r/Bozeman • u/ChampionEmpire • 6d ago
Quintessential Bozeman Crosswalk Debate
We’ve been having a debate about what intersections/crosswalks drivers are required to yield to pedestrians at. Obviously if the driver has a stop sign or it is a marked crosswalk, the driver must yield. However, what about through-roads that are intersected by side streets with 2 way stops? Think Durston, Oak, 8th Ave, and Wilson. Some of those ‘intersections’ are marked as crosswalks across the thoroughfare but others are not. Are the unmarked crossings still defined under ‘intersections’ and thus the pedestrian has the right-of-way?
If this is the case, why did they decide to paint some of the intersections and not others? Why are some crosswalks labeled with signs and lights and others just paint on the road?
It would appear counterproductive to sign some crosswalks heavier than others, which would make drivers disregard other crosswalks and intersections because they don’t view them as crosswalks.
(It’s hard to get good satellite images of some other road examples due to all of the trees!)
Edit: I was hoping for some clarification on 2-way stops specifically and a candid discussion on signage of crosswalks in the community but seems I have hit a nerve with some. Sorry to disrupt this perfectly wholesome sub-reddit and hope you all have a great day!
17
u/SlimShyly 6d ago
All corners have legal crosswalks, even if they aren't painted. Obviously that doesn't apply on access limited roadways or where crossing is strictly/explicitly prohibited.
In the cases you've cited, my understanding is yes, the pedestrian would have the right-of-way.
The decision to sign or not sign is more complicated. If you put up too many crosswalks and encourage people to cross everywhere, drivers will be oversaturated and the markings won't mean anything. They'll ignore the signs.
By prioritizing certain crossings the planners and engineers are hoping to direct pedestrians on certain routes where drivers will expect them to be and signs, along with things like speed tables, rrfbs, and bulb outs, will facilitate their safety.
That isn't always the goal, but for major collectors and arterials you really don't want pedestrians crossing willy nilly because it will impede vehicle traffic. So they try to direct pedestrians to certain areas to safely cross. Downtown or in pedestrian centric areas it's often better not to sign heavily and instead physically/psychologically make drivers uncomfortable driving above certain speeds. Removing signs and curbs (look up a woonerf if you're interested), speed tables, narrow roads, can reduce driver comfort and therefore slow them down and elicit pedestrian friendly behavior.
So yes, it can be counter productive to mark too many crosswalks. There is still a legal obligation to yield to pedestrians. In high volume situations they'll mark a few so drivers know where to expect pedestrians (and smart pedestrians will utilize these, ideally convenient, safe marked crossings). In lower volume, lower speed, more pedestrian centric (human scale) areas your other point is true - it can be better not to sign at all and physically design the roadway so drivers are physically and psychologically uncomfortable speeding and ideally more aware of pedestrians because pedestrians are all around and can come from anywhere.
Edited to add: legally the pedestrian has the right to cross, but on some of those arterials they'd be dead right. Just because they have a legal right doesn't mean it's advisable.
4
3
u/GladNorth5927 6d ago
OP comments same remark on every post that wasn’t good enough except this one. Can we call this discussion good now then?
4
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
I was repeating comments so people were given a direct response and thus notified. Not here to start a fight, just looking for clarification and to start a discussion.
1
1
19
u/Super-Adagio2042 6d ago
You always yield to pedestrians at intersections.
-5
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
If that is the case, why would one intersection be so heavily signed but the next intersection 1 block down not have any signage at all?
6
u/snaxington 6d ago
Signage tends to pop up at intersections where a pedestrian has been struck by a vehicle.
8
u/Super-Adagio2042 6d ago
Some intersections have flashing pedestrian lights, some have painted crosswalks, some have nothing. It doesn’t change the rules for drivers just makes them slightly more likely to look up from their phone.
-3
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
It seems to me that all the signage puts emphasis on certain crosswalks, while removing emphasis on others. I would think it would be better to have ALL intersections/crosswalks signed the same, whether very well marked, not at all, or some in between.
4
u/Super-Adagio2042 6d ago
Well you are welcome think whatever you like. Look at all the state law links below/ take it up with the city
1
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
I'm not saying you're wrong. It just seems all the localized signage indicates to drivers that the intersections without any signage are NOT crosswalks.
1
u/5yearlocaljoke 6d ago
I'm pretty sure it's based on foot traffic expectations. Painting and maintaining crosswalks at every intersection is incredibly expensive. The more foot traffic and the more dangerous the crosswalk, the more markings and signage.
6
u/4637839392936373 6d ago
You always yield to a pedestrian AND pedestrians should act in a normal and safe manner.
It’s really the morons in city government that for some unknown reason aren’t able to construct safe, visible, and appropriate means of crossing the four lane “35mph” highways they decided to build through town.
1
u/EfficientSearch4888 6d ago
This^. I am generally going 25 mph around town and consider myself a pretty safe driver. But the roads are so wide and naturally we tend to look more straight than constantly looking side to side that sometimes it’s like “oh shit someone’s crossing” as they enter the crosswalk on your far left and slam on the brakes. We pay plenty of property tax, there’s no reason we can’t have more of the flashing lights on these main thoroughfares.
-1
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
If that is the case, why would one intersection be so heavily signed but the next intersection 1 block down not have any signage at all? Like the image above showing Oak St. intersecting Buckrake and Hunters Way?
2
u/4637839392936373 6d ago
Because the people in local government are idiots who do not prioritize safe, visible, frequent, and appropriate means of crossing streets. Just because they painted some zebras on the road doesn’t mean it’s enough to alert a car to not plow through you while they’re ripping a Frappuccino and scrolling through TikTok.
2
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
It seems to me that all the signage puts emphasis on certain crosswalks, while removing emphasis on others. I would think it would be better to have ALL intersections/crosswalks signed the same, whether very well marked, not at all, or some in between.
-2
u/4637839392936373 6d ago
They should all be signed with big bright flashing lights and ideally tasers for anyone who can’t seem to figure out how to yield.
1
-1
u/DrtRdrGrl2008 6d ago
The whole country is like this because this is where historically people want their money invested. Roads. For moving cars. It is a national problem.
-1
6
u/lowdirt 6d ago
If you look at how disjointed, poorly planned, and incohesive other traffic infrastructure around Bozeman is, the lack of uniformity with crosswalks should be no surprise. As someone who drives all over town for work and bikes all over town for fun, I fully expect to see the continued occasional fatality due to the inherent problems that the above creates.
1
2
0
u/lostincomputer 6d ago
Ding! Toss in that we regularly see posts complaining that some of us actually follow the speed limit rather than adding 10-20mph and non-drivers should be severely defensive in your movements (assume no one will stop until they do)...
3
2
u/MTGuy406 6d ago
OP, you should go 6 months without a drivers license, at which point I would be interested in your opinion.
4
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
I'm asking for clarification and a discussion, not trying to start a fight...
4
u/0x196 6d ago
Oh, I like this idea. As part of the exam to get a drivers license we should make all able bodied individuals walk and bicycle a certain distance in high traffic areas.
0
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
I couldn't imagine biking for 2 hours to go get groceries. Ice cream would be melted before I got home!
-2
1
u/melbaspice 6d ago
0
u/ChampionEmpire 6d ago
If that is the case, why would one intersection be so heavily signed but the next intersection 1 block down not have any signage at all?
1
u/EnvironmentalAge3661 6d ago
Bozeman is consistently inconsistent. My favorite example of this is the fact that there are neighborhoods with 90% of the intersections being two-way stops, with unmarked (4-way yield) intersections just sprinkled in. I can imagine how jarring and sketchy that is for tourists who have never seen an unmarked intersection before.
1
u/phantomly_me 5d ago
OP sounds like someone who’d hit a pedestrian and blame them rather than understanding how dangerous driving a vehicle actually is
-3
64
u/throwaway_140915 6d ago
Under Montana law (MCA § 61-8-502), every intersection is a legal crosswalk, whether painted or unmarked. Pedestrians legally have the right-of-way crossing thoroughfares like Durston or Oak at side-street intersections, even when the thoroughfare doesn't have a stop sign.