Comments on: 35th Avenue SW safety: Online petition asks the city for action

By: redblack

redblack — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:39:09 +0000

NA: thanks for clarifying what i was too succinct to say.
.
i was responding to an implication that pedestrians should walk to marked or controlled intersections so as not to inconvenience vehicular traffic. that notion is unfair to the elderly, infirm, and disabled among us.
.
the fact is that if there’s a reasonable break in traffic, pedestrians have every right to attempt to cross the street, and once they do, drivers are obliged to stop for them.
.
but the main issue here is that such attempts to cross 35th ave on foot – no matter how legally right they are – are tantamount to attempting suicide, because too many drivers don’t appear to have any regard for safety.
.
a drastic change is long overdue.

By: Vanpooler

Vanpooler — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 05:17:22 +0000

Awesome to see so many speaking in favor of road diet on I-35! You guys rock!

By: Hey

Hey — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 03:57:54 +0000

Ok I finally feel compelled to comment. I cross at 35th and Myrtle several times a day. This is a crosswalk with pedestrian signal. I usually cross when the school zone lights are flashing. At least three times a week a driver runs the red when I have the green walk light. Today it happened twice -once while I was already walking in the crosswalk. In that instance the driver was trying to anticipate swerving around a 21 at the bus stop. Totally ran the red and was exceeding the speed limit of 20. Sometimes the police cruiser is there but I have to say he was not there today hence the craziness. There is obviously a problem on 35th and it is tied to speed, inattentiveness and perhaps lack of consideration for the safety of neighbors.

By: wsn00b

wsn00b — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 03:14:44 +0000

Mike, if I’m reading your link correctly:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/humanfac/04082/

Road diets only reduce crashes by 6% but not in their severity(!) or type.

So people still die but not as frequently?
Doesn’t sound like a win to me.

BTW: Have the cops released a post-mortem yet? Was it perceived speed or bad lighting,etc?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:51:18 +0000

“It DOES NOT mean that vehicles are required to stop for a pedestrian waiting at an unmarked crosswalk”

Huh? I thought that was the point of a crosswalk. Pedestrians wait at the side of the road until the driver stops for them to cross. Stepping out into 35th traffic to be “upon or in” the crosswalk without drivers stopping would be suicide for a pedestrian on 35th right now. If drivers did not have to stop for a pedestrian waiting at a legal (but unmarked) crosswalk, the pedestrian could wait forever.

By: Negligence attorney

Negligence attorney — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 22:50:07 +0000

No, no, no to RedBlack. A careful reading of RCW 46.61.235(4) will show you that a car is only required to stop for a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk if the pedestrian is “upon or in” the crosswalk. Furthermore, several cases have clarified this statute, and the jury instructions for negligence actions brough on this statute are as follows:

The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. “Half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.Whenever any vehicle is stopped at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

Plasse v. Dung Mao, 2012 WL 4857189 (Wash.App. Div. 1), 4 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2012)

The statute means that the vehicle must stop if a pedestrian is in the road (duh) because the pedestrian has the right-of-way. If the pedestrian has the right-of-way, the driver is at fault for negligence. It also means if you see a driver stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross, it is unlawful to pass the vehicle, because, obviously, doing so would put the pedestrian in danger. It DOES NOT mean that vehicles are required to stop for a pedestrian waiting at an unmarked crosswalk, particularly on a busy street like 35th, and particularly if circumstances of traffic would make it unsafe to stop (say, during rush hour).

The bottom line is be careful, pay attention, stop and allow pedestrians to cross WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO, and use common sense. To do otherwise could wind you up in a civil negligence action.

By: Duf

Duf — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 22:24:28 +0000

Too many people from burien and south use 35th as the main road to get onto Seattle when they should actually use 509…

Really? Invariably these threads lead to some comment that is entitled BS. You have no idea why people are driving down 35th or where they’re from and they are allowed to drive wherever they like it is a free country Vic. Maybe you “should actually” get a frickin clue.

By: redblack

redblack — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:58:52 +0000

barbara for the win.
.
it’d be gratifying to see cops on 35th pulling cars over for failing to stop for pedestrians.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:47:30 +0000

I live near 35th and also would welcome a “road diet” on 35th. Every time I cross the street, at an unmarked crosswalk, to catch the bus I have to run and hope I don’t trip or I know I would get run over. Sometimes I have to wait 10 minutes just to get a chance to run across. People treat the road like a highway, and it’s a neighborhood! We need solutions that work for the community.

By: Monosyllabic Girl

Monosyllabic Girl — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:24:41 +0000

Install a turn arrow light at 35th and Barton. That intersection needs an individual turning lane. It’s too dicey with the ferry and Westwood village traffic turning into oncoming traffic and I purposely take Trenton to avoid it.

By: redblack

redblack — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:31:39 +0000

kit: every intersection is a crosswalk. not all crosswalks are marked. all vehicles approaching any intersection must stop for pedestrians. it’s the law.
.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedrcw.htm
.
“”Crosswalk” means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.
.
“(5) Yield right of way. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than in a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.”

By: Kit

Kit — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 04:03:30 +0000

What we need to do is to educate pedestrians on how to walk “safely”…

i’ll do you one better. on any given weekday, try to cross 35th ave on foot at rush hour at – say – dawson street. then do the same on fauntleroy way. /#comment-1219500

why are you not crossing at a crosswalk??

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:17:59 +0000

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/humanfac/04082/

By: miws

miws — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:44:25 +0000

Leave us alone and go back to where you came from and make your road diets there.

Okey dokey artie-chokey! . I'll go back to where I "came from"; 38th in the Belvidere/Charlestown Neighborhood, where I lived my first nearly 11 years until June of 1969, and "make my road diet" on.....ummm....35th!! .

There is no data to shows road diets improve safety. Quite the opposite.

. By "Quite the opposite", do you mean there is data out there showing that Road Diets don't improve safety? If so, please cite your sources. . Mike

By: WSB

WSB — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:59:07 +0000

In reply to WSB.

OK – back from a look – those are beacons, not cameras. The flashing school-zone lights. They also will be installed soon on Delridge by Boren, too.