Hey wordup, I was wondering if you'd like to revise your comment there in light of your sources' recent about-face on the subject.

WispofTow,
As I said on the other thread about this, it is common sense for both walkers/bikers and drivers.

I cannot understand you infatuation with this particular topic, you seem bent on enforcing the laws at a intersection with regulated traffic flow and apply the same laws to a crossing not at a intersection, without regulated traffic flow.

All well and good, you have well meaning intentions, but all it takes in the situation of these crossings, is common sense on both the pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

But, if you want, keep on posting your displeasure because, if somehow you wrote the rules or laws, they would be different, to fit your particular idea of the way things should be.

Ken Gill, Victoria PD, Gabe Zemenza, please observe the confusion you've caused with your bogus information. You have, in the minds of Victoria's drivers, made the rule the exception, and the exception, the rule.

You'd better get it straight before legal trouble comes knocking at your door.

Wispoftow the pedestrians do not have the right of way. That has been confirmed and repeated several times. I use the trail every evening and it bothers me to see how many pedestrians challenge oncoming cars by stepping out into the street instead of pausing to let the car go by first.
You stated earlier "I assure you that any visitor from a less backward town would confidently venture into the crosswalk thinking that traffic yields- just like it does elsewhere" I have lived in several "less backward" cities with hike and bike trails, and I have to say that you are wrong about that...the pedestrian would wait. I really hope that you and the other mistaken trail users figure it out before getting hurt.

I think most people would agree that if a car is coming then you would not run out in front of it. And on the flip side if someone was crossing the street then the vehicle would slow and give right of way to the pedestrian.
The problem most folks are having (IMO) is the idiot kids and older folks that seem to think that they have the right of way no matter what and will walk out in front of a vehicle making the vehicle take evasive action.
The videos from the earlier post was in town and that should be handled a little differant. And yes I know that this is "in town" but on a larger thuroughfare with higher speeds.
But hey. by all means keep fighting about it and pray for the peds that might get hit and the drivers that might hit them...IMO

Loveourmilitary, I'll preface this by saying that I don't like bully pedestrians any more than I like bully drivers.

But my question is this: Assuming you were driving down the road aware the crosswalk is there, and assuming you are aware that pedestrians, not drivers, have the right of way, coming up on the crosswalk, were you anticipating pedestrians, looking out for them, ready to stop and let them cross?

I don't want to assume anything about you, which is why I'm asking. The problem is, a lot of drivers in Victoria are saying, essentially, "I'm not yielding for anybody on foot or bike. I'm bigger, they're the ones who are gonna get hurt if we clash, so they can yield to me and just get over it."

Mike posted: I feel like I am out of place with the “sub section (a) crowd” or the “accident waiting to happen” people, because I ride this trail every day ,live in the neighborhood, and drive this obstacle and I do not see a problem.

Then Mike, Loveourmilitary says, you must not have been the one on the bike with the helmet and reflectors on who rode right out in front of our vehicle at the crossing on John Stockbauer at the new High School on Monday evening? Because some idiot did. It was just becoming dark and we were in the right hand lane headed toward Ben Jordan. Out darted this dude and he never did look. We slammed on the brakes and of course I screamed! lol He seemed to come out of no where. Almost as if "I have the right of way". There is no doubt the car in the left lane at our tail light didn't see him at all! I'm surprised that car didn't nail him. I meant to come straight home and post this but didn't get a chance.

So this does happen and I don't know what the answer is but something has got to be done, call me paranoid or not. Maybe and IQ test before anyone is allowed on the trail?

No, they come free with books. I get to save all my "purty pennies" for the purty-penny arcade.

Wispoftow....wow looks like you spent a pretty penny on 10 cent words, hope they were on sale.

How crosswalks should work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_dHGU...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KVr7V...

How they shouldn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw4Ozm...

Dear Lord, help me. (A prayer in earnest.) This is the silliest, most provincial pile of stool I've witnessed in some time. I'm going to have to opt out of the convo for a while to maintain my sanity. I love you, fellow Victorians, but apropos of this matter, you are beyond reason. But that's okay, the officials will probably back you up, in spite of a clearly written law.

WispofTow..."As for thewaywardwind, you've managed to miss the point and be hypocritical at the same time. Nice work."

Thanks, I try.

Ok here is my thing, my subdivison is right next to the crossing on Airline. I think the bike trail/hike trail is really great. However, I drive that road many times a day and I am, I guess, more watchful because I live right there. I slow down to turn into my subdivison and I accelerate slow when I leave it. I have seen many people in cars speed up and I have seen many walkers and bikers cross thinking the cars can stop fast enough. There are too many people thinking the other has the right away. I am afraid it is only a matter of time before a biker or walker is hit. I sure hope the sign is changed to a more understandable language, but also that a sign is placed to warn the hikers and bikers.

WispofTow: "I assure you that any visitor from a less backward town would confidently venture into the crosswalk thinking that traffic yields- just like it does elsewhere - and would likely be met by the ridiculously hostile lead-footed Victorian, paranoid that his right to hastiness is being trampled upon."

I highly doubt that. That's a ridiculous thing to say. I've lived in and visited many cities (Austin, Georgetown, San Marcos to name a few) with walking trails that cross streets, and I can safely say that pedestrians in these cities do not assume to have the right of way--especially on streets marked as 40mph.

The code seems pretty clear to me. If you are driving:

You DO NOT yield to pedestrians that are standing ON the sidewalk or approaching the roadway.

You DO NOT pass a vehicle that is stopped.

You DO yield to pedestrians that are already IN the roadway (specifically if they are in your side of the roadway or closely approaching your side of the roadway).

I walk the trail and drive the streets that intersect the trail multiple times per day, and the only drivers I see causing a dangerous situation are the ones that, although having good intentions, stop in the middle of the road to yield to pedestrians that are not in the roadway.

ItsAllFunny - Your explanation of the sign - I have tears in my eyes! That is hysterical!

It seems the city and advocate has forgotten the article about the trail that appeared online June 9, and in the paper June 10. This sign is not what we were told would be posted. I quote from that article
"Ken Gill is a city engineer. City planners scanned the world, he said, for hike-and-bike-trail crosswalk safety standards.

Minimum standards include the road markings in place now - the white stripes and painted triangle caution markers.

By the middle of July, more safety measures - yellow flashing caution lights - will be in place at the major crossings, he said. The city will soon install signs that read "Vehicles Do Not Stop."

"The motorists have the right of way," Gill said. "What we're tying to do with the flashers is to acclimate the drivers of Victoria so they acknowledge there's a crosswalk here."

Gill's statement deems repeating: Motorists have the right of way. In fact, police can ticket motorists who stop at a crosswalk to allow trail users to pass - if the officer deems the act unjustifiably obstructs traffic.

"There is a common misconception that pedestrians have right-of-way at crosswalks, but this is not the case," said Victoria Police Detective Thomas Eisman.

Police can fine pedestrians, who fail to yield right-of-way to automobiles, $160. Motorists who stop to allow pedestrians to cross could be fined $184.

"Motorists who stop in order to avoid hitting someone will not be charged with a crime," Eisman emphasized. "In those cases, the pedestrian would be at fault.""

It seems like both autos and walkers/bikers need to beware. I still don't understand the sign either. What happened to the "motorist do not stop sign" that was to be posted?

And with all this ticketing going on, you would think a policeman would be around once in awhile. I travel this area frequently and don't ever see them. Why am I suprised? They are sitting in the park.....

itsallfunny, congratulations, you've just earned the esteemed Encapsulation-of-Small-town-Redneck Award. It's nothing to be proud of, but maybe you can ruminate on what a hero you were for the cause of cretinism when you are sitting in jail, having run over someone's kid with an I'll-show-'em! hoot and holler. I'll be hoping you simply settle down before you give yourself a hernia.

As for thewaywardwind, you've managed to miss the point and be hypocritical at the same time. Nice work.

Purple D - you can walk all you want on the "walking" trail, but just watch out for us when you step on the "driving" trail to cross.

to thewaywardwind :

It's not about about how much time I have to wait to cross the street. It's the pain at seeing that you have to be LUCKY to cross the street, like you would not have any rights.

A female (judging by her actions not a lady) stopped her truck in the middle of the street suddenly when we showed her that was a crosswalk and started shouting at us. Who put the traffic in danger more? THAT's the kind of drivers I'm talking about.

PurpleD..."Just because you drive a "beast" that was actually made for bumpy terrain and it's WAY above your spending limit doesn't mean you have the right to scare me into waiting forever until I can cross the street"

Oh, come on. Even on John Stockbauer, with the possible exception of five to five-thirty in the afternoon, I doubt you would ever be waiting more than about a half-minute to cross the street. If you're in such a hurry that you can't wait that long to walk across the street you should be driving.

I feel like I am out of place with the “sub section (a) crowd” or the “accident waiting to happen” people, because I ride this trail every day ,live in the neighborhood, and drive this obstacle and I do not see a problem.

1. I don’t need a sign to avoid hitting a pedestrian or biker, when I am driving.
2. I don’t want to leave this world underneath a car/truck but I don’t need a sign or light to avoid that.
3. I do understand the need for clarity because of visitors to our city but they must go with the flow….I do when I am in their city.
4. I do see more and more people making use of this trail and I have yet to see a near accident…I will allow for exceptions, since I am not on the trail 24/7.

Victoria town is confronted with a new traffic species: pedestrians. Yes, drivers (you know who you are...), pedestrians didn't go extinct millions of years ago. The more evolved species today are not resistant to car impact either.

Drives are the dictators of the street. They forget or ignored that pedestrians and bikers are equal partners in traffic. Just because you drive a "beast" that was actually made for bumpy terrain and it's WAY above your spending limit doesn't mean you have the right to scare me into waiting forever until I can cross the street.

And now on a colloquial tone: don't drivers have the WHOLE town?! Why can't the pedestrians have the right on a ...wait for it...WALKING trail?!

a little common sense helps when you're out on the trail!

The real issue is that Victoria drivers need an education and things need to change. That's the issue. Caution is imperative, yes. But timidity is not acceptable anymore. The foolish, backwoods mentality here must be challenged, unless people enjoy rubbing shoulders with that kind of ignorance. I, for one, don't.

It bears mentioning that no matter how uninformed the average cocksure Victorian drivers is, or how much bad information he gets from city officials, if he breaks the law and mows down a pedestrian, his life will be changing quite dramatically too. I've heard that being an arrogant bully is much harder inside of prison than out on the streets honking at walkers.

Regardless of who has the right of way, the pedestrian had better be the one who has the greater common sense. He or she is the one who stands to get injured. How many sensible people would really walk out with a vehicle approaching assuming they have the right of way? Unfortunately, there are those in the car and on foot who will challenge each other. But pedestrians remember, the person in the car will most likely get to where they are going, and you will possibly end up in a pine box.

"Suddenly" is the operable word here; it does not mean, pedestrian, yield to the traffic. The end in mind is a symbiotic relationship where the pedestrian triggers the driver to stop, or yield. Conversely, the pedestrian is supposed to recognize that at a certain speed, after a certain distance, the car can not be physically expected to stop (much like the function of a yellow light at an intersection.) Driver yields to pedestrian.

This issue had better get resolved, especially if the police department is to avoid getting the proverbial egg on its misinformed face by handing out tickets to both drivers and pedestrians as detailed in an elusive article the website's search function seems unable to retrieve for me.

I assure you that any visitor from a less backward town would confidently venture into the crosswalk thinking that traffic yields- just like it does elsewhere - and would likely be met by the ridiculously hostile lead-footed Victorian, paranoid that his right to hastiness is being trampled upon. It could, seriously, result in the wholly unnecessary loss of limb or, worse, life.

These signs are annoying. I was driving on Stockbauer yesterday and the cross lights went on for people to walk. Freakin 7 cars STOPPED on the road to let bikes go by. Finally a smart bicycle rider stopped everyone and waved for the cars to start going. I was stuck in the back or else would of just MADE them get out of my way.

The links in my last post aren't working. Here they are again. You can copy and paste, if you're interested.

MUTCD (See Page 35 of PDF): http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1...

Texas Transportation Code: http://law.onecle.com/texas/transport...

My story about this publishes tomorrow, Wednesday. In the meantime, check out the following links. The links are to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Texas Transportation Code -- the authorities on such matters.

Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This directs you to a lengthy PDF. Go to page 35.

Texas Transportation Code.

City Engineer Ken Gill notes these federal and state guidelines pertain to the trail crosswalks and the signs at each.

Thanks -- Gabe

"The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger."

This makes sense to the extent that nobody should runover a pedestrian if he can avoid it. Unlike the taxi trip I had in Cancun, there are no extra points for nailing a grandmother carrying a small child. The fact remains, though, that: " Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield."

This part puts the onus onto the pedestrian to look out for vehicular traffic and to YIELD to it. If you go out onto the roadway in front of 40 MPH traffic, you're attempting suicide and if a tragedy occurs, the fault should belong to the pedestrian.

Finding an article here is proving impossible; I read the darn thing earlier. . .

In the elusive piece, a police officer (Eickman, i believe) said pedestrians are to yield to vehicles. He quoted an excerpt from the Texas Transportation Code which I've posted below. It is clear that he is mistaken.

This kind of misinformation leads to already belligerent drivers being downright hostile in a town that sees walking or riding non-motorized vehicles as an affront to mom, apple pie, and the American way of life.

Here is the section of the code in question; let the discerning reader decide.

§ 552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield.
(c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a
vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to
cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

THis sign should be sent to the David Letterman show!!!

I think it means that if you are a stick figure then you should try to jump from here to there and if you are a bike then you need to yield to the stick figure that is jumping.

CM1970..."I spoke with someone from Victoria Parks and Rec. and then to someone from the City Engineering Dept. and they both told me that the motorist should yield to the pedestrian, flashing sign or not."

This really makes no sense. It might be the law, but it is another example of stupid laws. The city put the crossings about as far from an intersection as it was possible to do and have the walkers, joggers, runners jaywalking across -- in the case of John Stockbauer -- fairly heavily travelled roadways and the pedistrians have the right of way. Utterly devoid of common sense. Oh, NOW I understand. It's supposed to be stupid.

I am confused!! I spoke with someone from Victoria Parks and Rec. and then to someone from the City Engineering Dept. and they both told me that the motorist should yield to the pedestrian, flashing sign or not. The right information needs to get out to the public so that we can all be on the same page.

How much money did Victoria receive in federal funds just to put those signs up or is this a social experiment using our tax dollars? Which ever it should be shut down. Either a pedistrian or bikerider will be blasted. It will be the poor cars fault because it can't read the sign and neither can the driver.

Ask me how any illegals are going to interpret it? Or people from other lands here legally to settle or visit. This has to be the biggest social joke there is.

Who originally thought of this design? We need to put them in stocks in the city square and allow all of us to throw rotten tomatoes that the heat has destroyed at them. Gimme first toss.

BTW, I meant braked not breaked.

slongo..."To illustate the danger, Monday, going down Miori in a small formation of traffic I saw a pedestrian step off the curb while gazing at our oncoming cars. "

It's going to happen. When it does, it'll be tragic and some driver is gonna get sued by -- probably -- the survivors of the idiot he hits.

I finally saw the sign on Stockbauer this morning. There was a lady standing on the sidewalk looking at the sign with a look on her face like she was thinking what the .... is that all about? I don't remember seeing a sign like that in the drivers handbook.

Logically they should be facing inward toward the trail, not facing traffic. Maybe a mix-up due to a lack of communication between the powers-that-be and the guys who physically placed the sign?
City of Victoria "Traffic Signs/Signals": 361-485-3340
Maybe if we call them it will be quickly addressed before someone gets hurt.

These are almost as bad as the stop signs that are on the loop.

I think I have seen some kind of button to push as I've driven by the crosswalks on Miori and Ben Jordan, but I have yet to get a better look at it and do not know if it even does anything right now.

On a lighter note, this sign and the article fatboy posted are kind of making me want to post some random sign, made up or real, and let folks have fun at stating what they think it means.

I haven't been on the trail since they put these 'signs' up, but is there a button for pedestrians to push that turns the caution lights on? I could see many people taking that as them having the right of way if the lights only come on when someone activates them.

Pilot, no offense but I don't want them screwing up my water meter reading with this drought. I say we just fire 'em. Heh heh

Often, our knowledge exceeds our wisdom.

You're all missing the point of the sign. With the sign that confusing -- and trying to figure it out at 40 mph is all but impossible -- it means that no matter what you do, you will be wrong and the Victoria revenue agency will write you a ticket. It's a magic trick...it turns your money into their money. If it was about safety, there'd be a different sign.

I think there are too many options in the explanation they gave you.
A simple crosswalk sign with the flashing yellow lights would have been much better, in my opinion. And maybe a "yield to vehicles" sign pointed at the pedestrians/cyclists.

i just called the traffic sign department of the public works department. i was told that motorists have the right of way, but that these crosswalks should be treated like any other crosswalk in town. if someone is waiting to cross, yield to them if it is safe. if it is not, motorists have the right of way and the walker/biker should yield. if you approach and someone is already in the crosswalk, you have to yield to them. basically, use common sense and dont' hit anyone or get hit. the signs are just there to make us all aware that this is something new and we need to be aware of the possibliity of crossers.

I saw those last night - wanted to take a picture with my phone and post - that has to be the most confusing sign I have ever seen. To me, the ones seeing the sign (motorists) have to yield to the bikers and walkers. But, that is completely opposite what the "powers that be" have said. Somebody figure it out and let me know!

Fatboy--our sign definitely belongs on that list!

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll be interested to learn what the signs mean. -- Gabe

should we add/nominate our sign to the list?...
http://jalopnik.com/5044869/americas-...

I am glad that caught those boys busting out the trail lights. Did they have to pay for the damages?!?!? The Waterstone kid(s) were on the scanner the other day.

As for the sign it had my curiousity. I had to stop to read it and then comprehend how to readt it, lol. To me it means yield if they are on the street as I approach. I think.

Is this quality "free spending"?

I have seen lot of mutual cooperation between the motorist and bikers/ hikers… With a rare exception I have seen cars slow down when approaching the crosswalk…. I don’t know if it’s the signs and warning lights, or people adapting…

Looks like something off Engrish.com.

Why not just a yield sign with bike & pedestrian crossing signs underneath?

That sign is confusing.
I think the flashing yellow light alone would make more sense. If "the motorists have the right of way" then they are not supposed to yield to the bikers and walkers...right?

If you read the sign counter-clock-wise it reads, "yield here to pedestrians and bikers" if you read the sign clockwise it says, "Yield, bikers and pedestrians, to here" or maybe if you start at a different place it could say, "Bikers and Pedestrians are right here to yield." Since the sign faces traffic and there's no icon for a motor vehicle I would assume that it's telling motorists to yield...