Pedestrian Signal 8th & Washington Incorrectly Gives a Don’t Walk
For some reason the city’s pedestrian signal gives pedestrians a don’t walk as the traffic lights change at 8th & Washington. Sounds normal right?  When you consider the intersection you will see that pedestrians always  have the right of way.
Washington Ave is a two-way street running east-west (left-right, above). 8th is a one-way street southbound, away from the intersection. Obviously when pedestrians need to cross Washington Ave they need to wait for the walk signal when auto traffic is stopped. At that time, when auto traffic on Washington Ave has a red light at 8th Street, the pedestrians seeking to cross 8th are given a don’t walk signal. Why?
Is a car going to materialize in the intersection and have the right-of-way? No. In fact, there is no point at this intersection that pedestrians crossing 8th do not have the right of way. The walk symbol should be on 24/7. Cars terming left onto 8th do not get an arrow, they must yield to pedestrians. Cars turning right onto 8th must also yield to pedestrians.
Here is a boring one minute video of the change in pedestrian signals:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KkPD3mYD5E
Hopefully the city will change this mistake so pedestrians aren’t given a don’t walk signal.
– Steve Patterson
I got stuck here one day– it was scary!
I got stuck here one day– it was scary!
One, this is pretty illogical, as currently configured. Two, no, in a controlled intersection, like this one, pedestrians are legally required to obey the walk and don’t walk signals, just as motorists are legally required to obey the red, yellow and green signals. In “logical” intersections, especially ones with turn arrows, vehicles are almost always given priority over pedestrians during the protected turn sequence. Three, two better solutions would be to either remove the walk/don’t walk signals for the crosswalk across 8th entirely (instead of always showing walk) OR to reversing the current walk and don’t walk cycles, so that vehicles would have priority for their turns off of Washington, while pedestrians would have priority in all directions during the red cycle on Washington. And four, since pedestrians rarely pay attention to the walk/don’t walk signals anyway, is this realy a big issue?!
One, this is pretty illogical, as currently configured. Two, no, in a controlled intersection, like this one, pedestrians are legally required to obey the walk and don’t walk signals, just as motorists are legally required to obey the red, yellow and green signals. In “logical” intersections, especially ones with turn arrows, vehicles are almost always given priority over pedestrians during the protected turn sequence. Three, two better solutions would be to either remove the walk/don’t walk signals for the crosswalk across 8th entirely (instead of always showing walk) OR to reversing the current walk and don’t walk cycles, so that vehicles would have priority for their turns off of Washington, while pedestrians would have priority in all directions during the red cycle on Washington. And four, since pedestrians rarely pay attention to the walk/don’t walk signals anyway, is this realy a big issue?!
This walk/don’t walk signal is left over from before 1993 when 8th Street continued north of Washington Ave. This intersection, like most downtown, have been given zero thought from a pedestrian perspective. Unless the cars turning right onto 8th Street have a right arrow, they must yield to pedestrians.
I think we can generally say that pedestrians are not a concern downtown because it is designed for getting suburban workers in and out of downtown as quickly as possible.
This walk/don’t walk signal is left over from before 1993 when 8th Street continued north of Washington Ave. This intersection, like most downtown, have been given zero thought from a pedestrian perspective. Unless the cars turning right onto 8th Street have a right arrow, they must yield to pedestrians.
This walk/don’t walk signal is left over from before 1993 when 8th Street continued north of Washington Ave. This intersection, like most downtown, have been given zero thought from a pedestrian perspective. Unless the cars turning right onto 8th Street have a right arrow, they must yield to pedestrians.
No, you are only partially correct – the basic law is that a turning vehicle is required to yield to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk. However, when a pedestrian signal is in place, pedestrians ARE required to obey the posted signals; if not, they can, and sometimes are, cited for jaywalking. And, if, as a pedestrian, you start to cross a street when the “Don’t Walk” signal is either flashing or steady, and you end up getting hit by a turning vehicle, with or without a turn arrow, you can be cited for failure to obey a trafic control device. Here’s the city ordinance:
17.08.160 Traffic-control signal colors and terms–“Walk” and “Don’t Walk.”
Â
A. “Walk.” Pedestrians at a crosswalk facing either a steady “Walk” or a flashing “Walk” signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal while in the crosswalk and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.Â
B. “Don’t Walk.” No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of a steady or flashing “Don’t Walk” signal. Any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone while the “Don’t Walk” signal is showing. (Ord. 57831 § 1 (part), 1979: 1960 C. § 823.110(e).)
No, you are only partially correct – the basic law is that a turning vehicle is required to yield to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk. However, when a pedestrian signal is in place, pedestrians ARE required to obey the posted signals; if not, they can, and sometimes are, cited for jaywalking. And, if, as a pedestrian, you start to cross a street when the “Don’t Walk” signal is either flashing or steady, and you end up getting hit by a turning vehicle, with or without a turn arrow, you can be cited for failure to obey a trafic control device. Here’s the city ordinance:
17.08.160 Traffic-control signal colors and terms–“Walk” and “Don’t Walk.”
A. “Walk.” Pedestrians at a crosswalk facing either a steady “Walk” or a flashing “Walk” signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal while in the crosswalk and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.
B. “Don’t Walk.” No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of a steady or flashing “Don’t Walk” signal. Any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone while the “Don’t Walk” signal is showing. (Ord. 57831 § 1 (part), 1979: 1960 C. § 823.110(e).)
There is no functional basis for giving pedestrians a don’t walk. None.
Hey, I agree that this situation makes no sense / is really stupid. But that doesn’t exempt pedestrians from their legal responsibility to obey the law. Reread what I said in my first response – “two better solutions would be to either remove the walk/don’t walk signals for the crosswalk across 8th entirely (instead of always showing walk) OR to reversing the current walk and don’t walk cycles, so that vehicles would have priority for their turns off of Washington, while pedestrians would have priority in all directions during the red cycle on Washington.” The second solution would be similar to the Barnes Dance, where downtown intersections have three cycles, one green for one street, a second green for the other street, then red for all motorists, so pedestrians can cross safely in any direction, including diagonally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
Traffic engineers, or the technicians that fix them, have no respect for pedestrian signals. E.g. I had to call out the city to get the ped signals on Lindell crossing DeBaliviere fixed: they gave pedestrians only 30 seconds to cross while giving traffic on Lindell 90 seconds. Ped signals throughout downtown Clayton, also, show steady “don’t walk” a full 7 seconds before traffic signals turn to yellow.
As long as you get a white “walk” signal, traffic engineers give you enough time to make it safely across the intersection. What apparently confuses many people is the flashing “don’t walk” signal – it means that you can still FINISH crossing the street, but you don’t have enough time to START crossing. As for Clayton and their solid “don’t walk”, I’d assume that that’s related to getting the intersection clear of both vehicles and pedestrians before the other direction receives a green signal.
Every crossing should have a timer that counts down the number of seconds remaining which pedestrians can cross the intersection.
Which is the case in downtown Clayton, thus my complaint that they hit zero well before the traffic signals go to yellow.
Where does it say that pedestrians are entitled to the full green cycle? They receive enough time, they just need to pay attention. I’m guessing that the non-pedestrian portion of the green cycle is there so that vehicles can also have time to turn right on green, since right turns on red are prohibited at many Clayton intersections.
If we want street life and functional downtown retail then pedestrians should be given greater priority than they are today.
JZ, the crosswalk does not need to be marked in order for a vehicle to be required to yield to the pedestrian. Under Missouri statutes, intersections constitute unmarked crosswalks. That’s an important distinction given the lack of marked crosswalks in this town.
That’s not the case here. And I agree, pedestrians don’t get much respect in Missouri. My only point is that pedestrians are not always in the right. If there’s a traffic signal, either a “don’t walk” signal or a red traffic signal, what part of “you no longer have the right of way” do many pedestrians not understand? I regularly see peds in marked crosswalks crossing against the light, which does nothing to gain motorists’ respect, much like bicyclists blowing thru stop signs and stop lights, then complaining that they don’t get respect from motorists, either!
Why should pedestrians gain the respect of motorists? Motorists already have the advantage of being in a 4000 lb metal tank. I more often seen cars blocking crosswalks or cars almost hitting pedestrians who have a walk sign than people blocking traffic in order to cross. Most human beings are going to be risk averse in situations where they are unsure if they can cross because a collision would be a one way affair. Yesterday I was on the 30 Soulard Bus and it almost ran over two pedestrians, heading to the game, who had the light to cross, but the driver didn’t see them as he was turning right.
Because the only other option is strct enforcement of our existing laws, and that ain’t happening!
There is no functional basis for giving pedestrians a don’t walk. None.
Traffic engineers, or the technicians that fix them, have no respect for pedestrian signals. E.g. I had to call out the city to get the ped signals on Lindell crossing DeBaliviere fixed: they gave pedestrians only 30 seconds to cross while giving traffic on Lindell 90 seconds. Ped signals throughout downtown Clayton, also, show steady “don’t walk” a full 7 seconds before traffic signals turn to yellow.
Hey, I agree that this situation makes no sense / is really stupid. But that doesn’t exempt pedestrians from their legal responsibility to obey the law. Reread what I said in my first response – “two better solutions would be to either remove the walk/don’t walk signals for the crosswalk across 8th entirely (instead of always showing walk) OR to reversing the current walk and don’t walk cycles, so that vehicles would have priority for their turns off of Washington, while pedestrians would have priority in all directions during the red cycle on Washington.” The second solution would be similar to the Barnes Dance, where downtown intersections have three cycles, one green for one street, a second green for the other street, then red for all motorists, so pedestrians can cross safely in any direction, including diagonally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
As long as you get a white “walk” signal, traffic engineers give you enough time to make it safely across the intersection. What apparently confuses many people is the flashing “don’t walk” signal – it means that you can still FINISH crossing the street, but you don’t have enough time to START crossing. As for Clayton and their solid “don’t walk”, I’d assume that that’s related to getting the intersection clear of both vehicles and pedestrians before the other direction receives a green signal.
JZ, the crosswalk does not need to be marked in order for a vehicle to be required to yield to the pedestrian. Under Missouri statutes, intersections constitute unmarked crosswalks. That’s an important distinction given the lack of marked crosswalks in this town.
Every crossing should have a timer that counts down the number of seconds remaining which pedestrians can cross the intersection.Â
I think we can generally say that pedestrians are not a concern downtown because it is designed for getting suburban workers in and out of downtown as quickly as possible.Â
I think we can generally say that pedestrians are not a concern downtown because it is designed for getting suburban workers in and out of downtown as quickly as possible.Â
Which is the case in downtown Clayton, thus my complaint that they hit zero well before the traffic signals go to yellow.
That’s not the case here. And I agree, pedestrians don’t get much respect in Missouri. My only point is that pedestrians are not always in the right. If there’s a traffic signal, either a “don’t walk” signal or a red traffic signal, what part of “you no longer have the right of way” do many pedestrians not understand? I regularly see peds in marked crosswalks crossing against the light, which does nothing to gain motorists’ respect, much like bicyclists blowing thru stop signs and stop lights, then complaining that they don’t get respect from motorists, either!
Where does it say that pedestrians are entitled to the full green cycle? They receive enough time, they just need to pay attention. I’m guessing that the non-pedestrian portion of the green cycle is there so that vehicles can also have time to turn right on green, since right turns on red are prohibited at many Clayton intersections.
If we want street life and functional downtown retail then pedestrians should be given greater priority than they are today.Â
Why should pedestrians gain the respect of motorists? Motorists already have the advantage of being in a 4000 lb metal tank. I more often seen cars blocking crosswalks or cars almost hitting pedestrians who have a walk sign than people blocking traffic in order to cross. Most human beings are going to be risk averse in situations where they are unsure if they can cross because a collision would be a one way affair. Yesterday I was on the 30 Soulard Bus and it almost ran over two pedestrians, heading to the game, who had the light to cross, but the driver didn’t see them as he was turning right.  Â
Because the only other option is strct enforcement of our existing laws, and that ain’t happening!
From today’s “Road Crew” chat on the Post-Dispatch website:
Question:Â “Recently, there was a discussion on the urbanreviewstl website (complete with youtube video) about why there is a pedestrian signal for pedestrians crossing 8th at Washington – since 8th is one way SB here, and has been removed north of Washinton, the pedestrian signal no longer seems to serve any real purpose, especially as it currently cycles. Thanks!”
Answer:Â “We rewired the signal so the pedestrian light crossing 8th St. doesn’t cycle.”
From today’s “Road Crew” chat on the Post-Dispatch website:
Question: “Recently, there was a discussion on the urbanreviewstl website (complete with youtube video) about why there is a pedestrian signal for pedestrians crossing 8th at Washington – since 8th is one way SB here, and has been removed north of Washinton, the pedestrian signal no longer seems to serve any real purpose, especially as it currently cycles. Thanks!”
Answer: “We rewired the signal so the pedestrian light crossing 8th St. doesn’t cycle.”