehicles that are clearly far enough away to stop safely, but instead wait until there is a total break in traffic such that no vehicle will have to even slow down, much less stop. Granted if they believe that is a safer way to cross and want to wait for that situation, that is their right. However I have to wonder if they are unaware of how to establish that intent to cross and how to signal to vehicles that they wish to cross the roadway, as well as a motorist's obligations to stop or slow down enough to allow them to proceed, and that the ped simply waits because they don't know any better?

I agree with 1995hoo in that driver's education can do a poor job of, er, educating. I was in driver's ed in Mississippi at 15, and I paid pretty good attention and don't remember anything about there being such a thing as an unmarked crosswalk at every intersection and that pedestrians always have the right of way at those crosswalks. Had I been driving without that knowledge and encountered a pedestrian in the roadway not in a marked crosswalk or at a traffic signal, I probably would have honked. Mississippi's drivers manual does mention pedestrian right of way at marked and unmarked crosswalks, but it doesn't really mention what an unmarked crosswalk is or where it occurs. (It also doesn't even mention the legality of left turns on red from a one-way street onto another one-way street, but that's a topic for a different thread.) Point being, driver's ed and even the driver's manual can be a pretty poor substitute for the reading and understanding of the actual law. If states were really concerned with safety along their roads, I imagine there would be much more consistency in those areas.

/rant

[roadman]

The asshole bicyclist I had nearly mow me down in one sure as hell didn't.  He kept trying to claim it wasn't a crosswalk as it isn't marked.  Never mind it was at a street corner.

What does your state law about pedestrian right of way state regarding crosswalks (MA recognizes only marked crosswalks as legal crossing points for pedestrians)?  Personally. I believe the concept of unmarked crosswalks should be abolished, as they only give pedestrians license to cross the street wherever they please.

[Ace10]

The asshole bicyclist I had nearly mow me down in one sure as hell didn't.  He kept trying to claim it wasn't a crosswalk as it isn't marked.  Never mind it was at a street corner.

What does your state law about pedestrian right of way state regarding crosswalks (MA recognizes only marked crosswalks as legal crossing points for pedestrians)?  Personally. I believe the concept of unmarked crosswalks should be abolished, as they only give pedestrians license to cross the street wherever they please.

Interesting. According to the Wikipedia page on Pedestrian crossings (which itself references this publication by Swanson, Thomas, Coon & Newton) mentions that Maine and Michigan are the only states that do not require vehicles stop for pedestrians who have entered an unmarked crosswalk. Massachusetts should be added to that list, since I just looked up its laws and couldn't find anything defining an unmarked crosswalk - only a "crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways".

Here's an article from 2008 from MassLive talking about marked crosswalks in Massachusetts and multiple studies on pedestrian safety at marked and unmarked crosswalks. It mentions that "in 1990, Washington State began requiring drivers to stop for pedestrians at unprotected crosswalks", so that requirement is now only 25 years old - a pretty decent amount of time for the information to trickle down to newer drivers since that time period.

I don't think there's anything wrong with unmarked crosswalks as long as pedestrians and motorists are looking out for each other and have a way of nonverbally communicating their intentions with one another. The alternative is to mark the crosswalks - at a minimum painting lines across the road, but that is such a small change and I imagine unlikely to cause that much difference in behavior. Above that, crosswalk warning signs can be posted, and at the extreme, HAWKs or at least side-mounted warning flashers that are actuated by pedestrians wishing to cross; however, the costs for adding these at conceivably any point (not mid-block) where pedestrians already have the right-of-way (after yielding to vehicles so close as to cause a hazard) would be prohibitive. And if they were to become ubiquitous, that may lead to non-compliance as probably the one time a pedestrian wants to use them, drivers would probably be so used to going through a bunch not needing to stop where they will not expect a pedestrian to actually be there.

[Revive 755]

I'm working on some budget items for my city, and we have a couple of streets where there are no significant shoulders or sidewalks, and as a thought, I was going to see if there was an MUTCD compliant sign, but can't find something to remind motorists that there may be pedestrians on the road, and was curious if someone could point me in the direction.

In the St. Louis County, Missouri, there used to be all-text, 'watch for pedestrians on road' signs in a few areas.  Could be the best solution for your case.

[roadman]

I believe the MUTCD designates W11-2 (according to this page) as "Pedestrian Crossing", which may not necessarily mean 'caution: peds are walking alongside the roadway', just that there may be peds crossing.

Nope, having a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) is not currently a requirement to post a W11-2 sign.  The 2009 MUTCD (Section 2C.50) allows the use of W11-2 signs where there is no pedestrian crossing, but pedestrians might be expected in the road:

Option:
01 Non-Vehicular Warning (W11-2, W11-3, W11-4, W11-6, W11-7, W11-9, and W11-16 through W11-22) signs
(see Figure 2C-11) may be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the
roadway might occur or where shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, or equestrians might occur (emphasis added).

If I were to use a W11-2 sign to alert drivers of the situation the OP described, I would add an "ON ROAD" plate.  Although non-standard, it would provide emphasis for the majority of drivers who normally associate W11-2 signs with crosswalks, and not pedestrians sharing the road with other traffic.  As others have pointed out, the 'Share The Road" plate has been found to be too ambigious a message.

Not sure if they're still there, but at one point, I recall seeing W11-2 signs with plates indicating "JOGGERS" under them along Route 102 108 between Wakefield (RI) and Point Judith (RI).

[roadfro]

Nope, having a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) is not currently a requirement to post a W11-2 sign.  The 2009 MUTCD (Section 2C.50) allows the use of W11-2 signs where there is no pedestrian crossing, but pedestrians might be expected in the road:

Option:
01 Non-Vehicular Warning (W11-2, W11-3, W11-4, W11-6, W11-7, W11-9, and W11-16 through W11-22) signs
(see Figure 2C-11) may be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the
roadway might occur or where shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, or equestrians might occur (emphasis added).

If I were to use a W11-2 sign to alert drivers of the situation the OP described, I would add an "ON ROAD" plate.  Although non-standard, it would provide emphasis for the majority of drivers who normally associate W11-2 signs with crosswalks, and not pedestrians sharing the road with other traffic.

I would agree with this assessment. While the W11-2 is an acceptable warning for the OP's situation, it is most commonly associated with pedestrian crossings. Due to this, I would also use a supplemental plaque, but would have it say "ALONG SHOULDER" or something similar that would be slightly less ambiguous.

As others have pointed out, the 'Share The Road" plate has been found to be too ambigious a message.

I never really found this ambiguous. However, my first experience with "SHARE THE ROAD" was in the Las Vegas area. The signs were only placed on arterials where the curb lane was slightly wider than normal but there wasn't quite enough width to paint an actual bike lane. The warning diamond was a non-standard symbol consisting of the rear view of a car next to a bicyclist.

I believe the RTC took the lead in posting these along several major and minor arterials about 10-15 years ago, as the entities in the region started developing bicycle network plans. I don't believe these signs are actively installed much anymore, but many remain in place. As roads have been resurfaced or reconfigured to add bike lanes/facilities, "share the road" signage is appropriately removed in favor of the typical bike lane signs.


EDIT: Found an example on Street View here. I think the symbol is slightly smaller than normal on this one, but it illustrates the point.

[spooky]

Not sure if they're still there, but at one point, I recall seeing W11-2 signs with plates indicating "JOGGERS" under them along Route 102 between Wakefield (RI) and Point Judith (RI).

I think you're thinking of Route 108. Route 102's southern terminus is in Wickford.

[roadman]

Not sure if they're still there, but at one point, I recall seeing W11-2 signs with plates indicating "JOGGERS" under them along Route 102 between Wakefield (RI) and Point Judith (RI).

I think you're thinking of Route 108. Route 102's southern terminus is in Wickford.

Good catch - have corrected my original post.

[TEG24601]

Update -


I spoke with out Public Works director (who is thrilled someone on the council actually pays attention to the MUTCD) and he thinks we should use the W11-15 with "On Road" attached below.  We also have horses commonly on this same stretch of road, so he is going to see if having all 3 symbols would be possible.  I know that isn't in the MUTCD, but it would be close.  Thoughts?

[roadfro]

"Congested" would be ambiguous, but I also don't know that trying to cram three symbols onto one sign would be ideal either.

Perhaps a custom diamond warning sign would be better. Something like "watch for non-motorized traffic". (And if there is that much non-vehicular traffic on this road, perhaps the town needs to look at adding sidewalks or a separate trail...)

[jeffandnicole]

Update -


I spoke with out Public Works director (who is thrilled someone on the council actually pays attention to the MUTCD) and he thinks we should use the W11-15 with "On Road" attached below.  We also have horses commonly on this same stretch of road, so he is going to see if having all 3 symbols would be possible.  I know that isn't in the MUTCD, but it would be close.  Thoughts?

As far as horses go, you could use the W11-15 with a W11-7 below that, with "On Road" below that.  I think the horse would be too small on a tri-way sign to be noticeable.